Home loans hinder Singapore recovery

Home loans hinder Singapore recovery

Singapore’s economy is likely to shrink by five percent or more this year, more than any other economy in the region, according to the Asian Development Bank.

No other Asian economy – not even Hong Kong, South Korea or Taiwan -- is expected to shrink so sharply. Most, in fact, are expected to continue to grow. (See chart at the end of this post. The report excludes Japan.)

And the reason Singapore is expected to fare so badly?

It’s not just because Singapore has gone into “high-value industries such as biomedical manufacturing which depend on demand from industrial countries at the heart of the crisis”.

Singapore’s problems are exacerbated by the property market, according to the bank, which released the Asian Development Outlook 2009 report today.

The high level of home ownership – more than 90 percent in Singapore – and the attendant financial liabilities have “suppressed disposable incomes and hence consumption,” says the bank.

Hong Kong consumes more than Singapore, it adds. About Hong Kong, it says:

GDP is forecast to fall by 2 percent in 2009. In 2010, growth is expected to resume at about 3 percent.

The bank says about Singapore:

The deep contraction in this city-state of 4.8 million people brings into sharper focus the lack of domestic demand base that could cushion the effect of an external shock such as the current one.

In this regard, there has been a remarkable reduction in the ratio of private consumption to GDP in recent years. Strong growth of exports can partly account for this drop. However, the share of consumption has been more or less stable, at a far higher level, in Hong Kong, China, a comparable economy.

A more structural explanation is that high levels of home ownership and correspondingly high levels of financial liabilities have suppressed disposable incomes and hence consumption. One possible policy option is to open up more avenues for households, especially older households, to convert their housing wealth into purchasing power.

The report adds:

Private consumption growth slowed to 2.4 percent in 2008, less than half the rate of 2007. Deteriorating labour market conditions have led to concerns over job security and an erosion of consumer confidence. Higher government consumption bolstered overall consumption growth to 3.6 percent.

The bank says the government’s 20.5 billion Singapore dollar (about $13.5 billion) economic stimulus package “will at most limit the severity of the recession”. It adds:

Uncertainty surrounding the economy is likely to intensify during the first half of 2009, and this will induce households to save rather than spend. Job market conditions are expected to worsen before they get better. As a result, private consumption is set to contract in the first half. The weakening in trade and manufacturing bodes ill for equipment investment, which is likely to contract during the first half. The one area of private domestic demand that remained robust in 2008—construction investment—is likely to weaken in 2009 in response to a stagnant housing market. Any significant boost to domestic demand will have to come from the Government.

Here are the bank’s GDP growth forecasts for 2009 and 2010 (percentage change from previous year):

Country	2008 (actual)	2009	2010
China	9	7	8
Hong Kong	2.5	-2	3
South Korea	2.5	-3	4
Taiwan	0.1	-4	2.4
Mongolia	8.9	3	4.5
Indonesia	6.1	3.6	5
Malaysia	4.6	-0.2	4.4
Brunei	2.7 (est)	-0.4	2.3
Philippines	4.6	2.5	3.5
Singapore	1.1	-5	3.5
Thailand	2.6	-2	3
Vietnam	6.2	4.5	6.5
Cambodia	6.5	2.5	4
Laos	7.2	5.5	5.7
Myanmar	?	?	?
Bangladesh	6.2	5.2	5.6
India	7.1	5	6.5
Pakistan	5.8	2.8	4
Sri Lanka	6	4.5	6
Nepal	5.3	3	3.5
Bhutan	11.5	5.5	6.5
Maldives	5.7	1	1.5

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25592.1

Singapore paper slow to report Singapore news

Singapore paper slow to report Singapore news

Singapore’s leading newspaper is slow to pick up even Singapore news! The Straits Times has published online news agency reports about how Asia may recover next year and India’s growth to slow 5% based on the Asian Development Bank’s economic forecast for the region published today.

But it has not yet reported that the Singapore economy is expected to shrink more than Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan or any other Asian economy this year. That’s what the Asian Development Bank report shows. Has anyone at the Straits Times read the report? It’s available on the Asian Development Bank website.

The report says the high level of home ownership and the attendant financial liabilities limit Singaporeans’ spending power and that is one reason why Singapore hasn’t been able to increase domestic consumption to mitigate the recession.

Here are the bank’s GDP growth forecasts for 2009 and 2010 (percentage change from previous year):

Country	2008 (actual)	2009	2010
China	9	7	8
Hong Kong	2.5	-2	3
South Korea	2.5	-3	4
Taiwan	0.1	-4	2.4
Mongolia	8.9	3	4.5
Indonesia	6.1	3.6	5
Malaysia	4.6	-0.2	4.4
Brunei	2.7 (est)	-0.4	2.3
Philippines	4.6	2.5	3.5
Singapore	1.1	-5	3.5
Thailand	2.6	-2	3
Vietnam	6.2	4.5	6.5
Cambodia	6.5	2.5	4
Laos	7.2	5.5	5.7
Myanmar	?	?	?
Bangladesh	6.2	5.2	5.6
India	7.1	5	6.5
Pakistan	5.8	2.8	4
Sri Lanka	6	4.5	6
Nepal	5.3	3	3.5
Bhutan	11.5	5.5	6.5
Maldives	5.7	1	1.5

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25593.1

Human Organ Transplant Act - optimism despite concerns

Human Organ Transplant Act - optimism despite concerns

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Anthony Yeo / Consultant Therapist, Counselling and Care Centre.

The amendment to the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) allowing for reimbursement of living kidney donors was passed in Parliament with heated debate recently.

It generated such heat that MPs from the ruling party were given authorisation to vote in accordance to their religious or moral convictions.

The obvious objection seems to centre on the possible abuse from those donors who may do so for profit as well as how ethics committees can discharge duties responsibly.

Whatever the objections or concerns may be, it does seem that the primary focus is on the donor rather than the recipient. In this sense, would it not be expedient to discuss this issue from a systemic perspective, taking into consideration the needs of recipients, consequences for donors as well as the larger health system.

It is certainly beyond the health system to meet demands for kidney transplants. The fact that there is such a long waiting list for kidneys, must definitely spur us to think of the burden of our health system to ensure that kidney patients do not need to experience undue suffering.

There is also the need to consider ways to ease the burden of having to deny those in grave danger not only from further incapacitation or death. If laws are too stringent and kidney donation becomes restrictive, one wonders if our health system would have the reputation in being an illness system.

If our health system is to provide healing and enhancement of health, then the onus is on the administrators of the system to explore every avenue to ensure that this is made available to all in need.

It is always tragic to learn of those who have to endure extended suffering from kidney failure, far worse to witness those who die prematurely due to lack of access to kidney donors.

We only need to recall the very heart-rending experience some years ago of the family of the Indian woman who experienced severe pain and suffering till her death because her life could not be saved due to restrictions prevailing at that time.

Her family was traumatised and the health of her mother and sister were so badly affected that within a year or two, they too met their death. The surviving sister needed help with her trauma that took a while to heal.

Such an experience should not be repeated if we could consider the needs of kidney patients. If we value life, then surely saving lives must take precedence over laws and procedures. And if easing the restrictions and making donation more readily available can be a way to promote living, then laws would need to be amended to make this possible.

If we were to have this expanded perspective, then it is a little easier to uphold the need to consider how best to make donation more accessible. This is where the amendment to provide for reimbursement can make sense.

There must be a place for care of the donor as well. For one, we are aware of the risks involved. Donors have encountered complications to their physical well-being including deaths, although the latter has been infrequent.

As the Health Minister asserted in Parliament, suffering from financial consequences is a major risk involved. Furthermore, during the recovery from the procedure, disruption to work and life, as well as the need to live with the loss of an internal organ are other risks that have often been overlooked.

To this extent, the amendment to allow for reimbursement can pave the way for reluctant donors to offer their kidneys.

Of course there will be possible risk of abuse of the system but that should not deter us from a very humanitarian approach to this matter. Likewise, those who are concerned about the administration of reimbursement and procedures to be put in place to prevent abuse can be assured that these are operational matters that can be dealt with responsibly.

This confidence comes from the way our government has been functioning, ever cautious and prudent. Sometimes they tended to be unduly vigilant to the point of stifling possibilities for change. If they continue to function as they probably would, then we can be hopeful that measures would be put in place to prevent abuse.

There are already ethics committees in place for approving organ transplants and we can rest assure that fine-tuning will be executed accordingly.

Hence, there should be optimism despite concerns expressed; support for greater flexibility in the midst of existing laws and public support for making kidney donation more readily available.

Hopefully our health system will be life-enhancing, life-preserving and life-extending with this amendment passed in Parliament.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25594.1

US cries Chinese wolf

Mar 31, 2009

US cries Chinese wolf
By David Isenberg

On March 25, the United States Department of Defense released the 2009 unclassified edition of its annual report "Military Power of the People's Republic of China" to Congress.

As a description of the ongoing development of China's military forces it is a reasonably informative document. But if it was supposed to be an alarm about the threat posed by Chinese military forces it failed badly. For this we should be grateful.

Ever since the demise of the Soviet Union many members of America's politico-military-industrial sector have been looking for another country as a replacement, if only to justify the huge military and security expenditures the United States appropriates annually. And, by default, given its sheer size, population, and increasing economic importance, China is seen as the new threat standard. Indeed, China now provides the rationale for at least a quarter of the Pentagon's budget.

Yet, unlike the waning years of the Cold War, when the Reagan-era Pentagon released its annual Soviet Military Power, giving an estimate of the Soviet Union's military power and strategy, the 66-page Chinese version is more nuanced and far less alarmist. And even the passages warning of threatening Chinese military developments seem unconvincing.

Although the report's release comes after heightened tensions between the US and China after Chinese vessels early this month harassed a US Navy surveillance ship, USNS Impeccable, in international waters in the South China Sea it is difficult to see it as anything other than a recitation of the sort of ongoing force modernization that any major power would undertake as a matter of course.

Indeed, in the Pentagon press briefing introducing the report a senior defense official said, "China appears to be pursuing a set of enduring strategic priorities which we identify in this report as, first, perpetuating the role of the Chinese Communist Party, continuing economic development, ensuring domestic stability, protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity and obtaining great-power status."

With the exception of protecting the Chinese Communist Party there are the same goals the United States lists in its own annual strategy documents.

On Taiwan, the report notes that China continues to produce weapons that could threaten the island and increase the number of short-range missiles opposite the island, but it also notes that the overall security situation in the Taiwan Straits has improved in the last year.

While the report mentions China's development of longer-range capabilities it acknowledges that some of these capabilities have allowed it to contribute cooperatively to the international community's responsibilities in areas such as peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and counter-piracy.

On military spending the report says China's official military budget grew nearly 18% in 2008 to US$60.1 billion, although that is not the total of its military expenditures. The Pentagon estimates military spending at $105 billion to $150 billion.

The report notes that China has resumed reporting its defense expenditure to the United Nations. But its decision to employ the simplified reporting form suggests that China's leaders have not yet committed fully to the idea of military transparency as a confidence-building measure. Yet the data that is publicly available shows that overall China's military expenditures are dwarfed by that of the United States.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2007, China's estimated total military expenditure was 506 billion yuan, or $58.2 billion. China spent only 2.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on its military in 2006 (the last year data was available).

For the United States that figure was $578 billion, or $546 billion in constant dollars. That would be 4% of its GDP. Of course, that does not include military spending on wars it is fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, or military spending for homeland security.

Also, during the press briefing the defense official noted that, "I think - yeah, there's been a - there's been an overall trend of incremental and modest improvements in transparency."

Considering that at the press briefing the defense official said "China is now spending a lot more for its military than just about everybody else in the region," it is worth noting that the share of GDP it spends on the military is only 0.1 percentage point more than that of Taiwan. And it is 0.6 percentage points less than India spends on its military.

What the report seems to find most threatening is China's future ability to project power to ensure access to resources or enforce claims to disputed territories. The report noted, "In this regard, we see a continued emphasis on building capacity for sea- and land-based anti-access and aerial denial operations. And as an example, in the maritime domain, China's maritime anti-access and aerial denial capabilities increasingly appear geared toward coordinated operations to interdict at long ranges aircraft carriers or expeditionary strike groups out into the Western Pacific."

This is thinly veiled code for China's growing ability to counter US military forces in a future crisis. But it takes more than weaponry to fight effectively. The American experience since 2001 shows that advanced weaponry, even against opponents with no navies, armies, air forces and air defenses, can have costly, unintended strategic consequences.

The organization and training of its forces is at least equally, if not more, important.

Yet, the response to a question at the press briefing indicates that China's future military potential is not a burning concern at the Pentagon.

Question: Beyond the region, did you all look at, for example, how many years or decades China may be out from being able to challenge the US militarily?

Senior defense official: We didn't actually conduct that assessment in this report. So we don't make that judgment.

In fact, the report stated, "The Poeple's Liberation Army's (PLA) force projection capabilities will remain limited over the next decade as the PLA replaces outdated aircraft and maritime vessels and adjusts operational doctrine to encompass new capabilities. These changes will require tailored logistics equipment and training that that will take time and funding to develop. Although foreign-produced or civil sector equipment and maintenance parts may help to fill near-term gaps, continued reliance on non-organic assets will hinder PLA capabilities to sustain large-scale operations."

David Isenberg is a researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a US Navy veteran, and the author of a new book, Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq. The views expressed are his own. His e-mail is sento@earthlink.net.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26425.1

like father, like daughter.

like father, like daughter.

Whenever I read about Dr Lee Wei Ling,Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter, the first thing that invariably comes to my mind is: a walking human specimen of hypocrisy.

How so?

She writes often of how a careful saver and non-materialistic she is, how life should be, how people should behave, their beliefs in life, blah blah blah. I think being the daughter of Lee Kuan Yew does give you the liberty and the means to engage in high-handed morals and ethics.

let me give you some excerpts.(there are many more, do look out for her weekly “inspirational’ column on Sunday Times)

The most important trait a doctor needs is empathy. If we can feel our patient’s pain and suffering, we would certainly do our best by our patients and their welfare would override everything else.

Medicine is not just a prestigious, profitable career - it is a calling. Being a doctor will guarantee almost anyone a decent standard of living. How much money we need for a decent standard of living varies from individual to individual.

I see. that will sound fine if she practises whatever she teaches. Unfortunately, I don’t think buying a 2.8 million dollar condo in Orchard is considered as “non-materialistic”. It gets worse when people are fooled and write in to “commend” her. I remember seeing some other articles, and quite a few positive comments and admiration for selfless and “different” Lee Wei Ling online.

When I read Sunday’s article, ‘Medicine is not just a career, but a calling’,by Dr Lee Wei Ling, I felt compelled to express my respect for Dr Lee’s compassion and her dedication to her patients.

There isn’t much purpose in this blog post. Just to highlight the hypocrisy of Lee Wei Ling, so that less people will be taken in. As they say, a leopard never changes its spots. Seems like leopard’s kids also too.

Have a good read about Lee Kuan Yew here, and his worry about his un-married daughter. To be honest, I wouldn’t care less about him and his worry, and him pretending he faces the same problems as Singaporeans.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25554.1

The Pope, condoms, AIDs prevention and a controversy

The Pope, condoms, AIDs prevention and a controversy

Monday, 30 March 2009

Pope Benedict XVI’s made his maiden trip to Cameroon and Angola in the African continent recently. What was a well-intentioned trip to deliver ‘a word of hope and comfort’, however, was marred by a gaffe about condoms and AIDs prevention.

The Head of the Catholic Church was quoted as having said that the distribution of condoms in Africa cannot overcome the problem of AIDS, but on the contrary aggravates the problem. This slip-up comes on the heels of the Pope’s controversial decision in lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson who had made denials over the extent of the Holocaust. This incident aside, Cookie Boy is left baffled and stumped by the Pope’s remarks on condoms.

Meanwhile, The Lancet, a well known British medical journal in its editorial had some harsh words for the Pope. The journal acknowledged the Church’s moral stance and support towards marital fidelity and abstinence in HIV prevention. “But, by saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS,” it said, “the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue.”

Yet to those ignorant of the Church’s teaching, Cookie Boy worries that the Pope’s comments might be taken out of context and risks undoing the efforts of medical and volunteer workers in curbing the spread of AIDS in Africa.

To sum up the Church’s position on human life in just a few words: The Church is pro-life. Period! No arguments! No budging!

The Humanae Vitae decries the use of any artificial methods to prevent procreation as ‘unlawful’ and ‘intrinsically wrong’ which include the use of condoms. It states:

“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come out of it.”

The condom here is the lesser of the two moral evils.

Church’s stand on prevention through condoms

But what is the Church’s moral and authority take about the use of condoms to prevent sexual disease? There aren’t any that I know of. Neither do I think it is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What I do know is that according to the Church’s teachings, fornication is sinful. Any sexual activity outside the sanctity of marriage is considered wrong and sinful (and that includes having extra-marital affairs). This translates to those happily married folks that, ‘Thou shalt not take any other partners besides thy spouse’; and for singles, this means a self-imposition of a sexual drought.

Therefore there is no need for the Church to make an official moral stand on the use of condoms to combat sexual diseases when her stand is absolutely clear – abstinence, chastity and fidelity. A man and woman who had never had intercourse with anyone prior to marriage, and who remain faithful to one another would therefore need no condoms to guard against sexual diseases.

This view is largely utopian and as many critics will argue – far from reality. Because we know that in reality, sex trade workers do exist! Because in reality, people are still going to continue with their sexual activities! Spouses will cheat. Some people will continue with their promiscuous lifestyles. No one is going to say: “Stop. I think I shall abstain from sex!”

Condom the “single, most efficient, available” preventive tool

A 2008 World Health Organisation Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic estimates 33 million people living with HIV, of which 22 million people are in the Sub-Saharan Africa region. It is estimated that there are 190,000 and 540,000 HIV sufferers in Angola and Cameroon respectively. In an ironical and stinging rebuff to the Pope’s comments, UNAIDS in its press release lists Cameroon as one of the countries most affected by HIV whereby “condom use is increasing for young people with multiple partners”.

UNAIDS states:

“Condoms are an essential part of combination prevention which includes among other elements: access to information about HIV, access to treatment, harm reduction measures, waiting longer to become sexually active, being faithful, reducing multiple partners and concurrent relationships…”

UNAIDS, UNFRA and WHO also updated their information on condoms and HIV prevention in response to the Pope’s remarks. They reiterate that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections” and will “remain the key preventive tool for many, many years to come”.

The information also states:

“Conclusive evidence from extensive research among heterosexual couples in which one partner is infected with HIV shows that correct and consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission from both men to women, and also from women to men.”

Manipulating science?

So how did Pope Benedict XVI get the facts so horribly wrong? Perhaps it was just out of ignorance. Didn’t the Pope learn how to pay more attention to information easily available on the internet since the Lefebvrite decision? The Lancet in its editorial meanwhile wonders if this was a “deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology”.

The Lancet’s position is clear. It is braying for a mea culpa from Pope Benedict XVI for his comments. The Pope is an influential religious leader and the statement which he made is contrary to scientific knowledge which could put the health of millions of people at risk.

The controversy is nothing new. It isn’t the first time that the Catholic Church has been flogging this horse. The late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, said in an interview in a BBC Broadcast in 2003 that condoms don’t block the spread of AIDS.

The Catholic Church is in a quandary. On one hand, the Church has to safeguard and uphold the dogmas and teachings that have been its cornerstone for 2000 years whilst fighting off relativism and secularism, yet at the same time she has to make herself relevant and humanely accessible to the people who essentially form the body of Christ – physically represented by the Church. There is a clear need for a message of love and compassion, a need for solidarity manifested in practical action. There had been some previous talk of reforms to change the Church’s stance on condoms. But it looks likes the Pope’s recent comments have quashed all hopes. But yet, as the Second Vatican Council has proven, anything is possible.

Whether the Pope was right or wrong, one should not live under the fallacy that the condom is the only way to beat the spread of sexual diseases. Yet there is no doubt that the condom is part of a bigger equation and must work with the other elements suggested by UNAIDS above to curb the spread of AIDS.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25519.1

Financial crisis has become full-blown economic crisis, says George Yeo

Financial crisis has become full-blown economic crisis, says George Yeo

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Donaldson Tan / Head, TOC International / London

Cambridge – Last Friday, Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo visited Cambridge University in conjunction with its 800th Anniversary. During the visit, he discussed the state of the world and the global economic crisis with Singaporean students. “No one is sure where the bottom is or how long this crisis will last, “ he said. “In the meantime, tens of thousands of companies will go bankrupt and tens of millions of people will lose their jobs. What started as a financial crisis has become a full-blown economic crisis. For many countries, worsening economic conditions will lead to political crisis.”

Recent Developments

Mr Yeo spoke out against government interventions in this global economic crisis. Public policies worldwide can hinder the market from reaching the bottom. “Many stimulus packages being proposed will make the adjustment more difficult”, he said. “For example, bailing out inefficient automobile companies may end up prolonging the pain of restructuring at tremendous public expense.” Attempting to shortcut the process may worsen underlying conditions. He also commented that the wages and salaries of Americans, Europeans and Japanese are being held down by billions of Asians and Africans who are prepared to work for much less. He expects protectionist pressures in America, Europe and Japan to grow, in order to keep jobs at home.

The minister highlighted the White House’s growing dilemma between injecting liquidity into domestic financial markets and managing an international reserve currency. “If governments try to prevent the re-pricing of assets and human beings, international markets will force the adjustment. A country that is over-leveraged living beyond its means will itself be re-priced through its currency. Its currency will be devalued, forcing lower living standards on all its citizens.” Furthermore, in response to a TOC enquiry, he acknowledged that the calibrated move by the People’s Bank of China to call for the replacement of the US$ as the international reserve currency will put the coming G20 Summit in a precarious position. Mr Yeo said that while it is unlikely for any currency to replace the US$ as an international reserve currency, there will be political and economic obstacles in promoting global acceptance of a super-sovereign international reserve currency.

The world today is at similar crossroads as it was during the Great Depression. A global leadership vacuum marked the Great Depression in the 1930s. “Despite the shift of power across the Atlantic, while Great Britain could not lead, the United States would not lead. In between, the world economy fell,” Mr Yeo said. Great Britain then is United States today while United States then is China today. The US is China’s most important export market while China is the most important buyer of US Treasuries. Moreover, today’s world is more complex due to its multi-polarity. No particular value system will hold complete sway over others. The current crisis has already caused many people to question the nature of capitalism, socialism and democracy. “With the world in turmoil, many developing countries are studying the Chinese system wondering whether it might not offer them lessons on good governance. For the first time in a long time, the Western model has a serious competitor,” Mr Yeo said.

Responses by Singaporeans at Cambridge

A Singaporean commented that the role of Germany, the world’s biggest exporter, in the modern-day epic of the clash between Western and Eastern civilisations, is often underestimated. She also noted that the Singapore government has succumbed to China’s soft power. “Despite the failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Singapore Government has direct and indirect stakes in the Tianjin Eco-City Project and the Guangdong Knowledge City Project. I also wonder if the objectives of the Speak Mandarin policy has shifted towards preparing Singaporeans to be employees at Chinese firms.”

Another Singaporean was disappointed that the minister did not touch on the Singapore economy and the Resilience Package. He was unsure of the Package’s effectiveness to buffer and shield the Singapore economy from the global economic crisis. He also felt that the government was not clear on how long the Package should last. “There should be economic indicators published quarterly to ascertain the continuity and success of certain schemes in the Resilience Package, such as the Job Credit Scheme and the risk-sharing initiative for trade finance and SME loans, “ he said. “This will send a clear signal to the private sector, so that the firms and the public can make timely adjustment should the government suspends or ends these schemes.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25518.1