Meeting at Speaker's Corner 18 Oct, 6-7 pm

[Ah Hai]

Obama Whistle Stop Tour

Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama Whistle Stop Tour
Watch this short video.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/the_whistle_stop_tour/
It is truly inspirational ... what a Government should be.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:00 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Comparing US Departments with Singapore Ministries

Friday, January 23, 2009
Comparing US Departments with Singapore Ministries
Here is a comparison of the US departments with the Singapore ministries.
The US has a Department of Justice which is similar to our Ministry of Law. Perhaps, there is a difference in emphasis?

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:28 AM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

The (I&C) in the MICA comes under dept of commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
January 23, 2009 7:47 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Comparing US Departments with Singapore Ministries

9 Comments


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The (I&C) in the MICA comes under dept of commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

January 23, 2009 7:47 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do the US has control of the press, free speech, freedom of assembly?

In Singapore we know these are strictly under control, except at Hong Lim Park (for speech and assembly).

Actually no point controlling if you cannot control the internet.

That's why today is different from the 60s, 70s and 80s.

That's why in most western countries, they do not have a ministry in charge of culture and the arts. These are creative things which cannot be controlled or regulated.

January 23, 2009 1:12 PM
Anonymous Zitrone said...

It's a whole world of difference. Can't compare. Notice how each of these US departments had to answer to intense inquiry from the Senate plus media coverage when the Iraq war screwed up (Rumsfeld) and most recently, the subprime mortgage crisis (Paulson); Also, notice how the department secretaries are scrutinised by the Senate before they get confirmed.

January 23, 2009 3:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The difference is in the level of professionalism. SEC as an agency has admitted failure and its chairman has resigned at the wake of the Madoff scandal.

What have the MAS and the SGX (the regulator, not the business entity - why such a conflict is allowed to exist is a separate discussion) done so far in the credit-linked notes debacle?

There is no oversight and no accountability. Totally unacceptable!

January 23, 2009 5:28 PM
Anonymous E71 said...

i am not at all impressed by the US system.

They invaded another country under false pretext.

Many years later, what accountability is there ?

Democracy works only if everyone is knowledgeable.
But we all know the masses are not up to par.

January 24, 2009 9:01 AM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

The Americans choose to name the Department of Justice (and not the Department of Law). They like to emphasis on Justice. Singapore emphasis on Law.

January 24, 2009 9:45 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MR TAN
Thank you. I learn something interesting from you today. You shared ... "The Americans choose to name the Department of Justice (and not the Department of Law). They like to emphasis on Justice. Singapore emphasis on Law." ... My guess:

[a] Department of Justice - sounds more like "heart-driven" approach for the ministry
Department of Law - sounds more like "brain-driven" approach for the ministry

Maybe our government could ponder the terminology change, as many government organisations have changed names serveral times eg. TCS, SBC, Miadia Corps etc etc. Also, Nantah, NTI, NTU, NYU etc.

I think this is doable by our Government.

From CASHEW NUT

January 24, 2009 10:16 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

E71,

Bush, Cheney and others may yet be prosecuted for war crimes. Take a look at the following for background.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7805

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Bush-administration-co-by-Sandy-Shanks-090112-295.html

Taiwan has taken a lead to prosecute its former leader (president). If the situation calls for it, do we even have a workable mechanism for it? Think about it.

January 24, 2009 11:27 AM
Blogger Vincent Sear said...

Foreign Affairs in Singapore is called the State Department in the US. Singapore seems to emphasize on dealings and relations with foreign countries while the US seems to emphasize that what happens in the rest of world outside the US are still very much concerns of the state.

The emphasis is significant in that the US Secretary of State is widely viewed as the second highest ranking statesperson in just below the President, even more important than Vice President.

Also notable in the UK, in WW2 and earlier, there was the Foreign & Colonial Office and the Ministry of War, later changed to Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

January 24, 2009 11:52 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

HK brokerage agrees to refund minibond buyers

Saturday, January 24, 2009
HK brokerage agrees to refund minibond buyers
By Tom Mitchell in Hong Kong
Published: January 23 2009 04:22 | Last updated: January 23 2009 04:22

A Hong Kong brokerage has agreed to refund retail investors in full for their losses on so-called “Lehman Brothers Minibonds”, in a settlement that will set a worrying precedent for other financial institutions in the territory that have sold about $2bn worth of the controversial investment products.

In a deal reached with Hong Kong’s market regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission, Sun Hung Kai Investment Services agreed to refund $11m to more than 300 buyers of the minibonds, which are in fact complex derivative instruments linked to the now defunct US investment bank.

The agreement goes beyond calls by the Hong Kong government last year for banks to repurchase the instruments at their “market value”. Instead, Sun Hung Kai will repay investors their entire principal. Twenty-four banks and brokerages, led by Bank of China’s Hong Kong branch, sold Lehman Brothers minibonds with an estimated face value of $2bn to more than 40,000 investors.

“We are very pleased with the outcome that has been achieved and we believe the approach adopted has produced a result which is in the best interests of the investors,” Martin Wheatley, SFC chief executive, said in a statement.

The controversy surrounding the mini-bonds has sparked a political firestorm in Hong Kong, with burned investors descending regularly on bank offices, SFC headquarters and the territory’s legislature. Many have lost their life savings and claim that the risky minibonds were mis-sold by bank and brokerage staff.

While Sun Hung Kai did not admit to any wrongdoing in its settlement with the SFC, the brokerage acknowledged concerns raised by the regulator including inadequate due diligence, training of sales staff and record keeping.

“We achieved an outcome which we believe represents the best possible solution for our minibond customers,” Lee Seng-huang, Sun Hung Kai executive chairman, said. “We understand it has not been an easy time for all concerned, but we believe that this voluntary initiative will bring closure to our affected customers, particularly in light of this challenging economic environment.”

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the territory’s bank regulator, has received about 20,000 complaints related to the sale of minibonds. As of January 15 the authority had formally opened more than 4,500 investigations and referred 251 cases to the SFC for possible enforcement action.

Hong Kong’s politicians have also leapt into the fray, working with the protesters and forming a special legislative subcommittee to look into the controversy.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:58 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Broker compensates HK investors

Saturday, January 24, 2009
Broker compensates HK investors
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7846614.stm
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:00 AM


1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Friends
In HK the AUTHORITY was DIRECTLY involved in the investigation of complaint. In Singapore, MAS delegate to 3 individual persons, to oversee the complaint process and leave the man-on-the-street-corner to be cornered by the FI.

The compensation by HK BROKER to investors is largely due to the AUTHORITY involvement? Do you think so? Do you agree?

Imagine, two scenarios:
[a] The rapist faces investigation by the police vs.
The rapist faces investigation by the the rapist relatives [ie another dept of the FI is deemed independent] and 3 wisemen to ensure the investigation is fair etc.

From CASHEW NUT
January 24, 2009 10:03 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Minibond deal raises pressure for more refunds

Saturday, January 24, 2009
SCMP:Minibond deal raises pressure for more refunds
24 Jan 2009
Joyce Man Additional reporting by Maria Chan, Enoch Yiu and Albert Wong. Source.

More institutions and banks were likely to consider compensating minibond investors after Sun Hung Kai Financial announced it would offer full refunds, a knowledgeable source said yesterday. But the source said they would each propose a deal on their own terms.

“ I think they will see what has happened with Sun Hung Kai and realise it’s a quick, better way to put this behind them,” said the source, who did not want to be named.

Sun Hung Kai Financial, parent company of Sun Hung Kai Investment Services – which sold minibonds linked to Lehman Brothers, the US investment bank that collapsed in September – announced on Thursday it would buy back minibonds from 310 customers for about HK$85 million.

At the same time, the Securities and Futures Commission raised concerns about Sun Hung Kai Investment Services’ due diligence, salesstaff training, risk assessment and record-keeping on minibonds. Minibonds are not corporate bonds but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives, marketed as a proxy investment in well-known firms.

Asked whether other banks might respond with compensation of 70, 80 or 90 per cent of original investments, the source said that would “depend on how serious [the commission’s] concerns are about the conduct”.

But the commission had no authority to force this on them, the source said. A spokeswoman for the Monetary Authority, which regulates banks, also said it could not do so.

The source said the deal on Thursday proved the efficacy of a top-down approach, under which the commission investigated whole institutions, not individual complaints.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Chan Ka-keung said Sung Hung Kai Financial’s repurchase offer proved the commission’s investigation was effective in protecting investors’ interests. He would not say if he thought other banks would be pressured into following suit, only that he believed the commission and the Monetary Authority would be fair in their investigations.

A banker who asked not to be named said the settlement would put pressure on banks as investors would have high expectations. However, the banker said the top-down approach the SFC used had its drawback as banks would have to compensate all customers if the SFC found they had systematic problems in selling investment products.

“It’s unfair if we have to pay for all customers unless the systematic problem is very big,” the banker said, adding that it was hard to judge how big the problem would need to be to warrant compensating all customers.

Another banker expected there would be more pressure for banks to reach a similar agreement with the SFC. But he believed few would strike deals.

“It is not because the amounts of minibonds sold by banks are bigger; the major reason is that it’s unreasonable. We only compensate customers if we are wrong.”
Investors poured HK$15.7 billion into Lehman Brothers derivatives.

However, Kenny Lee Yiu-sun, chairman of the Hong Kong Stockbrokers Association, said the buyback offer had set a very good example. “Banks should also refund investors in full if they are found to have made similar mistakes.”

Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Allied Victims of Lehman Products, said the number of clients who bought minibonds from Sun Hung Kai Investment Services and the sum they invested were relatively small, so the repurchase deal was not totally suitable for larger banks.

Democratic Party lawmaker Kam Nai-wai said the refund would set a good precedent. “ I can’t see how other banks and institutions … with similar structural deficiencies will be able to evade responsibility.”

Those eligible for the repurchase deal will receive details in the post in the first week of February.

KPMG, provisional liquidators of eight Lehman Brothers firms in Hong Kong, will begin meeting creditors on February 11.

Financials fall after buy-back offer.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:06 AM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

The source said the deal on Thursday proved the efficacy of a top-down approach, under which the commission investigated whole institutions, not individual complaints....That should be the way! SG WAKE UP!
January 24, 2009 3:50 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Boost investor security without stifling market

Saturday, January 24, 2009
SCMP:Boost investor security without stifling market
24 Jan 2009

It may be premature for most people who face losses on investments in Lehman Brothers minibonds to celebrate a victory for the small handful who have got all their money back. But any breakthrough in the saga over alleged mis-selling of the products as low-risk is welcome news for them. Aggrieved investors could not ask for more than full compensation. The HK$85 million voluntary settlement agreed by Sun Hung Kai
Investment Services for some 300 investors puts pressure on the 21 banks and two other brokerages involved in the sale of the minibonds in Hong Kong. The outcome in this case appears to vindicate the Securities and Futures Commission’s top-down approach of investigating the way institutions sold the minibonds, rather than a protracted case-by-case examination of complaints. Any adverse conclusions about an institution’s conduct can then cover all its affected clients.

Sources said the investment company apparently came forward with the settlement offer, although it has denied any liability or wrongdoing. The company obviously believes it is better to put the matter behind it quickly by settling with its clients than face the prospect of drawn out legal proceedings and the possible loss of its trading licence. In any case, its decision is commendable, as it saves its clients from further anguish and, above all, financial losses. But the real significance of the settlement is to be found in the reasons for a reprimand issued by the SFC over concerns about the way the broker sold the minibonds.

Despite their name, they were not corporate bonds but complex credit-linked instruments. The SFC was concerned about the adequacy of the company’s due diligence, training of sales staff, risk assessment, and record-keeping in relation to the minibonds. The company agreed the concerns were serious.

One question now is whether such shortcomings were prevalent at other institutions that sold the minibonds, mostly banks. It seems unlikely that the SFC’s investigations will find that this is an isolated case.

Another question is whether institutions whose clients make up a higher proportion of the 47,000 investors in HK$15.7 billion of minibonds will be as willing to settle their losses in full.

The SFC does not have the power to impose a settlement. But by publishing the results of its investigations, it does have the power to exercise some moral persuasion. If other institutions find that the concerns in this case have some application to them, they may conclude that the example of Sun Hung Kai is a better way to conclude the affair than dragging it out. It is significant that in announcing the settlement, the SFC dodged the issue of whether claims of mis-selling of the minibonds as low-risk investment products have been substantiated, and Sun Hung Kai admitted no liability or wrongdoing. The terms of the settlement sets a rather appealing precedent for other institutions that are eager to put the matter behind them quickly. Every situation is different, however, so the terms of any settlement could depend on the extent and seriousness of any misconduct. Whatever the terms for each case may be, it is important, and only fair, that even where banks reach settlements with their clients, the SFC will still insist on disclosure of any concerns arising from its investigations.

The financial secretary has called for a review of regulations after receiving reports on the minibond affair from the SFC and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which regulates banks. For the sake of confidence in our financial system, the government must move swiftly to enhance investor protection without stifling a free market.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:08 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Sun Hung Kai Financial may lose 'caring' award over minibond saga

Saturday, January 24, 2009
SCMP:Sun Hung Kai Financial may lose 'caring' award over minibond saga
24 Jan 2009
Ambrose Leung

Sun Hung Kai Financial may be the first of several financial institutions to lose an award that honours their corporate social responsibility as a result of their involvement in the minibonds saga.

The Council of Social Service, which confers the annual Caring Company awards, is reviewing its decision to give the award to Sun Hung Kai, after its subsidiary Sun Hung Kai Investment Services was reprimanded by the Securities and Futures Commission for the way it sold the high-risk derivatives to customers.

Sun Hung Kai and more than a dozen banks accused of misleading vulnerable investors are understood to be among the winners who will be unveiled and honoured next month.

Cliff Choi Kim-wah, business director of the council, said the vetting committee would meet soon.

“Those being awarded know well that we reserve the right to strip them of their titles,” he said. A spokesman for Sun Hung Kai Financial declined to comment.

Christine Fang Meng-sang, chief executive of the council, said it was prepared to withdraw the honours if the banks were officially censured by relevant authorities, or if they were found to have committed criminal offences.

“We have received e-mails from some minibonds victims who were unhappy with the banks getting the award,” she said.

Any wrongdoing by the banks, however, could not wipe out the charitable work that they had done, she noted.

“ We can’t strike them off the award list just because people are protesting outside their branches. But we are prepared to review their awards if any of them is found by the authorities to have done wrong,” Ms Fang said.

The council will give out more than 1,700 awards this year to businesses and public organisations for demonstrating good corporate citizenship and their contributions in community work.

Among the 60-plus banks that were honoured last year, more than a dozen – including the Bank of China, DBS Bank and the Bank of East Asia – now face thousands of angry investors who are seeking compensation for their losses after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which had issued or guaranteed the minibonds they bought.

Investors, some of them elderly, claimed the banks had lied about the investment risks when persuading them to buy the highly complex products. Many of them have filed complaints with the Monetary Authority, made police reports or resorted to the courts to seek redress.

Since the scheme was launched seven years ago, only one company has had its award withdrawn. No company with a criminal record or which has been officially censured by astatutory body in the previous three years can receive an award.

Lawmakers who are helping the minibond investors seek redress were outraged. Democrat Kam Naiwai said the council should rethink its awards plan.

“ How can these banks be so shameless and still have the guts to brandish the ‘caring company’ tag after conning old people into buying their poisoned minibonds?”

Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, leader of the Civic Party, said: “It is so ironic that the basics of a caring company, which is to care for the customers, are not reflected in the awards, while it recognises contributions to the environment and donations to charities.”

The Bank of China, Bank of East Asia and DBS all said their awards this year had nothing to do with the minibonds saga.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:48 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

2009 - the year of the Bull

Sunday, January 25, 2009
2009 - the year of the Bull
In 1985, when Singapore was in a recession, I presented a bull sculpture to Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, who was then the Minister of State for Trade & Industry. I said "I hope that the bull will revive the stockmarket and the economy. " It did!

2009 is the year of the Bull. I hope that someone will send another bull sculpture to the Prime Minister.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:11 AM
2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,why should someone, pls you send one bull to PM.

Happy New Year & Gong Xi Fa Cai Mr Ran
January 25, 2009 12:02 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...

I already gave away my bull. Now, someone else can find another bull to give to PM. Happy New Year.
January 25, 2009 12:45 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009 (afternoon)

Sunday, January 25, 2009
Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009 (afternoon)
I have agreed to speak at a forum to be held in the afternoon of Sat 7 Feb 2009. The topic is on "Challenges that alternative parties have to face". Details of venue and time will be announced later. I hope that some of my regular visitors will attend this forum.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:25 PM 0 comments

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009 (afternoon)

5 Comments


Anonymous Wilson said...

Mr. Tan, could you eleborate what "alternative parties" means? And how long is your speech going to last?

January 25, 2009 1:28 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Tan,

What is meant by "alternative parties"? Are you refering to political parties, counterparties?

January 25, 2009 3:01 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan
Do you want the minibond investors to be there?

January 26, 2009 12:54 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Mr.Tan is seriously considering to join the fray into polictical arena now.Good try,I shall vote for you,please come to my Jurong GRC,thanks

a retiree

January 26, 2009 9:07 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

Are you going to form an alernative party? You have the numbers already? You have the solutions to deal with the challenges already?

If yes to all, then very good. You have my one vote.

January 27, 2009 12:34 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

AIG gets bids from SWFs

NEW YORK - AMERICA International Group Inc has received bids from several sovereign wealth funds, including ones from Singapore, China and the Middle East, for its aircraft leasing unit, people familiar with the matter said on Monday.

Initial bidders for the unit, International Lease Finance Corp, include Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, Dubai's investment arm Istithmar World, Kuwait Investment Authority and China Investment Corp, the sources said.

Initial bidders also included private equity firms Carlyle Group, TPG Capital LP and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, the sources said.

The parties are in talks to form consortiums to bid for the unit, one of the largest aircraft leasing companies in the world, as they grapple with issues about funding the purchase, the sources said.

Analysts have said the business could be worth as much as $8 billion.

The timeline of the bidding process is not clear, but one source said the second round of bids could come in the third week of February.

Talks include the possibility of asking the US government to help with long-term funding, a source said.

AIG declined to comment. -- THOMSON REUTERS

 

[Ah Hai]

Unjustified Jump in Food Prices during Chinese New Year Season

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Unjustified Jump in Food Prices during Chinese New Year Season
Dear Mr Tan,

I hope you can post the below link on your blog.
I tried surfing CASE website but then it seems quite troublesome for an individual to lodge a complaint.
I perhaps need some guidance or education on the process.

Loh Hon Chun
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:34 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Tan Kin Lian's Intelligence Quiz

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tan Kin Lian's Intelligence Quiz
Download

The famous scientist, Albert Einstein, was reported to have created a puzzle involving 5 houses in different colours, occupied by five different nationalities, drinking different beverages, keeping different pets and smoking different brands of tobacco.

It took me half an hour to solve the puzzle. I found it fascinating. I searched the bookstores for a book containing many puzzles of the same type. There was none.

I finally decided to publish a book containing many puzzles, with different degrees of difficulty.

When I introduced the puzzle to children and adults, they were fascinated with it. Parents will find the puzzles to be excellent for training their children on logical thinking.

In the next few pages, you will find sample of the puzzles in the Tan Kin Lian’s Intelligence Quiz. The answers are at the last page.

The book of puzzles will be available in the bookstores in February. Retail price: $7.90.

The quizzes are identified according to the following levels of difficulty:

Easy (4 houses with 4 parameters)
Moderate (5 houses with 5 parameters)
Difficult (6 houses with 6 parameters)

If you wish to order 5 copies of more of the book at a special price of $5 per book, you can send your order to [email protected]. Postage is free for delivery within Singapore. Payment will be by credit card or PayPal.

I am able to print a unique edition of the puzzles for corporations wishing to provide this book of puzzles to their clients.

Tan Kin Lian


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:59 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Spanish bank offers full compensation to its clients

Thursday, January 29, 2009
Spanish bank offers full compensation to its clients
Perhaps our financial institutions should consider this Spanish Bank's gesture to their valued clients?

"Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:03

Spain's largest bank, Santander, is to offer full compensation worth more than US$1.8 billion (€1.4 billion) to clients who lost money in an investment fraud allegedly run by the US financier Bernard Madoff. The compensation scheme covers only private individual clients.

'The group has taken this decision given the exceptional circumstances surrounding this case and based exclusively on commercial reasons, given the interest it has in maintaining its business relationship with these clients,' the bank said in a statement.' "

A BBC financial commentator said he was not surprised since the bank's reputation and relationship with client should be worth more than the US$1.8 billion. He expected other banks to follow suit or they will lose their valued clients to Santander. :oIo:
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:44 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Give your views on budget 2009

Thursday, January 29, 2009
Give your views on budget 2009

Give your views
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:12 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Give your views on budget 2009

Read the survey results.
Survey results.

The average rating from 56 respondents are:
a) The budget is good for business (rating 3.73)
b) The general election will be called in 2009 (rating 2.82)
c) The average rating for the other questions are lower than 2.82.

A rating of 3.0 is neutral. A rating below 3 indicates that more people disagree with the statement, compared to those who agree.

On the whole, the respondents are less confident about the benefit of the budget for the people, in saving jobs, in spurring economic recovery or helping the unemployed. There is also a negative level of confidence in the leaders.

The lowest ratings are given by people above 50 and by the unemployed/retired.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:00 PM
3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing comes for free.

Be prepared for a significant fall in the value of the Singapore dollar.
January 30, 2009 8:12 AM
C H Yak said...

I believe the sampling of this survey is representative of the population, due to the nature of this survey and data collection. At a cursory glance, survey results should be highly reflective.

The results indicates that it is too business-centric.

The general public do not expect much from the budget personally.

Despite being radical in approach and presentation, whether the Budget actually helps the average Singaporean to keep his job remains to be tested. At this point, it is still only theory.

From my real experience, foreign MNC are seldom buy-in by the Government's selling of healthy tripartism amongst Government, Employers & Union (workers). When they need to retrench, they will retrench. Whether or not there is a CPF cut, or indirect Government subsidy of wages through training grants, this is immaterial. Even retrenchment benifits would still be an issue due to unclear legislations. Whether employment contracts cater for this is highly dependent of respective HR practices.
January 30, 2009 10:55 AM
SB said...

Lim Swee Say as head of the workers movement must robustly champion the workers' interest within the tripartite. In what is supposed to be a rescue package ultimately for the benefit of workers and the people of Singapore, it turns out that companies turn out to be the main direct beneficiary getting the lion's share of the $20.5 billion help package. As sure as the sun rises, companies will still fold, workers will still lose jobs or suffer pay cuts. To these workers, the money which will go to the companies will have no benefit to them.

Not by any measure is he, as supposedly the workers' champion, justified to declare full satisfaction with the direct allocation to workers and to those who will be retrenched. Why didn't he tell the public that he had fought for a bigger direct share for the workers, even if he failed to get his bosses, oops I mean the other members of the tripartite, to change their minds.

Do you notice that with all the distractions of the recession and the help budget, the govt. has opportunistically sneaked in an increase of almost $1000 million to the security (defence and home affairs) budgets, bringing the Defence and Home Affairs Budgets to historical highs of over $11.4 billion and $3 billion respectively. This is one of the real reasons (quietly though) why our past reserves have to be used for this year's budget.

The Defence spendings tower above every other budgetary spendings. This, despite the gloomy outlook for the next 24 months or more. Money should be conserved (and channeled to fund more direct people-help programs, say, for retrenchment benefits). Some military spendings could surely be postponed or paced out until better days come back. It is not as though we are under-invested in defence. After years and decades of heavy military spendings, we have as of now already the most invested and equipped armed forces than the rest of ASEAN combined. That betrays the under-emphasis on real care and focus this govt has on people-related needs vs. growth and power.



The rating of “best” for this Budget is I think mainly based on the huge total amount of help programs. But if you look at the measurable benefits that will land in the hands of Singaporeans, then “best” is somewhat an overstatement. Let me say why:

1. The direct help for individuals & households amount to less than 13% ($2.6 billion) of the total. 66% ($13.5 billion) is given directly to companies. Past reserves are accumulated savings and wealth of the nation and hence of its citizens. If the reserve vault is to be opened, the direct benefits should be skewed for more to go to them instead of to companies. The $2.6 billion allocated represent only a modest increase over similar (such as GST refund, Workfare) 2008’s pre-recession and pre-hyperinflation help-budget. The stated justification for the huge allocation to companies is that individuals will be the beneficiaries of the help programs through jobs saved. The problem is the extent of leakages in this flow-down effect to individuals as huge number of jobs in aggregate is still projected to be lost despite these help programs.

2. Citizens are subject to various forms of means testing for programs such as the hospitalisation subsidies and share of workfare payouts. On the other hand the Job Credit program gives money from our reserves to all employers, regardless of whether they are financially strong or weak, big or small, earning big profits or suffering losses. If we citizens are subject to means testing, why is the govt. so generous without setting criteria to pre-qualify companies to be entitled to this particular. Banks, large property developers, large GLCs, most MNCs and govt ministries do not deserve nor need this financial subsidy to continue to be viable. Public reserves should not be used to enrich private enterprises, particularly the healthy ones. Mind you, these companies have logged in bonaza profits in the past years, and even if they will performance not as well in the near future, they will still make reasonable profits without Job Credit program.

Companies drawing on wage subsidies are not obligated to refrain from cutting jobs, cut pay or put employees on no-pay leave, if down-sizing is needed to ensure survival. So reserve money will drawn down and many workers will still get fired as the recession spreads and intensifies. If there is some form of means testing on companies, money saved can be used instead for another program to help individuals directly, say, for the retrenched whose jobs are not saved or the retired/aged with little income or have fixed income and are weighed down by the increased cost of living from last year’s inflation.

3. Even without the benefit of the Job Credit program for these healthy companies, the other numerous programs, taxes cuts/rebates and training subsidies/allowances, are still available to them and all other companies.

4. The bottom line is that although the help programs are declared to be ultimately to help the citizens by saving jobs, individuals will actually be getting the much shorter end of the $20.5 billion. More could also be done to help ease their cash-flow tightness, for example waiving or reducing GST on essential goods and services at least during these hard times or allow a small portion of a retrenched worker’s CPF savings to be withdrawn to tide him over while he seeks for new employment (by the way CPF is the worker’s own money and not even a subsidy).

That’s why I think this pro-company help-budget falls short of being BEST because it under-performs for the individuals.
January 30, 2009 12:40 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Budget 2009 is not pro-people

Friday, January 30, 2009
Budget 2009 is not pro-people
Comment by SB on the survey results for Budget 2009

Lim Swee Say as head of the workers movement must robustly champion the workers' interest within the tripartite. In what is supposed to be a rescue package ultimately for the benefit of workers and the people of Singapore, it turns out that companies turn out to be the main direct beneficiary getting the lion's share of the $20.5 billion help package. As sure as the sun rises, companies will still fold, workers will still lose jobs or suffer pay cuts. To these workers, the money which will go to the companies will have no benefit to them.

Not by any measure is he, as supposedly the workers' champion, justified to declare full satisfaction with the direct allocation to workers and to those who will be retrenched. Why didn't he tell the public that he had fought for a bigger direct share for the workers, even if he failed to get his bosses, oops I mean the other members of the tripartite, to change their minds.

Do you notice that with all the distractions of the recession and the help budget, the govt. has opportunistically sneaked in an increase of almost $1000 million to the security (defence and home affairs) budgets, bringing the Defence and Home Affairs Budgets to historical highs of over $11.4 billion and $3 billion respectively. This is one of the real reasons (quietly though) why our past reserves have to be used for this year's budget.

The Defence spendings tower above every other budgetary spendings. This, despite the gloomy outlook for the next 24 months or more. Money should be conserved (and channeled to fund more direct people-help programs, say, for retrenchment benefits). Some military spendings could surely be postponed or paced out until better days come back. It is not as though we are under-invested in defence. After years and decades of heavy military spendings, we have as of now already the most invested and equipped armed forces than the rest of ASEAN combined. That betrays the under-emphasis on real care and focus this govt has on people-related needs vs. growth and power.

The rating of “best” for this Budget is I think mainly based on the huge total amount of help programs. But if you look at the measurable benefits that will land in the hands of Singaporeans, then “best” is somewhat an overstatement. Let me say why:

1. The direct help for individuals & households amount to less than 13% ($2.6 billion) of the total. 66% ($13.5 billion) is given directly to companies. Past reserves are accumulated savings and wealth of the nation and hence of its citizens. If the reserve vault is to be opened, the direct benefits should be skewed for more to go to them instead of to companies. The $2.6 billion allocated represent only a modest increase over similar (such as GST refund, Workfare) 2008’s pre-recession and pre-hyperinflation help-budget. The stated justification for the huge allocation to companies is that individuals will be the beneficiaries of the help programs through jobs saved. The problem is the extent of leakages in this flow-down effect to individuals as huge number of jobs in aggregate is still projected to be lost despite these help programs.

2. Citizens are subject to various forms of means testing for programs such as the hospitalisation subsidies and share of workfare payouts. On the other hand the Job Credit program gives money from our reserves to all employers, regardless of whether they are financially strong or weak, big or small, earning big profits or suffering losses. If we citizens are subject to means testing, why is the govt. so generous without setting criteria to pre-qualify companies to be entitled to this particular. Banks, large property developers, large GLCs, most MNCs and govt ministries do not deserve nor need this financial subsidy to continue to be viable. Public reserves should not be used to enrich private enterprises, particularly the healthy ones. Mind you, these companies have logged in bonaza profits in the past years, and even if they will performance not as well in the near future, they will still make reasonable profits without Job Credit program.

Companies drawing on wage subsidies are not obligated to refrain from cutting jobs, cut pay or put employees on no-pay leave, if down-sizing is needed to ensure survival. So reserve money will drawn down and many workers will still get fired as the recession spreads and intensifies. If there is some form of means testing on companies, money saved can be used instead for another program to help individuals directly, say, for the retrenched whose jobs are not saved or the retired/aged with little income or have fixed income and are weighed down by the increased cost of living from last year’s inflation.

3. Even without the benefit of the Job Credit program for these healthy companies, the other numerous programs, taxes cuts/rebates and training subsidies/allowances, are still available to them and all other companies.

4. The bottom line is that although the help programs are declared to be ultimately to help the citizens by saving jobs, individuals will actually be getting the much shorter end of the $20.5 billion. More could also be done to help ease their cash-flow tightness, for example waiving or reducing GST on essential goods and services at least during these hard times or allow a small portion of a retrenched worker’s CPF savings to be withdrawn to tide him over while he seeks for new employment (by the way CPF is the worker’s own money and not even a subsidy).

That’s why I think this pro-company help-budget falls short of being BEST because it under-performs for the individuals.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:29 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

A voice from the generation of the 40s/50s

A voice from the generation of the 40s/50s
Dear Kin Lian,

I am inspired by your exemplary mission to help redress injustice and rectify wrong public policies that are detrimental to nation building and also oppressive to the poor and average Singaporeans.

I appeal to you to raise awareness of the pride of aged Singaporeans who have toiled thick and thin with the PAP to build Singapore over the last 50 years. Now these senior citizens are left with little welfare from the state which they had sacrificed so much to help build Singapore to a first world economy. Instead they were told to work as long as they can, not because they like to, but because they have to bring in extra income to support a decent "golden" lifestyle. They are so afraid to fall sick because hospitalization and wipe out their hard earned savings and put extra burden on their struggling children.

I am living in Australia and I am a retiree at 62. I observe how seniors are being looked after by the government here. They enjoyed adequate basic welfare and excellent aged care support, especially for those who are disabled and sick.

Citizens who served in the Australian military received special treatment when they retired. They enjoyed pension, medical care and recreational facilities.

The argument that we are not a welfare state is an excuse. This is NOT about lavish welfare spending to make people laid back. This is about a nation and a society that values GRATITUDE, paying back to the senior citizens and NS personnel who have sacrificed so much to help build the nation so that Ministers can afford to be paid million dollar salaries.

What do NS personnel receive when they grow old after giving their best 20-25 years after enlistment? Struggling to raise a humble family, they have to worry when they grow old and if they are unfortunate to be struck down by illness. Where is the motivation for National Service when the State does not look after them when they become old, sick and frail?

I hope you can devote a little of your time to raise awareness of the political elite to come to term with the type of society we really want to nurture. Where would our younger generation learn the value of GRATITUDE when the government's role model is just meritocracy, survival for the fittest and the ruthless pursuit of economic success. Can we not be 1st in everything and be first in a gracious and caring society?

TS (Teck Suan) Low
NSW
Australia
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:23 PM
5 comments:

C H Yak said...

I tend to agree with the writer that those borned in the 50s and early 60s (baby-bloomers) are often made the scapegoats and guinea pigs of our past and future public policies.

This group is often neglected.

Our demographic trend would suggest that this "large" group is approaching age of 50 and above.

As can be noted from the previous downturn, this was the group of workers "above 40" which NTUC even taken and termed as "unproductive".

As this group peaked in demographic trend, they are often made the scapegoat of policies. A simple illustration, when Singapore was poorer, and this group was serving national service, the choice of night snack was really between green or red bean soup, or bread with kaya left over from breakdfast. Today, our NSmen have many options. We had to pass fitness tests without rewards or faced extra PT & punishment. Now NSmen are given monetary rewards and even shorter service stink.

CPF & HDB housing policies were highly restrictive. But with the CPF saving, there was a cheap source of fund for Singapore's development.

Certainly this group would deserve their fair share of attention for their past sacrifices with slightly more benefits and support, and not to be taken for granted again for more blunt government policies.

We need radical "CHANGE" to cater for the inetrest of this group as they had sacrificed much in the past due to slow incremental approach adopted by the Government to put forth and test-run policies due to limited budgetary resources and national reserves.

The Government has milked the cash cows, and should consider the "pay-back" method to help this group more.
January 29, 2009 5:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Jerry said,
I envy TS Low welfare compared to mine although we are of the same age. Age 62 is considered over the hills here, when and unable to enjoy my golden yrs. we have to fend for ourself except to rely on whatever savings that will sure run dry one day! Imagine the old people featured in the newpaper selling tissue papers to pay for their medical cost etc...Live is great for retirees in a continent of compared to an island state.....living like Robin Crusoe....taking one day at a time!
January 29, 2009 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...

The worst is yet to come.

The details of Singapore's national reserves are not published. However given the global financial meltdown, the losses probably range from by 25 to 50%.

The recent budget announcement suggests a sale of some of these assets to pay for the goodies.

This in turn suggest an impending fall in the value of the Singapore dollar.

From a policy perspective, this makes sense since it will make Singapore more cost competitive. Given the collapse of oil and commodity prices, inflation is obviously not a policy issue at the moment.

The LOSERS of course will be those with significant Sing dollar assets. If you are lucky enough to escape Singapore, you might want to consider diversifying across a basket of foreign currency deposits to preserve the international purchasing power of your hard earned savings.
January 30, 2009 8:10 AM
Concerned said...

Quote "when the government's role model is just meritocracy, survival for the fittest and the ruthless pursuit of economic success. Can we not be 1st in everything and be first in a gracious and caring society"
Yes, what profits a man if you has gain the whole world, but loses his soul.
January 30, 2009 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...

Hi,
I am in my late 30s and the funny part is I still have reservist training. On top of that I still have to go for remedial training if I fail my IPPT. I have to go for twenty sessions of night training for two months after my work. If I happen to take MC the next day, my boss and colleagues won't appreciate my commitment to NS. What to do?!
January 30, 2009 1:04 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

DBS CEO has cancer

Thursday, January 29, 2009
DBS CEO has cancer
Jan 29, 2009
SINGAPORE'S DBS Group , Southeast Asia's biggest bank, said on Thursday that Chief Executive Richard Stanley, who was hired in May last year, is suffering from leukemia. Koh Boon Hwee, the bank's chairman, will take charge of the bank during Stanley's three to six months' absence for medical treatment, the bank said in a statement.

DBS shares were suspended from trading on Thursday morning before the announcement and resumed trade around 11.30am. By 11.35am, DBS shares were down 0.8 per cent at $5.17, underperforming a decline of 0.3 per cent in the benchmark Straits Times Index .
Mr Stanley, 48, was hired last year from Citigroup with an aim to expand the bank's reach beyond its two core markets, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The bank said Mr Stanley has been diagnosed with 'acute myelogenous leukemia' and has started undergoing medical treatment in Singapore.

A surgeon at a Singapore hospital, who declined to be named because he is not authorised to speak to the media, told Reuters that acute myelogenous leukemia is a fast-spreading cancer of the blood that requires immediate chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant at a later date.

Analysts said the bank's strategy would not change during Stanley's absence because DBS was in defensive posture amid a global economic downturn.

'If he is out of action, then the critical decisions will be delayed until his situation stabilises or DBS finds an alternative,' said David Lum, an analyst at Daiwa Institute of Research.

The bank said Mr Stanley sought treatment for what appeared to be ordinary flu-like symptoms on Monday after experiencing a cough and high fever during the Lunar New Year weekend.

He was hospitalised the following day and his medical condition was confirmed this morning, the bank said, adding that Mr Stanley's illness is treatable.

DBS reports its fourth-quarter results on Feb 13. -- THOMSON REUTERS

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:33 PM
6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why so many people suffer from cancer? It is incurable.

Jasmin
January 29, 2009 5:00 PM
Victor said...

I am sorry the poison got him.
January 29, 2009 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...

The fact that DBS traded up +11c immediately after the announcement speaks ill for this angmo. He chopped off 900 jobs and now facing retribution. Nobody welcome him back after 6mth.
January 29, 2009 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...

Perhaps MOH should do a survey to see the eating pattern of these people. For example, where does Richard go for his lunch and dinner in Singapore? What kind of food does he usually take? This may give a clue why he is suffering from this sickness now.
January 30, 2009 2:54 AM
Anonymous said...

I wish he take this chance to rethink the meaning of money. There are sure many things more important than money. To have health, be honest, kind, fair, willing to help others.

I prey for him and wish he can be a new guy after recovery.
January 30, 2009 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...

so sudden.
Did this CEO declear his health problem last year when he was employed by DBS?
January 30, 2009 12:16 PM