[redbean]

For the record

Monday, 09 March 2009
Se Young Lee
Dow Jones Newswires

Singapore's foreign reserves fell to US$163.55 billion at the end of February from US$167.09 billion a month earlier and was lower than US$171.74 billion a year earlier, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said Monday.

In Singapore dollar terms, the reserves were S$252.78 billion in February compared with S$252.57 billion in January and S$239.36 billion a year earlier, the central bank said on its Web site.

I copy the above from Singabloodypore.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[Grunt]

You copy got do proof reading or not ?

Unless they take in the Exchange rate and that too in our favour then
the undermentioned figures are not troubling at all !

End Feb = US$163.55 billion End Jan = US$167.09 billion

Diff of US$3.54 Billion

[redbean]

Parliament is not kopitiam

Parliament is the nation's highest body where the ablest men and women gather to discuss serious national issues. There are important things to be raised in Parliament. There are important things to be raised only in kopitiams.

One issue I thought would be important enough is the sale of core national assets. We have sold 3 power stations which I believe should be regarded as core assets or strategic assets. They were real things, with buildings, machinery and equipment sitting on the ground. They provided an essential service to the people. We have exchanged them for fiat currency.

From the fiat currency we got, we probably have used it to buy other assets which recently have proven to be fleeting assets. Now the money is gone. The fleeting assets have diminished in value. Our 3 power stations also gone.

The selling of core national assets must be seriously discussed in Parliament. If we do not need the money, there is no reason to sell such assets. Why trade our core and strategic assets for things that, well, have proven unworthy or worthless?

Parliament must review such attempts to sell more national assets in the future and decide whether it is a good thing or a sensible thing to do. At this point in time it has been proven to be unwise. It is like selling Christmas Island. Once sold it is gone forever.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[Grunt]

No problem we can either buy them back at a higher premium or
let EMA and Singapore Power squeezed them until their pants drop
that they begged us to take it back !

Remember though they owned the Gencos we rule the country !

[redbean]

Parliament in session

Parliament will reconvene again this week and there were expectations of change in view of the global economic crisis and its severity on the life of the average Singaporeans. This group in my definition will be those living in 4 and 5 room flats. The 3 roomers and smaller flat owners were obviously hit more. And the middle income, even in the lower end of the private housing sector were also not spared as well.

I have only one wish for a change. The Ministry of Housing and Development needs a new minister and a new set of policy that is pro Singaporeans, does not eat up every cent of a Singaporean's income and then ask why Singaporeans do not have enough savings for old age. The grotesque profits as seen in Duxton Pinnacle do not go down well with a govt that is caring and wanting to give every Singaporean a decent home and stake in this country. Unless some jokers think that a decent home in Singapore is a 3 room flat.

My endearing home to Singaporeans must mean better and afforable homes relative to their income. Singaporeans used to aspire to a 5 rm flat or better. At the rate that prices of public housing are being pushed upwards, many could only be contented with just a 3 rm or 4 rm flat. Maybe that is the reason why HDB is building more smaller flats for the people.

My endearing home of bigger flats, private properties should be a message for the rich foreigners being invited here with red carpets. Singaporeans should count themselves lucky to have a 3 rm or 4rm flat as their endearing homes if this is the way things are moving.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redblood]

Have you ever noticed?

My observations tell me that it cannot be a coincidence that those ex-foreigners who are holding key positions are the ones who are making Singaporeans suffer more and more and also making a bad name for Singapore.

Examples:

1. Who is that guy who want us to send our sick old folks to jb nursing homes?

2. Who is responsible for the increase medical fees in public hospitals so high that many of us, even with the Medisave, can ill effort.

3. Who is responsible for the increase in the price of HDB flats so high that more and more Singaporeans are unable to effort to buy or continue to pay the installments?

4. Who is the person who is now giving STTA a bad name, despite someone had tried his very best to win an Olympic medal for Singapore after 48 years?

5. Who are the people responsible for favouring the foreigners instead of locals in terms of jobs creation and allocation?

6. Who are the ones who are showing no empathy and compassion to the pioneer Singaporean old folks and young kid with mental problem, who have expressed their anger and frustrations because of arrogant attitude and insensitivity of the incumbents?

There are more but the above would suffice for the moment.

[redbean]

New session in Parliament

What impresses me most during the keynote speech by the President is Nathan's health. He seemed to be getting more youthful by the day. He was so radiant, relaxed, well fed, and looked like he will live for another 50 years. The fountain of youth must be somewhere in the Istana.

His motherhood speech was comprehensive and covered everything that needed to be said. Now comes the implementation part which the ministries are expected to do the due diligence. One recommendation I have in mind is to raise property prices, both private and public. This is the best strategy 'in helping companies stay viable and continue to employ workers.' It will 'strengthen our revenue base', and the excess profits can be accumulated as reserves for a rainy day.

With higher prices of properties, the private developers can make more profits, provide better jobs and pay their employees very well. In the public housing sector, the profits can be used to help those who needed help. Never mind if the buyers would have to pay a lifetime for the little space they bought. They can feel good to live in a half a million or one million dollar flats. Compare to Hongkong, our flats are still very cheap and very luxurious, endearing homes. In Hongkong one will have to pay a fortune for a 90 sq m. Here it is so affordable. Our 3 rm flat is like a mansion! So liveable.

Our standard of living (and cost of living) is improving by the day.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

The Presidential Address

Nathan was a key administrator in his younger days, holding very important appointments in the govt that no fools will be allowed to get near to by the miles. To be in those positions, he must have proven to be a man of great intellect and brilliance. His writing skills is on par with that of Devan Nair. His understanding of social and political issues of the land is as good as any politician worthy of his salt.

We heard the Presidential address. It was quite mechanical in the delivery. There was no flair, no passion, nothing that gets it near to what Nathan would have written it. No ohmm! It was just a prim and proper motherhood statement. Maybe that is what one can expect from a President's Address. Obama would not have it that way.

How different would it be if Nathan would to write his own speech, use his own style, speak on issues that were close to his hearts, and deliver it the way he knows best, the style of Nathan. I am presuming that the President's speech was prepared for him by his staff. And I stand to be corrected on this.

I still feel that Nathan would be able to make a more punchy and lively speech if he were to be himself and set aside the protocol of what a President should be.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

HDB to build more 2 and 3 rm flats

Is this progress or regress? Or are we telling the Singaporeans that My endearing home is a 2 or 3 rm flat? Of course not. My endearing home is a freehold landed property, 20,000 sq ft, in district 10 or Sentosa.

2 and 3 rm flats are for the losers. In fact all public flats are for losers. the 2 and 3 rm flats are for those who can't even buy a 4rm flat. How many can afford to buy a 4 rm flat these days when the price is $300k to $400k or more?

In my time, a single income family, a young graduate with 3 or 4 years working experience could even buy a 5 rm flat. Today, with 2 incomes, two graduates would have problems buying a 4 rm flat.

Is the life of Singaporeans getting better? Of course, depending on who you are asking.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Where are the opposition MPs?

I watched the Parliament report on Channel 5 last night hoping to see Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Kiang speaking in Parliament. No clips on them and Sylvia Lim either. I saw a lot of Siew Kum Hong. But yesterday's Parliament appeared to be hosted by Amy Khor. She was everywhere.

So the opposition MPs must all be sleeping. Then I turned on the ST today. Oh, Low Thia Kiang did make a pretty long speech. At least the ST was generous enough to offer him some space, but no picture still. Can Channel 5 be generous enough to give a little coverage to the opposition MPs? If not, if they are not seen, people may think that they are all sleeping.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

How much did GIC lose?

The amount lost by Temasek, 31% or about $58 BILLION has been well reported. In Parliament yesterday, this amount was again confirmed, from S$185b to S$127b.

How much did GIC lose? The figure quoted in Parliament was 25%. 25% of what? How much was GIC managing? S$100b, $200b or $500b? Presumably GIC was managing more than Temasek. At $200b, 25% is $50 BILLION. At $500b, 25% will be $125 BILLION. So what is the actual amount lost by GIC?

The MPs were asking for more transparency. Will more be made known given the changing mindset towards a more transparent and more accountable system? The leader of the opposition, Inderjit Singh, was speaking in his usual role and supported by several MPs on this issue.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Low Thia Kiang simplistic

Indranee Rajah said Low Thia Kiang was simplistic when the latter called for a stronger opposition to prevent and check a govt from becoming corrupt. The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. Both views are equally simplistic without elaboration and qualification. By the way, what is the definition of corruption? Corrupt or not corrupt according to who? Yesterday in parliament I think most will agree that Low Thia Kiang was simplistic simply because when put to a vote, it is likely that there will be 82 MPs voting that it is so. So it is a numerical fact, a numerical truth.

So a person can become simplistic in a situation when the majority point a finger at him and said, yes he is simplistic. The majority is right. Using the same logic, if we were to put it to a vote in cyberspace and the majority view will prevail, which view will be called simplistic? Low Thia Kiang's or Indranee Rajah's? Shall we have a vote on this?

I think with the change that Chok Tong is calling for, maybe there will be less dismissive statements levelled at the opposition members. By being inclusive and willing to hear alternative views, maybe there will be more chances of opposition views being listened to and pondered over with without being brushed off immeidiately as superficial.

Personally I don’t think Low Thia Kiang is being simplistic by making that remark. I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement. Oh dear, now I will also be branded as another one with simplistic views. Pai seh man.

Is our system beyond reproach for corruption? So far the most often spoken view in public is that our system is free of corruption. I am sure all Singaporeans will swear that this is the truth if they were asked to state their views. I too will swear that this is true. We should pat ourselves on our back to be able to tell the world that this is the pride of all Singaporeans. Would this view be changed some day?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Changes to electoral system counter productive

The changes as announced will ensure more alternative views from NMPs. That is ok. As for the possibility of more opposition MPs or NCMPs, that may not be a good thing given that opposition MPs are mostly very simplistic in their views, of no substance and only opposed for opposition's sake. And by looking at the Parliamentary proceedings, it is clear that when NMPs talked, they will be listened to without much rebutting. But when simplistic opposition MPs talked, you can expect immediate rebuttals. Their views are just not worth anything.

So the new changes may be a contradiction. The offering of more single seat wards may not see more than the current two opposition MPs. The better qualified and talented MPs that were selected through a thorough system of screening will definitely won in SMCs if they are contested. And they must all be very eager to take on the less talented opposition candidates.

Let's see who is going to take on Low Thia Kiang and Chaim See Tong and win. If they can beat these two, then maybe they are really something. It will be quite embarrassing if they can't even beat MPs that are simplistic and say things that are not worth listening to.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Opposition MPs deserved to be respected

Was it a coincidence, or Media Corp read what I posted about the lack of coverage on opposition MPs in the Parliament report? Both were unlikely. It was probably their way of scheduling whose turn to appear on TV, and last night I saw Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Kiang and even Chiam See Tong’s face on the news. So strange. For quite a while, opposition MPs were somehow treated in a less friendly way by the media and also in Parliament. They were kind of like the enemies of the people, out to subvert the govt, to do the country in. They were like thugs or gangsters, probably carrying guns and acid into Parliament. In short they were up to no good and should be kept at a dismissive distance.

Actually the opposition MPs are also the people’s elected representatives to Parliament. They deserve to be respected and treated with some decency and decorum. Treating them otherwise, humiliating them, spitting at them, mocking at them, etc is as good as showing no respect to the people who elected them and whom the MPs were representing. By adopting such a negative stance, it will only accentuate a deep divide among parliamentarians in the highest house of the land. We do not want our parliamentarians to drift down to a state when they hurl shoes or throw chairs at one another.

The parliament is a place to contest ideas in a honourable and respectful way. It is not a place to run down one another at the slightest opportunity, right or wrong, like little boys and girls do, to look smug. Our Parliament can be a model parliament where debates and issues are discussed seriously, vehemously, and logically, where parliamentarians fight vigorously over issues instead of taking snipe attacks at one another. We are a mature first world country and our parliamentarians should behave likewise, with great honour, graciousness and humility, while pursuing their political objectives and championing the cause of the people.

Chok Tong has fired the first salvo to be fairer to the opposition, to listen to their views. Let’s make this real for once. We need to grow up and behave like adults.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.

[redbean]

Say a word for the little people

Many Singaporeans are involved in the stock market. Some have fallen victims to the harsh and excessive penalties imposed by the SGX for small mistakes that they made while trading, ie, selling shares that they did not own. To err is human. A slight mistake like this will cause the small investors a $1000 fine! This may be chicken feed to the big boys in SGX who only know money in the millions and millions. So setting a $1000 penalty for a minor mistake may be very kind in their eyes, but it is a big sum of money to many people.

The SGX’s justification is to curb short selling that will affect the market, or cause more work to buy in for their staff. What utter rubbish. The 5 lots or 20 lots that a small investor sold by mistake, intentional or otherwise, will have minimal or no impact on the price of the shares. It is the big boys that short sell in hundreds of thousands, or millions, that will distort the market in their favour. They should be the one that needs to be hauled up and punished. The second reason is more unreasonable. Buying in is the job of the SGX. They cannot penalize small investors with a sledgehammer because they did not like to do it, too many buy ins too troublesome.

The more freaking thing is that the small investors are the customers of the SGX. And when they make mistakes, instead of helping them, they got slammed with a sledghammer. How's that for taking good care of your customers? What kind of attitude is this?

Small investors tremble in fear when they make such a mistake and pay heavily for it. And they are not commiting a crime against anyone. I think in the courts of law, many more serious crimes could be fined for less than a $1000. Here we are talking about a human error.

Now, while Parliament is in session, I can only hope that some MPs would raise this issue for the sake of the small investors. The small investors are simply helpless in the face of such unreasonable, disproportionate and costly penalty. Or maybe the sum of $1000 is also too small in the eyes of the MPs and no one thinks that this is an issue.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.