Every 5 years we get those "once in 50 years" floods....

The previous one being in 2006. The minister said:

"You can't design for rainfall of this level, it is just too huge. The thing we can accept is that we can only design our canal of a certain size, and at the end of the day, we have to live with some of these occurrences which occur once in 50 years or so".

-Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Environment and Water Resources Minister, 2006.[Link]

.

Looks like we don't pay our ministers enough to create a different excuse when these things happen.

"Yesterday's event, I was told by the PUB, occurs once every 50 years"

- Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, 20 Nov 2009[Link]

.

I was caught in a flood at Bukit Timah in 1988. It took 5 hours for the water to subside before I could get out of the bus I was on to go home. Al Gore said in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that Singapore will be underwater in a few decades. I wonder if the future minister will say "Sorry guys, it is just a once in a 3000 year event" as all of us drown in our HDB flats.

Ron Paul Audit the Fed Bill Advances

Given the current state of the US economy and the high level of debt in the country, it is hard to argue that the Fed under Greenspan had done a good job. The main argument against his bill was that the Fed should be kept independent so they shouldn't be audited. In the book Greenspan's Fraud, Ravi Batra's analysis of Fed policy showed that Greenspan wasn't independent at all anyway and supported irresponsible fiscal policies such as those of George Bush in 2001 which put country back on the path of rising govt debt. It just doesn't make sense in a democratic country to have such a powerful institution shrouded in so much secrecy.

Ron Paul explains why he thinks why the Fed has to be 'ended':


---------------------
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panel-votes-to-audit-feds-balance-sheet-2009-11-19



November 19, the House Financial Services Committee advanced a bill that calls for the General Accounting Office to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.
A 43-26 committee vote rejected a substitute proposal offered by North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt. Its provisions would have sanctioned retention of the long-standing ban against congressional scrutiny of the Fed’s monetary policies.
Despite opposition from committee chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the measure written by Texas Republican Ron Paul survived its first test. Success came because of 313 House cosponsors and a huge outpouring of citizen backing. Yet Frank claimed that the proposed audit would “be seen as weakening the independence of monetary policy with consequent negative implications."Frank’s opinion has regularly been buttressed by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke who urgently favors retention of the Fed’s independence. Practically all opponents of the Paul measure pointed to the need for the Fed to continue operating without oversight. Former Fed research specialist Michael Feroli, now an economist with JPMorgan Chase, urged the Fed to “do whatever it takes to stop this from going forward and eroding confidence in the Fed’s independence."But it is precisely a loss of confidence in the Fed that has generated unprecedented support for opening up the central bank’s books and supplying the American people with heretofore hidden information. The Fed certainly had a role in bringing on the current economic downturn. Chairman Bernanke’s refusal to answer questions about the Fed’s role has added more muscle to the growing demand for scrutinizing the Fed’s books. If the Fed has nothing to hide, detractors ask, why do its leaders and supporters fear scrutiny?Should the measure gain full House and Senate approval and a presidential signature (surely steep hills to climb!), the Fed will have to bare details about its emergency lending programs, bailouts of financial institutions, dealings with like institutions in foreign capitals, and the process it employs in setting interest rates. Chairman Frank has sought to calm the fears of Fed supporters by indicating that the Paul measure will be “revisited” when the full House considers the bill. Piggybacking the measure onto another bill, such as the proposed Financial Stability Improvement Act, might be one tactic to undo it. Without doubt, roadblocks will be erected to gut the bill, and the big guns seeking to preserve the Fed’s vaunted “independence” will surely be trotted out as the measure proceeds through the legislative process.Few supporters of our nation's central bank care to note that the creation of the Federal Reserve parallels a call in Marx’s Communist Manifesto for “centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Fed was actually pushed toward creation in 1913 by President Wilson’s powerful and manipulative guru, Edward Mandell House, who earlier had written of his desire for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."But note that Marx sought a central bank “in the hands of the state.” Those who created the Fed in 1913 went a huge step further and made it a private institution free of congressional scrutiny. Fed creators actually out-Marxed Marx by shielding it from examination. The result? Under its management, U.S. currency has lost 95 percent of its value, a trend that continues. The American people are being cleverly divested of their wealth. And power over what happens in our nation sits more with the Fed than it does with Congress. The American people need to know what the Fed has done and continues to do.Congressman Paul has also introduced a measure to abolish the Federal Reserve outright. His recently published bestseller End the Fed provides reasons why management of the nation’s economy should be terminated, fiat currency should be discarded, and commodity money reestablished. His efforts over many years, long considered extreme or even absurd by the establishment, have attracted enormous popular support as evidenced by the audit measure’s 313 cosponsors.What will happen as the audit bill moves through the congressional process is unknown. But the awakening of a large number of Americans to the secrecy and power of the Fed should already be considered a stunning victory for Constitution-minded Americans.

Some Singaporeans become a minority in Singapore......

“When I go for a function and I see only expat Indians and no Singaporean Indians, I feel uncomfortable – like the future is being taken over by expats. What will happen in 15 or 20 years’ time, when my children start work?’ -Mr K. Varatharaju.

Straits Times [Link]

Actually Mr. Varatharaju does not need to wait until his children start work. It is already happening.

An increasing number of companies in Singapore now do not even want applications from Singaporeans let alone older Singaporeans:

I don't blame these companies or foreign individuals at all for the current situation. Companies want foreign workers for various reasons - no in-camp disruptions, can easily hire and fire, bigger pool of younger workers, sometimes lower wages etc. Companies are profit seeking entities, they do not exist to maximise the social or economic benefits for Singaporeans. Someone else was suppose to take care of that equation. You cannot blame foreigners because they are here to seek a better life for themselves just as we do for ourselves. Once there is a large pool of, say, mainland Chinese, in the company it makes less sense to hire Singaporeans because the cultural and language differences will make management difficult. There is no shortage of almost any kind of skill you can get from China and India so you can guess what will happen to the Singaporean worker in the long run if the PAP keeps its policies.

Structural Unemployment in Singapore

We are told to work for as long as we can and if possible never retire.

However, once you reach 45 and above, finding a job is a challenge. Older Singaporeans have struggled with this problem for many years. Recently the MoM came out with a set of guidelines on the re-employment of older workers[Link]. These set of guidelines will lead to legislative changes in 2012. So 3 years from now we will discover these guidelines to be inadequate and ineffective. Why?

Our structural unemployment problem is caused by our liberal foreign worker policy which brought hundreds of thouands of young workers from India, China, Phillipines etc. Our workforce demographics has been distorted by this high influx. With a large pool of young workers available why would employers try to retain or hire older Singaporean workers? Remember in the past we never had the structural unemployment problem because during the boomtime, employers will have a hard time find workers and they are 'forced' to hire older workers and give them a chance.

You can read about what the MoM is trying to do. It does not get to the heart of the problem and when we get to 2012 another 3 years will be wasted and many more seniors will be struggling to stay afloat.

---------------------------------------------------
52-year-old tried CDC job-matching, but still draws a blank
I REFER to the letter, "Hiring seniors", by Ms Jackie Chew last Saturday.
She is not the only one who has been experiencing difficulty in finding employment.
I am 52 years old and the sole breadwinner of my household. I lost my job in August and have tried job matching via community development councils (CDC). I sent in numerous applications, attended numerous interviews and still drew a blank - no replies, no phone calls whatsoever.
Some jobs in the administrative field require women only or someone who can "liaise with Mandarin-speaking customers", which puts me out of the running, even though I have administrative experience of more then 20 years.
I hope local employers would reconsider their age restriction policy, and like Ms Chew, I am not giving up hope just yet.
Sazali Arshad
------------------------------------
Please don't belittle older job applicants

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Ms Jackie Chew, 'Hiring seniors: Too many firms still unsupportive'.

What does it take to get a job after age 56? I found out the hard way that trying all ways is of no help.

I am 59 and I am experiencing the same discouraging questions and remarks from potential employers.

The often pointed interviews go like this:

'So you have no more housing and car mortgages to service. Your children are all grown up now. You are now a free man. But this job calls for hard work.

'You can't take this job to pass your time.'

I also note that younger supervisors prefer to work with subordinates younger than them.

Still, I am not giving up.

Hiring firms and bosses should be more humane in their interviews. Please do not belittle us.

Those who interview older applicants should remember that one day, they too will join our ranks and taste the same bitter pill.

Tan Siang Eng
---------------------------------
Hiring seniors
'Too many firms still unsupportive.'

MS JACKIE CHEW: 'What does it take to get a job? I found out the hard way that trying all ways is of no help if one is aged 56, like me. While I read of earnest government efforts to encourage people to work until they are 65, the reality is far from encouraging. An example: When I answered a job ad, the first question I was asked was my age, followed by the remark that the company was looking for applicants aged 30 or younger. Too many firms are still unsupportive. Firms should also be more diplomatic in conveying their age-restrictive policy. Still, I am not giving up.'

The Economist : A PR problem

The warning signs were all there for the past 8-10 years. The PAP ignored the concerns of the people and it is now too late to turn back - the PAP will have to face the resentment of the citizens adversely affected by their policy at the coming elections.

I sense the ground has shifted on this single issue. Along with the rising cost of living, income gap, stagnant wages and structural unemployment, there is rising disquiet and unease among the population that is not going to disappear due to the PAP's usual pre-election 'sweetening'.

The PAP govt pursued a path that lacked common sense and a large segment of the population have suffered due to their bad policies.
--------------------
[Link to article in The Economist]
Immigration becomes the hot political issue in a model city-state
AP

A bit too exotic for Singapore’s comfort?AT CHINA’s 60th anniversary bash last month, Zhang Yuanyuan, a China-born, permanent resident of Singapore, was caught on camera professing her love for her native country. The clip caused a storm in the island state; it was the latest sign of resentment towards incomers and evidence that immigration is becoming the city-state’s dominant political issue.

Faced with an ageing population and low fertility, Singapore’s government has long courted foreigners to plug gaps in the workforce. In 1990, citizens made up 86% of Singapore’s 3m people. Today, the share is 64% of 5m-odd. More than one in three people are foreigners (permanent residents, known as PRs, and non-residents).

In the past, immigrants were concentrated at the top or bottom of the jobs ladder, performing work that Singaporeans could not or did not want to do. Today, foreigners compete on almost every rung. Some, like geneticists, bring in useful skills. Others—it is feared—displace local skills and depress wages at the bottom.

Such fears are especially sharp during a recession. Critics say PRs enjoy the benefits of citizenship without all the responsibilities, such as national service for men (first-generation PRs are generally exempt). Immigrants are said to mix less with Singaporeans than they used to. The rise in numbers means many foreign groups have reached critical mass, producing little ethnic enclaves—the government’s bête noire. “I am Singaporean and tired of service staff who can only speak Mandarin” is a group on Facebook, the social-networking site, with more than 10,000 members.

High immigration has coincided with a widening income gap. Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, rose from 0.444 in 2000 to 0.481 in 2008—higher than in China and America. The contrast between the glitzy downtown and the “heartlands” is glaring, and more damaging in tiny, dense Singapore than it would be in a big country, says Paulin Straughan of the National University of Singapore.

To defuse the pressure, the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, says Singapore will slow down the intake of migrants while accentuating the privileges of citizenship. Meanwhile, the government has plonked S$10m ($7m) into the new National Integration Council (NIC), which will try to promote interactions between different groups. It will not be easy, as the government admits. “The NIC recognises that integration is a long-term effort, and may take years before success is apparent,” says Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the head of the NIC and minister for community development, youth and sports.

But Singaporeans care less about fuzzy notions of integration than their own jobs, says Chung Wai-Keung of the Singapore Management University. He wants employment laws rewritten to favour locals. But this would contradict the government’s commitment to an open economy. And the dominance of the ruling People’s Action Party means that in Singapore—unlike many countries—anti-immigrant sentiment cannot easily gain a strong political voice. Expect no drastic policy changes.

These ripples are part of Singapore’s transformation from a micro-managed melting pot into a cosmopolitan city-state. Before the internet, it is hard to imagine the debate that raged around the hapless Ms Zhang. Now, many Singaporeans defend her. In the new Singapore, it is all right to love one’s country—even if it is China.

Taxi Ridership Falls...

Straits Times taxi ridership falls

So what is the surprise? Taxi ridership fell from 11.3 million rides in 2007 to 10.9 million in 2008. Taxi driver's income (those driving 10 hours a day) shrunk 6% to $2250 a month.

I used to take taxis everyday to work 5 years ago. But my taxi fare went up from $16 to $26 over the years! The last fare hikes in 2007 pushed me to take buses and the MRT.

The following postings from my blog:

So who wanted the fare increase? Recall that the cab drivers were against the fare increase which caused them to lose customers during the peak hours. There is now a deadweight loss as the capacity exceeds demand during these hours and many cabs lay idle during peak periods except on rainy days.

Goodbye taxi hello bus + MRT. I love taking taxis to work. They get me there fresh, ready and energetic. The buses and MRT packed like sardine cans drain my energy. However, I didn't have a choice but to switch because the hikes at the end of 2007 were hefty:

Current Rate.............................................New Rate
City Area Surcharge $1 peak hour to $3.00 (5pm till midnight, Mon to Sat)
Late Night Charge staggered 10% to 50%--------- 50% of metered fare (12am till 5:59am)
Peak Period Surcharge $2.00 ---------35% of metered fare (7am till 9:30am, 5pm till 8pm)
Flagged Down Fare $2.50 for first km ---------$2.80 for first km
Waiting time $0.10 every 25s ----- $0.20 every 45s
Distance Rate (<=10km) $0.10 every 210 m-------$0.20 every 385m from 2nd km till 10km
Distance Rate (>10km) $0.10 every 175 m ------$0.20 every 330m above 10km
Call Booking (prime time) $4.00 ------$3.50 (7am to 9:30am, 5pm to 11pm , weekdays)
Call Booking (other time) $2.50 ------$2.50

Singaporeans pay more for fewer taxi rides. Taxi drivers make less income. So who or what is doing better? Answer here.

Recently, LTA rejected the application to start another taxi company[Link]. But I think the solution is to cut out the unnecessary middle man who makes a hefty profit from taxi rentals.

It is a case of high fares killing the goose that laid the golden
eggs.
The Land Transport Authority should realise the current system is not
sustainable.
Privately owned taxis do not require a layer of management and
its associated costs. In fact, the idea of taking home all the fare spurs harder
work, as in any free enterprise. - Jack Chew's Forum Letter[Link]

The LTA eliminated independent privately owned taxis leading to almost full corporatisation of the taxi business. The end result is higher taxi fares and lower income for taxi drivers.

"Taxicabs of Hong Kong provide a taxi system. Most taxis are independently owned and operated" Wikipedia on Taxicabs of Hong Kong.

.

In many cities, taxi company operate as cooperatives[example here] so that taxi drivers can earn a better income. But in Singapore, it is better, cheaper and faster so that corporations can make more rent.

Dr Lim Hock Siew speaks....

As a Singaporean, I cannot support this system and the people running the system that did this to a fellow Singaporean. Dr. Lim tells us that the authorities wanted to extract a 'repentence' from him as a condition for his release from detention. Dr. Lim does not need to repent...the people who locked him up for 19 years should be the ones repenting their atrocious inhumance actions. Until today, they show no regret - one of them telling the whole world that the Chinese people do not want democracy or freedom....the 2 things that could have prevented this despicable act.

Economic Illusions : Where the Chinese stimulus went...

Hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry is a very intelligent guy. You can occasionally catch him on Bloomberg when he appears as a guest to share his wisdom on the world economy and financial markets. In today's world, you get to the truth by asking the right questions. While the world applauded China's stimulus for being more effective than Obama's generating 9% growth for the Chinese economy, Hugh Hendry asked himself where the billions in China's stimulus package went to and this is what he found:

From the mainstream media, we get this impression that the Chinese economy is an almighty unstoppable engine that is about to lead and dominate the world. The truth is a large part of the Chinese economy is export dependent and highly dependent on US consumer demand. When the US economy started tanking, Chinese factories closed and workers were laid off in large numbers. In a normal year, there are 600 riots (official figure) so there is enormous fear of social unrest if unemployment goes up. To shore up its economy temporarily they pumped billions into infrastructure projects and encouraged their banks to lend to businesses. They were able to avoid massive unemployment and keep the economy going until now.

While the media become fixated with the 'Chinese miracle', they forget how fragile their system is today. There is little doubt where China will be in long run. Throughout history, there were a few short periods of 100 years where China fell behind for various reasons only to surge ahead of the world. The problem is most of us don't live to 100 and China's resurgence is not a one way street given its current political and economic system in which various excesses can build up. The recent case in Chongqing [Link]shows how things can go very wrong in when you have a mix of centralised power, corruption, capitalism and crime. Chongqing is not a small town - it has a population of 31 million.

MM Lee said the Chinese are not interested in votes and freedom of speech[Link]. Economic growth masks many underlying problems with the Chinese system - we just have to look at Indonesia and S. Korea in 1997 to understand how quickly the illusion of an economic miracle can unravel. ...and when those economies fell apart during the Asian Crisis...what did the people want and demand for? Democracy and freedom. Today these nations are functioning democracies and the people are no worse off than they were under dictators and authoritarian rule.

Prof Hui Weng Tat: Slow the foreign influx.

You can read the article on Prof Hui's view here[Link]. The article can be summarised as follows:

1. Singapore in maximising its GDP growth went overboard to import foreign workers. In 2007, of the 235,000 jobs added in 2007, six in 10 went to foreigners. The ratio rose last year, with foreigners taking seven in 10 of the 222,000 new jobs.

2. Importing foreign workers in large numbers has worsened the income gap. The depression of low wage workers' income, Prof Hui believes will lead to social problems.

3. 5000 Singaporeans seek residency elsewhere. These are usually the higher skilled workers.

4. His solution is to tighten the foreign influx, accept moderate growth and allow dual citizenship to retain talent.

For those reading my blog there is nothing new in Prof Hui's views except that he is an associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and his views appeared in the Straits Times.

With the income gap that is so large, our problem is one of wealth distribution. There is no point in maximising GDP growth when a large segment of the population does not benefit from the growth and have to shoulder the disproportionate burden of the side effects of such growth in the form of rising cost of living and depressed wages. A few years ago, when the govt discovered that the wages of many Singaporeans have fallen below subsistence level, they implemented Workfare to keep these Singaporeans afloat - just enough for food, housing and transport - but it is capped at $100 per month and workers have to:

• Be a Singapore Citizen; and
• Have a monthly salary of $1,500 or less; and
• Be above 35 years of age; and
• Stay in a property with an Annual Value of not more than $10,000; and
• Have worked at least three months in any six month period in the calendar year for half the payout, or at least six months in the calendar year for the full payout.

Workfare is a small patch so that the PAP govt can avoid major policy changes and keep the system going. But what is really so appealing about a system that have Singaporeans working full time jobs to stay just above the subsistence level?

The main reason why the PAP has not done more is because we have a political system in which the people whose benefits have been traded off suffer in silence because they have no voice and can do nothing in this climate of fear. If you look at the Prof Hui's table on the widening wage gap, it is no coincidence that every country above us has more political freedom and democracy.

Snippets from Capitalism A Love Story...

Managed to catch the movie yesterday. It exceeded my expectations in terms of entertainment value but objectivity and rigor are not Michael Moore's strengths. You have to hand it to him for making topics like capitalism entertaining. There are many lessons in movie relevant to Singapore including the erosion of the middleclass, hollowing out of the US economy, falling wages as productivity increases, dangers of consumer & housing debt and the consequences of tax cuts for the rich etc.

One part I found one part particularly interesting was a speech by President Carter who warned about the dangers of a materialistic society in 1979:

A society in which people define themselves by what they own and consum will eventually lose its meaning and purpose. President Carter in 1979 foresaw the dangers of a materialistic society ruled by money.

Another part of the movie I found interesting was about a memo that Citigroup sent to its high net worth individuals in 2005. It described how USA has turned into a plutocracy (rule by wealthy) in which the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95% combined. The only threat to this plutocracy is democracy - one man one vote means the 99% of the people at the bottom control 99% of the votes. The only reason why the 99% put up with the income gap is the belief that they too can be one of the people in the top 1% if they work hard enough. The Citigroup memo is found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

The movie traces what happened to ordinary American families over the past 2 decades and the bottomline is life got steadily worse under a highly capitalistic system in which leaders simply give in to the demands of big corporations . If the system does not change it is not difficult to predict what outcome will be for ordinary Americans in 20 years time. There are many similarities between what has happened in America and what is taking place here in Singapore. If change does not come soon, it is easy to predict what will happen to the ordinary Singaporeans in 20 years time.