I'm sorry but I have to disagree that MM Lee's latest book is his "most important". To date, maybe. The most important book he can write is yet to be written or at least published. I would actually put his latest effort behind his book on Hard Truths. (Not that I have read them...yet.)
If the current furore over relatively speaking, benign blog posts incidents are to serve as a guide, there is yet a Harder Truths book that need to be written. And MM Lee is the only one with the political capital, gravitas and respect that can write it and SHOULD write it.
He above anyone else should know what and where the fault lines lie in our Society. Fissures that will at some time in the future need to be addressed in the open and no one after him can safely broach such subjects without arousing distracting heated passions, thereby derailing the discussion. Future leaders with lesser credentials (basically anyone after him) would find it useful to be able to quote chapter and verse from such a book to initiate such discussions.
Steve Jobs left a roadmap for Apple to follow after his passing. MM Lee can consider such a book to be that equivalent in guiding Singapore's future SURVIVAL, at least somewhat, if only slightly, futher into the future. To avoid having to deal with the usual controversy likely to accompany such a book, he can instruct that the book will only be published when he has left the scene. It should be a
hard hitting, no punches pulled book, moderated only by justification for his views. That kind of book would be worthy of being labelled his magnum opus.
As for bilingualism, it is the parents job. Children have to grow up in an environment where both mother tongue and English is spoken. Not everyone can afford a language governess like Jim Rogers. In our current context where everything is priced 'affordably', both parents are usually out working to barely make ends meet. When you mother is not around: no mother tongue! Language learning by children is about duration of exposure. No amount of money or teaching material is going to be able to substitute for that. Our children are more likely to grow up comfortable with Tagalog and Indonesian.
Monday 28 November 2011
Thursday 24 November 2011
MF Gobble. A Tale of Regulatory Failure
Gobble as in client funds in supposedly safe segregated accounts being gobbled up by outright corporate fraud. In all this, MAS, the financial industry regulatory authority in Singapore has kept a very low and quiet profile.
The initially estimated US$600 million of client funds (worldwide) missing has now ballooned out to an estimated US$1.2 billion. We have also discovered that some of their Singaporean clients' funds have been traced to accounts scattered across the world.
How did this happen? What exactly does it mean that client accounts are segregated? How and what measures does MAS take to ensure that regulations are followed? Without effective checks and enforcement, regulations are worth less than the paper they are printed on when clients open up a trading account at MAS approved and therefore deemed reputable and credible financial institutions. Getting MAS approval is (was?) supposed to mean something.
As a result of criminal breach of trust cases by conveyancing lawyers in handling monies related to real estate transactions, safeguards have been put in place to prevent future such abuses. Do we always have to wait for unfortunate incidents like this to happen before regulatory authorities wake up to their duties and responsibilities and actually DO their jobs? Here's a suggestion: Client funds have to be kept in Singapore based banks and NO transactions other than for settlement of client trades are allowed for those accounts. I would have thought that would be a minimum requirement for safeguarding client funds.
This is not like the Lehman bonds case where MAS could duck its responsibilities by saying: Caveat Emptor! This is front and center a case of MAS caught napping on the job. How much trust can Singaporeans (and anyone else) have in financial institutions here in safeguarding their funds?
In the effort to create a financial industry here, I fear the government/MAS has lowered standards to the extent that outright illegal activity can apparently occur with impunity without detection. The MAS of today (or at least their operating charter) seems to have changed from the days when MAS was awake enough to keep the likes of BCCI out of Singapore.
So while clients are locked out from closing their open positions, have no access to their funds, and are likely to lose a significant portion of that, our no doubt highly paid MAS staff can look forward to at least 1.75 months of bonus for a job not done at all!
Here's a fair suggestion: Make MAS management directly and personally liable for losses incurred by the public arising from regulatory failure. Having some skin in the game should keep them alert and hopefully prevent other abuses like regulatory capture as has occured in some other countries.
Meanwhile if Mr Tan Kin Lian has any further presidential ambitions, he should consider taking up the cause of MF Global's clients. It should help to buff up his resume. President Tony Tan who has very close ties to the MAS, I fear will be keeping very quiet (it's outside of his presidential duties you see).
The initially estimated US$600 million of client funds (worldwide) missing has now ballooned out to an estimated US$1.2 billion. We have also discovered that some of their Singaporean clients' funds have been traced to accounts scattered across the world.
How did this happen? What exactly does it mean that client accounts are segregated? How and what measures does MAS take to ensure that regulations are followed? Without effective checks and enforcement, regulations are worth less than the paper they are printed on when clients open up a trading account at MAS approved and therefore deemed reputable and credible financial institutions. Getting MAS approval is (was?) supposed to mean something.
As a result of criminal breach of trust cases by conveyancing lawyers in handling monies related to real estate transactions, safeguards have been put in place to prevent future such abuses. Do we always have to wait for unfortunate incidents like this to happen before regulatory authorities wake up to their duties and responsibilities and actually DO their jobs? Here's a suggestion: Client funds have to be kept in Singapore based banks and NO transactions other than for settlement of client trades are allowed for those accounts. I would have thought that would be a minimum requirement for safeguarding client funds.
This is not like the Lehman bonds case where MAS could duck its responsibilities by saying: Caveat Emptor! This is front and center a case of MAS caught napping on the job. How much trust can Singaporeans (and anyone else) have in financial institutions here in safeguarding their funds?
In the effort to create a financial industry here, I fear the government/MAS has lowered standards to the extent that outright illegal activity can apparently occur with impunity without detection. The MAS of today (or at least their operating charter) seems to have changed from the days when MAS was awake enough to keep the likes of BCCI out of Singapore.
So while clients are locked out from closing their open positions, have no access to their funds, and are likely to lose a significant portion of that, our no doubt highly paid MAS staff can look forward to at least 1.75 months of bonus for a job not done at all!
Here's a fair suggestion: Make MAS management directly and personally liable for losses incurred by the public arising from regulatory failure. Having some skin in the game should keep them alert and hopefully prevent other abuses like regulatory capture as has occured in some other countries.
Meanwhile if Mr Tan Kin Lian has any further presidential ambitions, he should consider taking up the cause of MF Global's clients. It should help to buff up his resume. President Tony Tan who has very close ties to the MAS, I fear will be keeping very quiet (it's outside of his presidential duties you see).
Sunday 20 November 2011
Stepford Citizen
Remember the Stepford wives? That horror movie about docile and submissive wives that agree with and accede to their husbands every wish? It is a HORROR movie and a version of it is in danger of being produced and filmed live right here in Singapore.
The recent brouhaha surrounding the admitedly in poor taste and judgement Facebook posting by Jason Neo can trace its origin back to the prosecution of a blogger's racist comments a few years back. In that incident, an offended online reader was apparently sufficiently moved to make a police report in the middle of the night, paving the way for the government to step in, prosecute the case and make it an example to apparently deter further such incidents.
It is my opinion that the government had a second agenda to its action. By coming out strongly in that instance, it had hoped that it would also send a message to netizens against being too critical of the government in their online postings. The unfortunate unintended consequence of that action is that instead of just damping down racist and insensitive comments, it had lowered the level of tolerance and primed the blogosphere to be offended by every slight or offence. What next? Someone gave me a dirty look. I'm offended. I'm making a police report and calling my MP?
This posting by Jason Neo should not have blown up into an incident that involved the police or indeed Members of Parliament. The reaction is out of all proportion. Normal healthy societies can and do withstand incidents like these on their own. Unfortunately, in this case Jason Neo is a member of the youth wing of the ruling governments' party. Not to take firm action will open it to charges of favouritism in view of the prior case that was prosecuted in court. But to continue to do so would be to further lower the level of intolerance (to incidents that are part and parcel of life) and common sense too, I might add.
Do we want to live in a society where everyone goes about with fixed smiles and false courtesies? Where never a bad word or criticism is uttered except in whispers in private conversation? The dilema the government finds itself in is of its own making. The Arabs have a saying: He who digs a pit for his brother to fall in will himself fall into it. Talk about unintended consequences. It would be interesting to see how the government digs itself out of this hole and defuse the situation.
The recent brouhaha surrounding the admitedly in poor taste and judgement Facebook posting by Jason Neo can trace its origin back to the prosecution of a blogger's racist comments a few years back. In that incident, an offended online reader was apparently sufficiently moved to make a police report in the middle of the night, paving the way for the government to step in, prosecute the case and make it an example to apparently deter further such incidents.
It is my opinion that the government had a second agenda to its action. By coming out strongly in that instance, it had hoped that it would also send a message to netizens against being too critical of the government in their online postings. The unfortunate unintended consequence of that action is that instead of just damping down racist and insensitive comments, it had lowered the level of tolerance and primed the blogosphere to be offended by every slight or offence. What next? Someone gave me a dirty look. I'm offended. I'm making a police report and calling my MP?
This posting by Jason Neo should not have blown up into an incident that involved the police or indeed Members of Parliament. The reaction is out of all proportion. Normal healthy societies can and do withstand incidents like these on their own. Unfortunately, in this case Jason Neo is a member of the youth wing of the ruling governments' party. Not to take firm action will open it to charges of favouritism in view of the prior case that was prosecuted in court. But to continue to do so would be to further lower the level of intolerance (to incidents that are part and parcel of life) and common sense too, I might add.
Do we want to live in a society where everyone goes about with fixed smiles and false courtesies? Where never a bad word or criticism is uttered except in whispers in private conversation? The dilema the government finds itself in is of its own making. The Arabs have a saying: He who digs a pit for his brother to fall in will himself fall into it. Talk about unintended consequences. It would be interesting to see how the government digs itself out of this hole and defuse the situation.
Stir Crazy
Whether or not mental illness is a scam, it has been recently reported in the press that 1 in 10 Singaporeans will eventually succumb to the disorder in one form or another. I'm assuming that it represents a rising trend or it would not have been reported in the press otherwise.
In the old days when animals in the zoo are kept in small concrete cages with steel bars, the animals also displayed symptoms of mental disorder. You will find tigers or lions pacing up and down the cages non stop or apes like chimpanzees sitting in a corner rocking to and fro.
But guess what? The joke is on us now. Singaporeans (the 99%) who cannot afford to live in landed properties now find themselves confined to living in ever shrinking HDB flats. Apparently quality of life will not be affected according to the CEO of HDB. She who most likely isn't currently living in one of her organisations latest creations but nevertheless finds herself qualified to pronounce on the fitness of purpose for it.
She needs to walk the talk. Sell off whatever private property she is currently living in (at a handsome profit too I'm sure) and buy a flat to live in with her family. Mr Khaw Boon Wan can make an exception for her and put her at the front of the queue, I don't think Singaporeans would mind. She AND her family should stay in that flat for the duration of her tenure as CEO of HDB. Then, she should talk.
The Institue of Mental Health should relook their data and find out the proportion of people who suffer from mental problems living in HDB flats compared to those that do not and see if there is a correlation. It would be an interesting data point whichever way it turns out. Regardless, the rising trend in mental illness correlating with increasingly smaller flat sizes is already a fact.
Mr Khaw really should institute a design review of all current HDB flats and freeze construction of any that have yet to start until such a review is done. Build show flats of various size configurations and invite applicants (eg: newly weds) to rank them. NO prices should be shown as the intention is to find the acceptable size of a unit. I would suggest that the design that unanimously gets a "wow so spacious" be seriously considered as the minimum size to build for future construction. Using focus groups to determine public reactions to products and services is a standard industry practice. If Mr Khaw declines to do so, he needs to ask himself why not? And let us know.
Do you know why ordinarily harmless grasshoppers turn into destructive locusts? Crowded living conditions. When the number of grasshoppers get too cramped for space, they start rubbing against each other and this sets off a metamorphic change. They turn brown and start growing flight capable wings. The change is irreversible. Once airborne, they spread destruction the likes of which are written in the bible.
The Singaporean 'grasshopper' is beginning to get agitated. The buzz of discontent can be heard by all except the intentionally deaf. They are definitely rubbing against each other in the MRT trains! Some might already be testing their wings by jumping out of their windows or taking a one way trip to Bedok reservoir.
The housing problem is not going to resolve itself by simple proclaimation that it is not a problem. or even worse: that it is a good thing. Simply repeating that unsupported assertion by various people will not change that fact. Don't believe me? A LOT of people had been saying that Greece will not default on its debt too. Many times. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
In the old days when animals in the zoo are kept in small concrete cages with steel bars, the animals also displayed symptoms of mental disorder. You will find tigers or lions pacing up and down the cages non stop or apes like chimpanzees sitting in a corner rocking to and fro.
But guess what? The joke is on us now. Singaporeans (the 99%) who cannot afford to live in landed properties now find themselves confined to living in ever shrinking HDB flats. Apparently quality of life will not be affected according to the CEO of HDB. She who most likely isn't currently living in one of her organisations latest creations but nevertheless finds herself qualified to pronounce on the fitness of purpose for it.
She needs to walk the talk. Sell off whatever private property she is currently living in (at a handsome profit too I'm sure) and buy a flat to live in with her family. Mr Khaw Boon Wan can make an exception for her and put her at the front of the queue, I don't think Singaporeans would mind. She AND her family should stay in that flat for the duration of her tenure as CEO of HDB. Then, she should talk.
The Institue of Mental Health should relook their data and find out the proportion of people who suffer from mental problems living in HDB flats compared to those that do not and see if there is a correlation. It would be an interesting data point whichever way it turns out. Regardless, the rising trend in mental illness correlating with increasingly smaller flat sizes is already a fact.
Mr Khaw really should institute a design review of all current HDB flats and freeze construction of any that have yet to start until such a review is done. Build show flats of various size configurations and invite applicants (eg: newly weds) to rank them. NO prices should be shown as the intention is to find the acceptable size of a unit. I would suggest that the design that unanimously gets a "wow so spacious" be seriously considered as the minimum size to build for future construction. Using focus groups to determine public reactions to products and services is a standard industry practice. If Mr Khaw declines to do so, he needs to ask himself why not? And let us know.
Do you know why ordinarily harmless grasshoppers turn into destructive locusts? Crowded living conditions. When the number of grasshoppers get too cramped for space, they start rubbing against each other and this sets off a metamorphic change. They turn brown and start growing flight capable wings. The change is irreversible. Once airborne, they spread destruction the likes of which are written in the bible.
The Singaporean 'grasshopper' is beginning to get agitated. The buzz of discontent can be heard by all except the intentionally deaf. They are definitely rubbing against each other in the MRT trains! Some might already be testing their wings by jumping out of their windows or taking a one way trip to Bedok reservoir.
The housing problem is not going to resolve itself by simple proclaimation that it is not a problem. or even worse: that it is a good thing. Simply repeating that unsupported assertion by various people will not change that fact. Don't believe me? A LOT of people had been saying that Greece will not default on its debt too. Many times. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Gardens By The Pay
Let's be honest here: Gardens by the Bay was conceived to complement the Marina Bay Sands casino. I find it highly unlikely that gamblers would come all the way here to waste time walking around the gardens. No doubt high rollers would receive free entry tickets as a comp benefit. Singaporeans however would be ineligible as it would constitute a subsidy against the $100 entry fee which would be a big no no. After all, RWS's free shuttle service was shot down in no uncertain terms.
The two climate controlled domes for temperate or Mediteranean plants is a mistake. Just who is the target audience? Rich Singaporeans (rich anyone else for that matter) can and would fly to those countries to see the real thing. So, basically only those poor Singaporeans who cannot afford to go overseas for holidays will queue up in droves to pay the entrance fees to subsidize the running of these climate controlled systems. Excellent business plan! Good luck with that.
A better idea would have been to recreate a tropical rain forest which is more in tune with our climate. With both our neighbours to the north and south bent on burning up theirs, we could stock our garden specimens probably for free! What's more, most people (including high rollers) vwould likely never have ventured into a rain forest thereby making it a more attractive destination. With a much lower operating cost too.
So what happens when the Gardens by the Bay can't pay its way? (Hint: Like the durian by the Esplanade). One way or another everyone will be paying for it via taxes they pay. Odds for GST hitting 10%? Better than even. (Well, maybe 8%, just so the powers that be can say that my prediction is wrong :) )
Sunday 13 November 2011
Prison Island Singapore
Not just because as some say we are a police state, but because we are destroying our living environment. As long time residents will know just by looking out of their windows, their view has become progressively restricted. Where once you could see the horizon, now all you can see is a row of apartment blocks. How different is this from an inmate in a prison where all you can see is either the next cell block or the prison walls?
The rising demand for pubic housing has seen recent HDB apartments built higher (think 40 to 50 story flats) and closer together. This picture of flats packed like dominoes is an example. Just what kind of view can someone staying in the middle blocks expect to see? Even those in the periphery will have their view blocked when the land next to them gets developed. What you see here is the construction of highrise slums.
A recent segment on the news showing Singaporeans viewing new HDB showflats drew comments on the smallness of the units. This was followed a few days later in the papers where the HDB CEO commented that while flats have become smaller, the space per occupant has actually increased and that quality of living need not be affected. If that is the case, then prison inmates must be living in the lap of luxury in their cells! This is what I call adding insult to injury. Not only are you forced to eat shit (buy smaller flats), but you are told that it is actually good for you.
It is ironic that in a country that pioneered or at least adopted the open concept zoo to encourage animals to breed, the orangutan Ah Meng likely lived in more spacious quarters than most Singaporeans today. Where even battery chickens have minimum space requirements specified by law, our housing minister, Mr Khaw Boon Wan prefers to let market forces decide the same for humans. And the market's profit motivated forces will soon dictate units that will shrink from shoebox to matchbox and finally to coffinbox size. All very good if you are a shoe, a match or otherwise dead.
Let us be honest here. Any living environment in which the occupants have to move sideways when two of them pass each other is too cramped. The size of the living and bedrooms in new flats are so small that by the time the minimal furniture is installed, the occupants have to tiptoe sideways around them. How could this possibly be described as high quality of life? These design defects cannot be rectified in some future upgrading exercise. Adding on an extra room does not increase the size of the original small rooms. The only way to rectify this would be to demolish and rebuild bigger. Does the Minister and HDB see their future selves (not the incumbents of course, they would have long since retired) having the will and fortitude to do this in the future? Who's going to bear the costs? Better to build it right the first time around than to rebuild.
I do not think that building bigger units for HDB flats will add significantly to the cost. The real reason for not doing so is because HDB has pegged its pricing to the price of private property. Unfortunately, private property developers look at HDB prices to set their prices. This circular price referencing has only one inevitable outcome: Prices spiraling upwards. With higher prices, it is not
possible for HDB to price their flats 'affordably' if the unit area of the flat is too big. And so HDB has resorted to the standard supermarket trick of maintaining prices while reducing the size of the flats to give the illusion of affordability.
It has become a political imperative to quickly resolve the housing issue. This has translated to building more rather than better. All this does at best is to relieve the short term pent up demand for a longer term need. But by designing them to be barely liveable, all it is doing is storing up future resentment. Mr Khaw can do us (and the future housing minister) all a favour by freezing current building plans pending a design review where inputs from people who will be paying for and ACTUALLY staying in those buildings are taken into consideration.
Don't hold your breath for rational action though. The powers that be who are in charge currently have a very short term perspective (basically the next general election in 2016). Better to reap short term populist (despite all protestations to the contrary) gains. In the longer term, it's not their problem. They will have already retired by then. YOU however will still be paying off your 30 year mortgage for a house in which you have to move sideways like a crab, assuming you haven't lost your job to a foreigner in the meantime.
The rising demand for pubic housing has seen recent HDB apartments built higher (think 40 to 50 story flats) and closer together. This picture of flats packed like dominoes is an example. Just what kind of view can someone staying in the middle blocks expect to see? Even those in the periphery will have their view blocked when the land next to them gets developed. What you see here is the construction of highrise slums.
A recent segment on the news showing Singaporeans viewing new HDB showflats drew comments on the smallness of the units. This was followed a few days later in the papers where the HDB CEO commented that while flats have become smaller, the space per occupant has actually increased and that quality of living need not be affected. If that is the case, then prison inmates must be living in the lap of luxury in their cells! This is what I call adding insult to injury. Not only are you forced to eat shit (buy smaller flats), but you are told that it is actually good for you.
It is ironic that in a country that pioneered or at least adopted the open concept zoo to encourage animals to breed, the orangutan Ah Meng likely lived in more spacious quarters than most Singaporeans today. Where even battery chickens have minimum space requirements specified by law, our housing minister, Mr Khaw Boon Wan prefers to let market forces decide the same for humans. And the market's profit motivated forces will soon dictate units that will shrink from shoebox to matchbox and finally to coffinbox size. All very good if you are a shoe, a match or otherwise dead.
Let us be honest here. Any living environment in which the occupants have to move sideways when two of them pass each other is too cramped. The size of the living and bedrooms in new flats are so small that by the time the minimal furniture is installed, the occupants have to tiptoe sideways around them. How could this possibly be described as high quality of life? These design defects cannot be rectified in some future upgrading exercise. Adding on an extra room does not increase the size of the original small rooms. The only way to rectify this would be to demolish and rebuild bigger. Does the Minister and HDB see their future selves (not the incumbents of course, they would have long since retired) having the will and fortitude to do this in the future? Who's going to bear the costs? Better to build it right the first time around than to rebuild.
I do not think that building bigger units for HDB flats will add significantly to the cost. The real reason for not doing so is because HDB has pegged its pricing to the price of private property. Unfortunately, private property developers look at HDB prices to set their prices. This circular price referencing has only one inevitable outcome: Prices spiraling upwards. With higher prices, it is not
possible for HDB to price their flats 'affordably' if the unit area of the flat is too big. And so HDB has resorted to the standard supermarket trick of maintaining prices while reducing the size of the flats to give the illusion of affordability.
It has become a political imperative to quickly resolve the housing issue. This has translated to building more rather than better. All this does at best is to relieve the short term pent up demand for a longer term need. But by designing them to be barely liveable, all it is doing is storing up future resentment. Mr Khaw can do us (and the future housing minister) all a favour by freezing current building plans pending a design review where inputs from people who will be paying for and ACTUALLY staying in those buildings are taken into consideration.
Don't hold your breath for rational action though. The powers that be who are in charge currently have a very short term perspective (basically the next general election in 2016). Better to reap short term populist (despite all protestations to the contrary) gains. In the longer term, it's not their problem. They will have already retired by then. YOU however will still be paying off your 30 year mortgage for a house in which you have to move sideways like a crab, assuming you haven't lost your job to a foreigner in the meantime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)