'Lex adjudged that chief executive Bill Winters has done a poor job of preserving shareholder value — never mind building some — since he joined just over three years ago. The shares are down 40 per cent.
Emphasis mine. FT’s Letter from Lex summarising it’s article that’s behind a pay wall. Emphasis mine.
Time for Temasek, the controlling shareholder, to talk to other top
10 shareholders about removing him? Pigs will fly first. The CEO that
ran the bank into the ground was kicked out because another top 10
shareholder,Aberdeen Asset Mgt, as it then was, organised a campaign
against him.
But then Temasek’s paper general CEOs would also have to go if they
are judged by best practices ang moh private sector standards.' Cynical Investor
The above were comments by Cynical Investor posted in TRE. He was talking about the financial woes in StanChart and the heavy fines it is paying the US govt. The shareholders are definitely unhappy with the current CEO and may be looking for a replacement. Temasek is a major shareholder of StanChart and would be concerned about who is next to helm the bank.
While Cynical Investor was talking about paper general CEOs in a different direction, maybe Temasek should seriously consider putting up one of its hundreds of paper general for the post. It has placed many paper generals in different CEO positions that were unrelated to the experience and training of a soldier general and all doing extremely well. Why not putting one as the CEO of StanChart? Cynical Investor also commented that this Winters made our paper general looked so good. OK a little OTJ may be required but this is chicken feat.
It is a good opportunity to train paper generals into top bankers. Singapore needs more locals, oops, shouldn't use this dirty word, I mean Singaporeans, to become top bankers. A top financial centre must continuously be grooming its citizens for such positions and not relying on foreigners all the time. It is high time such a scheme be put in place.
If this suggestion is a no go because a MNC would want its CEO to have relevant experience and soldiering experience of paper generals would not be accepted as good enough, perhaps Temasek can send its top Singaporean banker, Piyush Gupta to take over StanChart. Then the CEO of DBS can go to a Singaporean that is next in the queue.
The foreign shareholders inn StanChart would definitely welcome Gupta as he is now one of the world's top bankers, if not the best banker in the world, at least he is the best in Asia helming Asia's number One bank, DBS.
This would be a good career path to develop for retiring paper generals. DBS is a good training ground for paper generals to be bankers and then move on to helm StanChart or other foreign banks where Temasek is a majority shareholder. It is time that this career path be institutionalised to provide a good career for our hundreds of paper generals queuing up to join the private sector as CEOs.
Who do you think Mr Heng? Or shall I ask Mr Lee or Madam?
10/14/2018
10/13/2018
Unfair trading practices versus Unequal Treaties
The Americans are accusing China and other trading partners of unfair
trade practices. And using this excuse the Americans have launched a
trade war with all their trading partners and targeting China as their
number One enemy.
How unfair are the trade practices of China? How would these so called unfair trade practices compare to the Unequal Treaties imposed on China after the Opium Wars and Sino Japanese War? Any of the Americans remember what were these Unequal Treaties and how fair or unfair they were to China? But before these Unequal Treaties, do they remember the wars of conquest, colonization of people and countries and imposing their will on the colonized people, looting and plundering these countries into poverty, robbing their land and natural resources and the dignity of the conquered and colonized people?
Since the Europeans left their shores to colonise and control the rest of the world, since the end of WW2, all the rules governing international trade were dictated by the West and subsequently by the Americans. The Americans and the West controlled the UN, IMF, World Bank and many international organizations to dictate rules for the rest of the world. They imposed sanctions and restrictions on what they want to buy and sell on the rest of the world. They set all the terms of agreements in their favour. Note, all the rules and regulations and treaties were dictated by the West and the Americans. And during the days of colonial rule and unequal treaties, the terms were forced on the other side under duress and threats of war. And the rest of the world, including China, has to abide and play by these rules. They imposed their will on China with stringent and unfair terms to join the WTO, the UN and any organization they controlled, and often banned China from organizations they did not want China to participate, like space technology and exploration.
Given the fact that the Americans were the ones that were dictating terms on international trade and international relations, how can these terms be favourable to China and unfair to the Americans? Are the Americans so stupid, so altruistic, so generous, to China and the rest of the world? China was isolated by the Americans for decades. The Americans are still doing it to China in many areas, and to countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and many other countries they demonized as enemies.
The economic downfall of the USA is due to unfair practices, unfair practices imposed on the Americans by China and the rest of the world and China and the rest of the world are to be blamed for this?
On the other hand, China and the rest of the world were the underdogs. And when China signed trade or infrastructure building agreements with the rest of the world, these were done on a willing buyer willing seller basis, on terms negotiated by equals, with the best negotiators from both sides. These agreements by China and other countries were not done at gun point like the West and the Americans used to do when they conquered and colonized people/states.
Today, all the little countries are liberated and independent countries except the semi colonies of the USA and some colonies of European powers. South Korea and Japan are still victims of unequal treaties imposed on them by the Americans, demanding the right to station troops in their countries and controlling their armed forces. Same as in several Middle East countries. The independent countries today are helmed by highly politicized, smart and nationalistic leaders. Would these leaders signed agreements with China under pressure and to their disadvantage? Would the brilliant American trade negotiators/gangsters sign unfair trade agreements with China, under pressure because China is more powerful than the Americans? Could China dictate trading terms with the Americans in favour of China and Americans willingly agree to unfair trade practices when they are in charge, in control of everything, the world's biggest hegemon?
The facts, all the trading rules and terms were dictated by the Americans and the Chinese were price takers of such unfair agreements, often biased and in favour of the Americans. How valid is the claim of Donald Trump and his gangsters in Washington that China is imposing unfair trade practices or taking advantage of unfair trade practices on the Americans?
This is exactly like the saying, a thief shouting thief. China and the rest of the world are playing by the rules set by the Americans, under the American world order, living under Pax Americana, the Evil Empire.
How unfair are the trade practices of China? How would these so called unfair trade practices compare to the Unequal Treaties imposed on China after the Opium Wars and Sino Japanese War? Any of the Americans remember what were these Unequal Treaties and how fair or unfair they were to China? But before these Unequal Treaties, do they remember the wars of conquest, colonization of people and countries and imposing their will on the colonized people, looting and plundering these countries into poverty, robbing their land and natural resources and the dignity of the conquered and colonized people?
Since the Europeans left their shores to colonise and control the rest of the world, since the end of WW2, all the rules governing international trade were dictated by the West and subsequently by the Americans. The Americans and the West controlled the UN, IMF, World Bank and many international organizations to dictate rules for the rest of the world. They imposed sanctions and restrictions on what they want to buy and sell on the rest of the world. They set all the terms of agreements in their favour. Note, all the rules and regulations and treaties were dictated by the West and the Americans. And during the days of colonial rule and unequal treaties, the terms were forced on the other side under duress and threats of war. And the rest of the world, including China, has to abide and play by these rules. They imposed their will on China with stringent and unfair terms to join the WTO, the UN and any organization they controlled, and often banned China from organizations they did not want China to participate, like space technology and exploration.
Given the fact that the Americans were the ones that were dictating terms on international trade and international relations, how can these terms be favourable to China and unfair to the Americans? Are the Americans so stupid, so altruistic, so generous, to China and the rest of the world? China was isolated by the Americans for decades. The Americans are still doing it to China in many areas, and to countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and many other countries they demonized as enemies.
The economic downfall of the USA is due to unfair practices, unfair practices imposed on the Americans by China and the rest of the world and China and the rest of the world are to be blamed for this?
On the other hand, China and the rest of the world were the underdogs. And when China signed trade or infrastructure building agreements with the rest of the world, these were done on a willing buyer willing seller basis, on terms negotiated by equals, with the best negotiators from both sides. These agreements by China and other countries were not done at gun point like the West and the Americans used to do when they conquered and colonized people/states.
Today, all the little countries are liberated and independent countries except the semi colonies of the USA and some colonies of European powers. South Korea and Japan are still victims of unequal treaties imposed on them by the Americans, demanding the right to station troops in their countries and controlling their armed forces. Same as in several Middle East countries. The independent countries today are helmed by highly politicized, smart and nationalistic leaders. Would these leaders signed agreements with China under pressure and to their disadvantage? Would the brilliant American trade negotiators/gangsters sign unfair trade agreements with China, under pressure because China is more powerful than the Americans? Could China dictate trading terms with the Americans in favour of China and Americans willingly agree to unfair trade practices when they are in charge, in control of everything, the world's biggest hegemon?
The facts, all the trading rules and terms were dictated by the Americans and the Chinese were price takers of such unfair agreements, often biased and in favour of the Americans. How valid is the claim of Donald Trump and his gangsters in Washington that China is imposing unfair trade practices or taking advantage of unfair trade practices on the Americans?
This is exactly like the saying, a thief shouting thief. China and the rest of the world are playing by the rules set by the Americans, under the American world order, living under Pax Americana, the Evil Empire.
10/12/2018
Training to become hawkers
I read in the main media of this great opportunity to become hawkers in
Singapore’s famous hawker culture business. ITE has started a new
hawker course to teach and train aspiring young people, very likely
armed with degrees or diplomas to become hawkers. This new profession is
about the best thing that has happened in Singapore for the young and
entrepreneurial Singaporeans since getting a permanent job is quite
difficult as most of the jobs were taken up by the 2 million foreign
talents working here, and with more coming in to become locals and
Singaporeans. New Singaporean graduates are finding it tough competing
with these new talents, or is it that employers for some reasons, prefer
to hire foreigners instead of Singaporeans, and other than becoming
taxi drivers, it is better to become hawkers.
The ITE course, Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business, has attracted 25 aspiring young people to learn this new trade. Among the things that they would learn other than managing a hawker stall would be things like how to source for suppliers and yes, how to formulate a business plan. This is serious business.
I am calling my grandfather to apply to be a lecturer for this course. His experience as a hawker for 50 years, from the time he arrived in this island, with out a penny, with no education, would be very useful to the new trainees that have no clues about running a hawker stall. My grandfather would be able to teach them all the tricks of the trade, including sourcing for suppliers, how to cut operating cost, how to work from 6am to 12 mid night, how to stand frying char kway teow for long hours without going to the toilet.
But there is a caveat. My grandfather would not know how to teach them how to write business plan. Also he would have to conduct his course in Hokien. He had never been to school. He learnt his trade the hard way or what they called, OJT. There was no one to teach him how to be a hawker then, and no hawker courses to learn how to be a hawker.
Hope if he got the job, the highly educated trainee aspiring hawkers would bear with him and be willing to learn from him. Hawker business is not so easy and they don’t teach them in schools or the universities. So my grandfather and his peers would be the best lecturers/trainers for such a course. They had been there and done it, no pure reading by the books.
This poses a new query in my mind. Who are they getting to train these aspiring hawkers, people with experience in being hawkers or text books academics? I am still puzzled by the availability of such experts in the hawker business. Would a Mat Salleh help?
Ok, ok, I am kidding. My grandfather must be 150 years if he is still alive. But hawker business is going to be a new profession for our young people since they no longer can become IT professionals or other professionals in Singapore. This is their best hope to earn a decent living and have a permanent job or profession. Otherwise they would likely be unemployed or underemployed.
The caring govt has come forward to give them a helping hand by initiating such a great course to train them to be hawkers. If not they would not have a clue how to become a hawker. Singaporeans must be taught or they would not be able to do anything on their own. This is like they said, no initiative, cannot think, cannot find out on their own, a product of Singapore’s tuition culture.
My grandfather did not need any tuition or training to become a successful hawker. He would faint if he knows that his class would have highly educated young people with no ideas about how to be a hawker. He would like say, seow.
The ITE course, Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business, has attracted 25 aspiring young people to learn this new trade. Among the things that they would learn other than managing a hawker stall would be things like how to source for suppliers and yes, how to formulate a business plan. This is serious business.
I am calling my grandfather to apply to be a lecturer for this course. His experience as a hawker for 50 years, from the time he arrived in this island, with out a penny, with no education, would be very useful to the new trainees that have no clues about running a hawker stall. My grandfather would be able to teach them all the tricks of the trade, including sourcing for suppliers, how to cut operating cost, how to work from 6am to 12 mid night, how to stand frying char kway teow for long hours without going to the toilet.
But there is a caveat. My grandfather would not know how to teach them how to write business plan. Also he would have to conduct his course in Hokien. He had never been to school. He learnt his trade the hard way or what they called, OJT. There was no one to teach him how to be a hawker then, and no hawker courses to learn how to be a hawker.
Hope if he got the job, the highly educated trainee aspiring hawkers would bear with him and be willing to learn from him. Hawker business is not so easy and they don’t teach them in schools or the universities. So my grandfather and his peers would be the best lecturers/trainers for such a course. They had been there and done it, no pure reading by the books.
This poses a new query in my mind. Who are they getting to train these aspiring hawkers, people with experience in being hawkers or text books academics? I am still puzzled by the availability of such experts in the hawker business. Would a Mat Salleh help?
Ok, ok, I am kidding. My grandfather must be 150 years if he is still alive. But hawker business is going to be a new profession for our young people since they no longer can become IT professionals or other professionals in Singapore. This is their best hope to earn a decent living and have a permanent job or profession. Otherwise they would likely be unemployed or underemployed.
The caring govt has come forward to give them a helping hand by initiating such a great course to train them to be hawkers. If not they would not have a clue how to become a hawker. Singaporeans must be taught or they would not be able to do anything on their own. This is like they said, no initiative, cannot think, cannot find out on their own, a product of Singapore’s tuition culture.
My grandfather did not need any tuition or training to become a successful hawker. He would faint if he knows that his class would have highly educated young people with no ideas about how to be a hawker. He would like say, seow.
10/11/2018
Oxfam’s finding on Singapore’s inequality ‘simplistic and prescriptive’
SMU don Eugene Tan commented on the Oxfam report on Singapore’s income
inequality that the ‘methodology was simplistic and prescriptive’. It
ranked Singapore 149 out of 157 nations, just one notch above Laos.
Singapore’s position fell from a high of 86 last year to near rock
bottom, a ranking comparable to the ranking for Singapore’s main media.
How atrocious! Would the comments be more friendly if the rankings were
like those for our world class universities? Incidentally the rankings
for our world class universities have received a few condemnations and
they have started to think of a more realistic and relevant way of
ranking our world class universities, ranked in the same ethereal realm
of existence as the top universities of the world.
With such bad ranking on income inequality, this report rightly deserves to be rejected and dismissed. How could Singapore be lying so low down there in the company of Laos and not right up there with the top European countries? Must be very biased, or yes, simplistic and prescriptive. And Minister Desmond Lee was also unhappy with the report and was offended. He said, ‘We think it is more important to look at the outcomes achieved instead.’ Yes, agreed, these people coming from nowhere, never lived here before, making such unruly comments on our domestic affairs and so critical and simplistic some more.
Let me just make one quote from the Oxfam report as reported in thenewspaper to support a case against the unstinting and unfair criticism of this best run state in the world. ‘Singapore could tackle inequality at home by spending more, strengthening labour rights and enacting anti discrimination laws.’
But Singapore has been spending a lot more to help the poor students, including many from other countries to study in our world best schools, polytechnics and universities, with scholarships covering fees, living expenses and housing. This is in the tune of several billions over the years. How much more must Singapore spend before Oxfam is satisified? The govt even legislated to spend the poor people’s life savings, otherwise they would not spend, to protect them from health and life expectancy problems. This money spent the Oxfam sure would not know. They must add this as part of the social spending to help the poor, to level up the income inequality.
As for strengthening the labour movements and labour rights, how much more is needed when the govt assigned the PM to be to head the labour movement? This is damn powerful ok, to protect and to fight for the workers’ rights and interests. No country would put such a high power minister to work for the workers. So the comment by the Oxfam report is too simplistic or ignorant.
More anti discrimination laws? On what, sexual inequality or wealth inequality? Ok, sexual inequality is now gaining support, especially for the LGBTs. Give the govt some time and all sexes and bisexuals will be equal, no more discrimination. Oh wait a minute, I read about this on sexual inequality, ‘Singapore has no equal pay or non discrimination laws for women, its laws on rape and sexual harassment are inadequate and there is no minimum wage except for cleaners and security guards.’ Holy cow, where did this come from? See how many women ministers we have and think the top salary earner in Singapore is a woman. Ok, I have no statistic to back this up. Caveat.
Laws on rape? Come on, Singapore is virtually free of rape crimes against women. Why do you need more laws on this when it is quite irrelevant? You need more laws on rape if the country is infested with rapists, not safe, safe Singapore.
As for wealth inequality, the best legal provision is the abolishment of estate duty so that everyone can inherit their homes after the death of the owner of the estate. Rich or poor, all are treated as equal. Poor Singaporeans need not lose their estate as a result of death, and can pass on their HDB flats to their descendants forever.
See how simplistic is the Oxfam report? They did not know that our poor are so rich and happy that all the poor in the whole world would want to be poor in Singapore. This is a fact, a spoken fact. Why is it a spoken fact? Because no one in Singapore dispute this fact when spoken.
Whew. I said my piece for Singapore. I defended Singapore’s integrity.
With such bad ranking on income inequality, this report rightly deserves to be rejected and dismissed. How could Singapore be lying so low down there in the company of Laos and not right up there with the top European countries? Must be very biased, or yes, simplistic and prescriptive. And Minister Desmond Lee was also unhappy with the report and was offended. He said, ‘We think it is more important to look at the outcomes achieved instead.’ Yes, agreed, these people coming from nowhere, never lived here before, making such unruly comments on our domestic affairs and so critical and simplistic some more.
Let me just make one quote from the Oxfam report as reported in thenewspaper to support a case against the unstinting and unfair criticism of this best run state in the world. ‘Singapore could tackle inequality at home by spending more, strengthening labour rights and enacting anti discrimination laws.’
But Singapore has been spending a lot more to help the poor students, including many from other countries to study in our world best schools, polytechnics and universities, with scholarships covering fees, living expenses and housing. This is in the tune of several billions over the years. How much more must Singapore spend before Oxfam is satisified? The govt even legislated to spend the poor people’s life savings, otherwise they would not spend, to protect them from health and life expectancy problems. This money spent the Oxfam sure would not know. They must add this as part of the social spending to help the poor, to level up the income inequality.
As for strengthening the labour movements and labour rights, how much more is needed when the govt assigned the PM to be to head the labour movement? This is damn powerful ok, to protect and to fight for the workers’ rights and interests. No country would put such a high power minister to work for the workers. So the comment by the Oxfam report is too simplistic or ignorant.
More anti discrimination laws? On what, sexual inequality or wealth inequality? Ok, sexual inequality is now gaining support, especially for the LGBTs. Give the govt some time and all sexes and bisexuals will be equal, no more discrimination. Oh wait a minute, I read about this on sexual inequality, ‘Singapore has no equal pay or non discrimination laws for women, its laws on rape and sexual harassment are inadequate and there is no minimum wage except for cleaners and security guards.’ Holy cow, where did this come from? See how many women ministers we have and think the top salary earner in Singapore is a woman. Ok, I have no statistic to back this up. Caveat.
Laws on rape? Come on, Singapore is virtually free of rape crimes against women. Why do you need more laws on this when it is quite irrelevant? You need more laws on rape if the country is infested with rapists, not safe, safe Singapore.
As for wealth inequality, the best legal provision is the abolishment of estate duty so that everyone can inherit their homes after the death of the owner of the estate. Rich or poor, all are treated as equal. Poor Singaporeans need not lose their estate as a result of death, and can pass on their HDB flats to their descendants forever.
See how simplistic is the Oxfam report? They did not know that our poor are so rich and happy that all the poor in the whole world would want to be poor in Singapore. This is a fact, a spoken fact. Why is it a spoken fact? Because no one in Singapore dispute this fact when spoken.
Whew. I said my piece for Singapore. I defended Singapore’s integrity.
10/10/2018
The AHTC case and the flaws of switching management
It is so obvious that the problems facing the AHTC case need not arise
and must/would not be allowed to be repeated if the management of town
councils remains with a statutory board or ministry ran by civil
servants. The management of a town council, the complexity and
operational details involved, and the importance of such services
remaining in tact and continuou, demand that it must be run by a
permanent body of staff. It cannot be otherwise.
The AHTC case highlighted the problems and flaws and unnecessary troublesome administrative handling over of funds, records, duties and responsibilities that could not be efficiently transferred from one management to another over a short spell of time. Such procedures and processes, the involvement of funds and monetary matters, necessitate very careful, arduous and detailed scrutiny and inspection before a transfer can take place. And worse, under the politicized nature of the system, when a different and often unfriendly party won an election and having to take over the function and running of a town council, in a way exposing the predecessor’s work to be scrutinized for wrongdoings, make the transfer of responsibility a hostile takeover with both parties placed in a very difficult and confrontational position. How could such a belligerent and antagonistic system be to the interest of the residents that expect a public service to continue to run efficiently, smoothly and without disruption?
When a political party takes over the running of a state after winning a general election, all the staff of ministries and stats boards remain in tact, with all the systems and procedures, including software and hardware, remain practically unchanged until such time when the new govt is ready to make changes. The services of the respective ministries and stats boards will not be affected in anyway or in any serious ways. Assuming the same terms of changing all the staff and systems in ministries should take place like the changing of the guards in the town councils, there is no way the new govt can start to administer a country and all its ministries and stats boards given the time constraints.
The expectation of a new town council management to start operating and running a town council almost immediately is insane. An incoming town council could insist that all the documents, accounts and system be proper and free from errors before taking over and this would lead to an endless explanation and bickering of what is being handed over. This is simply plain impossible and unacceptable.
It is time the town councils be returned to be managed permanently and continuously by a stats board with permanent staff and system for the good of the residents. No one or party or politician need to be put through running a town council to prove themselves to be able to run a country. This is a red herring, a myth. It does not happen in any other country and historically, new govts are form in democratic countries after winning an election with people that came from all walks of life except running a country and they ran the country and doing no less better than people who had the experience of running town councils.
One does not have to run a small company to run a big company or organization. Running a small company or organization like a town council has very little relevance to running a country. If that is the critical experience to run a country successfully, then the first generation of leaders would have failed or must fail. They did not, without the experience of running town councils. So did the leaders of all the countries in the whole wide world.
This town council thing must be put right for the good of the people and country. All the political bickering is unnecessary, stressful, silly and a waste of public funds and resources that could be put to better use and more important things.
The AHTC case highlighted the problems and flaws and unnecessary troublesome administrative handling over of funds, records, duties and responsibilities that could not be efficiently transferred from one management to another over a short spell of time. Such procedures and processes, the involvement of funds and monetary matters, necessitate very careful, arduous and detailed scrutiny and inspection before a transfer can take place. And worse, under the politicized nature of the system, when a different and often unfriendly party won an election and having to take over the function and running of a town council, in a way exposing the predecessor’s work to be scrutinized for wrongdoings, make the transfer of responsibility a hostile takeover with both parties placed in a very difficult and confrontational position. How could such a belligerent and antagonistic system be to the interest of the residents that expect a public service to continue to run efficiently, smoothly and without disruption?
When a political party takes over the running of a state after winning a general election, all the staff of ministries and stats boards remain in tact, with all the systems and procedures, including software and hardware, remain practically unchanged until such time when the new govt is ready to make changes. The services of the respective ministries and stats boards will not be affected in anyway or in any serious ways. Assuming the same terms of changing all the staff and systems in ministries should take place like the changing of the guards in the town councils, there is no way the new govt can start to administer a country and all its ministries and stats boards given the time constraints.
The expectation of a new town council management to start operating and running a town council almost immediately is insane. An incoming town council could insist that all the documents, accounts and system be proper and free from errors before taking over and this would lead to an endless explanation and bickering of what is being handed over. This is simply plain impossible and unacceptable.
It is time the town councils be returned to be managed permanently and continuously by a stats board with permanent staff and system for the good of the residents. No one or party or politician need to be put through running a town council to prove themselves to be able to run a country. This is a red herring, a myth. It does not happen in any other country and historically, new govts are form in democratic countries after winning an election with people that came from all walks of life except running a country and they ran the country and doing no less better than people who had the experience of running town councils.
One does not have to run a small company to run a big company or organization. Running a small company or organization like a town council has very little relevance to running a country. If that is the critical experience to run a country successfully, then the first generation of leaders would have failed or must fail. They did not, without the experience of running town councils. So did the leaders of all the countries in the whole wide world.
This town council thing must be put right for the good of the people and country. All the political bickering is unnecessary, stressful, silly and a waste of public funds and resources that could be put to better use and more important things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)