The Primary School Adventures of Mr Wang

I had a mini-scare recently. I lost my PSLE certificate.

I searched everywhere for it, but it could not be found. I believe that I may very well have thrown it away many years ago, thinking that after I become a big grown man, no one would ever need or want to know anything about my primary school education.

Well, one day the big grown man became a daddy. And then his little baby boy grew up. Next year the "baby" goes to Primary One, and I plan to send him to my old primary school. Since I am an old boy, my son gets priority in the admissions process.

However, I will need to prove that I was an old boy. To do that, I would need my PSLE certificate. The one that can't be found.

I called the school and fortunately they still managed to trace my records (bear in mind that when I first entered primary school, only organisations like NASA had computers). I'll have to pay $10 to get some replacement document to prove that I was an old boy, but it can be done.

Ahh, the trials and tribulations of parents in Singapore. The Straits Times has a few examples of how we suffer:

From 40 to 60 to 100 hours...
'Unfair that parents have to volunteer so much of their time without guarantee of a place for their children.'

MRS ELIZABETH NG, who signed up with her husband for parent volunteering at a primary school, said: 'To our shock, instead of the usual 40 hours a year that parents have to put in so that their child can qualify for registration for a place, this school increased the volunteering hours to a minimum of 60. Even then, there was no guarantee of a place in the school for our son. The school replied that its criterion was reasonable as other schools imposed a minimum of 80 or even 100 hours. The Education Ministry should stop schools from imposing higher than usual volunteering hours to suit their whims and fancies.'

The above refers to the Singapore system whereby parents who hope to get their children into the best primary schools can volunteer their time at the schools in order to gain priority. For example, these parents may volunteer as school librarians or traffic wardens or by manning the drinks stations on Sports Day or acting as safety officers on Cross-Country Day.

In principle, the idea isn't necessarily a bad one. It offers some opportunities for the parents to get to know more about the school and its principal and teachers, even before the child actually commences primary school. With some ingenuity, schools may even be able to tap the specific abilities or interests of individual parents (I'd be pretty nifty at helping the school to review legal contracts or run creative writing workshops, for instance).

However, ideas that are good in principle can get badly executed in practice. From what I hear, some schools get so many parent volunteers that it's a struggle for the school administration to find enough things for these parent volunteers to do.

So in the end, it mostly becomes a big waste of everyone's time.

Yesterday, an ST reader also offered another criticism of the volunteer system:

ST May 22, 2008
'Volunteer' scheme teaches pupils wrong values

I REFER to Saturday's letter by Mrs Elizabeth Ng 'From 40 to 60 to 100 hours'.

According to the dictionary, 'to volunteer' means 'to offer one's service or help without payment or rewards'.

It irks me that parents undertake 'volunteer' work in schools to secure a place for their children.

What is worse is that schools are allowing this to happen.

What are we teaching our children? That, you volunteer your time and effort so that you can get something in return?

If that is the rationale, children may in future 'volunteer' their time in an old folk's home so that they can secure a place for their parents, hopefully, for free.

Are these the values we should instil?

Mrs Ng urged the Education Ministry to stop schools from imposing higher-than-usual volunteering hours as and when they feel like it.

I say let's put a stop to this sort of 'volunteer' work and stop teaching our children the wrong values.

Lim Soo Huat

Caning As A Form of Punishment

ST May 23, 2008
25 Years 24 strokes
Man tries to retract his police statement but is convicted of raping stepdaughter
By Selina Lum

HE TOLD the police he did it.

He told a psychiatrist the same thing.

The 37-year-old IT specialist admitted to having had sex with his stepdaughter since she was 11, but that it had been consensual.

But when the case went to court, the Indian national changed his tune - insisting that there had been no sexual relations between them at all.

Yesterday, the High Court's decision was clear: He was guilty of all the charges brought against him for raping and having oral sex with the girl, now aged 14.

The Singapore permanent resident, who cannot be named to protect the girl's identity, was jailed for 25 years and ordered to be caned the maximum 24 strokes.

I have very little sympathy for child rapists. In my opinion, raping a child is just one of the most evil sorts of crimes possible.

I just wanted to use the ST article as a starting point for a more general discussion - whether our criminal legal system should continue to use caning as a form of punishment. Needless to say, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International regard caning as "cruel and unusual punishment", which is the technical way of saying that caning is a breach of human rights.

Some months ago, a friend alerted me to a Youtube video which purportedly shows the actual caning of a convicted child rapist in Malaysia. I would suppose that caning in Singapore would be somewhat similar (that is, the IT specialist mentioned in the ST article will suffer a similar fate).

Anyway here's the video. Please do not watch if you are squeamish. The caning takes place at a leisurely pace, but by the end of 20 strokes, the flesh on the buttocks is torn into a quivering, bloody mess.



Link to Youtube.

Thank You For Reading My Blog, Aljunied Town Council Members

A surprising reversal of events:

ST May 11, 2008
Litter index not linked to conservancy charges
By Shuli Sudderuddin

The air has been cleared over the litter index. Residents in Aljunied GRC need not worry about having to pay higher conservancy charges if their estate is deemed dirty.

Netizens were abuzz over a supposed link between the charges and the index after Aljunied Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua mentioned on May 3 that a litter index was being considered to find out which estates were the dirtiest.

It was reported that the index would be based on the cleanliness of lifts, condition of public property and how large pieces of rubbish were disposed of, and that the town council would consider raising conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work involved in maintaining them.

Clearing the air yesterday, Madam Phua told The Sunday Times: 'I mentioned that the litter index and conservancy charges can be linked in terms of dollar amount because there will be an increased cost to cleaning dirtier estates.

'However, that does not mean that the Aljunied Town Council intends to link them. I would like to make it very clear that the Aljunied Town Council never had the intention of punishing the residents with higher conservancy charges.'

She added that the town council may use the index to identify the dirtiest precincts. The staff can clean them and residents encouraged to maintain cleanliness. The index has not even been drafted.

Let's recall the earlier ST article, dated 5 May 2008. These sentences were, and are, crystal clear:

ST May 5, 2008
Aljunied trash index aims to wipe out litterbugs
Conservancy fees may be tied to index, with dirtiest precincts paying more
By Alfred Siew

TIRED of hardcore litterbugs, Aljunied GRC plans to start measuring the cleanliness of its precincts under a new litter index to be introduced in October.

Officials also said they will consider raising the conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them.

As I see it, either the Aljunied Town Council has suddenly changed its plans about the index, or the Straits Times made a big error in reporting the story the first time around. Or perhaps there was just some breakdown in communication, when the Straits Times and the Aljunied Town Council were talking to each other. What do you think?

Anyway, all's well that ends well. Raising conservancy charges anytime in the foreseeable future is just plain silly - considering, among other things, the way that the price of oil, electricity and basic foodfoodstuff have been shooting up. Surely we don't want to risk destabilising Singapore?

Interestingly, I just went to the ST archive service to read the 5 May article in full again. Surprise, surprise. It seems to me that the original article has now been edited. A few extra paragraphs have been added, which I'm fairly certain were not in the original article I saw. Here's some of the "additional reporting":

Other town councils are not yet considering the same move.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, coordinating chairman of the 14 People's Action Party town councils, had reservations about the plan.

He said it means a few litterbugs at a block could end up causing everyone to be punished.

Well, as you can see, it is obviously untrue that Mr Wang and the PAP are always in disagreement.

In this case, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Teo Ho Pin. As a matter of fact, Dr Teo is simply reiterating the very same view that I myself had earlier expressed here, so I cannot possibly disagree with him.

Well done, Dr Teo! In my opinion, you have just shown yourself to be a clear-thinking, clever person.

Films That You Won't See In Your National Education Classes

While we're still on the topic of citizens and rubbish - refer to my preceding post - I thought I would feature this short film by Martyn See. It seems quite relevant, since it contains many scenes about poor people and the trash in their environment.

No doubt these people live in the more run-down, dirtier precincts in Singapore. But do you think that their respective MPs should therefore raise their conservancy fees? As Aljunied Town Council is considering doing, for residents in Aljunied's dirtier precincts?



Interestingly, one of the places featured in the above video is Eunos. I could be wrong, but I think that this place is probably part of Aljunied GRC. (Aljunied GRC comprises five divisions, including the Eunos constituency).

Aljunied Town Council And A Matter of Principle

From the Straits Times:

ST May 5, 2008
Aljunied trash index aims to wipe out litterbugs
Conservancy fees may be tied to index, with dirtiest precincts paying more
By Alfred Siew

TIRED of hardcore litterbugs, Aljunied GRC plans to start measuring the cleanliness of its precincts under a new litter index to be introduced in October.

Officials also said they will consider raising the conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them.

The index, the first of its kind in Singapore, was unveiled on Saturday by the GRC's Members of Parliament.

They said that it was designed to encourage residents to change their attitudes towards tossing trash.

Aljunied Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua said that the index would be based on the cleanliness of lifts, the condition of public property and how large pieces of rubbish are disposed.

She told The Straits Times yesterday that the council would tie conservancy charges to the index only if it found an objective measure of cleanliness.

The plan is under consideration and would not be confirmed until next year, she said.

Would it be right, as a matter of principle, for Aljunied Town Council to raise conservancy charges in the manner proposed above? Let's discuss.

The most obvious objection is that all the residents in the dirty precincts would have to pay higher conservancy charges, even though the large majority of them may be civic-minded residents who do not litter.

Once again, it would be a case of innocent Singaporeans being punished for a wrong they did not commit and could not personally prevent.

It is one thing to catch a litterbug and impose a fine on him. It is quite another thing to impose a fine (or a higher conservancy charge) on a resident, just because he happens to live in an area with more litterbugs around.

All the residents are already paying their usual conservancy charges. The amount they currently pay is already more than enough to maintain the cleanliness of the Aljunied GRC area. Check out the Aljunied Town Council's financial statements yourself.

In the 2006/2007 financial year, the Aljunied town council collected $31,955,492 in conservancy and service fees. They spent only $4,237,162 on cleaning works.

Their accumulated surplus for the year, as at 31 March 2007, was $4,964,022. Which means that in 2006/2007, they could have spent DOUBLE the amount they actually did, on cleaning works, and still have money left over.

Just as a side point, what about their gigantic sinking funds? Check out the Aljunied Town Council's balance sheet. They have more than $90,000,000 in surpluses accumulated over the years. And yes, the bulk of which would have come from the conservancy and service fees paid by Aljunied residents.

Of that amount, $36,270,609 is reported to be sitting in the bank as fixed deposits. Another $44,045,035 is reported as being held for "trading investments". What's that? On further inspection, we see that it means $12,587,775 invested in stocks; $21,082,590 invested in bonds; and $11,981,315 invested in unit trusts.

Does the Aljunied Town Council sound poor to you?

(The sinking funds can't be used for general cleaning works, but their enormous size raises other sorts of questions, which I'll discuss in a future post).

Chee Soon Juan And Other Illegal Hawkers

It seems that Geylang is getting overrun by foreigners selling illegal cigarettes.

ST May 4, 2008
Cigarette peddlers show up in Geylang
Working in teams, they do their illegal trade in back alleys, side lanes
By Aw Cheng Wei

Peddlers from China and Vietnam are hawking bootleg cigarettes openly in the Geylang area, sometimes in broad daylight, and even stopping cars to sell their stash.

The cigarettes are smuggled in on board cargo ships which dock at Jurong Port, the peddlers claimed.

One seller, who said he was Vietnamese and spoke in halting English, said his shipborne supply comes from Indonesia. His teammate added in Mandarin: 'The ships come in daily and we pay on collection.'

Judging by the figures he gave, it is a lucrative business. The peddlers buy their contraband at about $2 for a pack of 20 sticks and resell them to street buyers. A 20-stick pack of Texas 5 costs $4.50 while a pack of Marlboro Red or Marlboro Menthol costs $5 or $6, half of what a duty-paid pack of Marlboro costs here.

The appearance of the Geylang peddlers comes on the heels of Indonesian peddlers who smuggled in bootleg cigarettes in small boats and sold them to passers-by in Woodlands, Yew Tee and Changi.

Police cracked down on these Indonesian smugglers in January.

Six of the seven peddlers The Sunday Times approached in Geylang last week were Vietnamese. The seventh was a Chinese Singaporean who looked no older than 18.

There are peddlers from China as well but The Sunday Times team did not manage to speak to them.

From this article, we learn that these Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian foreigners are getting their illegal cigarettes via cargo ships that dock at Jurong Port.

However, I am more interested to know how these foreigners got into Singapore in the first place. Who knows, Mas Selamat may well have gotten out of Singapore in the same way that these cigarette hawkers got in.

It's quite likely that at least some of these cigarette hawkers are illegal immigrants. If they had entered Singapore legally on a work permit, they'd have a job and probably wouldn't risk it by selling contraband cigarettes in broad daylight. They'd have to be at work anyway.

Interestingly, somebody else is in the news for alleged illegal hawking - Mr Chee Soon Juan. From the Today newspaper:

Tak boleh tahan, SDP says it again
Party cadres urge passersby to sign two petitions
Friday • May 2, 2008

WEARING red T-shirts with the Malay words "tak boleh tahan" — which means "cannot take it" — members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) once again took to the streets, as they had done on May Day in previous years.

Last year, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin walked around the island to raise awareness about poverty. This year, the pair, joined by other SDP members and supporters, descended on Toa Payoh Central and set up a booth at a walkway near Toa Payoh Community Library.

They then began to hand out leaflets containing accusations of greed and exploitation by the Government.

The SDP members, who were selling T-shirts, buttons and books at their booth, also urged passersby to sign two petitions.

The first, addressed to the Prime Minister, contained five demands relating to ministerial salaries, the entry of foreign workers, the release of Central Provident Fund savings and transparency in the financial dealings of Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC).

The second, to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, urged him to resign over the escape of Jemaah Islamiyah detainee Mas Selamat Kastari from the Whitley Road Detention Centre — a suggestion that has been dismissed by the Prime Minister.

........ In response to media queries, the police said: "Police received a call from the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council reporting that Chee Soon Juan was distributing pamphlets, and had set up a table selling books and T-shirts at Toa Payoh Central. Police observation in response to the call confirmed it."

Chee did not stage an unlawful assembly or an illegal outdoor demonstration.

"He was however peddling his books and T-shirts without a hawker's permit."

As this may be a case of illegal hawking, the Police has referred the matter to the National Environment Agency."

Surely it's only in Singapore that such a bizarre thing could happen.

The National Environment Agency was formed in 2002 to focus on the implementation of environment policies. It serves three main functions - environmental protection; maintenance of public health; and the provision of weather information through meteorological services.

The NEA is also in charge of pest control in Singapore. The agency regularly sends its officers around Singapore to deal with pests such as mosquitoes, cockroaches and rats.

It seems that the police authorities want the NEA to take on an additional role - deal with Opposition politicians who cannot be prosecuted for unlawful assembly or illegal outdoor demonstrations.

Chee Soon Juan may soon be treated as a pest - literally. So much for his human rights.

Domestic Maids, Mas Selamat and Why Wong Kan Seng Should Be Fined

Pardon the slightly bizarre title of this post. In a roundabout way, it was inspired by the following article from Today:

2 years on, employers still skirt day-off clause
Should there be a law to get employers to comply?
Friday • April 25, 2008

NEWLY arrived, a maid asked her employer if she could get a rest day. Her employer was incredulous.

"If I wanted to give my maid a day off, I would have hired one from another country," said the employer, who had signed her up on the assumption that maids of some nationalities were more pliant than others.

Faced with an employment contract that requires them to either give their maids a rest day, or compensate them accordingly for working, some Singaporean employers have sought ways to get around the terms or extract the most from their workers.

And this begs the question of how much has truly changed for the 170,000 foreign domestic workers in our midst — two years after the industry association put together a standard contract requiring employers to give maids at least one day off a month.

A Today straw poll of 50 employers found that only 62 per cent gave their maids a rest day.

With some industry watchers criticising the rest-day clause as being too flexible, should legislation be put in place to mandate the issue? ....

There are several simple reasons why many Singaporean employers are reluctant to give their maids a day off.

You see, the maid's work permit comes with numerous conditions. For example, she cannot prostitute herself. She cannot have sex with a boyfriend. She cannot get pregnant. And she cannot (of course) commit any crimes such as shoplifting.

If she does any of the above, then she has breached her work permit conditions and the employer has to repatriate her. And if the maid runs away before the employer can do that, the government will fine the employer $5,000. For that matter, the government will fine the employer $5,000, if the maid runs away for any reason.

If you didn't know any of the above, then either you do not employ a maid, or you didn't read the small print of the Manpower Ministry's work permit conditions.

(On a positive note, maids running away is such a common occurrence that it is possible to buy insurance for it. On a negative note, maids running away is a common occurrence).

Many employers are afraid that if their maid has a day off and gets herself into trouble, the employer will not only have to solve the trouble, but also have to fork out $5,000 as a free gift to the government.

(Not that the government will then help you solve the trouble. It's just a fine, plain & simple).

Intuitively, this smacks of gross unfairness. The employer gets punished not for something he did, but for something that somebody else (the maid) did. Furthermore, once the maid leaves the employer's residence, the employer has no way of monitoring where the maid goes and what she does there.

To encourage employers to give their maids a day off, the government needs to change these ridiculous rules.

I agree that employers should be fined and punished, if they fail to perform their responsibilities as employers - for example, paying the maid's salary on time; providing adequate food and accommodation; and ensuring a safe, secure working environment.

But employers should not be held responsible, for things that a maid may do, of her own free will. When the maid goes out on her rest day, the employer simply has no viable way to ensure that she will not do anything that breaches her work permit conditions.

(Which, by the way, are quite extensive and onerous).

We may draw a curious parallel with Mas Selamat's escape, and PM Lee's determined, if muddled, defence of Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng in Parliament.

Mas Selamat ran away. But PM Lee said that Wong Kan Seng was not at fault and should not be punished in any way. The reason being that Wong Kan Seng personally did not do anything which allowed Mas Selamat to escape.

Strangely, if your maid runs away, it IS your fault and you SHOULD be punished. Even if you did not personally do anything to let her run away (apart from giving her a day off).

Similarly, if your maid becomes pregnant, it IS your fault and you SHOULD be punished. Even if you did not personally do anything to make her pregnant.

Oh well. What can I say? Maids are not terrorists. But then you are not Wong Kan Seng. So the rules remain stacked against you. Wong Kan Seng gets off lightly, but you won't. Even if his lapse has far greater, and graver, implications than yours.

Your runaway maid wouldn't blow up Changi Airport, would she?

Emigration Becomes A Business

I was at Raffles City today. A man was standing at the entrance handing out flyers to passers-by. He handed two to me. Here they are:

Out of curiosity, I visited their website. Basically, they help you to emigrate to other countries. Click here to see some of the services they provide.

I'm not sure how many such companies there are in Singapore. If there are more than a few, then it's really quite sad. It means that so many Singaporeans want to leave their country that a viable mini-industry has sprung up to help them do so.

Interestingly, OCSC is targetting Singaporeans who work in trades and occupations such as welding, fabrication, motor mechanics and so on. This is in sharp contrast to the typical profile that the Singapore government likes to paint of emigrating Singaporeans.

For example, in April last year, Lee Kuan Yew said that most Singaporeans are not actually able to leave. According to LKY, those Singaporeans who are able to leave are the "better-educated and talented ones", who represent the "top 20 to 30 per cent of educated Singaporeans".

It seems that this isn't quite true. For example, Australia does give priority to would-be immigrants who belong to a "skilled occupation". However, "skilled occupation" does not mean "higher education qualifications", but refers instead to skills which are actually in demand in Australia.

Australia's point system is described here. Motor mechanics, cooks and plumbers are awarded the same priority as accountants, engineers and lawyers .... and higher priority than life scientists, economists and mathematicians.

No CCTV. No Grilles. No Guards. No Dogs. No High Fence. Just One Big Open Window, And A Lot of Toilet Paper To Cushion Impact.

I live in a high-rise apartment. When my baby son first started to crawl and walk, I quickly engaged a contractor to install grilles for all the windows. It was a simple safety precaution. Just common sense, really.

Too bad the Ministry of Home Affairs doesn't have common sense.

ST April 21, 2008
Gone in 49 seconds

That is the time it took for terrorist Mas Selamat to leap to freedom, in a re-enactment of his daring escape after he got out of the toilet in the Whitley Road detention centre.
By Ian Lim

IN THE executive summary on the report of Mas Selamat Kastari's escape from Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) on Feb 27, the Committee of Inquiry (COI) found that the detainee could have made his escape on Feb 27 in 49 seconds.

In a re-enactment requested by the COI, a Gurkha guard took 49 seconds to retrace Mas Selamat's possible escape route from the detention centre.

An unsecured window in the toilet of the visitors block allowed him to make the prison breakout.

The executive summary was released by Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng in Parliament on Monday.

On Feb 27, the COI found Mas Selamat was taken out of his cell for his family visit scheduled for 4pm to 4.30pm at the Family Visitation Block.

At 3.35pm, two Gurkha guards escorted him to a locker room to change into civilian clothes.

After changing into a light yellow baju kurung and greenish-grey pants, he was escorted by the two guards and a woman Special Duty Operative (SDO) - a junior Internal Security Department (ISD) officer - to the Family Visitation block at 3.54pm.

He asked to use the toilet next to the family visit room to shave and comb his hair.

One guard stood outside the toilet while the other followed him inside.

Mas Selamat used the urinal cubicle and closed the door. He flipped his pants over the ledge above the door. He left the tap running.

After a few minutes, the guard felt that Mas Selamat was taking too long. He alerted the other guard standing outside the toilet, who then reported to the SDO outside the toilet. The SDO asked a male Assistant Case Officer to check on the toilet.

At 4.05pm, the male SDO kicked open the door of the urinal cubicle, Mas Selamat was not inside.

The ventilation window pane located above this urinal cubicle had been swung open.

An immediate alert was raised that Mas Selamat had escaped.

The COI found that Mas Selamat had about 11 minutes between 3.54pm and 4.05 pm to make his escape.

The COI believes that while in the cubicle, Mas Selamat climbed onto the ledge located just below the ventilation window, pushed open the window and squeezed himself through it.

He probably held on to a water pipe running vertically down the external wall of the toilet.

The COI received forensic evidence from CID that smudges were found on the water pipe, although there were no conclusive fingerprints. A packet of seven rolls of toilet paper was found on the ground, which he could have used to break his fall.

There were also two CCTV cameras mounted where Mas Selamat climbed out, but they were not switched on as they were part of the CCTV system upgrading and the system was still in its testing stage.

There is no conclusive evidence of the exact route Mas Selamat took to escape.

The COI's view is that he was likely to have used a route 20m to the right of the ventilation window, where the inner and outer perimeter fences converged with the enclosed staircase and walkway.

Mas Selamat would have scaled the fence, climbed onto the roof of the enclosed staircase and walkway, and jumped over the converged perimeter fences.

The above report raises many questions in my mind. I'm sure it raises many questions in your minds too, dear readers. Overall, the security just seems so lax. Jurong Bird Park keeps its birds under tighter security.

Your comments, please.

Temasek And A Black Hole Named Merrill

From CNN Money:

More pain for Merrill Lynch
Wall Street firm's quarterly loss is even wider than expected after billion in writedowns, and it plans to cut 4,000 jobs.
By Tami Luhby

April 17, 2008: 7:04 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The pain isn't over for Merrill Lynch & Co.

The investment bank Thursday missed even the drastically lowered estimates for its first-quarter results, reporting a net loss of $1.96 billion, or $2.19 per diluted share.

The company also plans to cut about 4,000 jobs, or about 10% of its workforce, excluding financial advisers and investment associates. It will focus the reductions in its global markets and investment banking division.

Net revenue was $2.9 billion, down 69% from the prior-year period, primarily due to net writedowns totaling $1.5 billion related to asset-backed securities and a downward adjustment of $3 billion related to hedges with financial guarantors.

"Despite this quarter's loss, Merrill Lynch's underlying businesses produced solid results in a difficult market environment," said John A. Thain, chief executive officer, who said the bank remained well-capitalized.

Analysts had projected a $1.99 per share loss on a net loss of $1.4 billion and revenue of $3.7 billion.

Wall Street was prepared for horrendous earnings from Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500). Analysts were almost tripping over themselves to cut profit estimates and enlarge writedowns, suspecting the value of the company's assets had fallen steeply in recent months. Only a month ago, analysts were predicting profit of 48 cents per share. At the start of 2008, the consensus estimate was $1.52 per share.

"Unfortunately, Merrill has significant balance sheet exposures in many of the asset classes that experienced continued pricing pressure in [the first quarter]," wrote Jeff Harte in an April 2 note.

.... Merrill Lynch raised $12.8 billion in capital during the past two quarters and Chief Executive John Thain has said he doesn't plan to raise any more.

Early last year, I came close to accepting a job at Merrill Lynch. It was quite tempting, not only because Merrill Lynch was a brand name organisation then, but also because the job was in a rapidly growing sector - commodities.

The commodities space is still hot - in fact, it's arguably the only thing that's still hot in the financial world. It's not just the usual oil, gas and gold stories - now, even plain old rice has become a hot commodity.

Merrill Lynch is, however, no longer a brand name. Instead, among all the investment banks in the world, it's probably the one that was hardest-hit in the US subprime crisis. Merrill Lynch will take a long time to recover from this mess, if it ever does.

Oh well. Just as well I didn't join Merrill.

It's barely been 4 months since Temasek started buying into Merrill Lynch, and Temasek is already sitting on paper losses of more than half a billion USD dollars. Citizens, are you worried for Singapore yet?

Contagious Diseases On A Crowded Little Island

ST April 16, 2008
HFMD epidemic may be the worst since 2000
Over 1,000 kids fell ill last week, 13 warded; virulent EV71 virus behind 16% of cases By Salma Khalik & Sujin Thomas

SINGAPORE may be facing its most serious hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) outbreak since an epidemic killed seven children eight years ago.

More than 1,000 children fell ill last week - the highest number of weekly infections since the 2000-2001 period.

Of the 13 who needed hospitalisation, one girl was seriously ill, with inflammation of the brain.

..... HFMD is endemic in Singapore, with children catching the virus almost daily.

Symptoms include fever, headache, sore throat and a red rash, usually on the limbs and in the mouth, which gives the illness its name.

I just read the latest parents' newsletter from my kids' school (yes, the same one which teaches sex education to little kids). The newsletter reported that one student has just come down with HFMD.

Since HFMD is highly contagious, this means, unfortunately, that more students at the school may possibly be coming down with the illness in the next week or so. The usual incubation period is between 3 to 7 days.

I've just discussed with Mrs Wang and we decided that our little kids will get to skip school for the next few days.

Incidentally, I've often wondered whether the government has really considered the potential health implications of its ambitious population plan. I'm referring to the government's plan to increase Singapore's resident population to 6.5 million people (mainly by importing more foreigners).

There are plenty of reasons why we should be cautious about such a plan. One reason is that we live in a time where mankind seems to be constantly threatened by the likes of SARS and bird flu.

Squeeze 6.5 million people together on a little red dot. Make it the world's most densely populated country. Every day, pack a great number of citizens like sardines into the public transport system. What do you get?

Potentially, a great recipe for a massive epidemic .....

Online Election Campaigning Leads to Corruption. Huh?

Here's PM Lee spouting mysterious words again:

ST April 14, 2008
Laws must keep up with changing new media, says PM
But any loosening up will be handled cautiously, he adds

THE new media is changing rapidly and Singapore's laws must evolve to keep up, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.

But any loosening up will be done carefully.

Otherwise, misinformation and extremist views could proliferate.

Politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online, he warned.

I wonder what that is supposed to mean.

It is very difficult to see how one can spend large sums of money campaigning online. In Malaysia's recent elections, the Internet played a huge role in influencing voters. Yet practically all the Internet activity took place via Blogger, Wordpress, Youtube and other completely free Internet platforms.

Contrast this with campaigning offline. You would have to spend money printing and distributing posters; placing advertisements in traditional newspapers; hiring lorries and drivers to ferry candidates around the country to meet the electorate; and making large-scale logistics arrangements for election rallies. That won't be cheap.

Anyway, suppose we accept PM Lee's strange logic - that politics might become tainted by corruption if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online. It must then follow that since traditional, offline campaigning costs much more money, it is even more likely to lead to corruption.

Then we wonder - how come this seems to be an issue in Singapore only? After all, election campaigning occurs in every democratic nation on this planet. In fact, campaigning is a necessary part of the democratic process. Yet no one ever seems to says that democracy breeds corruption.

No one except PM Lee, that is.

Current laws disallow the making and distributing of party political films.

During campaign season, political parties are not allowed to put audio or video-casts on their websites.

Mr Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

'If a party needs money, many people are willing to donate, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to 'collect their dues',' he said.

Oooh, I see. PM Lee is worried about expensive online films and advertisements.

So, hypothetically speaking, suppose an Opposition candidate merely uses his own cheap, lousy video camera at home to film his own speech, and then he posts the video on Youtube, where it is widely viewed by Singaporeans. PM Lee shouldn't be worried about that, should he?

Heheh. Well, think what you like. And draw your own conclusions. Mr Wang is only here to encourage you to think.