No ang moh $, whither Pink Dot 2017?

Will it wilt and die, what with no foreign money to water and fertilise the ground?

S’pore is forcing ang moh sponsors about whether their claims of putting values before profit is noise or genuine. http://blogs.reuters.com/…/singapore-saudi-put-corporate-d…/

Let’s see if these ang mohs got balls and walk the talk, or kowtow because there’s good money to be made here. From their responses so far (They followed the S’porean practice of sitting down and shutting up), they’ll kowtow. In particular, the three investment bank sponsors (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Barclays) are always after SWFs, TLC and GLCs biz

---

MNCs behaving like their local fans

An FT columnist wrote:

I contacted the 10 most prominent sponsors to ask whether they planned to support Pink Dot next year. Barclays, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, Bloomberg and Twitter said they had nothing to say.

Facebook and Apple did not reply. Google said: “We’ve been proud supporters of Pink Dot since 2011.”

GE said: “We respectfully voice our support for equality in countries where we do business, consistent with governing laws and customs.”

Neither said whether it would support the event next year.

—————————————

When will ang moh tua kees will realise that ang mohs too juz talk cock sing song like their local fans?

(Related post: The garang ang moh tua kees)

---

How BBC reported the issue

[A] row in Singapore over foreign companies sponsoring an annual gay rights rally called Pink Dot which took place on 4 June.

On 8 June, Singapore authorities warned it would take steps to make clear that foreign firms “should not fund, support or influence such events”. The rally is sponsored by companies including JPMorgan, Google and Barclays.

Here’s a paragraph of the facts on the ground the ang moh tua kees leave out

Gay rights in Singapore is a fraught issue and recent years have seen courts upholding a law criminalising sex between adult men.

The piece ends

Singapore’s vocal Christian community has also expressed its opposition to events such as Pink Dot and support for what it calls traditional family values.

It would have been fairer to also point out that the Muslim community too shares similar views.

————————————-

Let’s see if Pink Dot has traction without ang moh money to organise the biggest pick-up (Ok dating) event in the region. and whether the LGBT movement has local roots. Or is a Western (i.e. CIA, MI6) import meant to subvert Asian values and societies?

Seriously, Pink Dot 2017 be a test for all local activists, not juz the LGBYs. Let’s see if the local activists (ex LGBTs) rise to the challenge or juz do what they usually do: sign a petition and then sit down and shut up, and wait for the next opportunity to diss the PAP. If they really, really want a more open society, they should offer to help the organisers.

And the organisers should accept the offers of help.

In the past, the organisers preferred to do things on their own (bit like the Wankers’ Party) to avoid the “political” label. But then they had ang moh $. In 2017, things will be different. What about charging randy LGBTs a fee to proposition other randy LGBTs?

---

*Here’s how an investment bank is alleged to have corrupted, then fleeced a SWF.

From NYT Dealbook

LIBYAN FUND CLAIMS GOLDMAN SACHS EXPLOITED ITS FINANCIAL NAÏVETÉ Libya created a sovereign wealth fund in 2006, with the hope of emulating its Middle Eastern neighbours by investing the proceeds from its oil, Chad Bray reports in DealBook. It turned to Goldman Sachs, but the relationship soured after the Libyan Investment Authority said it was misled about a series of derivatives transactions and lost $1.2 billion.

It took Goldman Sachs to court and, when the trial began on Monday, claimed that the bank earned more than $200 million in “eye-watering” profit on the transactions. It claimed that it was an unsophisticated investor with staff that had little experience with investment banking and Goldman had preyed on this, persuading the fund to invest in complex transactions that it did not understand or desire.

Roger Masefield, a lawyer for the fund, argued that Goldman lured the fund into investments with training programs, gifts, overseas trips and internships for the brother of a staff member.

Goldman disputed the claims and said the Libyan Investment Authority had the financial sophistication to understand the disputed transactions.

The fund focused on the actions of Youssef Kabbaj, a former Goldman Sachs banker. The fund said that Mr. Kabbaj wined and dined fund employees on “training” trips to London, which included stays in stylish hotels and expensive meals at famous restaurants. He also bought presents and took staff members on vacation to Morocco, according to the court filings.

Mr. Masefield argued that Mr. Kabbaj worked on both sides of the derivatives transactions, “ghost writing” documents for staff members of the fund to be used to persuade its board to invest and then separately making presentations to the fund on behalf of Goldman Sachs.