Malaysia’s third grade thinking ticking again

I call it envy thinking or missing the woods for the trees. Malaysia is unhappy that their companies are paying Malaysian employees less than Sinkie employees. They want to pay their employees as much as the workers in Sinkieland are being paid.

The first question, are the Malaysian workers really underpaid? I don’t think so. A Malaysian employee earning RM3000 or RM5000 will probably be much well off than his Sinkie counterpart earning $3000 or $5000. His cost of living is so much cheaper relatively and he could own a much bigger home, maybe even landed properties than the Micky Mouse flats which Sinkies called home and so bloody proud of it. But you can’t blame them when they have been so conditioned to think less is best.

And every Malaysian could easily own a car to travel around the vast country and paying cheaper petrol for it. Everything costs lesser in Malaysia when it used to be the other way. What is this talk about Malaysian workers being underpaid? Maybe the companies could pay them much more if they take into consideration the cheaper cost of business and rentals, not forgetting their top management are not robbing the companies to pay themselves crazy. They can afford to and still be more competitive than their Sinkie counterparts. That is the reason why many Sinkie companies are moving over, and more will do so.

Does Malaysia seriously think that it should go the Sinkie way, to price itself out of competition in the international market? China’s manufacturing factories are being pressurized by the Americans to pay more and to price themselves out. Is this what Malaysia wants? The Sinkie model is designed for self destruct in the next 10 or 20 years, or earlier should a major world crisis hit. Life will go on as per normal in Malaysia should it happen. Sinkies will be jumping off from their million dollar Mickey Mouse flats when they cannot service the huge mortgages and debt that they have acquired. The truth is that the average Sinkies are all heavily in debt and this will only get worst.

The issue of Malaysiansskilled personnel working in Sin is a totally different problem. The proximity of Sin and the comparatively higher salary, and the ability to return and spend the money in Malaysia is a strategic factor Malaysia would have to cope with. But this is not the only reason for the brain drain. The Malaysian govt should know better why. Given a decent govt policy to value their own talents on their own merits, many Malaysians would be the first to run back to Malaysia today. Their salary though comparatively lower than Sin does not mean that their standard of living will be lower as the cost of living is so much lower. Simply put, it is bad govt policies that created this problem.

Malaysia should be thankful that its economic system has not been taken down the Sinkie way, a system that is unsustainable and is likely to cause much grief in a crisis. The Malaysian system will grow slowly and steadily. They need not work themselves to death. They can afford to stop in their path to smell the roses and take a nap under the coconut trees.

Sinkies will die or be in deep shit if they stop working before they die at the ripe old age of 80 or 90. Malaysia should stop this rubbish envy thinking and look at how blessed it is and can only get better with good and positive govt economic and political policies. Malaysia can only get better. Sin can only get worst. And Malaysian workers are not paid worst relative to their cost of living.

When or if the Malaysian govt embarks on a path of enlightened economic policies, and discards the unproductive and counter productive political policies, it will seriously undermine the economic development of Sin. Many of the highly trained and experienced Malaysians would rush back to lift up the quality of life in Malaysia in all fields. Malaysia could be a shining first world country when the talents returned. The past policies were doing just the reverse, leveling down in all aspects of economic, technology and social endeavours.

A lesson from Genneva

Genneva, a gold trading company that offered its customers 24% returns on their investments has its business suspended. It was definitely too good to be true. Its office has been raided and is now under investigation by CAD. It was under the watchlist of MAS all the while.

When the company was set up, it tells a story of good returns and everything good. The returns were absolutely good, very good, outstanding. No one borders to ask what can go wrong to make the promises turn sour. The company would be the last one to want to tell what can go wrong.

Sinkies are now living it up, in high heavens. Everything is so rosy, so good, so very good. The housing price is just on one track, up. The savings in the CPF with 4% interest rates for the oldies must be excellent. Jobs aplenty and more foreigners and more citizens are needed. Nothing can go wrong. Really?

Murphy’s Law says that what can go wrong will go wrong. Same thing happened to Genneva. Same thing happened to toxic notes and Lehman Bonds. Same thing happened to all the too big to fail banks in the US and Europe.

Anyone believes that nothing can go wrong? Anyone believes that the housing price will be happily stay up there? Anyone believes that the high population is only good? How many believe that their CPF savings will not be worthless at the end of the day?

And how many believe what the ministers said, that the young today will have a lot of money when they retire? Anyone out there willing to say what can go wrong, what can go awfully wrong?

How dangerous can internet be?

A Caroline wrote in her Facebook ‘…I will always make sure that they know our govt is to b blamed for what is happening to us n to Sg: )’

A MJ Rina Huang replied, ‘Dear Ms Caroline, if you are married and have kids, please pray that they don’t hear you, or that no one tells them that their mummy is to be blamed for what’s going to happen to them: )’

The Caroline posted the above and received a threat from another blogger in their Facebook posts. Though both signed off with a : ) sign, the latter can still be interpreted as a threat. One cannot be blamed to think that some harm or something bad could happen to the children.

Caroline went to make a police report and it was reported in TRE that Rina Huang had since removed the offending post from her Facebook. The ball is now in the police’s court. Is there a criminal intimidation threat made by Rina Huang against the children of Caroline? If there is, what are the police going to do about it?

The internet is no place for intimidation or causing mischief. Everyone should have freedom of expression, differences in views and opinions. But no one should be allowed to go around abusing one another, threatening another or irritating others. There must be some form of discipline, decency and not to do to others what one does not want others do unto them.

I would suggest the police set up a unit to make tracing of the mischief makers easier when an official report is made. There is no room for gangsterism or thuggish behavior in the net. Some may think that these are reasonable and part and parcel of freedom of expression, I must say I disagree. The right to speak freely does not give one the right to abuse another person or to threaten another person. With the police providing such a facility, you don’t need any more code of conduct to keep some peace and decency in the net. The wrong doers and mischief makers will know that even hiding under anonymity will not let them get away scot free. This facility is always there, don’t think it is something new. It is only how accessible it is to the public or to people who are being offended.

It is okay to post using a nick or even anonymous, and to exercise freedom of expression. It is another thing to use it to attack people personally or to cause mischief, and worst, threatens others. Why should anyone think that it is alright to verbally attack another person in the net or to abuse another person?

A very dangerous proposition

The New York Times

September 19, 2012

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should reign in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

The above article appeared in the New York Times and argued convincingly in favour of Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. The hard evidence was clear, and Nicholas Kristof was chastising the Chinese for protesting in the streets instead of taking the case to the International Court of Justice. On face value it is a very good and logical suggestion. In reality, it would be the most foolish thing for China to do so. The islands belong to China and were taken away as war booty by the Japanese who now insisted that the islands belonged to them. Why would China want to go to court with the robbers when the outcome could turn the other way? Why would China want to risk its territory in a court that China is not even convinced of its objectivity and neutrality? What happens if it turns out to be a kangaroo court? How high is the possibility of the judges being bribed and bought over by the Japanese? The Japanese would be very willing to offer the judges a sum that they could not refuse. Not possible?

The worst case would be for the court to try to appease both parties, like the Pedra Branca case, and apportion the islands equally to both parties. And China would lose, legally, half of its territories to the robbers and never think of getting it back anymore.

The fact today is that the robbers, Japan, are lying through their teeth and refused to acknowledge the truth, and are likely to do anything to keep the loot. The only way for China to take back its property is to do it the same way as the robbers, in a war, unless Japan is willing to return it voluntarily before it happens.

China must never bring the case to the ICJ. It could be a trap. It should do it the same way as the Koreans. It is their island and there is no dispute and no necessity to go to court. Chinese territories are not negotiable. They are setting China up for the kill.

PS. Never trust the Americans.

They are paid what they are worth

This is Matilah’s truism. I always discount what he said by 50% as most of the time he just shoot from his hip. In this case he added a qualifier, ie, a free market mechanism. Of course there is no real free market mechanism to talk about, especially when pay is concerned. For this, I will deduct another 20% from his truth.

The corruption in both public and private practices as far as compensation for the top dogs is concerned is as innocent as the devil wearing a halo over its head. How could anyone justify paying a joker hundreds of millions a year or tens of millions a year? Superman or Wonder Woman? Yesterday’s ST reported about the scions of billionaires paying themselves millions simply because of their genealogy. But the recipients would tell you they really deserved every cent paid to them.

How deserving a person is should not be determined by the incumbents or those with vested interest in the well being of the incumbents. We have seen and heard a lot of hogwash regarding the super salaries the employees are getting and claimed to be worth every cent of it. Would any of the recipients or those related to the recipients say otherwise? Or would anyone of them be honest enough to stand up, with a straight face, or embarrassingly and meekly say, actually I don’t deserve the money as I am doing sweet nothing?

Closer to home, the hot topic of the ministerial salary is always on the mind of most Sinkies. The ministers will vouch and swear that they deserved every cent they are paid. Some will even claim that they are underpaid. I am not going to discount any of their claims. I do not know how hard they work for their money or what is their true market value.

What is important is the paymaster. Does the paymaster think that the ministers are being paid fairly? You will know the answer in 2016.

The real stuff in the real world is that many are paid outrageous salary because they are family. And many are equally paid dubious salary because of political reasons, using public funds. How many of you really believe in this Matilah truism?

Return of Warlordism

The high profile news of the rich and powerful in China flaunting their wealth and abusing their power hinted towards a return to the days of Warlordism. After 300 years of shame and near bankruptcy, 亡国时代，the new China has just stood up on its two feet to stand shoulder to shoulder as a respectable nation, there are ominous signs that China is sliding back to it corrupt and decadent days. The days of lawlessness, 无法无天, when the rich and powerful are starting to abuse their positions, and the excesses of their children in total disregard to law and order and propriety, misbehaving in the wildest kind, 花花公子，are putting China and its society in a very bad light.

The rapid fall into ill repute, abuses, corruption, no respect for law and order, and bullying the ordinary citizens are a shameful display of not only a country, but a people and its values and culture. The philosophies of the great sages of Mencius, Confucius, Lao Tzu etc, did not seem to teach the Chinese any good. It is becoming another wild country if things are not put in order. Or, if it is not the fault of the great philosophers, it must be the poor upbringings of the rich and powerful. They did not know that their misconduct is not only bringing shame and embarrassment to the country and people, it could lead back to a period of decadence and the destruction of the nation.

It took 60 years of hard and arduous work for the country to climb back to respectability, but in such a short span of time, the ugliness of the Chinese and its culture are already rearing its head. Would China be able to transform itself into a powerful and gracious nation, or would the decadent past catches up and return China to become the Sick Man of Asia once again? The signs are very unhealthy. The top officials who are not able to educate their children to be decent and respectable people are failures and should not be in public office. They are the role models to set a good example for the 1.3b people to emulate. Hopefully the disgraceful acts and conducts of the few are only exceptions and can be corrected and eradicated from becoming the new cancers of the new China.

Housing, half hearted or half baked measures won’t work

Frankly, I am not too sure whether the measures to cool down property prices were half hearted or half baked measures. They have proven not to work, or they could be intended to work this way. Don’t expect me or any bloggers to know the whole story. We are blogging on superficial understanding of what was going on and at most we are just skimming the surface of a very complex problem, but not unsolvable if the will is there.

Bloggers are not paid to spend all their time and resources to understand the problem and to come out with good solutions. This should be the duty of the professionals who are paid millions and full time on the job to solve the problem. If they cannot to anything right, they should not be there and should not be paid the big salaries. Is this a difficult logic to understand?

The people on the job are professionals and must have a good grasp of the situation and the extent of the problem. It is very disheartening to hear professionals saying that the housing problem is due to one or two factors, a supply problem, or BTO and resale market are separate issues. Some even think that it is okay for foreigners to continue to grab anything available in the market.

Everything in the market affects the market. Everything is linked to the housing price that is ballooning, not just supply and demand, not just a matter of private properties and public housing. Even the scrapping of estate duties is a major factor that influenced the price of properties.

I am not here to give a solution. I am not paid to do it. The public demands that those that are handsomely paid to do their job, starting with a correct policy or mission statement from the govt on what it thinks is its role in providing housing for the people, and what kind of housing and affordability. Everything must gel together for a comprehensive solution and not piece meal. It is obvious that the people are getting very angry with the housing situation.

Can the govt get it right? If they can’t, learn from Malaysia and China. These two countries are serious in wanting to curb property prices and have their priorities right. Housing, a roof over the head at a really ‘affordable’ price is what they are trying to achieve. Even Hongkong is getting serious while we are getting reckless. They are less concerned with the profits of developers and those rich who are hoarding properties to get a good profit for their investments. And in Singapore’s case, with the high density and the squeeze on limited land, the concept of investment in properties and property speculation, foreign ownership, estate duties, must be thoroughly reviewed.

There are many vested interests at stake. What is more important?