Friday, January 30, 2009

DBS' CEO is now cancer-stricken....



Link is here

Which returns to the fact that why wasn't he medically screened properly in the first place? Now investors wouldn't be feeling confident, savers would be worried, employees anxious and surprised and the people will be wondering what would happen later. There's a clear sign that the management has not done its job wisely, and one would wonder if the appointment of CEO Stanley was really made by the board or by political special interests which are beyond the Board Of Director's power.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Changi Airport faces corportisation...

The picture and news are below as such:



Changi Airport authorities are taking first steps to corporatisation

My opinion? I have qualms about it, although I understand why some people think its better that way. My belief is that however there's no other body, even privatised government corporations who can run airports and keep prices affordable and available for all users. A privatised airport corporation however, will increase prices- because at such current rates of charging- and considering the overall maintenance, it's not profitable for any company, state-owned or otherwise.

But a higher price for profit reasons means many people would be overcharged. And this means that people will pay less or travel less for their holidays and this would affect business in the tour companies, in the service restaurants at the airport and affect foreign tourists coming in as well. And that would lead to even more retrenchment across the board as a result.

This also goes in the face of what MM Lee said after the Budget was unveiled- that is, that the government, ran by his party, has now have to save jobs as its main priority. But to privatise is to go against all notion of saving jobs in the industries that depend on cheap travel, and would only make the economy worse, and get us back into a even more vicious cycle.

The government should reconsider immediately, especially in light of the global financial crisis. This is not good for anyone at all.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Late Night Talk show hosts in the US..

...have a field day with disgraced Ill. Gov. Rod Blago, who went on US national TV networks to protest his case.

The video is below, courtesy of Politico.com



=)

Friday, January 23, 2009

Well on to fashion..

And no, I ain't going into President Obama's GQ suit look. It's almost bespoke and he looks good in them. And that's good for any guy- to wear a suit that suits his frame.



But its the Obama girls- Michelle included- that is raising the frenzy for mums and for American designers(all of different races, not just white btw) and shops that had supplied the Obamas with these wonderful clothes.

Fox News has more...the link is below after the jump

The Obama girls ignite a fashion frenzy!

Thursday, January 22, 2009

The problem with the budget...

is not just about the details, but also about the timing.

First let us talk about the timing, which I think its very important. The question I have in my previous post is basically about timing, which I have stated is pretty late, and as a result, the possibility of it being ineffectual is very high.

After all, while other governments overseas have re-installed the regulatory system or fine tuned the system so as to shore up long term confidence in the economy for overseas investors and for people domestically, the government instead has had to deal with the minibonds uproar, and it took them more than two months to consider some form of compensation, and some form of discussion within Parliament to put in some form of regulations.

In the economical front, a 2 to 4 months gap is a long one, and doesn't instill much, if any confidence in the economy both domestically and overseas.

Second, this stimulus package is late. While countries like Australia were putting in stimulus packages, in the form of direct tax cuts/rebates and infrastructure spending since September 2008(4-5 months before), the PAP government hesitated and then refused to(by remaining quiet). Instead it forced more companies to consider more retrenchment, more wage cuts, and then allowed the civil service to increase business costs, bureaucratic costs. The example of high rents for the shops at the Singapore Flyer is one such example, where policy direction has gone wrong. And when more small businesses shut down and when more bigger MNCs retrench people, there will be not just more unemployment, but also less productivity.

But more importantly, people's self esteem and morale would be hurt. And when these people are re-employed, some, if not many, will get jobs that pay way less than their previous ones. That means they have to get by with much less, and bring up a family with much less. Their new jobs will also be less secure, since many of them are of more menial nature, and are probably temporary or of contract.

And if they have kids, long hours for lower pay, affects the children as well, especially if a parent isn't at home at certain times to ensure that the child is studying, and doing well physically and in his studies in school and at home.

In short, all these have condensed itself to the point where Singapore had to revise itself 3 times in the economical outlook for 2009- embarrassingly. And now the government has had to announce that this country suffered a shocking -12% shrinkage in the 4th quarter of 2008, with manufacturing and exports suffering one of the biggest drop-off in recent decades.

I leave you to decide whether this government has done enough adequately, when its clear it hasn't.

And on, on to the second point:

I think stimulus packages only work effectively when two conditions are present: One, they must be done at the same time, in co-ordination with other countries; second, when the money going through must go to those who need the most, and not to those who don't need it.

For example, I have said in my previous post that if tax cuts and rebates go to those companies, especially state-owned ones, instead of independent SMEs, then these tax cuts are effectively pork and will be wasted. You'd be just throwing good money after bad in a financial black hole.

Similarly if you give most of these tax rebates to the rich, instead of the middle and working classes, then its not just pork but also for the fact that the money given will not be cycled back into the economy. If a supergrade civil servant decides to spend his tax rebates in London, instead of in Singapore, then who benefits from that exactly?

And as a sidenote, while SMEs deserve to get low-interest loans from the government, businesses and banks will not loan each other's money if banks don't believe that the businesses will be able to repay those loans eventually. Confidence is something hard to build and cannot be built in a day. That's why re-regulation, common sense regulation is needed to restore accountability and re-open transparency, which would help shore up respect, honesty and trust. In turn banks would start loaning more money knowing businesses would eventually repay those loans.

Until this government does all of these things, I do believe there is some justified professional doubt on whether it'd work. On the surface, its Keynesian economics, something I believe that what's needed in these difficult times. What I agree on theory though shouldn't be viewed however the same in terms of application. Because if the government doesn't reform the system, then a politicised budget 2009 that gives more pork, covered up as a stimulus package, will only damage the economy further, and make us even more exposed to any recession long after this one has ended.

The Budget for Singapore in 2009..

Why this Budget could be flawed- despite its best intentions by the government...

I do support this Budget- which was announced this afternoon- by Finance Minister Tharman, in principle. Still I have some qualms about it. These are the reasons why:

1. I think the Budget was too late. They let things go on as it is until now. Other countries had passed an emergency stimulus package from September 2008 in a bid to shore up the economy and to restore confidence, internally and externally.

This meant that while other people in other countries got their cheques early, and saw more infrastructure(and more home insulation being installed) being built, our government has effectively sat on their hands and let the 4th quarter crash into a -12% recession.

Its symbiotic because the government is ran by an 85 year old, who probably doesn't know this recession, if left unchecked, could be become just marginally off the levels of the Great Depression. It could be he still doesn't believe that the recession would fix itself by the end of 2007.

2. We don't know if the current stimulus package is politicised till the point where most of the money becomes pork and goes to those who have supported the PAP openly. Money should go to everyone including those who have not voted the PAP in past elections- this is because everyone has to spend a bit and save a bit to keep the economy above the water. But if its given to the rich and the well connected, then this money wouldn't be returned to the local economy; let's put it in this way: if another civil servant brings his sons and daughters to spend a free $50k rebate on classes with Jamie Oliver in London, UK, then obviously Singapore and its people wouldn't benefit.

The same goes for any child who don't receive education bursaries for local studies at home, but for a Supergrade civil servant's NSF son to disrupt his NS to go to MIT for his uni course.

The same goes for infrastructure: building a handicapped ramp in a poor estate has more impact than say building a 5 storey car park in a well developed, but not a well populated one that has already 6 of these, and which all remains pretty empty.

3. Not enough has been given to those who need the most- even if there is, is it enough? The government is known for its switch-and-bait and/or delaying tactics- making sure that when people receive $500 in tax rebates, the people will end up paying maybe 5x more when they increase living costs, rental, utilities as such. If not they will insist that the people have to put in a precious $100 into your CPF to receive $1000 in CPF funds- which you can't take out.

And then there's the bureaucratic waste when you have to apply for bursaries and such. With a country which is so technologically equipped, compared to the US, and Australia, surely through the income tax submissions, the government should have each and everyone of us in their data, knowing how much we earn and how much do we pay(or not) in income taxes...and in other form of taxes? Then why insist everyone has to apply to see if they're legally able to do so? That only delays time and time is money. If everything is computerised as they insist they are, then spare people, especially old and uneducated ones, from these paperwork, and directly use these computerised data as a way to source out those who need the cheques, job training etc and those who are not or cannot. It saves a ton of trouble, gets money into people's pockets faster, and reduces the chances of the process being politicised.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

With the swearing-in of President Obama in the US:

The world not just welcome a new era, but an age where people realise that when all of us serve the nation, the nation will be better off, regardless of race, sex, religion or political creed.

With this, I would like to acknowledge the words of some government ministers have said on Monday in regards to not just the behaviour of some civil servants, despite these difficult times, but also to acknowledge that civil servants had to sacrifice some of their financial benefits, like almost all ordinary citizens who has had to suffer job cuts, wage cuts and a rise in living costs and expenses.

I may have some professional disagreements with the present government, but all due credit is deserved for the words that some prominent ministers have said, and I hope they continue in this vein for a while more.

Also, while we enjoy a new day from this day onwards, the 21st of January 2009, we also have to not just do the above, but to also set aside cynicism, and help our country and our people in every way we can, in good times and bad. This country is bigger than any person, or any party, or any group. Above all, we are Singaporeans, and we serve one another, and we make sure we will serve not just one class above another but for all.

Only then can we not just get out of this recession, but we can build a better foundation, and a better and brighter tomorrow.

Friday, January 16, 2009

The issue of national security

Just yesterday, Mr. Wong Kan Seng, Minister of Home Affairs, in Singapore gave an interview that focused broadly on the goals for 2009, and the security concerns for this year.

While I do agree broadly with what he says, I do however have some questions. First up however is that I don't doubt his sincerity. I do believe that he does have the country's interest in his heart, and there's no doubt that in 2009, due in part of what has happened internationally, that our security remains one of the most paramount concerns, and we should not let our guard down, whether is it cyberterrorism, or is it terrorism, and the fight against extremists.

The question I have basically is this: in light what happened almost 12 months ago, in the case of the escape of Mas Selamat, what Mr. Wong did didn't reflect the tough words he said. While it is easy to say, its not easy to do. And the fact is that the prisoner wasn't put under full observance, not completely under surveillance and was allowed to go to rooms to do whatever he was pleased. The structure of the detention centre was also significantly compromised, which would give an open invitation to anyone who has the audacity to try. Besides the appointment of the director of the department comes under him, the minister of home affairs. And if the director agreed to put Selamat there, then the Home Affairs minister would have known and agreed to it.

And then in light of the escape, the Home Affairs ministry didn't fully issue a full bulletin that had the full description of Selamat until 2 days after he escaped. In this day and age, where people just need to board a boat or a plane and be on the other side of the world within 24 hours, the response in catching was too slow, and hence the search for Selamat in the next two, three months were simply too little, too late.

I compare the political response to the one in India after the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 later, and I know the Minister in charge of the interior- equivalent to the Home Affairs- resigned in disgrace, knowing that the Mumbai attacks was a failure because he was also in charge of the intelligence services, which didn't detect any plans by terrorists until it was too late. If the Indian side can resign to take responsibility, why didn't our minister do the same...because it was under his watch when it happened?

In the end, a politicised Home Affairs ministry compromises our national security. Mr. Wong has his reasons to stay on, and while I respect his position and his stance, I do not fully agree an apology is sufficient enough, even 1 year since it has happened. As such, Mr. Wong's words don't match his actions, and I'm afraid there are questions that has to be asked about his leadership.

At a perilous time such as this, its time Singapore have a Minister of Home Affairs who's fully committed to protecting Singapore's national security and her people, rather than one who has been so keen to protect his own, till the point he somehow compromises Singapore's and her people's.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Paper and Glue by Scottish singer Emma Pollock..



Enjoy this, as much as I did, recently. =)

Sunday, January 11, 2009

I do not condone violence against politicians and public figures..even those whom some(but not me) may detest..

On hearing this report on the attack on MP Seng Han Thong, I was pretty shocked at the news. This is because I believe that there are many other ways to register one's feelings, positive and negative, in a way that resonates among people and is heard and understood by the person him/herself.

Therefore this sort of violent incident is not something I would condone at all. I believe that he doesn't deserve such an attack of such a violent nature, and I think it makes us all poorer for it.

My regrets goes out to MP Seng Han Thong for this attack, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

His picture and the link are all below after this:



Singapore MP set on fire in bizarre oil attack

Friday, January 9, 2009

An article from The Guardian of UK's Polly Toynbee about charity

And welfare.



The link is below:
Thank Goodness...

My opinion is this:

I believe charity is useful. Charity to help the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the handicapped are useful, and always should be encouraged. They do play a major role in helping the disadvantaged in areas government sometimes cannot reach.

In respect in saying this though is the recognition that in light with what has been said by the columnist in the newspaper, we also have to recognise government has a role and responsibility to support and to help poor, disadvantaged people as the first resort, and as a partner with charity and non-government organisations. To not do so, and to outsource this responsibility to the charity organisations and NGOs is to abandon its role and guardian to general society.

As such, I believe the government has to be responsible to its people. It is after all, elected by the people, for the people and with the people. And with that, we have to realise that efforts cannot be ad-hoc, but be comprehensive, and to address welfare issues when other charity organisations cannot because of a downturn in raising charity funds from tycoons.

Paul Krugman's latest NYT column: The Obama Gap



And here's the link:
The Obama Gap

What's he saying basically is that the U$775b is too little, and has too many tax cuts to be effective. Is he right? Or is he not?

Obama's girls become the centre of attention in the morning, while the important news waits...MSNBC..oh dear, MSNBC.



I guess when the 24/7 media has nothing else to do, they become a bit like the paparazzi also. I mean, Sasha and Malia are just going to school, eating the normal food, bringing their favourite toys....and yet, they don't seem to give them a bit of privacy.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

I love this live version of "Original Of The Species"- by U2.



Lovely. That's why I love music concerts... live!

The Mess in the US Senate...Jon Stewart comments..

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

A personal note: Macintosh hardware specs upgrades...

I just went to the Apple Store a couple of days ago to enquire about the prices of upgrading my permanent hard disk memory space and my RAM.

Because of my Macbook being part of Apple, and that I cannot upgrade at a third party without voiding the warranty, I had to go there.

- and boy did I get a surprise, and not of the good kind. More like more than a bit shocking. This is because it costs $900 to upgrade the RAM from 2GB to 4GB and the hard disk from 100GB to 150GB.

Also, in part because of my Macbook that now has the Intel chip installed, my laptop is able to run Vista. But my Vista hard disk is only 25GB, and I need a higher amount of hard disk space, and because Vista consumes more RAM, I need more too.

But in light of the overall costs, I have to consider much more right now. For now, Vista will probably have MS Office 2007, Quicktime and an anti-virus/fire wall program. All games may be off until I have found a solution to this.

Monday, January 5, 2009

As we enter into 2009...

This year marks the 50th year since Singapore achieved self-rule in 1959, when the British ceded control of domestic affairs within the state of Singapore, allowing themselves only the affairs of self-defence, and in foreign relations with other countries.

1959 now looks like a distant star away, and as it is, Singapore has long achieved standards that seemed a twilight away from what the then generations thought to be unachievable. After all, in the history of nation building and in general history, 50 years is a speck compared to the thousands of years some countries and cultures have been in existence since time immortal.

Its with this extraordinary achievement that Singapore has done within 50 years, that credit must be given to those leaders and citizens who have worked so hard to let the later generations compete in this world that we now live in.

Thus, the ruling party must be commended for what they have done so far.

In respect in saying also, we must however understand that while we have achieved so much in so little time, we also must cast an eye on our future, and take note of the current situation. Because the world of 1959 and 2009 are so different and vastly apart, the situation has changed, and the solutions have evolved.

And to better manage these vast changes, we must know that the old standards in which we compare ourselves and our country to has also risen, ensuring that while we may look stronger in comparison, compared to those who are vastly in front of us, in all areas, we still fall short.

The main reason on why we are still not there compared to some of the western countries, and developed nations in East Asia, is because of a few things: we don't have a real culture. We don't have the freedom of tolerance to tolerate people of different ideas. We don't have the environment to cultivate creativity. We are too much of rote learners to understand that different ideas taken in a different direction can sometimes lead us to the same path.

Thus, in this age when there's more roads to progress, and more countries trying out these different roads to progress, Singapore will lose out if we think the same path, that we have taken for the last 50 years, will help us keep in pace with these other countries. We know it isn't true, and we have seen that in 2008, when our own economical, social and political security has been damaged because of the recession, and because of some notable incidents.

Still, let us be clear: Singaporeans, all of us, we want stability. We want peace. We want low crime rates. We want a place where our jobs will not be threatened, and where our families will feel safe and secure. We want to have enough money to buy food to put on the table, and to service our homes. We want our own people to feel safe in turbulent times. That's all what all Singaporeans want, regardless of race, religion, sex or origin. And we want all parties to deliver on this, whether are they liberal, conservative or moderate.

This is what is about, and we will make that promise to ourselves that even as we change in the weak areas that we have, we will deliver the former. But beyond that, we must also realise that being leaders, let it be in society, let it be in politics, let it be in companies, or in foundations, being a leader means being a servant to those who are your sheep. The best leader serves the people, and not vice versa. And as they serve their people, they know that they need kindness, they need maturity, they need the values of mutual respect, they need to understand that one can disagree without being disagreeable, and they need to understand that equality and brother-and-sisterhood are so paramount virtues that if they abandon all of these, then they will not be leaders, but merely sheep.

So as this country marks the 50th year since Singapore achieved self-rule, let us not lose sight of what we have yet to do, and yet to see. But as long as we the people start participating in our democracy again, and as we elect new leaders to restore accountability, and transparency and to have the said virtues that was said above, who knows what else can this country of ours do in this year and beyond?

In the end, though, this country, to be united and strong, we must lay down this basic principle of brotherhood with this phrase, "I'm my brother's keeper, I'm my sister's keeper." and to practice this passionately.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

2009- and a Vision for this country.

As we step into a new year, Singapore is on the verge of hitting a crossroad in its future. The year of 2008 has been a crushing, grating impact on Singapore, and especially on the economy.

The incidents, and actions of 2008 that has led to questions about national security, food security and financial security has been many and a jarring reminder that while others continue to insist that everything would be okay under them, many others are reminded that reality often doesn't agree with such a narrative.

But in the ashes and dust of the previous year, its often said that where's roses will start to bloom- but only if we do something different right now.

We don't basically have to continue the way we are. In a new era such as this, its imperative that we realise that in order to bring about change, we need new leaders who will have the background, and judgment to bring about change, and to put in accountability, respect, honesty and shrewd judgment that has been lacking in spades in society and government for the last few years.

And if current leaders only know how to reminisce about how effective they were many decades ago, but doesn't speak about how would they deliver for our children, and our parents in the future, then questions should be raised on whether are they ready to continue as our leaders at an age when they are probably now obsolete.

In the end, we vote in new leaders not because of what they have delivered in the past, but on the promises on which they will deliver for the future. The past only serves as a guideline; but an election is based on the future.

That's why we are now at the verge of a crossroads. Singapore can either go back and dream of the days that have long passed, or look forward to a brighter future ahead, and trust in a new group of leaders who will put their trust in the people to help deliver on the promises they have made.

In the end, we want new leaders who can be our brothers, and have a "citizen-government" view and have practiced it with conviction. And that's what I hope Singapore and Singaporeans will strive for in 2009.

Thursday, January 1, 2009