hi Pei Ling
真金不怕火， 百炼成刚。
There are also many who admire your courage of conviction to step out, stand up and be counted, and your many prior years of service at the grassroot.
If you are not made of steel yet and courage in adversity is still in transition, this baptism of fire should speed up your growth, maturity & strengthen your resolve to serve the people. you should have the character, make-up and commitment to take the heat and stay in the kitchen, and embrace this episode as a positive takeaway.
What is important is humility and service. only then can one truly, sincerely seeks to understand the problems of the poor, dispossessed, underclass and elderly etc, find practical solutions to improve their lots, make a difference in their lives in a real world & walk the talk rather than preaching armchair. That's why the first thing Chiam See Tong said when introducing Benjamin Pwee to the press was "he has humility".
It is irrelevant to many who are pro-Singapore, appreciative of PAP, but who may actually support WP's pursuit to build a strong, committed, responsible opposition (not any opposition) capable in time to be a weighty alternative to form a government in a stable 2 party parliament, whether you are running for opposition or PAP. your value & contribution now & in future to society & to fellow Singaporeans who may be left behind in Singapore's heady growth and deserving of our care and support are far greater than many of us who have not contributed as much. So seize this adversity and turn it into an inspiration and opportunity. all the best and continue to serve wholeheartedly!
Showing posts with label news and politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news and politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
democracy & pluralism
in an email discussion with good friends after viewing Sylvia's speech in parliament on Minster's pay..alleging Minister's look away & all that..
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/03/ministers-look-away-as-sylvia-lim-spoke-on-ministerial-salaries/
my 1st email contribution
Excellent speech by Sylvia…I always believe like attracts like, hopefully WP will attract many more like her…
my 2nd email contribution
To me there is nothing to it…when any others read or give speech we all do the same thing…in other parliaments they watch pornos or fall asleep..haha..people want to read what they want to read..they already decided…so (to me only) nothing worth bothering about useless to waste time on it :-)…that’s just my opinion…
To me, Sylvia (& her party) have depth and made very valid arguments, and PAP should listen and consider them. There are always many sides to an issue and many considerations to make. And PAP contrary to what some think, do listen and in fact have by repeated actions proven to be one of the rare dominant incumbent in anything (don’t talk about running a country just think of a small insignificant sport association that is turned into a fiefdom by people who have contributed >20years but just don’t know how to listen & walk away graciously like PAP stalwarts had done on a much bigger stage). It does not matter what PAP said in parliament or publicly, what’s more important is whether internally they are listening to valid alternative views and the value of an good alternative voice in parliament is that in fact you need good sensible people to speak up in parliament and more of them to do that and a good governing party like PAP who has been changing/evolving substantially over the years will in fact listen up.
There is nothing to what people said in public or following party lines. Ruling parties & opposition in every country do that, democrats & republicans do that everyday irrespective of what the other guy say what they believe or not believe such that people lose total faith in politicians…but if we believe in democracy & pluralism, we accept the good and the bad and in the free market place contest of ideas, the best will emerge & prevail over time, but people say truths & untruths kind & unkind things all the time and that is part of the process of democracy..
there are loads of venom hatred mean spiritedness on cyberspace today which decent people will largely ignore and accept as necessary for democracy & pluralism…an earlier episode happens with AWARE and these unfortunately are here to stay..there can be genuine movements for civic mindedness civil society decency…it does not mean to shut out the noises which you can’t and should NOT in a democracy, but it also does not mean good decent people cannot speak otherwise their own convictions and must jump onto bandwagon because it is fashionable to be anti-anything or to be nasty…and it does not mean people who speak against nastiness must disagree with (they can support) the issues spoken or ignored by those whose object is nastiness that they forgot what the issues were…
coming back to groupthink, I do not myself believe there is groupthink in arriving at decisions. Toeing party line whether in PAP or opposition or in a company doing what majority decided etc is not groupthink it is commitment to a group decision and humility to know that what an individual believe or think may not always be the best…a party that constantly renew itself that constantly innovate and objectively repeatedly perform superbly against the best economies punch above its weight in international affairs against the best in the world (Tharman chairs IMF policy advisory committee etc) cannot be having groupthink, not in touch with the ground, incompetent etc etc…what I think may be groupthink is not when a decision is reached but when a decision needs to be reversed, like education, COE, NKF, organ transplant etc etc that there maybe groupthink among most ministers & MPs until someone right on top change course (this is not good for the country in long run & more good responsible opposition in parliament who one day can take over PAP in a 2 party system is good for Singapore)..
but each issue need be viewed objectively, there is no greater groupthink than Bush regime under Cheney…to the extent of lying to invade Iraq, killed more Americans than 911 & >100k more innocent Iraqis, destroying undercover agents life in Fairgame the movie.. it is one hand covering the sky (只手遮天)..so that is one forgetable episode in an otherwise US democractic system but we need to open our eyes and not wear tinted glasses...
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/03/ministers-look-away-as-sylvia-lim-spoke-on-ministerial-salaries/
my 1st email contribution
Excellent speech by Sylvia…I always believe like attracts like, hopefully WP will attract many more like her…
my 2nd email contribution
To me there is nothing to it…when any others read or give speech we all do the same thing…in other parliaments they watch pornos or fall asleep..haha..people want to read what they want to read..they already decided…so (to me only) nothing worth bothering about useless to waste time on it :-)…that’s just my opinion…
To me, Sylvia (& her party) have depth and made very valid arguments, and PAP should listen and consider them. There are always many sides to an issue and many considerations to make. And PAP contrary to what some think, do listen and in fact have by repeated actions proven to be one of the rare dominant incumbent in anything (don’t talk about running a country just think of a small insignificant sport association that is turned into a fiefdom by people who have contributed >20years but just don’t know how to listen & walk away graciously like PAP stalwarts had done on a much bigger stage). It does not matter what PAP said in parliament or publicly, what’s more important is whether internally they are listening to valid alternative views and the value of an good alternative voice in parliament is that in fact you need good sensible people to speak up in parliament and more of them to do that and a good governing party like PAP who has been changing/evolving substantially over the years will in fact listen up.
There is nothing to what people said in public or following party lines. Ruling parties & opposition in every country do that, democrats & republicans do that everyday irrespective of what the other guy say what they believe or not believe such that people lose total faith in politicians…but if we believe in democracy & pluralism, we accept the good and the bad and in the free market place contest of ideas, the best will emerge & prevail over time, but people say truths & untruths kind & unkind things all the time and that is part of the process of democracy..
there are loads of venom hatred mean spiritedness on cyberspace today which decent people will largely ignore and accept as necessary for democracy & pluralism…an earlier episode happens with AWARE and these unfortunately are here to stay..there can be genuine movements for civic mindedness civil society decency…it does not mean to shut out the noises which you can’t and should NOT in a democracy, but it also does not mean good decent people cannot speak otherwise their own convictions and must jump onto bandwagon because it is fashionable to be anti-anything or to be nasty…and it does not mean people who speak against nastiness must disagree with (they can support) the issues spoken or ignored by those whose object is nastiness that they forgot what the issues were…
coming back to groupthink, I do not myself believe there is groupthink in arriving at decisions. Toeing party line whether in PAP or opposition or in a company doing what majority decided etc is not groupthink it is commitment to a group decision and humility to know that what an individual believe or think may not always be the best…a party that constantly renew itself that constantly innovate and objectively repeatedly perform superbly against the best economies punch above its weight in international affairs against the best in the world (Tharman chairs IMF policy advisory committee etc) cannot be having groupthink, not in touch with the ground, incompetent etc etc…what I think may be groupthink is not when a decision is reached but when a decision needs to be reversed, like education, COE, NKF, organ transplant etc etc that there maybe groupthink among most ministers & MPs until someone right on top change course (this is not good for the country in long run & more good responsible opposition in parliament who one day can take over PAP in a 2 party system is good for Singapore)..
but each issue need be viewed objectively, there is no greater groupthink than Bush regime under Cheney…to the extent of lying to invade Iraq, killed more Americans than 911 & >100k more innocent Iraqis, destroying undercover agents life in Fairgame the movie.. it is one hand covering the sky (只手遮天)..so that is one forgetable episode in an otherwise US democractic system but we need to open our eyes and not wear tinted glasses...
Monday, October 11, 2010
America has lost its bearings & leadership
America has lost its bearings & leadership…unfortunately no one ready to fill vacuum…”yes you can” rally is powerless has lost its voice gagged by cynicism apathy misinformation dogma & venom (coming from wall street+republican+media pseudo free capital market vested interest that distort/brought down capital market because it was not "free market" at all but manipulated and milked to near collapse, held captive and still by $power+dogma+ideology)…democrats are bickering faithless visionless and united with republicans only in narrow selfserving incumbent interests..our faith in America being always able to reinvent itself being the most competitive economy will always bounce back now being severely tested…and for how long?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
when does a person deserve a crime?
A Singapore student on an exchange program was gang-raped by 3 Nepalese when she went to lan Kawi Fong and got drunk alone in a bar where the rapists worked, and all 3 comments on Asiaone were "she asked for it"..how sad in this day and age, the vocal prevalent belief can be the victim deserve the crime...this is a crime of violence, a woman cannot be safe drinking alone in a Hong Kong bar..however careless or ill-advised or naive, the one thing for sure is she didn't asked for it..if a man got drunk and got robbed or raped, probably nobody would say such horrible things as he asked for it...
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Two Sides of Dual-Class Shares
........Hollinger International presents a good example of the negative effects of dual-class shares. Former CEO Conrad Black controlled all of the company's class-B shares, which gave him 30% of the equity and 73% of the voting power. He ran the company as if he were the sole owner, exacting huge management fees, consulting payments, and personal dividends. Hollinger's board of directors was filled with Black's friends who were unlikely to forcefully oppose his authority. Holders of publicly traded shares of Hollinger had almost no power to make any decisions in terms of executive compensation, mergers and acquisitions, board construction poison pills, or anything else for that matter. Hollinger's financial and share performance suffered under Black's control.
Academic research offers strong evidence that dual-class share structures hinder corporate performance. A Wharton School and Harvard Business School study shows that while large ownership stakes in managers' hands tend to improve corporate performance, heavy voting control by insiders weakens it. Shareholders with super-voting rights are reluctant to raise cash by selling additional shares--that could dilute these shareholders' influence. The study also shows that dual-class companies tend to be burdened with more debt than single-class companies. Even worse, dual-class stocks tend to under-perform the stock market.
Conclusion
Not every dual-class company is destined to perform poorly--Berkshire Hathaway, for one, has consistently delivered great fundamentals and shareholder value. Controlling shareholders normally have an interest in maintaining a good reputation with investors. Insofar as family members wield voting power, they have an emotional incentive to vote in a manner that enhances performance. All the same, investors should keep in mind the effects of dual-class ownership on company fundamentals.
by Ben McClure
Academic research offers strong evidence that dual-class share structures hinder corporate performance. A Wharton School and Harvard Business School study shows that while large ownership stakes in managers' hands tend to improve corporate performance, heavy voting control by insiders weakens it. Shareholders with super-voting rights are reluctant to raise cash by selling additional shares--that could dilute these shareholders' influence. The study also shows that dual-class companies tend to be burdened with more debt than single-class companies. Even worse, dual-class stocks tend to under-perform the stock market.
Conclusion
Not every dual-class company is destined to perform poorly--Berkshire Hathaway, for one, has consistently delivered great fundamentals and shareholder value. Controlling shareholders normally have an interest in maintaining a good reputation with investors. Insofar as family members wield voting power, they have an emotional incentive to vote in a manner that enhances performance. All the same, investors should keep in mind the effects of dual-class ownership on company fundamentals.
by Ben McClure
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The pork barrel tussle in USA today is this:
great piece from a friend Goh Chung Meng to my earlier rantings-
The pork barrel tussle in USA today is this:
No enough money to go around, so help me but do not help him. Help only the Wall Street guys. Helping the rest of America is simply wrong. It is easier to say the word “wrong” by branding. Every night they have paid talkers on the TVs telling people why helping to get healthcare to every Americans is wrong. Helping autos and airlines and housing is wrong because it is for the common people and that is communism according to them, the Wall Street idiots. Helping the capitalists is capitalism – why have we not learnt this in schools?
Helping capitalist is right – it is capitalism. A country of capitalists created by capitalists for capitalists. The defence of capitalism is as natural as breathing.
Helping the common people is wrong – what the hell is that? Kindness as an ideology? Well, it is not capitalism and so it must be wrong. Only one state sponsored theory can dominate in America.
The sad truth is that there is not enough money to help all in America. If you are not pro-capitalists you have no money to run expensive campaigns. Can’t run, can’t win. But if you do not promised to help the average Joe, you are not getting the votes.
The people who are the problem are attacking the solutions because it is cannibalising on their own blood supply. You have a picture of a rich patient in an intensive care unit harping the virtue of blood donations only in front of their ICU rooms. They cannot attack blood donation itself because they need it but they can attack blood donation drives elsewhere by “branding”. They have the cheek to do it. Their survival is correct evolution. Others’ survival is an evolutionary mistake. Instead of the fittest survive, we have the most well fed survive.
===
You summed up the root of American financial trouble today which is that greed is being rewarded on the upside while the pain of risks is not inflicted directly on those who created those risks. The “moral hazards” thing. All kinds of risks are embedded in transactions and not accounted for. The art of detaching the risks from the benefits is the purpose of financial engineering. The more complicated and globalised the products, the better. No ownership of risks is ever intended. For Alan Greenspan to say that financial bubbles cannot be known or determined until it happens is precisely to deny any ownership of risks until risks appeared and by that time it is most likely a tax payers’ risks because it would be too big for anyone else to shoulder. It is the US system and policies which allowed risks to build up undetected. American still preached “risks management” as a formal subject to the rest of the world but is blind to the risks in their own system.
The pork barrel tussle in USA today is this:
No enough money to go around, so help me but do not help him. Help only the Wall Street guys. Helping the rest of America is simply wrong. It is easier to say the word “wrong” by branding. Every night they have paid talkers on the TVs telling people why helping to get healthcare to every Americans is wrong. Helping autos and airlines and housing is wrong because it is for the common people and that is communism according to them, the Wall Street idiots. Helping the capitalists is capitalism – why have we not learnt this in schools?
Helping capitalist is right – it is capitalism. A country of capitalists created by capitalists for capitalists. The defence of capitalism is as natural as breathing.
Helping the common people is wrong – what the hell is that? Kindness as an ideology? Well, it is not capitalism and so it must be wrong. Only one state sponsored theory can dominate in America.
The sad truth is that there is not enough money to help all in America. If you are not pro-capitalists you have no money to run expensive campaigns. Can’t run, can’t win. But if you do not promised to help the average Joe, you are not getting the votes.
The people who are the problem are attacking the solutions because it is cannibalising on their own blood supply. You have a picture of a rich patient in an intensive care unit harping the virtue of blood donations only in front of their ICU rooms. They cannot attack blood donation itself because they need it but they can attack blood donation drives elsewhere by “branding”. They have the cheek to do it. Their survival is correct evolution. Others’ survival is an evolutionary mistake. Instead of the fittest survive, we have the most well fed survive.
===
You summed up the root of American financial trouble today which is that greed is being rewarded on the upside while the pain of risks is not inflicted directly on those who created those risks. The “moral hazards” thing. All kinds of risks are embedded in transactions and not accounted for. The art of detaching the risks from the benefits is the purpose of financial engineering. The more complicated and globalised the products, the better. No ownership of risks is ever intended. For Alan Greenspan to say that financial bubbles cannot be known or determined until it happens is precisely to deny any ownership of risks until risks appeared and by that time it is most likely a tax payers’ risks because it would be too big for anyone else to shoulder. It is the US system and policies which allowed risks to build up undetected. American still preached “risks management” as a formal subject to the rest of the world but is blind to the risks in their own system.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Dr. Li-ann Thio v. Random NYU Law IT Guy-Monday, July 13, 2009 12:48 PM - By Elie Mystal
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/dr_li-ann_thio_v_random_nyu_la.php
quote-
"The full Thio letter (reprinted below) goes into great detail about the conservative nature of Singapore's culture, and the difference between acting as a politician in Singapore versus a law professor in New York.
But you have to wonder if Dr. Thio has a skin that is thick enough to take slings (and straws) of outrageous NYC fortune. Take it from me, you can't blast out an 18-point memo every time some student writes down all of the ways in which he believes you are a terrible human being.
Seems to me that if you believe in free speech in an intellectual environment, you also have to support the right of students to express their displeasure about your political beliefs.
Read the letters from Graves-Pryor and Dr. Thio below".
====
must say sensible pragmatic advice...if you cannot take the heat...get out of the kitchen...it would be good though if people who espouse (and believe themselves to be bastion of) academic and intellectual freedom and ready to voice "today's heresey may be tomorrow's orthodoxy and vice versa" challenge themselves to survive the caldron of NY-styled liberal democracy...hopefully that may moderate their views and NOT to treat moderate even-handed views as "dogma of false neutrality"...
see also
Statement from Dean Richard L. Revesz of the New York University School of Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/nyregion/23nyu-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Dean Revesz found parts of Thio's letter offensive, quote-
"In the last few weeks, a number of members of our community wrote to Professor Thio indicating their objection to her appointment as a visiting professor. She considers some of these messages to be offensive. In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful. These exchanges have been circulated on various blogs."
why? one maybe sympathetic to the emotional outburst but if you want to be a public figure, then you have to take the heat and be savvy and not hit out at all and sundry...the slur on "NY Law community" and "many faculty members" will only reinforce NY community's and western stereotype that Singapore society can only stoutly state/defend their views while denying others the same...
quote from Thio's letter-
"If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to "sharp disagreement" with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so."
quote-
"The full Thio letter (reprinted below) goes into great detail about the conservative nature of Singapore's culture, and the difference between acting as a politician in Singapore versus a law professor in New York.
But you have to wonder if Dr. Thio has a skin that is thick enough to take slings (and straws) of outrageous NYC fortune. Take it from me, you can't blast out an 18-point memo every time some student writes down all of the ways in which he believes you are a terrible human being.
Seems to me that if you believe in free speech in an intellectual environment, you also have to support the right of students to express their displeasure about your political beliefs.
Read the letters from Graves-Pryor and Dr. Thio below".
====
must say sensible pragmatic advice...if you cannot take the heat...get out of the kitchen...it would be good though if people who espouse (and believe themselves to be bastion of) academic and intellectual freedom and ready to voice "today's heresey may be tomorrow's orthodoxy and vice versa" challenge themselves to survive the caldron of NY-styled liberal democracy...hopefully that may moderate their views and NOT to treat moderate even-handed views as "dogma of false neutrality"...
see also
Statement from Dean Richard L. Revesz of the New York University School of Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/nyregion/23nyu-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Dean Revesz found parts of Thio's letter offensive, quote-
"In the last few weeks, a number of members of our community wrote to Professor Thio indicating their objection to her appointment as a visiting professor. She considers some of these messages to be offensive. In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful. These exchanges have been circulated on various blogs."
why? one maybe sympathetic to the emotional outburst but if you want to be a public figure, then you have to take the heat and be savvy and not hit out at all and sundry...the slur on "NY Law community" and "many faculty members" will only reinforce NY community's and western stereotype that Singapore society can only stoutly state/defend their views while denying others the same...
quote from Thio's letter-
"If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to "sharp disagreement" with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so."
my response to some market comments
Comments in Italic=
The US Stock Market (especially the financial sector running on government bail outs and Fed assistance) has surely recovered but the business sector has apparently still not. UPS is also a barometer of world trade as they are in the business parcel package movement business.
The 49% drop in UPS profits vs. 17% drop in sales means that they are also operating below a certain critical mass.
What happens after the fire fighting?
The higher the DOW went in the current overdrive, the greater the gravity of a pullback later to reflect both the economic realities on the ground and reduced government financial assistance due to mounting deficits pressures which is currently being suspended. In the short term, fighting a financial collapse is more important then any deficits worries. At some point, the government’s hand must get off from the free market function. A “market collapse” is the government‘s clear concern but a “market decline”, so long as it is not extreme, is not the concern of the government. There is no argument that a total collapse has been averted by the Obama administration.
=====
my response to ABOVE market comments
UPS and Fedex performances are barometer of economic activities…that’s why last month when Fedex did much better than expectations but forward view weak market made excuse to fall…comparison with 1 year ago gives few pointers since global meltdown + 10% unemployment of course revenue & profit falls…what is giving market strength now is not the financials but because of broad based performance above expectations…
All the wall street/CNBC pundits were criticising Obama and want Geithner sacked on TARP and saving wall street but were proven WRONG…the same sang negative tunes on GM Chrysler and said NOT possible to emerge from bankruptcy in 2 months. They were proven WRONG…wall street done themselves in and the whole world with them and armchairs can only criticise because they no need to do, to execute and solve problems that Obama, Geithner, his energy healthcare and other serious folks have to do and achieve…so wall street+ armchair are doing what they usually do so well = take $ don’t do any work screw things up and criticise others cleaning up their shit and making US and the world healthy again…
The same jokers crying wolf caused Dow to drop to 6400. Now that Obama team got financials stabilize, they find something else to scaremonger…of course stock market will go up & down and overcorrect in both directions…that is not Obama’s job…
That’s why the team is focus on healthcare, energy/environment etc after solving the more immediate financial system threats, and GM/Chrysler collapse…
Of course the government’s hand will get off the free market function…government never intended to get on in the first place but the idiots who collect $b bonus and shit all over the place beg the government to come clean up so they can criticise the clean up…”Nationalisation” and “government interference” are the dumbest of arguments…if Warren Buffet puts USD180b guarantee or owns USD45b of a company’s shares will he not “interfere” and let the idiots continue to screw the companies, screw America and the world?
The US Stock Market (especially the financial sector running on government bail outs and Fed assistance) has surely recovered but the business sector has apparently still not. UPS is also a barometer of world trade as they are in the business parcel package movement business.
The 49% drop in UPS profits vs. 17% drop in sales means that they are also operating below a certain critical mass.
What happens after the fire fighting?
The higher the DOW went in the current overdrive, the greater the gravity of a pullback later to reflect both the economic realities on the ground and reduced government financial assistance due to mounting deficits pressures which is currently being suspended. In the short term, fighting a financial collapse is more important then any deficits worries. At some point, the government’s hand must get off from the free market function. A “market collapse” is the government‘s clear concern but a “market decline”, so long as it is not extreme, is not the concern of the government. There is no argument that a total collapse has been averted by the Obama administration.
=====
my response to ABOVE market comments
UPS and Fedex performances are barometer of economic activities…that’s why last month when Fedex did much better than expectations but forward view weak market made excuse to fall…comparison with 1 year ago gives few pointers since global meltdown + 10% unemployment of course revenue & profit falls…what is giving market strength now is not the financials but because of broad based performance above expectations…
All the wall street/CNBC pundits were criticising Obama and want Geithner sacked on TARP and saving wall street but were proven WRONG…the same sang negative tunes on GM Chrysler and said NOT possible to emerge from bankruptcy in 2 months. They were proven WRONG…wall street done themselves in and the whole world with them and armchairs can only criticise because they no need to do, to execute and solve problems that Obama, Geithner, his energy healthcare and other serious folks have to do and achieve…so wall street+ armchair are doing what they usually do so well = take $ don’t do any work screw things up and criticise others cleaning up their shit and making US and the world healthy again…
The same jokers crying wolf caused Dow to drop to 6400. Now that Obama team got financials stabilize, they find something else to scaremonger…of course stock market will go up & down and overcorrect in both directions…that is not Obama’s job…
That’s why the team is focus on healthcare, energy/environment etc after solving the more immediate financial system threats, and GM/Chrysler collapse…
Of course the government’s hand will get off the free market function…government never intended to get on in the first place but the idiots who collect $b bonus and shit all over the place beg the government to come clean up so they can criticise the clean up…”Nationalisation” and “government interference” are the dumbest of arguments…if Warren Buffet puts USD180b guarantee or owns USD45b of a company’s shares will he not “interfere” and let the idiots continue to screw the companies, screw America and the world?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
by Wayang Party - Dr Ng Eng Hen’s revised approach to sex education in schools fair and balanced
agreed completely with Fang Zhi Yuan that “Instead of feeling aggrieved, Dana should get MOE’s hint and embark on a PR campaign to gain the public’s trust and confidence for its CSE. I believe that the majority of Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves”. there is no need for AWARE or Dana Lam to be defensive. AWARE has done a great job last 24 years for women and Singapore. It is truely “grossly unfair that the programme has been so misrepresented to the public”..as the quoted text is only in the instructors’ guide and like 1.5 minutes in a 3 hrs session…nevertheless it does not mean AWARE should make the mistake of not LISTENING to the genuine concerns of parents…there is nothing wrong to review and improve on the CSE based on public’s feedback, objective scientific information and research..AWARE and society in general will benefit by focusing on the end results - the teenage girls and their family AWARE is helping - than worry too much over the endless bitching…
I do not see MOE and the government as capitulating to public pressure. The government has been unequivocal and never clearer on its stand on this issue both during the AWARE saga playout and now strongly spoken by DPM Wong Kan Seng and Minister Ng Eng Hen. Those who think they can pressurise the government can continue to feel happy about themselves as long as it does not culminate in actions that harm the rest of society…many of the passionate supporters of AWARE OG to remove the former new exco are also concerned parents and there is no reason for MOE or AWARE to disregard their views or genuine concerns if any on CSE but to address such concerns logically and rationally…
as the writer of the article said - “I believe that the majority of Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves”. The CSE is just a red herring by a misguided group who are as one comment noted “religiously inspired but morally and ethically challenged”....supported by a senior pastor who cannot differentiate between truths and lies. and the secular community and AWARE supporters have risen to put them back where they belong…
I do not see MOE and the government as capitulating to public pressure. The government has been unequivocal and never clearer on its stand on this issue both during the AWARE saga playout and now strongly spoken by DPM Wong Kan Seng and Minister Ng Eng Hen. Those who think they can pressurise the government can continue to feel happy about themselves as long as it does not culminate in actions that harm the rest of society…many of the passionate supporters of AWARE OG to remove the former new exco are also concerned parents and there is no reason for MOE or AWARE to disregard their views or genuine concerns if any on CSE but to address such concerns logically and rationally…
as the writer of the article said - “I believe that the majority of Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves”. The CSE is just a red herring by a misguided group who are as one comment noted “religiously inspired but morally and ethically challenged”....supported by a senior pastor who cannot differentiate between truths and lies. and the secular community and AWARE supporters have risen to put them back where they belong…
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Temasek sold BoA at huge loss!
Sources tell Reuters that Bank of America was likely not the first choice for Temasek because B of A did not offer the global banking franchise that prompted Temasek to buy into Merrill and other Western banks.
==========
That’s what they will have us believed!
Want to be largest shareholder in dynamic Merrill Lynch (a Global Investment Bank) – which is dead duck and a casino and fraud and reason for the collapse in the first place and don’t want to own a small 3% stake in an enlarged BOA, the small stake in a large deposit-taking bank – which is the safe recurrent high growth utility and future banking model which anyway own 100% of the so-called dynamic Merrill Lynch (a Global Investment Bank) which are besides themselves and can’t stop defrauding taxpayer by $4b bonus even on the last day!
A US$2.6b to US$4b loss even in a US$130b portfolio is NO tactical mistake but a glaring failure….this doesn’t take away Temasek’s past and current success…but a success is called a success and a failure is called a failure, nothing to hide and nothing to be shy about….
==========
That’s what they will have us believed!
Want to be largest shareholder in dynamic Merrill Lynch (a Global Investment Bank) – which is dead duck and a casino and fraud and reason for the collapse in the first place and don’t want to own a small 3% stake in an enlarged BOA, the small stake in a large deposit-taking bank – which is the safe recurrent high growth utility and future banking model which anyway own 100% of the so-called dynamic Merrill Lynch (a Global Investment Bank) which are besides themselves and can’t stop defrauding taxpayer by $4b bonus even on the last day!
A US$2.6b to US$4b loss even in a US$130b portfolio is NO tactical mistake but a glaring failure….this doesn’t take away Temasek’s past and current success…but a success is called a success and a failure is called a failure, nothing to hide and nothing to be shy about….
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
just my opinion
http://wayangparty.com/?p=8931
thio, josie & co were uterly irresponsible and should do the honorable thing and pay back 70k or whatever amount above 20k as provided in AWARE constitution as the money “can be better spent on the women and families which Aware set out to help”. in my opinion, if they do not AWARE should proceed with the lawsuit if AWARE can get a lawyer to do probono which surely they can..this is not about being vinditive but the women who need help deserve to get these monies back..also while Rajah & Tan has no reason not to charge AWARE since the EGM is not an issue about social servie and it is not their fault that Josie & co that make the bad decision to pay for exorbitant legal counsel or any at all..nevertheless R&T should not be insensitive to society so perhaps WP should start a petition to ask Rajah & Tan to give back whatever monies they have charged AWARE as probono legal service for battered women, discriminated minorities etc…
I disagree with Eugene’s views on MOE and Religion…just as many of us are signatories in support Vivien Wee’s online petition against Jocie & co, WP should not be partial to the sentiments of >1000 parents whether or not they are christians and whether or not they were instigated by thio belatedly to counter MOE’s questioning of Thio…there are many including myself who disagree that anal sex is healthy..and though in my opinion one should be neutral and not discriminate gay or non gay, that is quite a different proposition from encouraging or promoting teen experimentation with gay and anal sex etc (I see no evidence and do not believe AWARE is doing that, and in my opinion it is thio & co demonising AWARE)..still it is no harm and only responsible for both MOE and AWARE to review and revisit and after proper research and consultation offer a considered response on whether or not it is right to say anal sex is healthy…
I also disagree that WP should castigate christian post or other online community though eugene like everyone else is entitled to his personal opinions on this matter…christians are entitled to their convictions and opinions as much as any majority or minority groups, secular or faith community…there are also many unreasonable posts and unsubstantiated views in WP as in MSM etc..so in my opinion we should all give each other space and not push one’s opinion too hard especially in another’s space…just like thio & co ought not to do..
thio, josie & co were uterly irresponsible and should do the honorable thing and pay back 70k or whatever amount above 20k as provided in AWARE constitution as the money “can be better spent on the women and families which Aware set out to help”. in my opinion, if they do not AWARE should proceed with the lawsuit if AWARE can get a lawyer to do probono which surely they can..this is not about being vinditive but the women who need help deserve to get these monies back..also while Rajah & Tan has no reason not to charge AWARE since the EGM is not an issue about social servie and it is not their fault that Josie & co that make the bad decision to pay for exorbitant legal counsel or any at all..nevertheless R&T should not be insensitive to society so perhaps WP should start a petition to ask Rajah & Tan to give back whatever monies they have charged AWARE as probono legal service for battered women, discriminated minorities etc…
I disagree with Eugene’s views on MOE and Religion…just as many of us are signatories in support Vivien Wee’s online petition against Jocie & co, WP should not be partial to the sentiments of >1000 parents whether or not they are christians and whether or not they were instigated by thio belatedly to counter MOE’s questioning of Thio…there are many including myself who disagree that anal sex is healthy..and though in my opinion one should be neutral and not discriminate gay or non gay, that is quite a different proposition from encouraging or promoting teen experimentation with gay and anal sex etc (I see no evidence and do not believe AWARE is doing that, and in my opinion it is thio & co demonising AWARE)..still it is no harm and only responsible for both MOE and AWARE to review and revisit and after proper research and consultation offer a considered response on whether or not it is right to say anal sex is healthy…
I also disagree that WP should castigate christian post or other online community though eugene like everyone else is entitled to his personal opinions on this matter…christians are entitled to their convictions and opinions as much as any majority or minority groups, secular or faith community…there are also many unreasonable posts and unsubstantiated views in WP as in MSM etc..so in my opinion we should all give each other space and not push one’s opinion too hard especially in another’s space…just like thio & co ought not to do..
Monday, May 4, 2009
Holland Village Nude - They did it to 'seek thrill'
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090502-138825.html
An A*Star spokesman told The New Paper: 'Naturally, we are disappointed that one of our scholars is guilty of an offence. A*Star will now review the matter with Kai Er and decide on the appropriate course of action.'...
====
A*star gave the appropriate and not overly pre-emptive or judgmental response to the press. It is wrong to break the law and it is wrong to walk in the nude in Singapore and impose on and outrage others' sensibilities...though it is no excuse but everyone makes mistakes, and many went on to contribute significantly to society after making 1 or even many mistakes...hopefully A*star will review the totality of a person's character, overall moral compass and consistency of actions over a period of time, and not over just 1 incident...
An A*Star spokesman told The New Paper: 'Naturally, we are disappointed that one of our scholars is guilty of an offence. A*Star will now review the matter with Kai Er and decide on the appropriate course of action.'...
====
A*star gave the appropriate and not overly pre-emptive or judgmental response to the press. It is wrong to break the law and it is wrong to walk in the nude in Singapore and impose on and outrage others' sensibilities...though it is no excuse but everyone makes mistakes, and many went on to contribute significantly to society after making 1 or even many mistakes...hopefully A*star will review the totality of a person's character, overall moral compass and consistency of actions over a period of time, and not over just 1 incident...
Saturday, May 2, 2009
LIVE from Suntec: AWARE EGM, 2 May 2009
http://wayangparty.com/?p=8732&cpage=1#comment-11548
LIVE from Suntec: AWARE EGM, 2 May 2009
kudos to all the women & men who braved inconvenience and being shouted at by the new exco and almost manhandled by security, and well including those supporting the new exco out of genuine own beliefs though I do not agree with them….but not to those who came by busloads egged on, organized and paid by a church (if true) and supporting the new exco just because they are christians and from the same church…
this is a great day for Singapore and for women, as a Muslim attendee said “I have one regret being a father, I regret that my daughters are not here today to witness the spirit of the women at Aware today.”
Women, civil society & Singapore as a whole have already won and will gain from this event (truly we are aware)..even if the old guards were to lose the vote because of mindless support for newco from new members who are as clueless and care-less about the problems of women as the new exco who have zero records of contribution to women, in the eyes of Singapore they have still won..and the practical business of misappropriation of AWARE funds by new exco can be pursued in due course whether or not new exco won the vote…
& kudos for the reporting team…keep it up!
LIVE from Suntec: AWARE EGM, 2 May 2009
kudos to all the women & men who braved inconvenience and being shouted at by the new exco and almost manhandled by security, and well including those supporting the new exco out of genuine own beliefs though I do not agree with them….but not to those who came by busloads egged on, organized and paid by a church (if true) and supporting the new exco just because they are christians and from the same church…
this is a great day for Singapore and for women, as a Muslim attendee said “I have one regret being a father, I regret that my daughters are not here today to witness the spirit of the women at Aware today.”
Women, civil society & Singapore as a whole have already won and will gain from this event (truly we are aware)..even if the old guards were to lose the vote because of mindless support for newco from new members who are as clueless and care-less about the problems of women as the new exco who have zero records of contribution to women, in the eyes of Singapore they have still won..and the practical business of misappropriation of AWARE funds by new exco can be pursued in due course whether or not new exco won the vote…
& kudos for the reporting team…keep it up!
Friday, May 1, 2009
Chrysler bankruptcy
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/chrysler-lenders-fault-government-as-bankruptcy-looms/
Lenders Fault Treasury in Chrysler Bankruptcy
=====
the arguments are partial and not the whole truth…
the workers also take paycuts and reduction of benefits, not just a haircut on the pension liability conversion to equity…so it is a holistic balance of interests and rights…
commercial negotiation is always a matter of negotiation power..it does not matter whether it is the US Treasury or Warren Buffet…if Warren Buffet were to dish out new US$4b or US$7b loans, he will impose conditions he thinks is fair to all parties and it is just a matter of commercial negotiation to close the deal…why should US treasury be different?
if deal is not struck then the case goes to chapter 11 bankruptcy..what overturning rule of law and “outside the well established legal framework” is there?
it is just a failed negotiation with 90% agreed and just 10% holding out by non TARP lenders and if it si clear that these lenders will receive less in chapter 11 than if they had agreed so goverment is totally correct to say they are not acting in their own commercial interests…obviously the non TARP lenders are either in a game of brinksmanship or they believe they will get a better deal in bankruptcy…so lets just stay tuned…
Lenders Fault Treasury in Chrysler Bankruptcy
=====
the arguments are partial and not the whole truth…
the workers also take paycuts and reduction of benefits, not just a haircut on the pension liability conversion to equity…so it is a holistic balance of interests and rights…
commercial negotiation is always a matter of negotiation power..it does not matter whether it is the US Treasury or Warren Buffet…if Warren Buffet were to dish out new US$4b or US$7b loans, he will impose conditions he thinks is fair to all parties and it is just a matter of commercial negotiation to close the deal…why should US treasury be different?
if deal is not struck then the case goes to chapter 11 bankruptcy..what overturning rule of law and “outside the well established legal framework” is there?
it is just a failed negotiation with 90% agreed and just 10% holding out by non TARP lenders and if it si clear that these lenders will receive less in chapter 11 than if they had agreed so goverment is totally correct to say they are not acting in their own commercial interests…obviously the non TARP lenders are either in a game of brinksmanship or they believe they will get a better deal in bankruptcy…so lets just stay tuned…
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
moderation & tolerance
moderation, tolerance and mutual respect is important and people in a position of religious and moral leadership should have special regards not to sow seeds of discord and hatred in scoiety and moderate their own constituency and not pit one group against another…
as Minister Teo Chee Hian said if you push your argument too hard, others will push back at you, that’s why there is strife and war….
if press reports that COOS senior pastor Derek Hong has sent out emails to his church members urging them to sign up with AWARE and support the new AWARE team at the EGM is correct, then in my opinion he should reflect seriously he is doing the right thing…
it is ok for the pastor to have his personal opinion on AWARE..it is maybe ok for him to openly state his personal opinion on AWARE to his associates, less so in a sermon in COOS, but it is quite inappropriate for a person in religious and moral leadership to overtly or covertly influence his flock to affect the outcome of a secular institution like AWARE..
it is ok for the pastor and COOS to sermonstate or sermonize their beliefs and position on homosexuality inside, or outside the church if it is done with respect and moderation…but the issue of new or old guards at AWARE does NOT equate the issue of homosexualtiy…and the church has no business actively interfering with the affairs of a secular organisation….
if press reports are correct that COOS first denied to the press that the church is involved in AWARE saga, and now openly canvass to affect the outcome of AWARE EGM then the church is condoning deceit and has no credibility…people in position of religious and moral leadership should be very careful and balance in what they do or say so as not to sow discord and hatred…do things with compassion not with mean spirit and narrow-minded hatred and to benefit society not contribute to chaos…
as Minister Teo Chee Hian said if you push your argument too hard, others will push back at you, that’s why there is strife and war….
if press reports that COOS senior pastor Derek Hong has sent out emails to his church members urging them to sign up with AWARE and support the new AWARE team at the EGM is correct, then in my opinion he should reflect seriously he is doing the right thing…
it is ok for the pastor to have his personal opinion on AWARE..it is maybe ok for him to openly state his personal opinion on AWARE to his associates, less so in a sermon in COOS, but it is quite inappropriate for a person in religious and moral leadership to overtly or covertly influence his flock to affect the outcome of a secular institution like AWARE..
it is ok for the pastor and COOS to sermonstate or sermonize their beliefs and position on homosexuality inside, or outside the church if it is done with respect and moderation…but the issue of new or old guards at AWARE does NOT equate the issue of homosexualtiy…and the church has no business actively interfering with the affairs of a secular organisation….
if press reports are correct that COOS first denied to the press that the church is involved in AWARE saga, and now openly canvass to affect the outcome of AWARE EGM then the church is condoning deceit and has no credibility…people in position of religious and moral leadership should be very careful and balance in what they do or say so as not to sow discord and hatred…do things with compassion not with mean spirit and narrow-minded hatred and to benefit society not contribute to chaos…
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Job Credits - stimulative package Singapore style
no one quarrels with dipping into Singapore reserve...extraordinary/unprecedented times require extraordinary measures...Obama said it, Kevin Rudd said it, but I guess no plagiarism there...
not totally bought-in on whether job credits is innovative...something is innovative if it is a new way to solve a problem...job credits is new thinking no doubt just not sure if it solves the problem...NTUC is lately adamant against CPF cut...Lim Boon Heng earlier said it is across the board and penalise workers in companies that do well despite recession...Lim Swee Say said when rebutting Low Thia Khiang "does WP want Job Credits or 9% CPF cuts"...Low is seasoned enough to say he don't want both..haha...job credits is labelled as "smart bomb"...not quite sure why it is smart bomb when it is also across the board for all S'pore and PR workers with CPF account? if the purpose is to lower costs for employers (supposedly to temporarily keep jobs but as many have said why would employer pay $7500 and wait 3 months to get back $900 credit if he don't need the workers?), so what is the difference as far as employers is concerned whether it is 9% CPF cut or job credits? the only difference is whether the employers' savings come from $4.5b job credits or from workers CPF...but if we cut workers CPF then the $4.5b can be spent in a targetted way for specific group of workers or industries or income level, so higher income workers above $4.5k/month will have effective pay cut (from CPF cut but better than lose job) but then the $4.5b pool from reserves can be more targeted to help either certain low income group (workfare etc) or certain targeted industries...why is job credit a smart bomb when it is "one size fits all"? taxpayers don't want to subsidize already profitable companies nor companies which will fail anyway after getting "temporary" job credit bailouts for 1 year?
of course there could be other reasons for not touching CPF-maybe it will trigger property loans repayment default etc...but those reasons maybe should be investigated and communicated...maybe messy to have temporary 1 year 9% CPF cut vs one-off job credit scheme (hmm..not sure about that)...maybe part of job credits are for government linked agencies so go back to consolidated accounts anyway but unlikely that is big % of $4.5b?
though many brilliant minds (scholars) have gone into job credits and government as always have studied thoroughly before introducing an idea, still no harm to listen whether WP or PAP or others if there are other views, considerations, solution, or at least revisit issue and explain better...
not totally bought-in on whether job credits is innovative...something is innovative if it is a new way to solve a problem...job credits is new thinking no doubt just not sure if it solves the problem...NTUC is lately adamant against CPF cut...Lim Boon Heng earlier said it is across the board and penalise workers in companies that do well despite recession...Lim Swee Say said when rebutting Low Thia Khiang "does WP want Job Credits or 9% CPF cuts"...Low is seasoned enough to say he don't want both..haha...job credits is labelled as "smart bomb"...not quite sure why it is smart bomb when it is also across the board for all S'pore and PR workers with CPF account? if the purpose is to lower costs for employers (supposedly to temporarily keep jobs but as many have said why would employer pay $7500 and wait 3 months to get back $900 credit if he don't need the workers?), so what is the difference as far as employers is concerned whether it is 9% CPF cut or job credits? the only difference is whether the employers' savings come from $4.5b job credits or from workers CPF...but if we cut workers CPF then the $4.5b can be spent in a targetted way for specific group of workers or industries or income level, so higher income workers above $4.5k/month will have effective pay cut (from CPF cut but better than lose job) but then the $4.5b pool from reserves can be more targeted to help either certain low income group (workfare etc) or certain targeted industries...why is job credit a smart bomb when it is "one size fits all"? taxpayers don't want to subsidize already profitable companies nor companies which will fail anyway after getting "temporary" job credit bailouts for 1 year?
of course there could be other reasons for not touching CPF-maybe it will trigger property loans repayment default etc...but those reasons maybe should be investigated and communicated...maybe messy to have temporary 1 year 9% CPF cut vs one-off job credit scheme (hmm..not sure about that)...maybe part of job credits are for government linked agencies so go back to consolidated accounts anyway but unlikely that is big % of $4.5b?
though many brilliant minds (scholars) have gone into job credits and government as always have studied thoroughly before introducing an idea, still no harm to listen whether WP or PAP or others if there are other views, considerations, solution, or at least revisit issue and explain better...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Internet sensation
From the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, he turned to traders and said: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders booed that notion, and Santelli said: "President Obama, are you listening?"In his report on CNBC, Santelli said responsible homeowners would end up subsidizing other people's bad behavior.
=====
below my take on Rick Santelli's rant..
....it is very onerous and punishing to expect decent responsible hardworking americans setting out a new home and family completely within their means in 2006 or 2007 (say monthly repayment below 31% of household income)...
home prices may have fallen 30% to 50% because an irresponsible neighbour defaulted and his property foreclosed at fire sale price and even hardworking folks perfectly able to pay the mortgage may default (rational default)...
who is to blame?..cnbc anchors can repeat lopsided sensationalized comments about socializing losses and privatizing gains when the housing plan is to help 7million of their responsible fellow citizens caught in this global collapse and yet they are quite happy to attack Obama when he criticized the $18billion Wall Street bonuses as the "height of irresponsibility" and "guys please show some restraints"...so some segment of the press are quite happy with privatizing gains and socializing losses when the $18b bonuses go to the powerful Wall Street boys that caused or allowed the collapse under their watch (their greed causing miseries to hundreds of millions around the world) but not so happy when it goes to 7million of their fellow americans...I guess that is the "height of irresponsible reporting"...
still Obama administration has lost the initial spin and in a free debate it is necessary to hear all sides...so it is important to address the real concern of the american people about not subsidizing the unworthy (Wall Street fat cats or irresponsible Main Street next door neighbour..and don't worry about restricting bonuses - there are lots of perfectly decent hardworking Wall Street folks waiting to contribute once the fat cat culture is gone..)...but ignore the rants and not add any credit to it...