How credible is Moodys

Moodys downgraded China’s credit rating to negative sounded like another China bashing and the standard remarks from the bunch of western doomsayers. China is in big trouble everyday for the last 40 years in the minds of these China bashers.

While Europe is at the brink of a recession, the US barely trying to avoid one, and China is still chalking up 6.9% of growth as the second biggest economy in the world, its credit rating is negative as far as Moodys is concerned. What about the more than US$3 trillion of reserves against the USA as a debtor nation with more than US$15 trillion debt, if I could remember the numbers correctly? And the US is printing money recklessly to shore up its economy and its debt and commanding a better credit rating than China, the banker of the USA?

What a joke! And what were the reasons for this downgrading? China’s surging debt burden? How much is this compares to the US govt’s debt burden? China’s inability to reform? Is that a reasonable reason for downgrading the credit rating? Oh, the Chinese economy is the weakest in a quarter of a century? True, but that is comparing to an economy that was hot with double digit growth to single digit growth in the 7% that many countries will be salivating. Why not compare the Chinese economy with Europe and the USA? One is still having very good positive growth and the other two are about to kaput? What kind of comparison and analysis is that?

And what reform is Moodys talking about? Deng Xiaoping had started the reform ball rolling in the late 1970s. And China today is a totally new China. Not good enough because China is not subordinated to the Americans and not allowing the Americans to dictate how and what China should or should not do, allowing the Americans to drive the Chinese stock markets anywhere it wants it to go?  Let me quote  what Jean Pierre Lehmann wrote in his article, ‘The Trump effect on China’ in the ST on 3 Mar, ‘President Barack Obama’s statement, ”We can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy, we should write those rules”, is especially offensive. What rules were we (the West and Japan) playing to when we were carving up and exploiting China? Besides would it not be more proper in the 21^st century to be writing the rules together?’

Has Moodys joined the circus industry and hiring clowns as analysts? China is going around the world buying up big corporations costing billions. China is the top trading partners of more than 30 nations. The Chinese economy is comprehensive, from infrastructure to manufacturing, banking, commerce, high tech, low tech, agriculture, farming etc etc. The Chinese economy is not going down like the US and Europe.

Wrong to Penalise Singapore Electric Vehicles

Wrong to Penalise Singapore Electric Vehicles

Obsolete Regulations & Mindsets Obstruct Singapore’s War on Climate Change

by MIKOspace

Strange, but true.  A wholly electric vehicle (EV) with dual electric motors that emits no carbon emission has been penalized with a S$15,000 carbon tax surcharge. Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) has wrongly determined that the all-electric Tesla Model S vehicle “produced 222g/km of CO2, putting it within the S$15,000 surcharge band under Singapore's Carbon Emission-based Vehicle Scheme”. 

The truth is the Tesla Model S in motion produces zero carbon emission since it is solely propelled by 2 electric motors and has no additional combustion engine or fuel cell on board.  As a pure battery electric vehicle, its electric motors are the sole propulsion source; hence, there is no fuel consumption and zero CO2 exhaust emissions. 

According to LTA’s own Guidelines, the Tesla Model S vehicle should actually be entitled to the S$30,000 carbon rebates like the Peugeot Ion or the BMW i3 electric hatchback. Ironically, even the BMW i8 plug-in hybrid, which actually emits CO2 on the road managed to qualify for LTA’s S$30,000 carbon rebate, while the zero emission Tesla Model S is penalized.

The LTA further clarifies that it was not the Tesla vehicle that emits CO2 but rather it is the source-generator of its electric power amounting to 444 watt-hour/km produced and charged by the Singapore Grid’s gas-operated power stations. These fossil-fuel based gas-operated power stations are contracted by the Singapore Government to supply electricity exclusively throughout the country.  No other source of electric power beyond 10MW can be legally generated without a power generation license from the Government. 

The LTA had strangely factored in the carbon emissions by the fossil-fuel based gas-operated power station when generating the electricity used for charging the Tesla vehicle, and penalized the Tesla vehicle (as well as other electric vehicle) owner for the carbon emissions produced by the fossil-fuel gas–operated power stations. 

By extending and attributing its carbon tax surcharge to the source electricity generators, the LTA departed from its own guidelines to wrongfully penalized the Tesla S Model and other all-electric vehicles.

The LTA’s own Guidelines refer to the applicable taxable carbon emissions as ”the release of carbon dioxide from the use of a vehicle”.  They further added that “the g CO₂ /km is a measure that quantifies the weight of carbon dioxide (CO₂) released for every kilometre that the vehicle is driven i.e. the vehicle’s fuel efficiency”.  The LTA Guidelines refer ONLY to CO2 produced by the vehicle in motion.

Nowhere in its CEVS Guidelines or Press Release on the subject did the LTA, or the Government, ever affirm that the fossil-fuel based gas-operated power stations could or would be the incidental source for its carbon tax surcharge. 

It is more baffling and even disingenuous when the LTA explained that it was following the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 standards.  Nowhere in any of the tests under the UNECE R101 standards did they mandate the measurement of carbon emission of an all-electric vehicle like the Tesla Model S from a remote power station source.    

COP21 The Paris Agreement Forgotten?

It is barely 3 months after COP21 UN Climate Summit Conference in Paris in Decembr 2015, and where the Paris Agreement (which was also signed by Singapore) essentially defines the key criteria by which to judge sustainability efforts.  Sustainability from hereforth shall mean low or zero carbon emission. It mandates that fossil energy is excluded from all sustainability considerations. The Paris Agreement “also recognises that sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed country Parties taking the lead, play an important role in addressing climate change”. The emphasis on renewables-based sustainability is unmistakable.

The global movement to make fossil fuel history involves the promotion of all-electric vehicles that are truly sustainable.  A new mindset is needed to replace obsolete policies and practices that favour fossil-fuel vehicles.  New policies, infrastructures and practices are needed to roll out the new imperative of a sustainable electric mobility consisting of transportation powered by renewable energy.

A Singapore future reality story demonstrates how one country could enhance her energy security by reducing her fossil fuel dependency by 16%-20% with a 100% electric vehicle population.  This is achieved by a nation-wide effort to harness the  the creative energy of a resourceful people to use solar and urban wind energy to produce carbon-neutral electricity for EV charging as well as daily and commercial living.  

The Tesla Model S case is an unfortunate incident of taking many steps back from COP21 and withdrawn into comfortable policies and practices.  Obsolete regulations and mindsets will obstruct Singapore’s War on Climate Change, and make it harder to fulfill Singapore’s carbon reduction and climate change promises to the world made in Paris last December.

An Australian lambasted the Australian govt for its hideous crime

Reported in the Today paper on 6 Mar 16, ‘2 years wasted searching for MH370 wrong area, says Australian pilot

 ‘KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia Airlines MH370 has not been found because the search area is several hundred kilometres or more off the mark, says an Australian veteran commercial pilot.

In an article in The Australian, Mr Byron Bailey criticised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) for wasting two years searching for the missing Boeing 777 by relying on a “nonsensical end-of-flight theory”, which resulted in the search area being several hundred kilometres or more too far to the north and east….’

Does anyone want to know why an aircraft with 239 passengers could go off the air without anyone raising an alarm after flying for 7 and a half hours? The whole search circus was clearly to mislead the search parties to search in a wrong area.

This is the crime of the centuries and many parties are involved to silence the crime and tragedy. The aircraft and 239 passengers were too big a load to go missing and untraceable, by accident.

No one is above the law? Not in Singapore

Below is a letter by Felicia, a mother who lost his son in National Service during an accident. She went to court to sue the officers and SAF for negligence but the case was thrown out as there is a law that says officers/men of the SAF cannot be sued. Here is the law.

‘Section 14 of the Govt Proceedings Act precludes a serviceman from commencing any action in tort arising from any (and all) negligence during their active service, against the SAF.’

Taking this act literally, and now a court judgement, the SAF and its officers/men are above the law. If they killed or maimed anyone out of negligence, they cannot be sued. My God, I thought only an emperor or a dictator is above the law. Would such an act compromise the standard of professionalism. safety and the lives of soldiers in the SAF when officers/men think they are immuned from the law and thus acted less diligently?

Now we have a mother crying desperately for justice. The SAF said they have compensated her with $50,000 which some commented could not even buy a COE for a car. How much did the mother and many mothers paid to raise a child, and the pain and aches and love cost? $50,000, that’s all? Ok, sorry to make this comment. Please don’t ask me how much I want or think should be enough.

Read the mother’s letter and keep quiet. Do not say anything or express your grief, compassion, empathy for the mother. It did not happen to your loved ones so let it pass. It happened, let’s move on. The law that provides for the SAF and its officer/men to be above the law shall remain. Would they even think of a COI to review this law like the Benjamin case?

My dearest Dom, my heart continues to bleed for you. It has been 3 years and 10 months since you were taken from me and still, I haven’t been able to get any closure.

Today, Honourable Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh ruled that I have no case against those responsible for your death – the SAF and the 2 officers who did not follow the training exercise SOP. He also ruled that I have to pay for their legal costs. Dom, how can I possibly pay them for taking away your life? Where is the justice? It seems, the price I paid has not been enough. Your death has not been high enough a price for SAF and the 2 officers, and now, not enough for Honourable Remesh, it seems.

They must be right, of course – the judge, the ministers, the SAF and their officers. They are experts in their fields. Individuals who studied and trained for years to be in their current positions. What do I know? I’m only a mother to two sons. I only know to love my sons, to nurture them to become young men who will do right by others, to live with dignity, decency and human compassion. What do I know? They are the experts in their fields. They must know best. They do no wrong.

Dom, in these past 3+ years, I have been worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very government I taught you to trust; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very system I counseled you to have faith in; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very people I advised you to respect and honor.

Dom, forgive me. I taught you wrong.

Felicia

Source: In memory of Dominique Sarron Lee Facebook page

An article on the above is posted in TRE.

Najib’s 1MDB - Daft Asians never learn

White men are angels. White men are honest and trustworthy. White men are reliable. White men’s banks are the safe havens for putting savings away. The Swiss chief public prosecutor had confirmed that Najib misappropriated US$4b of 1MDB fund in a criminal probe. You mean they did not know this and work up one morning to find out that Najib was committing a criminal act? You mean all the depositors of slush funds in Swiss banks are honest people, not dictators, politicians, gangsters, fraudsters? Why singled out Najib at this time? Who is behind all these and pulling the strings?

Here is a quote from South China Morning Post,

‘Switzerland’s chief prosecutor said on Friday a criminal investigation into state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) had revealed that about US$4 billion appeared to have been misappropriated from Malaysian state companies.

The office of Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber said it had formally asked Malaysia to help with its probes into possible violations of Swiss laws related to bribery of foreign officials, misconduct in public office, money laundering and criminal mismanagement at the fund. It said it had identified four cases of alleged criminal conduct….’

Why would daft Asians want to put their money in white man’s banks and think it is safe? Colonial mentality? Drinking too much white man’s urine, reading too much of white man’s lies in white man’s media?

How many more Asians and Africans and Middle Eastern dafts are still parking their ill gotten gains in white man’s banks in Europe and the US? They are safe only when the white men want them to be. Give them an excuse, a political reason, like a need for regime change, they will freeze the accounts and share the loot among themselves, or in the case of Najib, to expose it to destroy him.

Thank you for believing in the white gods.

Any lesson to be learnt?