Devalue Singapore dollar? It's going to hurt

Devalue Singapore dollar? It's going to hurt

Economists feel the Singapore dollar should be devalued, reports Reuters. Not because the currency is overvalued but because the economy is tanking.

That is what the Reuters report says: "The economy has been hit severely, more by collapsing external demand than an overvalued currency."

Currency devaluation usually means economic failure. It is necessary, nevertheless, says Reuters.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will have to "effectively devalue the currency if it wants to meaningfully achieve lower interest rates", says Reuters.

What's good for business could hurt consumers, though. Food and other necessities could cost more since almost everything has to be imported. And there's no guarantee that lower interest rates will stimulate the economy in the current recession. It hasn't so far in America, Europe or Japan.

And devaluation doesn't really work for long, according to the Economist. Its Economics A-Z explains:

DEVALAUATION
A sudden fall in the value of a currency against other currencies. Strictly, devaluation refers only to sharp falls in a currency within a fixed EXCHANGE RATE system. Also it usually refers to a deliberate act of GOVERNMENT policy, although in recent years reluctant devaluers have blamed financial SPECULATION. Most studies of devaluation suggest that its beneficial effects on COMPETITIVENESS are only temporary; over time they are eroded by higher PRICES.

However, Singapore has no choice, according to Reuters. The Singapore dollar has to fall from its current level of about 1.50 Singapore dollars to 1 US dollar. Reuters says:

Singapore's central bank announces its policy after a six-month hiatus next week, and barely anyone doubts that authorities will have to ease monetary settings to shore up an economy that is already in recession and toying with deflation.

Shifting the Singapore dollar's trade-weighted trading band down in one go, effectively a devaluation, would be the least ambiguous way of easing policy, said Emmanuel Ng, a strategist at OCBC Bank in Singapore.

That seems to be the consensus view, simply because other options could have some undesirable side-effects. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) could for instance allow the Singapore dollar to trade in a wider band, or gradually steer the centre of the band lower at a pre-determined pace so as to let the currency depreciate over time.

The former throws policy open to the whims of a market that could drive the currency up or down rather quickly, while the latter could push up market yields…

Singapore can fix its currency or its interest rates, not both at the same time.

The report adds:

Singapore has never had a policy encouraging a lasting depreciation of the currency in previous downturns. It widened the band in 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, and devalued the currency in 2002 and in 2003, after the technology bubble burst and during the SARS crisis.

This time though, well into the deepest recession on record, Singapore's authorities ought to do far more than merely announce a weakening of the currency, analysts reckon.

Policy was kept tight from April to October, and has been on neutral mode since then despite the severity of the downturn.

That has meant Singapore is one of a handful of countries in Asia where monetary conditions, measured by real exchange and interest rates, are tightening.

Central banks in other countries from America to Japan have lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy.

But that's not how the central bank operates in Singapore.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore says:

Monetary policy in Singapore centres on the management of the exchange rate. There is no independent policy targets for either interest rates or money supply.

Why? Partly because Singapore is an export-oriented economy. MAS says:

Exchange-rate changes have a major influence on inflation, and not insignificant effects on the international competitiveness of the real sector.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26213.1

Lui Tuck Yew: 'Light touch' on new media

April 7, 2009

'Light touch' on new media

By Serene Luo
		Lui Tuck Yew (left) said that blogs, the Internet and other new media like social networks are already regulated 'with a light touch', and it is likely to continue in that vein. -- ST PHOTO: STEPHANIE YEOW

BLOGS, the Internet and other new media like social networks are already regulated 'with a light touch', and it is likely to continue in that vein, said the new Acting Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew.

In the first week of taking over from former office holder, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui also said total deregulation of new media would be unlikely in the short term, even though there are strong calls for it.

Radm Lui spoke to the media on the sidelines of launching the National Infocomm Competition 2009 on Tuesday.

The competition, in its fourth year, is a year-long one that combines 13 smaller competitions, ranging from website building, animation to Internet security.

Last year, 2,900 students took part, the largest number to enter, to date.

Radm Lui also announced an upgraded web portal, infocommtalent.sg, which is aimed at building more buzz about the industry.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26207.1

Start with S'poreans first

April 7, 2009

Start with S'poreans first

Health Minister floats four possible ways of reimbursing living kidney donors.

By Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
		Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan (left) said that reimbursing living kidney donors will be extended to foreigners only when there is enough confidence in the scheme. -- ST PHOTO: LIM WUI LIANG

REIMBURSING living kidney donors will start with Singaporeans only, and this will be extended to foreigners only when there is enough confidence in the scheme, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said on Tuesday.

Allowing payment to foreigners for a kidney was a major sticking point, both in Parliament and in public debates on this controversial move which is provided in the recently-passed Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota).

VIDEO Reimbursement for S'porean donors only (0:52) RELATED LINKS SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR HEALTH, MR KHAW BOON WAN

Although it would be seen as fair to apply the same law to both Singaporeans and foreigners, Mr Khaw on Tuesday said a staggered approach would iron out possible abuse.

'We don't want Singapore to be a rogue regime. Let's not rush into it,' said the minister at the 40th anniversary celebration of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF).

The suggestion to start with Singaporean patient-donor pairs first before extending to foreigners was suggested by Sembawang GRC MP Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

The scheme will likely start next year, since it will take some time to work out details, including the crucial question of how much constitutes just compensation and not inducement.

While more than 20 countries allow some form of reimbursement to living kidney donors, what is allowed varies from the cost of surgery, to loss of earnings, travel and even childcare.

Mr Khaw promised that the scheme here will reflect 'a high level of ethics that Singaporeans can be proud of'.

He reiterated that reimbursing donors 'is the right thing to do' since the act does put the donor's health at risk.

'The least we can do is to make sure that they do not suffer financial losses due to medical treatment, lost income and other related expenses.'

Mr Khaw also floated three other possible ways of reimbursing living kidney donors that may be incorporated into the guidelines now being formulated.

These include setting up an effective system of selecting and informing potential donors which will minimise post-surgery complications and exploitation of victims, imposing a cooling off period of two to three weeks for the potential donors to reflect on their decisions to prevent any future regrets, and using the payment from the reimbursement to top up the donors' Medisave accounts.

Mr Khaw later told journalists that the four recent amendments to the Hota will be gazetted separately, with reimbursement for kidney donation possibly coming into effect next year.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26201.1

China's embrace hits raw nerve

Apr 7, 2009

China's embrace hits raw nerve
By Simon Roughneen

SYDNEY - On April 1, Australia's Herald Sun newspaper reported that a Chinese consortium was going to buy the Melbourne Cricket Ground and rename it the "Mekong Cricket Ground".

The scoop came on the back of a furtive meeting between Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Beijing's propaganda chief, Li Changchun, as well as allegations of cozy dealings between one of Rudd's ministers and a Chinese-Australian businesswoman. Talking heads then navel-gazed for days about whether Rudd's Sinophilia marked him out as some sort of Manchurian Candidate, a Politburo plant in The Lodge - the official Canberra residence of the prime minister and his family.

With various investment deals in the pipeline or being inked, giving Chinese companies stakes in Australia's crucial mining sector, the bait was too much for some Herald Sun readers, who soon spattered the website comments section with lamentations along the lines of "Beijing sell-out".

Joking aside, just as former British prime minister Tony Blair was derided as former US president George W Bush's poodle, Mandarin-speaking Rudd could end up being touted as Chinese President Hu Jintao's Pekingese. The Li debacle was grist to the mill to the Liberal Party, who were handed a public relations coup by Rudd's meeting on Saturday with Li, the Chinese Politburo Standing Committee member in charge of propaganda, media and ideology - even though the opposition also apparently knew about the meeting in advance.

The get-together only came to light in Australia after Chinese state media gave it significant airtime, and the story eventually found its way onto the pages of The Australian newspaper. According to Malcolm Cook, East Asia Studies at the Lowy Institute, this was more of a failure in Rudd's press office than anything more sinister.

However, the fire was stoked by another revelation that Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon failed to disclose that Chinese-born businesswoman Helen Liu had financed trips he took to China in 2002 and 2005. Rudd himself added some kindling when, the day after Li's visit concluded, he called for reform of the global financial system so that China gets more influence.

Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute told Asia Times Online that some of the media and public reaction to Rudd's liaison with Li reminded him of the worst aspects of the old "White Australia" days, "when the 'yellow peril' scare tactic was dredged up at politically opportune moments".

Given the changing dynamics and weighting of the world economy, this makes sense. Moreover, such calls are nothing new, and echoed recommendations made by the John Howard administration which preceded Rudd's Labor government.

Also, to be fair, Rudd dampened Beijing's ardor earlier in March, when he rejected Chinese calls for the US dollar to be replaced as the international reserve currency. "The dollar's position on that score remains unchallenged," he told a Wall Street Journal seminar in Washington. He added, with reference to the just-completed G-20 meeting in London, "It's not on my agenda papers and if there's a late Chinese edition I'll review it with respectful interest."

However, the timing of his post-Li announcement could not have been worse, or more conspicuous. In retrospect, Rudd was hardly going to concur with Beijing's mischievous dollar statement while being feted by President Barack Obama in Washington.

China Inc is interested in resource-rich Australia, home to one-third of the world's known uranium. The state-owned Aluminum Corp of China wants to put $19.5 billion into Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto - the biggest in a spate of proposed Chinese investments in Australia's natural resources. The Chinese are offering much-needed capital, and Australia needs the Chinese market to sell its resources.

As Malcolm Cook put it to Asia Times Online, "China replaced Japan as Australia's number one trading partner in 2007, and of the world's major economies, is the only one still growing during the downturn."

Chinese growth is slowing, however, and any fall in demand there will have a knock-on effect on Australia's own economy.

Even so, the melodrama might not reflect China's real importance on a global level. As a posting by Andrew Nathan on McKinsey's What Matters blog puts it: "China accounts for only 6% of the global economy, equal to about two California's. On a per-capita basis, China sinks further. It is 49th in foreign-exchange reserves per person. It is 92nd in exports plus imports per person, and 106th in GDP per person."

Perceptions matter, however, and China is seen as the ambitious would-be world giant. Consequently, and also due to the nature of the Chinese political economy, Chinese investment is viewed differently to that from other countries.

"Chinese companies represent more than business interests, and indeed many of the leading companies are opaque and it's hard to figure out what role the state plays in them," Joshua Kurlantzick of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Asia Times Online.

Kurlatzick, author of Charm Offensive - How Chinese Soft Power is Transforming the World, added "I'm not sure that would be the case in terms of investments in Australia, as I'm not sure that China has the same type of hard security political objectives vis-a-vis Australia - I think it's more a matter of strict commercial interest."

However, the Australians are concerned because of their friendly defense partnership with Washington. To Beijing, Australia might represent more than a source of natural resources. Along these lines, Australian media is reporting security and defense establishment concerns that China is conductive cyber-warfare and espionage against strategic targets in Australia in attempts to access sensitive information.

The spillover is affecting Canberra's take on certain investments. The Rudd government blocked Chinese-owned Minmetals from acquiring the Prominent Hill mine in South Australia as part of a $2.6 billion bid for OZ Minerals, citing national security concerns because of its proximity to the Woomera weapons testing range.

Such limits suggest that it might be a stretch to label Rudd as some sort of Mandarin Candidate, but his administration has to unravel some complex threads when forming an effective China policy. Both countries need each other economically; trade jumped to $40 billion in 2008 from just over $8 billion in 2001.

China is determined to up its military-strategic game and will leverage whatever assets it can. Australia represents an effective bridge into the West, and China will use this if allowed. This may come via business interest proxies - or disproportionate investment in cyber-tactics - to make up for the still massive gap between its conventional resources and those available to Australia's chief ally, the US.

Simon Roughneen is a roving freelance journalist. He has reported from over 20 countries, and is currently based in Southeast Asia.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26416.1

China gets assertive as US ties grow

Apr 7, 2009

China gets assertive as US ties grow
By Jing-dong Yuan

MONTEREY, California - Chinese President Hu Jintao and US President Barack Obama met last Wednesday on the sidelines of the Group of 20 financial summit in London. It was their first meeting since Obama took office two months ago and hence attracted a lot of attention.

Attention it deserves. It was not just a meeting to get acquainted but one that both gives an indication of where bilateral relations stand and sets the road map for the future.

Overall Sino-US relations remain stable thanks to both countries' efforts in promoting dialogue and consultation, developing mechanisms for managing disputes and cooperating in areas where Beijing and Washington have common interests. While the former George W Bush administration's many foreign policy decisions were controversial, its China policy has enabled the Obama administration to focus on strengthening bilateral cooperation in dealing with global economic challenges.

Indeed, as China's economic power continues to grow - albeit at a lower rate than previously - so does its potential influence in crafting solutions to help the world economy recover. Potential, that is, as Beijing still wavers between assuming a more proactive and prominent position on the global economic stage and keeping a cautious, low-profile posture.

But a more confident assertiveness is nonetheless emerging, expressed in Premier Wen Jiabao's concerns over how the Obama administration's recovery plans could affect China's huge holdings of US debts, and in Chinese central banker Zhou Xiaochuan's proposal to replace the dollar with an international reserve currency.

It does not mean that China is poised to challenge America's dominant position in the global economy, downsized as it is. But it does suggest that Beijing is becoming more active in expressing its concerns, making its voice heard, and demanding - tentatively, that is - that its core interests be protected.

Not surprisingly, the Hu-Obama meeting focused largely on these economic challenges, the roles that the two countries can play and areas in which they can cooperate to head off a global recession and get the economy back on track. Both countries are implementing the announced stimulus packages. The adjustments they are making - China promoting greater domestic demand in consumption and the US restoring confidence in credit and lending, as well as better savings rates over time - could make important contributions to the recovery and stability of the global economy.

One important element of the bilateral relationship both sides are now emphasizing is its comprehensive nature that includes consultation on regional and global issues and covers a whole range of economic, military and geostrategic areas.

On the economic front, the countries should carefully manage, monitor and implement their stimulus plans, avoid protectionist tendencies and continue to address the ongoing disputes over currency evaluation, market access, trade imbalances and liberalization of trade in sectors that continue to be subject to stringent controls.

Energy security, climate change and environmental protection are areas in which the two countries have good reasons to cooperate. The Bush administration started the process of consultation on these issues through the Strategic Economic Dialogue and the Obama administration indicates it will continue and expand cooperation in these areas.

The Hu-Obama meeting also reiterated the importance of bilateral consultation and cooperation on regional and global security issues, including the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, anti-terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obama's emphasis on multilateral diplomacy in dealing with international and regional security challenges and his willingness to endorse multilateralism as the more appropriate way of building trust among states is an encouraging departure from the practices of the previous administration.

Despite the overall positive assessments by both leaders of the current status of bilateral relations and their commitments to moving them to a higher level, there remain areas of significant differences, mutual suspicions and deep distrust on both sides. And the process of handling these potentially destabilizing issues remains inadequate, if not completely lacking.

The recent encounter between Chinese ships and the US intelligence-gathering vessel in the South China Sea, and the newly released Pentagon report on Chinese military power remind us that the long-term stability of Sino-US relations could be negatively affected due to misunderstanding, misperception and misgivings that could lead to miscalculation and therefore mismanagement of the bilateral relationship.

Thus it is particularly unfortunate that the two countries have yet to implement bilateral strategic and military-to-military dialogue that addresses nuclear activities, defense modernization, power projection and maritime security issues. The newly revamped US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue announced at the Hu-Obama meeting is a good step to elevate the level and comprehensiveness of bilateral consultation. But the fact the process in effect will reduce the frequency of such high-level meetings from the previous three times a year to only one at a time when such consultation and its regularity is much desired raises serious concerns.

And defense is ostensibly left out of this high-level process. To be sure, there are Defense Consultative Talks at the under secretary of defense/deputy chief-of-staff level and a military maritime consultative meeting in place, but these also suffer from infrequency and a lack of significant progress over the past decade. A number of attempts, including one on the strategic nuclear issue as proposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last year, have yet to be fully and officially launched. Nor have rules on maritime engagement been delineated, despite the potential risk of incidents due to the growing encounters between the two countries' navies in the South China Sea.

The Hu-Obama meeting announced the upcoming visit of the US chief of naval operation to China and perhaps a reciprocal visit by senior Chinese military leaders, but much more is needed to strengthen bilateral military-to-military contacts from high-level visits and exchanges of military officers to port calls and better communication and understanding between the world's most powerful and largest militaries.

Obama has a lot on his plate as he confronts both domestic and international economic and security challenges and renews America's leadership that is based on mutual respect and multilateral diplomacy. But he could seize the moment to deepen the US-China relationship in the military as well as the strategic and economic spheres. Hopefully, the goodwill and commitments expressed at last Wednesday's meeting will be sustained in the months and years to come.

Dr Jing-dong Yuan is director of East Asia Non-proliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies, and an associate professor of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26415.1

Australia's new and powerful friend

Apr 7, 2009

Australia's new and powerful friend
By Purnendra Jain and Gerry Groot

ADELAIDE - China is emerging as Australia's new great and powerful friend. The Australia-China bond, strengthened greatly under the previous prime minister John Howard, is now being reinforced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

For the previous conservative government, China was an acquired interest, but Rudd has built a career around China by studying Chinese at university and through subsequent diplomatic postings in Beijing. He is a great China enthusiast and recognizes very clearly China's importance to Australia and world affairs. Just as importantly, Rudd is extremely well known and popular in China and presumably has longstanding relationships with Chinese leaders. He has even presented himself, in Chinese, as a true friend of China, one prepared to tell leaders the truth even if it is unwelcome.

China is now Australia's largest business partner, with two-way trade nearing A$65 billion (US$46.6 billion). Chinese students are now the biggest group in Australia's third-largest export - international education. At the end of their studies, many go on to seek permanent residency and join the rapidly growing numbers of skilled Chinese migrants coming from the both mainland China and the Chinese diaspora from all around Asia. Through hard work and educational attainment, more and more occupy high-profile positions, including in politics.

But the Australia-China friendship will be very different from Australia's previous great and powerful friends, Great Britain and the United States. Based on the developments of recent days, the trajectory of this friendship is almost certainly going to encounter significant rough patches.

Despite China's growing importance, many Australians remain suspicious of their northern neighbor. As a result of history and culture, anxieties linger. Fears of Chinese migration and cheap labor in the 19th century were replaced by fear of Chinese communism after 1949. Moreover, Australian soldiers have fought China's People's Liberation Army and its allies in Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam. Many Australians also remain deeply concerned about the Chinese government's attitudes to human rights within its own borders and the nature of China's government in general.

To compound these worries there are renewed concerns about Chinese spying and state corporate takeovers of Australian strategic resource companies. One recent Chinese takeover of an Australian miner was initially rejected because of one mine's proximity to an old rocket testing area, but also uncomfortably close to America's spy base at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs. China then, is no Britain or United States: nations which have underwritten Australian security through longstanding and tested relationships.

Yet, just when Australia has a prime minister in an ideal position to balance and address these concerns to help Australians understand the importance and role of a rising China to Australia and the world, things have gone awry. Over the past few weeks, Rudd and Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon have probably fostered increased suspicion.

When Rudd "secretly" met on March 21 with China's propaganda chief, Li Changchun, the local press and many others were outraged. Australian media were not briefed about this visit, but Li's meeting was televised in China. Similarly, it was revealed that while in opposition Fitzgibbon forgot to formally declare two fully-paid trips to Beijing sponsored by a Chinese Australian business woman who was reportedly well connected with the Chinese government and army. It then transpired there was another such visit even earlier.

To compound Rudd's oversight, it also came to light that Zhou Yongkang, China's former security and intelligence chief, had visited Australia in 2008. Rudd may have very good reasons to have met with him, but given the suspicions of China, it was another bad call. Yongkang is now a member of China's powerful nine-member Standing Committee of the Politburo. The lapses reflect a lack of transparency when dealing with China and in Rudd's case, a particularly dangerous misjudgment for one needing popular support to help Australia by working with China.

Despite his clear interest if not passion for things Chinese, Rudd is not a naive, unconditional "panda hugger" and understands the possible dangers inherent in China's rise. He is clearly concerned about China's military intentions and strategic goals. Last year, Rudd expressed concerns about a new arms race in the region and although not naming China, he clearly meant Beijing.

However, Rudd also wishes to prevent fears of China's rise becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy and is seeking to use his position to help mediate between the US (and the West more generally) and China. The intention is to ensure China's growing power will be harnessed to the greater good of world peace and economic development. This goal is reflected in Rudd's advocacy of a much greater global role for China in organizations, including the International Monetary Fund.

On present indications, China is set to influence the world in ways that only a superpower does. That is why some high-profile Americans are proposing a Group of Two comprising the US and China. In the meantime, the effort to "normalize" China by enmeshing it further into international bodies and increase its contributions continues apace.

Unfortunately, Rudd, despite being in an unprecedented position to promote an integrative agenda and win international - especially American - support through his apparent rapport with US President Barack Obama, is in danger of losing vital support within Australia.

This is because Rudd has not yet publicly articulated a coherent plan to make it clear to Australian voters that being in China's good books is indeed a vital national interest, not somehow selling Australia short, let alone selling out. Rudd's apparent embarrassment at being seated next to ambassador Fu Ying in a recent BBC interview is easily construed as reflecting a fear that this would be construed as once again, literally and metaphorically, as being too close to China. His fear of Australian reactions and playing into the hands of the parliamentary opposition may be clouding his judgement.

Rudd understands China's rising importance both to the world and to Australia, a country of 21 million people with a history of dependence on powerful friends. Much is riding on how, or even whether, he can convince Australians that their national interests will indeed be well served by trusting him to work with China and the rest of the world.

He can only convince them though, if he first makes a clear case about how and why he needs to work with an opaque and authoritarian regime to help it transform into one Australians and others can trust. If he does not yet have such a vision, he had better develop one soon.

Purnendra Jain is professor and Gerry Groot is senior lecturer in Asian Studies at Australia's Adelaide University.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26414.1

David Widjaja’s autopsy report released, results not disclosed

David Widjaja’s autopsy report released, results not disclosed

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

By Terence Lee / Deputy Editor

THE file on David Widajaja’s case remains wide open.

While the autopsy report on his death has finally been released, the details of what transpired during the alleged stabbing incident remains sketchy.

The family received the autopsy report on 4th April (Saturday) from Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

Without revealing much details to the public, the report has been sent to a team of doctors in Jakarta for analysis, says William Widjaja in a TOC interview on 6th April.

They did so because they could not understand the medical terms used in the document, he claimed. William also declined a request to send a copy of the report to TOC, saying “it’s better to leave it to the professionals.”

Nevertheless, a press conference will be held once the results are known. This was deemed necessary by the family as many Indonesians are clamouring to know what has happened.

“They all want justice for David,” he said.

William’s family is still grieving over David’s death (for background information on the stabbing incident, click here). Despite the completion of investigations by the Singapore Police Force (SPF), William is disappointed over the way the they have handled the case.

He is puzzled over why the police needs one month to come up with the report. According to him, an autopsy report in Indonesia usually takes about two days to complete.

It was David’s family that took the initiative to ask the SPF for the report.

They called the Indonesian embassy on 2nd April and asked for their help in checking with the SPF about the status of the investigations. The SPF replied by saying that they will send the autopsy report to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), which will then pass one copy to David’s family.

According to the Jakarta Post, the family received the report on the 6th April via email.

However, William wonders why the SPF cannot send the report directly to them.

“The police must contact us, and they need to tell us and give some explanation to us,” he said.

While calm throughout most of the interview with TOC, William sounded upset as he expressed displeasure at the way the Singapore media has handled the coverage so far. He went into a tirade over how he felt the mainstream media jumped to the conclusion that David was the aggressor.

“It’s very, very unfair,” he said before finally calming down.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26175.1

The posting gets Gary Tan Yeong Hong into trouble

The posting gets Gary Tan Yeong Hong aka PoThePanda into trouble:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:h0W4XJVD3EAJ:talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/archive/index.php/t-57620.html+Molotov+Cocktail+site:talkback.stomp.com.sg&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26159.1

US faces 'lasting slowdown'

April 7, 2009

US faces 'lasting slowdown'

'I don't expect the US economy to recover in the third or fourth quarter so I think we are in for a pretty lasting slowdown,' Mr Soros said, adding that in 2010 there might be 'something' in terms of US growth. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

NEW YORK - THE US economy is in for a 'lasting slowdown' and could face a Japanese-style period of relatively low growth with the added problem of high inflation, billionaire investor George Soros said on Monday.

Mr Soros told Reuters Financial Television that rescuing US banks could turn them into 'zombies' that suck the lifeblood of the economy, prolonging the economic slowdown.

Dollar vulnerable GEORGE Soros, whose latest book, 'The Crash of 2008 and What it Means,' has made prescient calls during the credit crisis. A year ago, he told Reuters that global losses were likely to top US$1 trillion. US and European banks have recorded more than US$700 billion in losses and write-downs, as of Feb 5, 2009, according to Reuters data. ... more

'I don't expect the US economy to recover in the third or fourth quarter so I think we are in for a pretty lasting slowdown,' Mr Soros said, adding that in 2010 there might be 'something' in terms of US growth.

Most economists expect the US economy to stop contracting in the third quarter and resume growing in the fourth quarter, according to a latest monthly poll of forecasts by Reuters.

The recovery will look like 'an inverted square root sign,' Mr Soros said: 'You hit bottom and you automatically rebound some, but then you don't come out of it in a V-shape recovery or anything like that. You settle down - step down.'

In the fourth quarter, the US economy contracted at a 6.3 per cent annualised rate, and economists think the first quarter's slide will be at least as severe, if not worse.

Healing the banking system, which is 'basically insolvent,' and housing markets is crucial to recovery, Mr Soros said.

The public-private investment funds - unveiled by the Treasury last month to get bad debts off bank balance sheets - are going to work but won't be enough to recapitalise the banks so they are able to or willing to provide credit, he said.

Even a steep yield curve won't generate enough profits to keep the banks out of their vulnerable situation.

'What we have created now is a situation where the banks who will be able to earn their way out of a hole, but by doing that, they are going to weigh on the economy.

'Instead of stimulating the economy, they will draw the lifeblood, so to speak, of profits away from the real economy in order to keep themselves alive.' -- REUTERS

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26152.1

Temasek and GIC ranked lower than Timor Leste’s Petroleum fund

Temasek and GIC ranked lower than Timor Leste’s Petroleum fund on International Scoreboard for SWFs by Peterson Institute!

According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics, both Temasek and GIC are ranked lower than Timor Leste’s Petroleum Fund on the scoreboard for SWFs.

Timor Leste scored 21.75 points in the 2007 ranking while Temasek and GIC scored 13.50 and 2.25 respectively.

The scores are computed based on four categories: structure, governance, accountability and transparency and lastly, behavior.

Temasek and GIC performed especially badly under the “structure” category. GIC does not state the source of its funds which is not kept separate from Singapore’s international reserves.

Though Temasek has been publishing an annual report since 2005, there is little information about its activities. While Temasek subjects itself to an internal audit, the results are not released to the public. As for GIC, nobody knows if it does conduct any internal audit at all.

It is time that both SWFs subject themselves to a rigorous and thorough audit by an independent auditor given their dismal performance last year.

Instead of recruiting more caucasians to sit on its board of directors, they may consider a cheaper alternative: Timor Leste.

Since the Singapore government has always been obsessed with international rankings, it is surprising they appeared to be nonchalant about the miserable rankings of Temasek and GIC near the bottom of the list.

As the recent Ren Ci trial has shown, any organization, be it a company, a charity or SWF which lacks a system of checks and balance will expose itself to possible abuses by a rogue CEO.

Ren Ci’s ex CEO Ming Yi was allowed to assume both positions of CEO and Chairman at the same time. Ren Ci’s accounts were not audited by an external auditor and neither does its CEO need to answer to anybody other than himself.

Without the NKF saga which forced the Ministry of Health to conduct stringent checks on charities, the scandal in Ren Ci will never be uncovered.

There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot open their account books and allow themselves to be audited if they are indeed managed accordingly to accepted international standards.

You can read the entire report here:
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/truman1007swf.pdf

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26133.1

NTU prof Chan Kap Luk still recovering

NTU prof Chan Kap Luk still recovering

It appears that the mainstream media is back on a publicity campaign to salvage the battered image of NTU. While previously it has used “allegedly” to describe the incident, it has now conveniently omitted it altogether and reach a verdict on its own without revealing the autopsy report and the police’s investigations.

After a few more rounds of spins and propaganda, the version of “truth” which will remain imprinted in the minds of the public is: Widjaja knifed Prof Chan in his back and later fell to his death while it should be written like this:

“Widjaja allegedly knifed Prof Chan in his back and later fell to his death. However, no witnesses were present and Prof Chan’s claims cannot be independently verified as for now till the police complete their investigations.

It’s a shame that our most unprofessional journalists do not have the basic sense of human decency to show some respect for the deceased. In its desperate attempts to protect the establishment, they will go to any lengths to smear the names of the innocent, including the dead who cannot speak up in defence for themselves.

Article:

THE Nanyang Technological University professor who was stabbed by his final-year project student last month, is still on medical leave but is in contact with his students.

Professor Chan Kap Luk, 45, from the NTU’s School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), is still recovering and has yet to resume full teaching responsibilities, said NTU on Monday in response to queries from straitstimes.com.

Prof Chan continues ‘to maintain contact with some of his students via email and phone calls,’ NTU said.

The professor was knifed in the back during a final-year project discussion with Indonesian student David Hartanto Widjaja on the morning of March 2.

Widjaja, 21, a fourth-year engineering student at NTU, later fell to his death after the attack.

Prof Chan, who suffered injuries to his back and right hand, was discharged from National University Hospital three days after the attack. He had earlier said he would be taking a break before returning to work.

Prof Chan’s workload has since been delegated to other faculty members.

‘Since the incident, a co-supervised final year project (FYP) has been taken over by the co-supervisor, while the remaining projects have been re-allocated to other faculty members within the same division’, NTU said.

Asked if NTU was reviewing its policies on FYP meetings between students and professors, an NTU spokesman said the School of EEE is looking into whether more effective means can be developed to support its students and staff.

NTU also said it continues to provide support for foreign students ease into a new environment through its International Students Centre and the Student Affairs Office.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26132.2

NTU prof still recovering

April 6, 2009
NTU prof still recovering
By Derrick Ho

THE Nanyang Technological University professor who was stabbed by his final-year project student last month, is still on medical leave but is in contact with his students.

Professor Chan Kap Luk, 45, from the NTU's School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), is still recovering and has yet to resume full teaching responsibilities, said NTU on Monday in response to queries from straitstimes.com.

Prof Chan continues 'to maintain contact with some of his students via email and phone calls,' NTU said.

The professor was knifed in the back during a final-year project discussion with Indonesian student David Hartanto Widjaja on the morning of March 2.

Widjaja, 21, a fourth-year engineering student at NTU, later fell to his death after the attack.

Prof Chan, who suffered injuries to his back and right hand, was discharged from National University Hospital three days after the attack. He had earlier said he would be taking a break before returning to work.

Prof Chan's workload has since been delegated to other faculty members.

'Since the incident, a co-supervised final year project (FYP) has been taken over by the co-supervisor, while the remaining projects have been re-allocated to other faculty members within the same division', NTU said.

Asked if NTU was reviewing its policies on FYP meetings between students and professors, an NTU spokesman said the School of EEE is looking into whether more effective means can be developed to support its students and staff.

NTU also said it continues to provide support for foreign students ease into a new environment through its International Students Centre and the Student Affairs Office.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26132.1

one hundred dollar fine for SMRT

one hundred dollar fine for SMRT

oh my god. SMRT has been fined a princely sum of one hundred dollars. SGD100.00. i tried to make it look slightly higher but i failed. sorry. if this isn’t a joke, I don’t know what is.

SMRT was fined $100 for one instance in which one of its services was found to be overcrowded.

wow. that’s such a tremendous dent in the pockets of SMRT which made profits of 42 million dollars in just Quarter 1 of 2009 alone. a helpful netizen did some math and found out here that it only accounted for 0.00024% of the said profits. That was only one instance SMRT was convicted of over-crowding from June 1 to Nov 30 2008. See people, you guys enjoy the world’s best train system. Only one instance over a period of 5 months for over-crowding.

Assuming that SMRT was consistently late everyday in the year, that would only account for a mighty 0.0876% of Q1 2009 profits. No wonder SMRT cannot be bothered to clean up its act and implement a train schedule that is more packed with trains. After all, paying the fine is infinitely so much cheaper than paying for an increased train schedule.

SBS Transit had it worse. It was fined a mighty $4500.00 for some cases of overcrowding and long waiting times. wow. That was such a big dent in the pocket for SBS Transit too. Probably the monthly wage of just 3 drivers. Do you now wonder why they cannot be bothered to increase bus frequencies also? I’ve also noticed that on some bus services, frequency for peak hours is lower than frequency for non-peak hours. Amazing.

I forgot to mention that the fines came out of the profits raked from consumers. In short, consumers paid for the fines, while continuing to suffer from low frequencies, over-crowded trains and long waiting times for both buses and MRTs.

Well done, Public Transport Council. That fine was really productive. Oh sorry, I forgot. That was symbolic lah.The fines would have struck fear into the consumer-oriented SMRT and SBS Transit, hence they will 100% clean up their act to prevent themselves from being fined again in the future.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26232.1

Something to ponder upon: Organ donation

Organ donation. How much do you know about it in Singapore? Remember a few months back I was musing to some friend when Mr. Khaw said that we shouldn’t exclude compensation for organ donation. I remembered telling them this will be like the case of the casino. It’ll be legalised anyway, it’s only a matter of time.

I think in times like this, we ought to give the recent change in Human Organ Transplant Act or HOTA a good think through, what are the changes and what implication can it have on us?

There are a few changes like upping the limit of cadaveric organ donation to 65 and donor swapping. But what really unnerved me was the inclusion of compensation for kidney transplant. I’m not sure if this was done in response to a recent higher mortal(read: rich man) attempt to buy a kidney, but the timing and similarity is too much of an coincidence.

Anyway, from an article from the MSM, kidney law to change. The Health Minister actually touch on the issue to compensation or rather, defraying the cost of expenses. In it, it was noted:

He hinted that the sum will be at least five figures, and possibly six. The actual amount of just compensation will be left to a committee, which will be set up to look into this.

In the recent organ trading case involving former retail magnate Tang Wee sung, the Indonesian donor was to have received $23,700 for his kidney, from the $300,000 Mr Tang paid the agent.

That case sparked a debate on whether it is ethical to pay someone for an organ. Yesterday, Mr Khaw repeated that it is not ethical to do so.

But he added, 'The ethical community, including the World Health Organisation, has clarified that it is ethical to compensate, so long as the compensation amount is not so big as to induce.'

My first thoughts that comes to my mind is sum of compensation is at least 5 figures and possibly six, so in theory, it can range from $10,000 to $999,999. Let us all assume a middle class person earn $3,000/month, so his annual wages would be around $36,000. Using the lower limit, it would cost him a third of his annual wages and if we were to apply the upper limit, he wouldn’t even be able to afford a transplant.

My question is what is really the purpose of compensation? To weed out poor people who cannot afford the compensation or to encourage more people to donate their organs? Frankly speaking, this is how I see it. because if the donation is done through blood ties, meaning if you decided to donate an organ to a relative in need, the issue of financial compensation is not important anymore. So by the inclusion of monetary compensation into the picture, it have purely become a tool of inducement.

My next question is how much compensation should the committee set to prevent inducement and at the same time provide for adequate financial care for donor? Should we just set a low base line amount of say $5,000 for a kidney? It will not work, because it will have no effect on the kidney waiting list as the price is too low for defray anything. What if we set it higher so as to cover all expense incurred by the donor. Say let us all set it to $50,000? Readers, for $50,000, will it induce you to donate your organs? All this is achieved by arbitrarily setting an amount, if we follow the norm in Singapore where everything from subsidised housing to minister pay is pegged to the market forces. This will only cause the compensation amount to shoot up, not down, remember the highest bidder wins.

So in the end, the poor who cannot afford compensation loses and have to consigned himself or herself to a never ending waiting list. While the rich who can afford any amount of compensation will just get to cut the queue. And who would want to donate an organ for free when there is like money to be earned? Let say, you can donate to 2 person, one poor chap who cannot offer you any compensation and one rich man who can offer you any amount you ask for, which would you choose? With this I rest my case…

In conclusion, have we as a society have become so pragmatic that we now view our body as a marketable commodity? Monetary compensation is not a feasible solution at all. Why am I paying so much money for such so called highly talented minister to come up with such short sighted solution?

To the 79 MPs that voted for the change in HOTA, I hope your conscience do not eat you alive.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26231.1

Singapore has 2.26m electors on list

Registers of Electors certified; S'pore has 2.26m electors on list
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 07 April 2009 2117 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Registers of Electors for all 23 of Singapore's electoral divisions have been been certified. This is essentially an updated list of Singapore citizens who can vote.

The Elections Department said there are now 2,260,620 electors listed.

Those who want to look at the list can go to the Elections Department or any of the 105 Inspections Centres island-wide - which are primarily community centres and clubs.

Singaporeans who want to check their names in the Registers can also do it online at www.elections.gov.sg.

Meanwhile, if you are an overseas voter, registration which commenced on March 3 will remain open.

Singaporeans overseas can still submit their applications online to the Elections Department or go to any of the nine Overseas Registration Centres.

The Elections Department has said updating the registers is a "routine exercise" which is required by law within three years of the last election in May 2006. - CNA/vm

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26226.1

Singapore, Johor to improve network of buses

S'pore, Johor to improve network of buses

2009/04/07

JOHOR BARU:Plans are afoot to put more buses on the road between Johor and Singapore to meet the demand of commuters. The Malaysia-Singapore Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) for Iskandar Malaysia said the move would enhance transport links between the two countries.

Although no specific numbers were provided, the JMC said it was crucial for the bus services to be improved.

This was among the issues discussed at the fourth JMC meeting in Putrajaya on Sunday.

The meeting was co-chaired by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Tan Sri Amirsham A. Aziz and Singapore's Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan.

Also present were Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman and Singapore Transport Minister Raymond Lim.

The meeting was held to review the progress made by the four working groups on immigration, transportation, tourism and environment.

In a joint statement issued by both Amirsham and Mah, the JMC decided that a Malaysian automated clearance system would be implemented for frequent travellers.

The system, which would be implemented in phases, would include a biometric verifying system, autogates for non-motorists as well as "fast-track" lanes.

"This will greatly facilitate access for visitors from Singapore going to Iskandar Malaysia," the statement said.

The JMC also discussed a joint plan to clean up Johor's rivers.

These are Sungai Segget, Sungai Tebrau and Sungai Skudai.

Amirsham and Mah said the JMC would continue to coordinate regular exchanges of expertise on environment matters.

On tourism, Amirsham said that a feasibility study would be conducted to find new tourism products that could be jointly developed by both countries.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26225.1

Next year will be (wee) better: World Bank

Next year will be (wee) better: World Bank

The World Bank report on East Asia, released today, has little to say about Singapore. But the good news is, China is beginning to turn the corner, says the report. "Economic activity in China is likely to bottom out by midyear" – and bounce back next year, perking up the rest of the region.

And the bad news: China alone can't bring about a full recovery. Say bye-bye to the go-go growth of the last few years. Jobs won't be as plentiful and well-paid.

The executive summary says:

A return to stronger economic expansion in China next year should help support growth among the countries of the East Asia and Pacific region, but a sustainable recovery will ultimately depend on developments in the advanced economies.

Among developing regions, East Asia is best positioned to benefit from resumption in global growth, given its relatively open trade regimes, its infrastructure, and its strong and competitive production networks.

Even so, the region’s outward oriented economies are unlikely to enjoy the same success in the medium term as they did in the previous decade, in large part because the pressure to increase savings in East Asia’s key export markets is likely to constrain their growth over the medium term. In addition, the risks to the outlook are weighted heavily on the downside. Continued banking problems or even new waves of tension in financial markets could lead to stagnation in global GDP or another year of declining GDP. The implications for East Asia would be increased pressure on labour markets and the fiscal accounts, and further deterioration in the portfolios of banks.

The World Bank is forecasting that real GDP growth in developing East Asia (including China but excluding the "newly industrialized economies" Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan) will reach only 5.3 percent in 2009, down from 8 percent in 2008 and 11.4 percent in 2007.

But at least the region will continue to grow when global economic growth is expected to shrink by 1.7 percent this year—the first decline in world output since the World War II.

"East Asia has China to thank," says the Philippines' ABS-CBN News:

Thanks to China, the World Bank said growth in developing East Asia may be the fastest among the world's regions such as South Asia, Middle East, North America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

If China is excluded, however, the World Bank said East Asia's performance is expected to trail behind the said regions.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26214.1