SGX proposes to make it easier to become remisiers

With an industry that is dying, and they still did not know why or refused to know why it is dying, SGX is trying very hard to want to prevent the industry from having to fold up. Unfortunately it is only a matter of when before the final nail is slammed into the coffin to seal its fate if they refused to see what is wrong with the stock market.
 
Good companies are delisting, trading volumes hitting record low, the gloating of increasing volumes in derivative trades would not help to tell a different story. It is so pathetic that a healthy industry, the envy of many, has reached such a state of despair, all because of a stupid decision to allow computers to trade against everyone and redesigning the whole system to facilitate the computers to make the killing.
So, what is there to attract more new remisiers into the industry? What is there to prevent good companies from delisting when listing in the exchange is meaningless, cannot raise fund and share prices being shagged to penny stocks?
 
The reality, the income in the stock market is worst than the income of fishmongers and vegetable sellers in the wet market. So, who would want to be a remisier in the stock market? If the income is less than $1,000 or in a good month, $2,000 net, without CPF, with no staff benefits, no paid leave, no paid holidays etc etc, I would think such jobs would only be good enough for people with 3 O levels. It just does not make sense for people who have better qualifications and could earn more to want to join the industry.
 
OK, for the investment specialists that could be earning $3,000 a month, maybe the qualifications and entry level could be a little bit higher. But how high before putting off the potential workers who could get more in any other jobs? With so many stringent requirements and examinations to take, just to earn $1,000 to $3,000, would it be more ‘senang’ to be a Grab or Uber driver, and earning much more, and could own a car some more?
 
Only the daft would still be thinking that smart Singaporeans would be crawling on their knees to come begging to become remisiers. Only the daft would think that the stock market would somehow come to live again without having to remove the cancer.
 
If one does not know the cause of an illness, or refuses to want to know the cause of an illness, how could the illness be cured? What is the point of prescribing medicine for flu when the patient is dying from AIDs? More cosmetics would not do much to stop a dying patient from dying.

Misunderstood Yaacob Ibrahim

I quote what Yaacob said about being a minority from thestatestimesreview.
“It has been a difficult and challenging journey for my community. Sometimes, the majority does not know what it feels to be a minority community.”
 
Without giving any example, the Minister in-charge of propaganda and Muslim affairs also played the victim card and said that Singaporean Muslims have been “under constant scrutiny” after terrorist attacks overseas made headlines news in recent years:
 
“It is not a pleasant experience when your religion and your religious orientation is under constant scrutiny. For the Malay-Muslim community, this sense of being misunderstood is deeply felt, having been in the spotlight for quite some time. It has been a difficult and challenging journey for my community.”
 
It is true that given the circumstances, the Singaporean Muslims have been ‘under constant scrutiny’. Can Yaacob expect less? What Yaacob did not say is that this is a peculiar situation that would also happen to any community, even to the majority if their kinds are involved in the terrorist acts around the world and threatening to blow up some parts of Singapore. And this is not an issue of being a minority or being a majority.
 
The scrutiny is a result of terrorism and terrorist acts and nothing to do with being a minority. It just so happened that the terrorist acts around the world today is associated with ISIS and its religious connection with Islam. Yaacob needs to be clearer in his inference of how the Singapore Muslims are feeling under such circumstances. Being Muslims and being from the minority race and terrorism are two separate things. If the terrorist acts are not committed by Muslims in the name of Islam and ISIS, would there be such scrutiny against the Malay/Muslim minority? Unfortunately the Singapore Malays are Muslims and the dread of the world today is ISIS and Islam or ISIS abusing Islam. If terrorism is from a different religion that has no relation or association with Islam, this ‘under constant scrutiny’ would not be an issue.
 
I would agree that the majority does not know what it feels to be a minority community. Such a feeling of being a minority is not unique to Singapore or to the Malay community alone. Any ethnic minority will have the same sense of unease anywhere in the world, of any ethnic minority, as long as they are a minority. The Chinese may be a majority here but is a minority in many countries and also felt the same way, affected by being a minority. There is nothing new in being a minority. It is everywhere. Things get worst when ISIS is associated strongly with Islam and Muslims and the latter are also Malays.
 
But I must say that the majority of the other races, including the Chinese, are not staring at every Malay/Muslims and fearing that behind them is a terrorist. If that will to be the case, life would be very miserable and very difficult to get by, and inter racial tension and suspicion would only increase. Singapore would become dysfunctional. This is not true, not the case in Singapore. Generally all the races are going about their lives without being paranoid about the Malay/Muslim community.
 
Betul tak?

Parliament sovereignty versus the Constitution

Shanmugam raised the concept of Parliament sovereignty in his answers to the issues raised by Sylvia Lim in Parliament. He is right, absolutely right in the interpretation of Parliament sovereignty, that the Parliament makes laws and can repeal laws, annul laws by legislation. That is the role of Parliament, the law makers.
 
Thus, when he said the govt made a policy decision to start counting from Wee Kim Wee, it has the right to do so, even to start with any other president or something like that, because the govt/Parliament is sovereign, can do as it pleases in a way. It writes laws and strikes out laws, it is the law maker, the law, the sovereign.
 
I would not dare to challenge Shanmugam on his brilliant interpretation of Constitutional Law. If he is wrong, I am sure many other brilliant lawyers would point it out, or at least the AGC would be there to keep watch, or the Chief Justice. Interpretation of the Law is the precinct and responsibility of the Judiciary, which I think includes the Supreme Courts and the AGC. Please excuse me if I am wrong, I am only a layman and this is a layman’s simple view of the govt and judiciary.
 
Just one point that I am still not very clear. Parliament may be sovereign, but it must still respect and abide by the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme in a way and the govt must work within the Constitution. If it does not like any law in the Constitution, it has to repeal/annul or strike it out and replace it with a new law. It cannot make a policy that is against the Constitution. It cannot violate the Constitution or it would be lawless, against the rule of law.
 
The interpretation or policy decision to use Wee Kim Wee as the reference point, as the first Elected President, to rule that the latest EP election is due, does it violate the Constitution? The Constitution also said that a reserved EP for minority president is due only after 5 terms when the minority did not have a president. To use Wee Kim Wee as the reference point, it is violating the provisions in the Constitution, the intent and spirit of the reserved EP in the Constitution?
 
A govt policy decision cannot violate the Constitution if I am not wrong. It would become unconstitutional. The govt should seek to change the Constitution first, using its sovereign right to repeal the law and then act on it under the new law. Can the govt suka suka say it is a policy decision to use any past president to determine the 5 terms provided in the Constitution, or ignore the 5 terms, or declare a reserved EP for a minority president anytime if wants under the present Constitution?
 
Any brilliant lawyer thinks he is up to it to explain the above? Making a policy decision ultra vires the Constitution is definitely unconstitutional. Tiok boh? Parliament is sovereign but still bounded by the Constitution. Otherwise it is lawlessness. Remember the meaning of Rule of Law? What did the Constitution say about the 5 terms requirement? What is the spirit of the Constitution on the need for a reserved minority president?
 
PS. This is what Shanmugam said in his response to Cheng Bock.
 
‘Here is what I said in full, as reported in CNA (link below).
“Q: When would the circuit-breaker (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms) come into effect?
 
Mr Shanmugam: The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It’s… a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice....’

What do you think? Or any brilliant lawyers out there think otherwise, or all agree with our brilliant Law Minister?

Gang raping truth

What is the truth? Only the truth and nothing but the truth. It sounds so simple. The truth must be the truth, anything else is not the truth. The recent events surrounding the elected Presidency seem to tell a different story. The truth is nothing but the truth? It seems that there is not only one truth but many truths over one subject matter, over one fact or a series of events. Truth is subjective, up to the interpretation of the one speaking the truth. It is called my truth and your truth, or as Donald Trump's spokeswoman said, it is just an alternative truth.
 
Is this confusing enough? I am sure everyone knows what I am saying and knowing how confusing truth has become. And those getting confused are adults, thinking adults. And they in a way have come to accept that truth is not like what it was like before. They can’t even tell the difference between a rogue and an honourable man. There are many truths and every honourable man would swear to it that he is telling his truth and cannot be questioned or challenged, because that is an honourable man's truth. Honourable man does not tell lies and would never make a lie into a truth. So does the rogue.
 
What about the children? Could they understand that truth has many versions and depends on who is telling the truth? How would adults explain to the children that truth can be in different forms and not necessary the same? And everyone can tell his truth with a straight face when it is different from the truth, far from the truth.
 
This is a uniquely development in the little red dot. And as usual no body is questioning why it is so. They simply accept the truth and the truths in all forms and all shades of colours. Nowadays it is easy to accept black is white or white is black. After a while everyone would get use to it. It is the new normal.
 
Perhaps the word lies in the dictionary should be amended to truth. There is really no difference in the meaning of the two words. Truth = lies.
 
Talking about gang raping truth with no hint of guilt.

Corruption in Singapore

Corruption in Singapore

A different kind of corruption exists in Singapore – Reputational Corruption.  We are active participants and promoters of the longest running fraud in the global history of higher education.  Singapore Universities lend credibility and respectability to World University Rankings Standards whose flawed methodologies with spurious proxies of quality excellence have long been condemned by the United Nations, UK and European Governments as well as distinguished Professors of Higher Education.

Read here: A Decade of Shame

This is reputational corruption! Selling out our excellent Universities in exchange for a fake bogus brand of empty meaningless quality is a corrupt practice. There should be investigations into how much were paid in kind and cash, by whom and to who, as well as what personal benefits (if any) were gained by those who are involved in the decisions to accept the inducements and bribery. Singaporeans are such fools to repetitively allow the World University Rankings scam to flourish openly under our very nose, affecting generations of our outstanding graduates and Singapore's hard-earned reputation as a clean, no-corruption and authentic nation.

It is shameful to wear a fake bogus brand of meaningless excellence PROUDLY for more than a decade! The blame sits squarely on irresponsible and reprehensible leadership. Professors who accept the fakery should have their own research credentials seriously questioned and scrutinised. Singapore Universities must stop participating in the longest running fraud in the global history of higher education.

Read More.

Related - The Big Lie about World University Rankings starts here.

   .