After the 2011 presidential election, in which Tan Jee Say came in a decent third, he made the following points (to mask his second defeat in three months, remember he RI boy and RI boys not supposed to be serial losers, and make himself feel and look good?)

– More people voted for him than for the WP in the May general election (Actually it was even better than that as I wrote recently in TJS’s voice, ”someone with 25% of voters behind me (5% more people voted for me than for the WP, and NSP combined and that the combined votes of all the opposition parties was only 40% more than the people who voted for me”): QED he was more popular than WP. Plausible, I tot.

– That many of his supporters would have likely spoiled their votes. This I found a bit rich: 25% of S’porean voters spoiling their votes? Come on pull the other leg. Even 5% would be 4% too many.

Anyway, I tot of  what he said about his popularity and his supporters when reading this recently from in Economist blog: The idea that political behaviour is expressive rather than instrumental—that we vote not to maximise the chances that our policy preferences will be implemented by government, but instead to send a message to ourselves and others about who we are, and what we care about—is meant to overcome a number of flaws in simple economistic accounts of voting … What message, then, does a vote for Newt Gingrich express? What message is so compelling that South Carolina voters were willing to overlook Mr Gingrich’s overwhelming liabilities as a candidate? “We think open marriages are great!”? “We love corrupt Washington insiders”? I guess not. Saturday’s expressive message, I think, comes down to this: “We’re not going down without a fight!

Translated into S’pore politics, could it be the 25% of S’poreans who voted for him, voted not because he was TJS but because he was perceived as the candidate that the PAP and government would have least preferred? If he did not stand, they would have voted for one Tan Kin Lian, who lost his deposit when TJS stood? Nothing to do who TJS is, but everything to do with his perceived anti-PAP and - govmin credentials?

So if he forms a new party, he and his alleged fan gal club (allegedly Jeannette Chong, Nicole Seah and Michelle Lim), may be surprised to discover that the 25% of the popular vote for presidential candidate TJS doesn’t translate into support for their new party (even with gal sepport). These voters have other ways of sending a message to themselves and others about who they are, and what they care about: They can vote WP or SDP.

Juz read this (11 am): He is setting up the the shared resource centre for the Opposition that he was thinking about before the last general election. Gd for him. Gd, astute tactical move. He can use this to research if he has the support needed to set up a new and credible political party. All the best.

(BTW, “The Singet Not the Song” was the title of a 1961 very forgetable British film about a priest and a gay attracted to him but not to his message. Priest was a Roman Catholic.)

– Mobile App Creation

– Web Development

– Blogging

– Data Analysis

– Coding

– Networking

 http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/6-High-Value-Skills-That-Will-Supplement-Your-Career.aspx?partner=ntu12#ixzz1kRwHMs00

So what contributed to the recent decoupling of Singapore and Hong Kong home prices?

The simple answer is mortgage rates.

Driven by strong loan growth and rising loan-to-deposit ratios, Hong Kong banks have raised their mortgage rate spreads since early this year [2011]. This has resulted in higher mortgage rates and reduced demand for residential properties, which in turn led to the slide in private home prices since September.

On the other hand, the Government’s property cooling efforts have so far been thwarted by very low mortgage rates. With base interest rates remaining near record lows and Singapore banks charging very low mortgage spreads, affordability remains high.

However, there is a risk that Singapore mortgage rates would rise next year from their current low levels. Like their Hong Kong peers, Singapore banks have also experienced strong loan growth over the past year, which in turn has pushed up their loan-to-deposit ratios – although it must be said that ratios in Singapore dollars are generally still low.

Moreover, with the debt crisis that is plaguing the European Union, there has been anecdotal evidence that some European banks are pulling back their credit lines in Singapore to help boost capital ratios as required by the EU debt plan. If these banks continue to deleverage, it could result in less competition in the lending market for Singapore banks, which may then feel comfortable enough to raise their lending spreads, including mortgage spreads.

In fact, during the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, local banks such as UOB and OCBC were able to increase their net interest margins as foreign banks reduced their lending activities in Singapore.

Thus, while the recent decoupling in Singapore and Hong Kong residential property prices may make for an interesting read, we do not expect it to last for long, especially with the latest round of cooling measures introduced in Singapore.

http://www.todayonline.com/Commentary/EDC111223-0000039/A-tale-of-two-cities

Should happen as this UBS analyst postulated in late Dec 2011. But if the government thinks property prices will tank, not juz fall a little, the local banks will “do the right thing” by home owners, but not investors. It has happened before. In the crisis in the mid 80s, when many home owners had negative equity, the banks “did the right thing” and did not ask for more equity. Home owners had gd reason to vote PAP.  

Although what the PAP is doing is observable to the Opposition parties and their fellow travellers on the Internet, they seem blind or indifferent to the PAP’s actions, or both, because of their assumptions and prejudices. Worse, the major Opposition parties are complacent, what with the problems at WP, NSP and SPP (More of this on Monday in a CNY Special — gossip I heard while feasting and gambling).

Two Sundays ago, (as part of his ang pow strategy?) PM promised that, despite the economy slowing down, the government would improve the education and public transport systems, and build more homes so that young couples can start their families. These remarks were made at a Lunar New Year event  in his Teck Ghee constituency, part of the Ang Mo Kio GRC. He also officiated at the re-opening of a wet market and food centre where he said more of such markets will be built over the next few years, with the aim of keeping food prices affordable. Not longnago, such markets were being to a commercial company which promptly increased rentals. He said nothing then. And the HDB and Comrade Mah gave grumblers the finger.

Then last Saturday in his CNY message he said Having children is ultimately a personal decision for families to make, but Government will do its part to reduce the anxieties and burdens of parenthood. Baby Bonuses already help families with the costs of raising children. We are also doing more to help parents balance work and parent­hood, including extending maternity and childcare leave, and encouraging companies to offer flexible working arrangements for employees with children. We are committed to helping young couples obtain their first HDB flat as soon as possible. With government support, childcare has become more affordable, and childcare centres are expanding and providing many more places than before. The critical factor now is not more financial incentives, but creating the supportive social climate and attitudes that will encourage couples to have more children.

This presses so many “hot” buttons: freedom to choose to have babies, social environment, financial help in raising children and affordable housing for the young.

What with the building of more public  flats (despite the slowndown, and possible recession, Comrade Mah must be rolling his eyes in disbelief) and now taking a serious attitude towards other issues that upset voters (transport, education and the rising cost of living and the cost of raising a family, social and monetary, it looks like the government and the PAP have learnt the lesson that “It’s the voters, stupid”.

In the past, we would be told to tighten our belts to survive the slowdown. But given the still high levels, by global standards, of ministerial pay, and Grace Fu’s bitching about her pay cut, it would not be politic to tell S’poreans to lower their expectations. Better to follow the Roman emperors who made sure the populace of Rome had plenty of bread and circuses (gladitorial games). And S’pore has the money, despite what the SDP and Goh Meng Seng say. Even SDP’s most famous ex-member says so. To TJS, S$60bn from the reserves is “small change”. So does Citi, an investment bank**.

Even as late as November, I wasn’t too sure if the PAP and government had learnt the lessom of the May and August elections. In November, newbie PAP acting junior minister (and ex army brigader) was leading raids on foreign workers quarters. Judging from his remarks on Facebook, I assumed he wanted to see if the quarters were fit for human habitation, not whether there were illegal FT workers.

I was thinking to myself, he had better focus on the latter, given that the PAP is perceived by many true blue S’poreans as the “Pro Alien Party” and that the PAP should learn from the HK experience.

The once popular pro-democracy Civic Party suffered a series of defeats in neighborhood council elections in October last year in HK, as pro-Beijing politicians successfully tapped anti-immigrant sentiment as well as public hostility toward environmental measures perceived as harming employment and increasing the government’s construction costs.

The Civic Party had been gaining ground in previous elections, but ran into trouble this year as lawyers who are prominent in the party took on social and environmental causes that were unpopular among many Hong Kong residents. The most divisive issue has been whether more than 200,000 household workers, mostly from the Philippines and Indonesia, can eventually become eligible for citizenship.

The government and governing PAP is focusing on issues that affect the lives of ordinary S’poreans, shumething the Opposition parties especially the SDP have done for a long time. I hope bleeding heart liberals (especially those writing on or reading blogs like TOC) understand why. There are no votes (and eyeballs) to be won in helping foreigners, convicted criminals and dolphins.

Charity begins at home. Or to put it more nicely, “Conserve compassion: S’poreans come first, second and last”.

Build more homes, improve education and public transport, and keep the cost-of-living from rising too fast; and we shall see that the following comment by Catherine Lim is nothing but liberal, anti-PAP, bourgeois, elitist wishful thinking, “”PAP fatigue” among Singaporeans that is a result of PAP’s lack of nurturing Singaporeans politically, and failing to provide the proper environment for political education and growth.”

And who will care then if ministers pay themselves millions of dollars. I mean even the WP’s “base’ ministerial salary is $852,500 versus the PAP’s $1.1m. Waz 25%? The voters know that if the WP becomes part of the government, they will take the difference and keep quiet. I mean I don’t hear the WP MPs offering to take S$11,000 each, and publicly donating the balance to a charity.

One way the PAP and government can go wrong is that the PAP and govmin don’t do “circuses”. They don’t know how to spend tax-payers’ monies entertaining voters.

The other way is that they love FTs too much, thereby negating the message they are trying to send S’poreans that “S’poreans matter”. We are always hearing that less FTs, less propsperity from the local MSM, quoting alll manner of ministers, officials and “experts”, usually from local universities (esp from SMU) and broking houeses. The latest is variation on the theme that FTs are good for S’pore: yesterday, ST reported an economist from Merrill Lynch, an investment bank, as saying, “Part of the reason for the sticky inflation is that policies such as the tightening of the inflow of foreign workers are keeping wage costs high. These are being passed onto the consumer.” Knowing the reputation of the economist in question, ST most probably left out the other factors he cited, focusing on FT shortage.

FT love also means that the measures to cut back FTs will be not be serious, and enforced lightly, annoying S’poreans.

So there is al to fight for. The PAP’s continued decline is not assured, neither is its revival.

——–

*In a report dated December 2011, Citi said meeting higher expenditure needs without running a fiscal deficit will not be a problem for Singapore’s government. While the fiscal surplus may shrink, its economist estimates that the government can draw on an additional $1-3 billion in net investment returns, without breaching the 50% cap on the amount of long-term expected real returns on reserves.

In the text of the story, it said “the top 20 per cent … were hit by … rate of 5.7 per cent — much higher than the 4.7 per cent for the bottom 20 per cent”.

(ST’s Breaking News reported, “The lowest 20 per cent income group experienced a lower increase in consumer prices at 4.7 per cent, compared to the middle 60 per cent and highest 20 per cent income groups, which experienced CPI inflation of 5.1 per cent and 5.7 per cent respectively.”)

The editors and the two reporters Aaron Low (Econs correspondent) and Melissa Tan obviously don’t know their maths.

Say a poor S’porean is earning $12,000 a year: a 4.7%  inflation rate means he had $564 less to spend in the year on other things. For a rich S’porean earning $600,000, he has $34,200 less to spend.

Whose standard of living or savings rate is affected more? Obviously the poor S’porean, yet ST blithely writes, “Well-off bear biggest brunt of the price increases”.

What can I say?

The documents reveal that Mr Wayne was paid $800 when he decided to hand back his 10% stake in the firm. He later received a further $1,500.

Mr Wayne played a crucial role in the firm’s creation, helping Mr Jobs convince his friend Mr Wozniak to leave Hewlett-Packard and set up the new company.

He was given a 10% stake in the company so he could act as a tie-breaker if the other two men had a disagreement.

However, Mr Wayne left the company after less than a fortnight because he was worried that if it failed his assets could be seized by Apple’s creditors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16170953

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/fate-of-the-euro-a-contrarian-view/?nl=business&emc=dlbkpma21

=============

Better model to predict floods likely in the near future

It will include 3-D land-height map of Marina catchment area for a start

Published on Jan 21, 2012

National water agency PUB could be using a better flood-prediction computer model in the near future.

It will include a 3-D land-height map of just the Marina catchment area for a start, to predict the direction in which rainwater will flow at ground level during storms, and where flooding might occur.

Such a map, which the PUB has commissioned, will depict land height in that area to within 10cm accuracy.

Computer models now in use only predict how rainwater flows within drains and canals, and the intensity of rainfall they can handle.

=================

So it seems that no detailed studies were done on the catchment area that resulted from the new Marina Barrage.  So how can it be claimed by the authorities that the barrage did not cause the “once in 50 yrs” Orchard Rd floods. They occured twice in two months in 2010. And late last year, parts of Orchard Rd were “ponded”. 

No wonder this news came out on a day when S’poreans  were at the start the CNY hols? It was a gd day to “pond” the news? So did the same PR people who advised the use of “ponding” advise releasing the news on a day it would disappear without trace? If so, VivianB should kick the PUB’s new CEO again, juz as he did over the use of “ponding”. [The last two sentences were only added at 9.00am, hrs after the original posting.]

BTW, the “50-year flood” minister (“Speak to me in English” Yacoob) is now in charge of taming the Internet Tsunami. Can’t solve “ponding”, so moved to handling a tidal wave. Taz meritocracy S’porean-style? He is also a poster boy for a “sacrificing” minister. He was an associate professor at NUS earning at most couple of $100,000. He then became junior minister, with a starting salary of abt a million. Wow some sacrifice!

(I hope that the WP MPs were not and won’t be distracted by whom Yaw may or not have got pregnant.  I was wondering why I didn’t read abt Yaw asking questions or making points during the recent parly debate on salaries. Was it MSM censorship? Or because he wasn’t a brainy WP MP? Looks like it was because he was going to be a dragon baby father.). As to Mrs Chiam raising this point, pigs would fly first.

The WP MPs should be going for the jagular (like Lawrence Wong tried to do to WP: he failed because the timing waz wrong. Everyone winds down for CNY, even the minorities, not juz the Chinese and Perankan) 

The question I’m referring to appeared as a comment in this on TRE. I don’t think the PAP dares even trying to answer it. (I’ve added my comments: non italics and in square brackets]

Fairy:

January 21, 2012 at 8:16 pm Fairy(Quote)

If BG Tan Chin Juan is now making $1.1 million after 40% discount, do you think BG Tan will have made $1.8 million per annum if he had joined the private sector after SAF instead of PAP? [I would amplify by adding Kee Chiu, Heng , at the $1.8m mark, and Lawrence Wong at the $770,000 mark. Only one Lee Hsian Yang moved from the SAF to SingTel and serious money, and SingTel is not strictly in the private sector.] 

I ask this because the whole premise of the salary recommendation is that these people are making a 40% sacrifice, which with the exception of a few proven private sector cross-overs such as NEH [Ng Eng Hen], [VivianB] and Shanmugam, the rest are from the public sector with no proven private sector capabilities. Off course now they say they are paid high salaries based on “future performance capabilities”. I will be sent to IMH (institute of mental health) if I were to tell my boss to pay me high salary now based on my future performance capabilities!

Turning their arguments around, it means that the private [sector] will surely grab these super capable ministers and pay them full private sector wage the moment they are no longer a minister. After GE2011, there were three “super capable” ministers available, but I don’t see any private sector corporation making a song & dance to celebrate their good fortune to be able to snare one or more of them. [More on this see http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/sph-another-home-for-ex-ministers/]

The Gambler

The wisdom of the late two-time champion world poker player Puggy Pearson offers our last set of rules to follow. “Only three things to gamblin’,” Puggy once said, “knowing the 60/40 end of a proposition, money management and knowing yourself.” Well, those rules apply to investors too.

Here are Pearson’s all-encompassing rules:

•Knowing the 60/40 end of a proposition

Understanding the odds of drawing a winning hand is essential to poker. The 60/40 bets are those that offer the best chance of winning given all the options available. If you only play hands that have these odds or better, the statistics are on your side.

As investors, we should strive to put the odds in our favor with every trade. Finding the best 60/40 opportunities takes time and research, as there are many ways to find good candidates. These can be identified through individual stock selection, top-down or bottom-up approaches, technical or fundamental analysis, value-based pricing, growth-oriented, sector-leaning or whatever approach works best for a particular investor. The point is that investors must be constantly working toward finding and recognizing opportunities as they present themselves. Once you have been dealt the right cards, it’s time to take the next step.

•Money Management

Managing money is an ongoing process. The first tenet is to minimize losses on each opportunity. Fortunately, investors do not have to ante up to play, as in poker, though investors must work hard to find good opportunities. Once you have a good hand, it is time to decide how much money to commit to the opportunity.

While much is written on this topic, let’s keep it simple. Basically it is a risk-reward decision. The more money you commit, the greater the possible reward and the higher the risk of losing some of that money. However, if you do not play, then you cannot win. (For more on this, see Determining Risk And The Risk Pyramid.)

Basically, when the best opportunities present themselves, it is usually wise to make a significant commitment. For good (but not great) opportunities, committing smaller amounts makes sense as the potential reward is less. As in poker, most of an investor’s money is made in small increments with the occasional big win coming along every once in a while. This requires that an investor evaluate each opportunity compared to others that have shown themselves in the past. Experience is an excellent teacher. Finally, investors can use a stop-loss strategy to mitigate greater losses should their assessment of the opportunity prove to be wrong. Too bad gamblers don’t have such a tool! (To read more, see The Stop-Loss Order – Make Sure You Use It.)

•Knowing Yourself

The last gambling rule, knowing yourself, means doing everything you can to stick to your discipline. Everyone wants to get on with it to make the next trade, but if that opportunity does not fit within your measure of a good 60/40 opportunity, then you must force yourself to pass. While you will miss some good gains, this will also save you from some hefty losses. Following your discipline is essential for success as a gambler as well as an investor. You must be extraordinarily patient in your search for the right opportunities and then aggressively go after the best ones.

Think like Warren Buffett and a great trader.

Read more