Wednesday, March 25, 2009

World Reserve Currency to replace the US Dollar is not practical

World Reserve Currency to replace the US Dollar is not practical

Ask any of the international derivative brokers and they will tell you that to hit the US Bond markets with a billion US dollars is no big deal.

Consider this Reuters report
“CHICAGO, April 1, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — CME Group, the world’s
largest and most diverse derivatives exchange, today announced first-quarter 2008 volume averaged a record 13.7 million contracts per day, up 32 percent from first-quarter 2007. Total electronic volume increased 41 percent versus the first quarter in 2007 to average a record 11.1 million contracts per day.“

Let’s take the Arabian oil producers for example. People around the world pay the Arabs billions upon billions, and if they were paid in Special Drawing Rights, (the proposed new world reserve currency), where should they park it? How would they convert it efficiently and freely?

With US Dollars, you can do that, park and convert it efficiently and freely at the US markets.

You might say that it has to start sometime. When it starts is not important for it will take at least a hundred years to develop the market for it. In the meantime, the US Dollar will continue to grow from strength to strength.

Unless the US government supports it and it might take less time for the idea to become practical. That is most unlikely to happen; the US government is most unlikely to support it.

The whole world is holding US dollars and when the US prints more US dollars, it is only fair that the newly printed US Dollars be distributed worldwide.

At the moment, the newly printed US dollars go to the US only and not to anyone else. Why would the US give up such a big advantage? It is impossible. Who in the world can force it to? It is the sole super power of the world.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25105.1

The Films Act Noose Tightens

The Films Act Noose Tightens

Feel suffocated?
Feel frustrated?
Feel alone?

You are not alone in feeling frustrated and suffocated when the bill on changes to the film act expectedly became law. Regulation via feigned liberalisation is the PAP’s hidden Newspeak when it talks about control of the PAPolitical discourse. The government promised to allow political films but in the process threw in more regulation on political messages especially intended for dissemination in the internet. This political discourse is no longer dominated by the subjugated media, it is now contested by the very audience it is supposed to brainwash. Since the convenience of uploading video content, the public have made up their own stories about PAP rule with not only words, but pictures and videos as well. Hence, the internet and handphone cameras are the latest basic screwdrivers to loosen parts in the PAP’s propaganda machine.

The 2006 general election showed the potential of handphone cameras and Youtube. People were uploading election rally videos left right and centre despite the government’s hastily imposed ban on recorded speeches as political videos. That is the first of the PAP’s paranoia about technology that undermines their rule. The other reason for the PAP’s fear of the dramatised political video is Martyn See. The original local par excellence video activist who was able to jolt Singaporeans back into reality and expose the PAP’s twofaced doublespeak propaganda with Singapore Rebel and Speakers Cornered. Before The Online Citizen, the Wayang Party, there was Chee Soon Juan, who was way ahead of his time in using the internet and its video potential to enlighten Singaporeans. Martyn See had this to say about the new regressive law “It shows off a government that is incapable of trusting its own citizens to watch political films“. I think it rather shows that the government only wants the citizens to watch only its political films in the form of “documentaries” on CNA, which is exempt from the Films Act’s restrictions on political messages.

The ban on political films came into effect in 1998 as Section 33 of the Films Act, two years after SDP applied and probably failed to get a licence to sell a videotape about the party. Eleven years later, the “Chee Soon Juan law” has evolved into a bigger net and the police has even more legal grounds to detain or arrest citizens. The 1981 Films Act is gradually being amended with catch-all phrasing to not only focus on political parties and their supporters, but also on the average person on the street who is able to whip out his or her handphone to record for posterity non-PAP political events. The more technology progresses to allow citizens to become active in contesting government propaganda, the tighter laws like the Films Act would become. This is only the tip of the PAP juggernaut coming.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25103.1

disturbing trend

disturbing trend

i’ve been rather disturbed by the recent developments in cyberspace, in which threats were made to various parties including wayangparty, luckysingaporean (not so lucky? =/), and the invitations to drink coffee with ISD and Singapore police given to PothePanda and possibly the guy that exposed the CDC’s well deserved bonuses of 8 months.

much as the cheapo streak in me (OH SHIT DID I JUST REVEAL I AM SINGAPOREAN) yearns about free coffee by the ISD and Singapore Police, I have a feeling the coffee will be pretty bitter with air-cons turned on at full blast and possibly two or more offices tag-teaming and trying to persuade me to join PAP in their cause for the utopian Orwellian state. I think either the police is too free nowadays (where’s Mas Selemat again?), or that we are indeed moving a step closer towards Burma, after naming an orchid after Prime Minister Thein Sein.

sighs, doesn’t the government get it? criticism need not be constructive. criticism need not have malice in it. but criticism definitely means that the person giving criticism is concerned enough about the state of affairs to give criticism. sure, they can arrest dissidents here and there, and clamp down on general dissent. but tell me, in which part of history has a government based on dictatorship ruled forever?

they can build ever higher walls and barricade themselves in.

they can employ ever more policemen(easy in such a bad economic environment) and threaten even more citizens.

they can change laws to suit their means and call it liberalisation.

they can even ban websites to prevent criticism from reaching the public.

But the key question is: How long before such artificial walls collapse from within?

I digressed. I will continue to observe the trends and post ever more cautiously.If the recent actions taken were to intimidate the public and bloggers in general, this definitely has alarmed me. congrats to the person who thought of such a brilliant suppression idea. I hereby declare I love the PAP government, fully endorse whatever they do, think that their ministers should be paid even more given their increased workload, and that MM Lee should be given a new title called MM God Lee.

Please just don’t invite me to drink kopi. I will pay for it on my own. Thanks.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25001.1

Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion

Anonymity in cyberspace is really an illusion

By Fang Zhi Yuan

When Minister for Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said in a speech recently that “anonymity is an illusion in cyberspace”, some netizens dismissed his words as an empty threat and even challenged him to trace them. Some tried to court trouble by hurling invectives at him in internet forums on purpose to prove him wrong.

Recent incidents have convinced me that anonymity in cyberspace is really an illusion. The government does have the technical and financial means to track every single one of us down if it is determined to do so. The only reason why it is refraining from taking such drastic actions is that the price to pay for is too high.

In 2007, three bloggers were prosecuted under the Sedition Act for the articles they posted on their personal blogs which are deemed to be offensive to a minority race in Singapore. One of them, if I remembered correctly hosted his blog on a blogspot.com. He was tracked down in the matters of days.

That is why this site has repeatedly shunned from discussing racial and religious issues because we know the government is especially anal about them. And this is also the reason why comments from all our readers are still put under moderation for us to filter out these taboo subjects.

Though wayangparty.com has acquired a reputation as one of the most liberal blogs around, we do practise a limited form of self-censorship. As far as possible, we try not to censor or moderate comments posted here.

There is no anonymity on government-owned forums like CNA, Hardwarezone and STOMP. Your IP addresses have been locked and it is very easy to trace your identity compared to let’s say, delphiforums which is hosted in the United States.

After we broke the news about “PothePanda”, we have been receiving emails from Singaporeans from all walks of life including civil servants about internet policing by the government.

Unfortunately, there is no way we can verify their claims and we can only take what they say with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, we believe there is some element of truth in them.

The government does know what is going on in the blogs and internet chatrooms. For example, the PAP MPs are aware of the online poll we conducted on Seng Han Thong and his assailant and this was brought up in Parliament.

Journalists read our blog daily to fish for information here. Two hours after we published the leak about the CDC bonuses, a journalist emailed us to inquire more about the case.

You may have noticed that there are a few commentators who criticized our articles all the time with the sole motive of putting us down. Some readers have asked us to censor their comments altogether. We have to allow them to post freely not so much for free speech, but because they are our “guardian angels”.

If the encounter of “PothePanda” is to be believed, a covert ops may be going on for quite some time to identify “radical” bloggers and netizens and to “persuade” them to moderate their stance via an invitation to “limp kopi”.

Nobody will know what is happening because the press doesn’t report on it and the monikers simply vanish into thin air. I am sure you are aware of some prominent bloggers and forumers who have been on the “missing in action” list for a long time.

Over here at wayangparty, I must admit we have pushed the boundaries to its limits and probably beyond it. Though some of our articles may sound too “dangerous”, we have taken extra precaution to ensure there is no way the authorities can find fault with us. It will surely peeve them off, but it will be too tall an order for them to charge us without any solid grounds.

We are taking a calculated risk and I must admit I am quite disturbed by recent developments. A long time socio-political blogger Lucky Tan has taken down his blog till further notice. This was what he wrote: “I receive a few emails that a number have been followed. Something may be on. I’ll be back once the picture is clearer.”

I am not sure if Lucky Tan had received the same emails as we did, but the contents are definitely not reassuring.

Perhaps it is time for wayangparty.com to re-evaluate its editorial stance and policy. We are no longer the wayangparty.com 6 months ago. With a readership approaching TODAY Online’s (our alexa.com ranking today is 696, not far from TODAY’s 412), it is inevitable that people will start to sit up and take notice of us. It may become a necessity to move eventually into the middle ground not only to survive, but to continue to grow.

When Malaysian blogger Raja Petra Kamarrudin was arrested under the ISA last year, over 2,000 Malaysians turned up in a candle-light march to protest against his arrest. I wonder at times whether any of our readers will bother if we “disappeared” from blogosphere one day.

Public pressure is the only and yet the best form of defence against a dictatorial regime bent on cracking down on dissenting voices in order to preserve and perpetuate its own political hegemony without which we will forever be herded by them like blind sheep.

As of now, I implore every one of you reading this to take extra precaution when posting in the government-owned forums. A seemingly innocuous post on molotov cocktails can get one into trouble. The cloak of anonymity is in reality a delusion and it pays to be on the safe side.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25000.1

Pack them in, build them up

March 25, 2009
THE ST INTERVIEW
Pack them in, build them up

A 6.5m population is fine. Dense cities thrive by attracting smart people
By Tan Hui Yee, Correspondent
Prof Glaeser photographed at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, with the Marina Bay integrated resort construction site behind him. Not only is there nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers, he says, it is good urban and environmental policy as well. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
IF YOU feel uneasy about the fact that Singapore is gearing up for a population of 6.5 million, Professor Edward Glaeser has this to say: You've nothing to worry about.

'Density is underrated and undervalued and the pleasures of density are in fact quite remarkable,' he declares.

'Living with 6.5 million people doesn't mean you necessarily have less private living space. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers and people walking around between them. Not only is it good urban policy, it is a good environmental policy as well.'

If urban density ever needed a salesman, it would be Prof Glaeser.

The 41-year-old economist at Harvard University made his name studying what made cities tick.

In Singapore earlier this month to give a talk at the Civil Service College, he stressed that cities survive and thrive by constantly reinventing themselves, which is only possible if there are enough 'smart people' present to generate a creative buzz.

His view is shared by urban theorist Richard Florida, who famously argued that a 'creative class' of talented professionals flocks to vibrant global cities for work and lifestyle opportunities and in turn contributes to their growth.

Except, both men differ on what constitutes talent.

Dr Florida's idea of a skilled worker, Prof Glaeser says half in jest, 'is a 28- year-old who wears a black turtleneck' and frequents coffee houses.

'My model of a skilled worker is that 42-year-old biotechnology worker who has a husband and two kids and is trying to live a decent life.

'Those lead you to very different views of what the fight for talent is all about. Florida thinks you need a lot of coffee houses, and I think you need good schools and safe streets and fast commutes. And I'm pretty sure I'm right.'

If he is, Singapore - seen as clean, safe and sterile - is in a good position.

Cities, he says, need the right kind of buzz to bring them forward. 'The things that people define as what makes a city buzz, a lot of them have to do with public spaces and restaurants and bars and cafes. But I don't think it's at the heart of what makes cities well-functioning and successful. It's a mistake to think that the buzz is just the number of pages that you read in Time Out magazine.'

Take the buzzing research triangle in North Carolina in the United States, home to companies like IBM Corporation.

'It may not be the hippest area to spend a Saturday night but there sure is a heck of lot of new innovations going on. A lot of Silicon Valley is pretty boring from the perspective of an urban hipster. But in terms of what really matters, there's a lot of buzz there.'

To maintain what he refers to as an intellectual edge, he says Singapore needs to constantly expose itself to cutting- edge ideas and have a sizeable pool of skilled workers.

Asked what skills are valued in the context of recurring discussions over the value of an arts degree versus a science degree here, he says: 'Studying Shakespeare does not make up for innumeracy. It certainly does enrich our lives. The more prosperous a country is, the larger the role of arts.'

He points out that a recent study on the effect of mandated science and maths curricula in American schools found that they improved the earnings of the less advantaged significantly. 'It suggests that forcing the school to teach maths and science ended up being very good for them.'

The arts, he says, is 'a bit of a luxury good'. 'If you told people of my great- grandfather's generation that a thriving arts scene was going to determine which city you were going to go to, they would have thought you were mad.

''Can I put bread on the table?' and 'Would we be shot?' - those would have been the primary issues that would have driven people two generations ago.'

A small country like Singapore, with a four million population, he says, need not worry that its size will disqualify it from the big league as long as it has enough quality and diverse talent.

'The question is more an issue of the high human capital people you have, how many potential entrepreneurs you have, how much diversity there is, rather than the actual body count. You can add on an extra five million unskilled labour and it is not going to make a difference to your ability to innovate.'

But primarily, he maintains that cities should serve people's needs rather than exist for their own sake.

In 2005, he wrote an article against the rebuilding of New Orleans after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, saying that its residents were better off getting money to rebuild their lives elsewhere if they wished. The city, he said, had been declining way before the hurricane hit, and it was not doing a good job of looking after its poor residents either.

Putting people first means getting rid of unnecessary rules that make business and housing unaffordable. From his studies of New York and Boston over the past 30 to 40 years, he contends that the cities' recent surge in home prices is more a result of tightening building regulations, rather than anything else.

Logically, if there is enough supply of homes, housing prices will converge around the cost of building that next floor up. In places where land is scarce - like Singapore - height restrictions act as a dampener on housing supply.

Although the demand for housing reflects the attractiveness of a city, its ability to produce enough affordable housing to meet that demand is 'a sign of urban health'. He notes in some parts of the US, 'it feels as if every neighbour has gotten the right to say no to every project'. In suburbs, it is all about zoning and minimum lot size. In cities, it is about maximum heights.

He is quick to admit that his model applies to cities where housing is supplied by the market. The fact that more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing makes it trickier to apply here, but he ventures: 'I think you want to think of how well you are delivering pleasant affordable housing. The Government has played such a heavy role in housing, not inappropriately so, that I think the ability of the private sector to deliver cheap affordable housing is potentially not as strong as it could be.'

Not only does density make housing affordable, he says it is also sustainable. 'Crowding more people on less land is fundamentally good for the environment. Partly because people have lower transportation costs, live in smaller homes, and use less energy.'

A 2008 US study he did found that the carbon footprint of the people who choose to live 'close to nature', surrounded by woods or lawns, was higher than that of city folk. 'If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it,' he advocates.

Density is also exciting. 'Chicago's lakefront has grown and strengthened the city. The high-rise buildings in Boston have been associated with an increasing vitality in that city's downtown. Philadelphia only recently broke its height restriction, and the high rises there have been able to support more stores and night life.'

If he had it his way, all cities would be planned around actual human dynamics rather than according to preconceived notions of what they should look like.

During his walks around Singapore, he noted that its hot, humid climate keeps people off the streets in the day.

'There's a huge amount of pedestrian traffic but it's indoors. It's all in the air- conditioned malls, which is really where the street life is. That means connections between those malls are actually what city planning needs,' he prescribes.

Still, by any standard, Singapore has a lot going for it. 'The density levels are remarkable...if you love the ability of cities to bring people together and experience a collective world, there's a lot to admire there.'

tanhy@sph.com.sg


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25166.1

President Obama’s international Op-Ed

President Obama’s international Op-Ed

President Obama just wrote an op-ed which was published in 31 (!) newspapers all over the world. The list of papers include:

1. Al Watan (Gulf States)
2. Arab Times (Gulf States)
3. Asharq Al Awsat (Arab-wide paper in Arabic)
4. The Australian (Australia)
5. Baltimore Sun (United States)
6. Bangkok Post (Thailand)
7. Chicago Tribune (United States)
8. Clarin (Argentina)
9. Corriere della Sera (Italy)
10. Die Welt (Germany)
11. El Pais (Madrid)
12. El Mercurio (Chile)
13. Eleftyropiea (Greece)
14. Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
15. Gulf News (Gulf States)
16. The Hindustan Times/ The Hindu (India)
17. International Herald Tribune (London)
18. Kristeligt Dagblad (Denmark)
19. Le Monde (Paris)
20. Lidove Noviny (Czech)
21. Los Angeles Times (United States)
22. The News (Pakistan)
23. NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands)
24. Saudi Gazette (Saudi Arabia)
25. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
26. Straits Times (Singapore)
27. Sunday Times (South Africa)
28. Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden)
29. Syndey Morning Herald (Australia)
30. WProst (Poland)
31. Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan)

Singapore’s Straits Times is on that list. The op-ed may be found here. What’s strange is that the top papers of the U.S. isn’t on that list; neither the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today or the Washington Post carried that op-ed. Strange.

As for what effect it could probably have, well, there’ll be a meeting next week of G20 nations.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24966.2

Barack Obama: A time for global action

Barack Obama: A time for global action

By Barack Obama
Tribune Media Services
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up — already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.

All of our financial institutions — on Wall Street and around the globe — need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.

I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.

The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24966.1