Murky Broth

Of late, for every 10 SMS messages that I have received, 8 o f then begins with the qualifier <ADV>. Needless to say, I have become very annoyed with these unsolicited messages. SMS is not like Email. Its something that you would want to check in on because it is more immediate and the person who sends it probably wants to get your immediate attention. Nowadays when I fish out my phone to check my SMS, I often only do one thing - delete the SMS. Its ridiculous. I have to pay to receive something that I never asked for. Some might even call this cheating. Its really getting on my nerves, the same reason why I NEVER answer my handphone calls when the number is one I do not recognise. Experience tells me that 10/10, that call is a telemarketing call, or a call to sell my house, or someone suggesting that I protect myself, my family, my house, my car, and yes, even my dog. Now I have nothing against people selling insurance. They perform a vital advisory service and I have benefitted from such advice. If on the off chance it is a call from someone I know, that person will call back. But this SMS spam is not so easy to deal with. You don't have spam filters that email systems have that will send them to the trash bin immediately. You become a virtual hostage to unwanted and uncalled for messages. But what is upsetting is that  it appears to have the blessings of the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). As far as I can tell, everyone except the self-interested stakeholder businesses are up in arms and crying foul.

The point is that the PDPC, as CASE puts it, "has back-pedalled and diluted the intention of the DNC (Do Not Call) registry". The PDPC has now allowed for SMS and Fax messages sent by businesses, or whatever entity, to bypass the DNC restrictions so long as there is an "ongoing relationship" between the business and its customers. How does one define "ongoing relationship" anyway? If we adopt the PDPC's understanding of the term, it can be used to define ANY number of transactions between a business and it customers, even "one-night stands". It will be no stretch of the imagination that a business can stalk a customer simply because the PDPC has given its blessings. The PDPC says that an organisation that breach any of the data protection provisions in the PDPA may be liable for a financial penalty of an amount not exceeding $1m. But how can such violation be proved and acted upon if the exceptions and exemptions can be made post-PDPA?

I am in no way suggesting that businesses that engage in direct marketing be banned. By all means communicate with your customers in whatever way that customer chooses provided that he has explicitly and clearly given consent. Now, anything beyond that is ambiguous, and laws are not meant to be ambiguous, are they? It appears that in Singapore, when the government jumps into bed with businesses, a murky broth can surface, to the extreme discomfort of the people to whom it has given its word to care and protect.

Mind your own IT business

Singaporean, or at least those politically-aware, would have seen it coming. A reportedly shell company owned entirely by the PAP buying up a software system that was developed with tax-payer money for the sake of maintaining a software system that experts have judged as "obsolete and unmaintainable" defies every rule of business logic. But let me not be accused of repeating anything libelous. After reading through whatever is there on the internet regarding the AIM-AHTC saga, both from AHTC and AIM, I came away with the distinct impression that AHTC has not explained the situation clearly and fully, and AIM has not been convincing at all with its explanation.

This is why the blog posts on this subject by Mr Alex Au on his Yawning Bread blog has not only captured the attention of the social media, it has been vetted through a fine toothcomb by the PM's lawyers, who have determined that parts of the posts are libelous and threatened to sue. Truth be told, I don't read Yawning Bread at all, but due to the publicity that has been stirred up, I have also begun my "fine toothcombing" of the posts, some of which are quite lengthy and appears to have been a product of extensive research. Dr Teo Ho Pin's explanation (defence) of the issues raised by both WP's Sylvia Lim, bloggers and social media, pales in comparison. To me, his explanation raised more questions that it answered. Quite obviously, he has never been an IT professional, but trying to explain an IT business. It's like expecting Ms Saw to run a train company, no?

I do not propose to jump into the fray to add my 2 cents worth, for it is only 2 cents after all. I have no first hand contact with either party that I can add meaningfully to the unfolding events. The only thing I want to say is that it appears that the PAP has become rather petty of late. It used to be that they were focused on winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, never mind that similar libel laws have been used in the past. I don't know about Mr Au's political affiliations, but he appears to be a private citizen expressing his opinion publicly in a medium that even PAP stalwarts and Ministers have embraced with a vengeance. And anyone who have read those posts will come away with the impression that it is not all rant. Is this precisely the reason why he is being sued, that he is being too honest? (Brazen is another word to substitute for honest).

Unfortunately, those who are late to the "game" will never be able to judge for themselves as the offending post has been removed from the blog. How to have a conversation like that?

Read AsiaOne for reports around this saga. Then trawl the internet for the details.
Is this AIM or is that AIM?

Corporate Responsibility

Some call it Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR for short. Corporations see it as good PR to be seen to be generous towards non-profit purposes, for the good of the community, such as acts of donations to charities, organising meaningly charitable events at their expense, and etc.

Great Eastern Life just did that - not in the usual way we associate it with CSR, but it is CSR at its best. Why? Because its payback is not immediate nor guaranteed while it swallows, on behalf of its investors, the losses that have fallen on its GreatLink Choice investment products. My mother made a startling remark about 5 months ago - that bankers have become professional fraudsters. For all her life, she has kept her money faithfully in a bank, not under the bed, nor in the drawer. And she got us all to keep our monies in the bank too, for the interest that it would earn. So can you blame her when she put a substantial amount of that money in what a relationship manager called a high-yield structured investment product? She had wanted to open a fixed deposit account with the cash, actually. After all, she has been trusted banks with her cash for over 40 years. Structured or not, the banks are selling it and they must have evaluated the product's risk. They said it was low-risk high-yield. What's more, they also threw in the principal guaranteed / principal protected words. Little did we know that banks' definition of 'guaranteed' and 'protected' can be so convoluted that it would take a couple of lawyers to untangle it, or make it more confusing, depending on who you spoke to.

So, 'Thank you', Great Eastern Life and OCBC Bank (the parent), for taking what must be a difficult decision to return all the money that people have invested in structured products with you, knowing that their values have plunged 40-80% today. That's good 'ol banking - honouring people's trust and keeping their money safe, like it has always been, until recently.

The Other Page

The AWARE saga has been a long-running one, often characterised, not by women against women, but by sex against sex. For some, it is secularists against Christianity, although there are people of other religions who are just as concerned by the issues - specifically, homosexuality, raised by this group of Christians who now form the core committee of AWARE.

For more than 4 weeks (the whole thing started on 28 March 2009), the issues and personalities have hee'd-and-haw'd. The wounded party - the old guard raising the most voice, if only because the new guard has been inexplicably silent most of the time. This has given occasion for diverse parties to cast aspersions on the valiant new guard who were willing to take action according to their convictions. Even the government has weighed in, warning off would-be religionists (aka Christians) mixing religion with politics.

The wonder of it all is that the voice of the majority has been deafeningly silent. Take a poll and you would probably find that more people in Singapore are against homosexual practices, yet it is the supporters of homosexuality, the old guard of AWARE, for example, that seem to be speaking for the majority. Yes, perhaps people are offended by the way the new guard 'took over' AWARE. If it hasn't been noticed, it was done democratically, according to the rules that the State (the ROC /ACRA ) stipulates, cuts no ice. I can understand. When a rug is pulled under you, you wouldn't stretch out a hand to the 'pullees'. The press hasn't helped either. It is repeatedly using emotive words like 'takeover', "a coup", 'militants', ad-nauseam.

Now religious figures have appeared too, in spite of the point made repeatedly for religions to stay out. But well, I suppose some people think that religion is important in the whole scheme of things. But of course, religious figures are trying to moderate the fight, but in doing so, I wonder if they are not taking a stand themselves?

For me, I don't even have to bring religion into this whole thing in order to express an opinion. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Many people seem to have forgotten how AIDS came about. AIDS is still with us, and it is still incurable, and it is still transmitted via unsafe and unnatural sex practices. Now I believe that any behaviour that puts at risk another's life is wrong, just as you would haul a person to court for trafficking in narcotics. Singapore law even mandates the dead penalty for such people. You may agree or disagree with the death penalty, but in Singapore, it would appear that more rather than less agree with it. And it does seem to be the case that more disagree with homosexuality than those that do, at least in Singapore.

So why are we lambasting those ladies who have the courage of their convictions?

A coin has two sides

The blogging community started the buzz, the mainstream print media picked it up and it went all the way to Parliament. This is really a reversal of rolls. Usually, news starts with what is said in Parliament, gets reported in the print and/or broadcast media and then dissipates in the blogging community where everyone weighs in which his/her 2 cents worth. But the story really started innocuously enough in the print media when the subject of interest wrote an article for the Straits Times.

Of course, I am referring to Singapore Permanent Secretary Tay Yong Soon's ill-advised column on his family and his 5-month trip to Paris where they attended a cooking class $15,000 a pop, totaling S$45,000. For this amount of money, you could be enrolled in a full-fledge degree course, or even a master's degree course at SIM University. This is conspicuous consumption of the highest order, although one cannot deny that the PS is just following official policy to learn new skills to remain employable. Thus, before we jump to the conclusion that the PS has indulged himself and his family, we should let him explain.

And from all accounts thus far, the PS appears to be a decent chap. The only error he made was talk to the press about his trip and have it written up. Really, if he has the means to get a top-notch lesson in cooking that costs a bomb, that's his prerogative. There are many others who spent a fortune indulging in their hobbies, so why begrudge a man his pleasures? And he did it with his family, so that's really a good thing. Nothing like family bonding around the fireplace, albeit a costly one.

But chatter on the internet, in blog gossips and such, these are often merciless, subjective and shorn of any mitigating information. Merciless is the keyword here. It does not matter if you are a good man, a generous man, a charitable man. Once you are 'caught', you're toast. So what's the lesson here?

1. Be careful when you talk to the Press.
2. Apologise to show humility, not that you are in the wrong (Good for you, Mr Tay)
3. Don't defend yourself, let others do it for you (his colleagues' comments spoke volumes for him).
4. Be a good boss - the goodwill will be returned in spades later
5. Take internet chatter with a pinch of the salt. (Look, we are not trained journalists, just chatterboxes, sometimes equal to the best auntie gossipers you can find in a market any day)
6. Ignore internet savvy auntie gossipers at your own peril
7. Write for the Press at your own peril. Worst if you are a civil servant

Genocide in our midst

Some Singapore businessmen, they are a bunch of crooks. You don't really have to look for them in Copenhagen, where an erstwhile gangster lives in comfort and respectability, among crooks, i.e., until he was brought down by one of his collaborators recently. Heaven does not have eyes, they say, for this man is still alive and will probably recover.

In Singapore, crooked businessmen are depriving the foreign workers they bring in to work on their projects their just dues - their salary - and worst, in crunch times, as at present, they abandon them to their own devices. These poor souls cannot find alternative employment, and thus cannot feed themselves. They can't go home either because they don't have the money, and worst, their passports are with the crooked employers. The law should come down hard on these employers, whose only interest is in themselves. It is ok if you bring in trucks and machineries, and once un-needed, you dump them in a yard and let them rust and rot. You cannot treat human beings like that, however. But obviously, many foreign workers among us are being treated exactly like that.

Unless our Manpower Ministry takes a proactive approach, this sorry state of affairs will continue to happen. Bodies representing employers wrote to the press after the press brought the plight of these workers to the public's attention. Otherwise, who knows what the end of these people will be. And when the public does come to know about it, the disgust will be so severe that we cannot but hide in a hole, any hole, and be ashamed to call ourselves Singaporeans because educated, civilised and entrepreneurial Singaporeans that we supposedly are, are practicing human genocide, right in our very own backyard. Is the genocide word too strong? Looking at the situation right now, it just about describes the heinous way in which we treat people who build our houses and our roads.

We should hang our heads in shame.

Public Gambling

Mr Khaw Boon Wan comes across as an honest man. Really. Read what he says in interviews and listen to him in Parliament. You cannot fault the man for being drop-death honest with you. He doesn't fudge the issues. Instead, he tells it like it is. He speaks to the common folks, not at them, not over them, not from above. So you cannot but like the man for his forthrightness and ability to empathise with you.

He has come out to admit that the mis-investment of sinking funds should rightly be a concern to the man in the street, for after all, these mis-invested money are the people's money, they belong to the townsfolk. (See Straits Times, 19 Dec 2008). But he reasons that since these same investments made money in the past, and the current losses represents a small portion of these gains, it shows that these funds are, on balance, in good hands. He further makes the point that the statement of accounts of these town councils can be inspected any time, no questions asked. I think he is being level-headed and reasonable again. But the problem with this is that it isn't very useful examining the books 'after the fact', is it?

But surely the thing that saved the TC's bacon this time was past investment gains. Let us do a thought experiment, for the heck of it. If a TC had $10million in sinking funds, and invests 10% of it in risky structured deposits (i.e. $100,000) - the law says they can't go beyond 30%. Again, assuming that the annual yield of that investment is 10%. The investment will have yielded $100,000 x 10% = $10,000 in a year. Let's assume the good times lasted 3 years and assuming the same rate of return, the TC ends up with $30,000 profit (let's not do the compounding thing and we shall ignore inflation). Suppose in the 4th year, a financial tsunami hits, and the fund loses $29,000 in absolute terms. That still gives the fund a positive $1,000 over 4 years. Is that good management of funds or not? Of course, you'd have to consider the opportunity cost of the next best option, which is a Fixed Deposit. Over 4 years, the yield, at 2% per annum, will be $2,000 x 4 years, or $8,000. Clearly, in this scenario, it would have been better if the money had been invested in FDs. Of course, you will argue that this scenario is contrived to 'win' the argument, but so is the 'luck' that the TCs counted on over the past to accumulate enough surplus to still come out quite decent in its overall investment returns in spite of the $16million loss. Nevertheless, could my contrived scenario be possible?

If so, in both cases, the balance sheets still yield a positive bottom line, but you and I know that they have lost big time with the structured investment. Mr Khaw's argument begins to get into trouble with a scenario somewere in-between. Is he not then gambling with numbers, like all those queues we witness in front of 4-D booths almost everyday?

It is ok if the money belongs to you, or a private business, but if it is the people's money, which Mr Khaw very rightly admits to be the case, then this risk is not obviously acceptable.

The TCs were just lucky this time around. I know of people, and you will too, whose investments have almost been wiped out, or at least reduced so drastically that it would be a pain greater than going to hell, to liquidate now. And I am not referring only to the mini-bombs...er...bonds, I mean.

Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Lisa Solonynko

Arowana Health

Singapore has one of the best Hospitals in this region. It is one of the favourits of medical tourists, who are willing to pay the high price of good treatment that our hospitals are known for. On the other hand, locals feels that hospital charges are too high, but the government stance is that the true cost of medical treatment should be reflected so that our scarce resources are economically, i.e. rationally, allocated. The government does offer subsidies to different classes of wards in its 'restructured' government hospitals such as Singapore General Hospital and Changi General Hospital.

I was in Changi General yesterday evening to visit a friend who, unfortunately, had suffered from a massive stroke and was, to all intents and purposes, being kept alive with a few tubes through his nostril and mouth. It is sad when this happens to an 80+ year old man. You just feel helpless over the whole thing and the issue of AMD (Advanced Medical Directive) flashed through my mind. As I left the 'C' class ward, I couldn't help noticing a fish tank beside the receptionist/nurse station. Colourful fish always add to the 'live' amidst the suffering and dying, balancing somewhat the specter of doom. But in this particular tank, there was only one fish - a fish that was about 2/3 the length of the tank. I don't know much about fish, but I have seen some expensive fish before, and that fish looked like an Arowana. I remarked half-jokingly to my companion that I now understand why hospital treatments in Singapore are so expensive. It wasn't only the high-tech facilities, it wasn't just the doctors (although I understand the ward doctors get paid a pittance), and it wasn't the medicine only. Its the fish too, stupid.

Now why does a 'C' class ward in a government restructured hospital see fit to keep an Arowana in its ward's fish tank? Surely not for the kitchen, nor the patients, and certainly not for the nurses and the doctors. Arowanas stay quite still in water near the surface, almost like it is dead. In a hospital, such a lifeless-looking fish added to the gloom. But it did look expensive to me, but my companion, who knew a thing or two about fish, told me that this species of Arowana is not the expensive type.

Nevertheless, the thought still lingered in my mind: why is a 'C' class ward in a government restructured hospital keeping an Arowana in its ward's fish tank? Does it believe, as the Chinese do, that the fish will bring wealth , fortune and prosperity to the ward and the hospital? This will be a first in Singapore. Or is there something new for me to learn here?

See also: Arowana Club

Image:

As the sun sets

One of the things about growing old is, as many middle-aged person realise, is that many faculties begin to fail. Not only that, some faculties are probably never going to be restored, like your tooth. Once an adult tooth is lost, it is lost. Of course there are dentures to cover up for the awful look otherwise, but dentures are still not the real thing.

What else fails?

The eyes for another. You may have 20/20 vision all your life, but when you hit the big 4-O, you discover how necessary reading glasses become, especially in the light of the night. Then your language also begins to fail. Where once you could have been a spelling bee, you struggle increasingly to remember how to put together a word - that erstwhile ability to spell anything deserts you.

And don't many of us find our legs failing us, even at the relatively 'young' age of 42. Suddenly, Glucosamine is more familiar to you than Panadol or even Vitamin C. Your hair also becomes perceptibly thinner at the top. Your scalp is more visible at the top although your beard and nostril hair never seem to stop growing.

Of course, you look rougher by the months. Ever deeper lines appear on your face as your hand look shinier by the year, not because of the lotions you might have applied, but that's how aging skin seem to look. You also notice black spots appearning on your face and hands and arms. No, that's not the black plague, its just cells dying.

Worst of all, your memories also begin to fail. What happened last year this time, or 3 months ago, or even 2 weeks ago. You struggle to remember and are dismayed that that part of your life is not history, but an emptiness, an inexistence that eludes you, perhaps forever now.

All these gets progressively worse. Yes, modern medicine can mitigate a lot of the ill-effects of aging. Just look at the roaring business that personal care shops such as Watsons, Guardian and the Body Shop, and even Spas and Gyms do and you realise that you are in the wrong business otherwise.

But that curative ability of modern medicine becomes a problem eventually, when medicine is used to prop one up at the gates of heaven (or hell, whichever the case may be). Advanced Medical Directives (AMD), Euthansia, these controversial terms, take on real meaning. Did you remember to let your loved ones know how you prefer to be treated, when you have lost all your communications faculties? Would you have preferred that your loved ones stop wasting expensive medicine just so that you can continue lying on a bed, doing not much more than being fed through a plastic tube? Or worst, when you, an adult, begin to behave no differently from a baby, remembering nothing, no one, and defecating anywhere and everywhere because, like a child, you have lost all control of your bowel movements and your sense of shame. You cannot instruct anyone to kill you because death is no longer in your vocabulary.

Can someone do you in, legally, since you no longer know better, and probably would have preferred it? The answer is simple, isn't it? Or is it?

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Mary Thorman

Toxic times

These are trying times in Singapore for some 10,000 people. I am not sure that all of them are Singaporeans. It may very well be. These 10k people are looking into a hole so big and wide, and bottomless, that I suppose you'd understand that some would want to jump into it. Fortunately, so far, we haven't heard of any superman acts in our tall tall buildings (some soon to rise to 50 floors!) nor our above-ground subway stations. It would appear that the SMRT cannot erect barriers at its stations soon enough to prevent people using its platforms as launching pads into...I don't know where anyone wants to go by jumping in front of oncoming trains...

Well, by now, you would have guessed that I am referring to the 10,000 people who potentially have lost all their investments (and life-long savings for some) in the mini-bond saga that resulted from the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US. All investments linked to this Investment Bank are in jeopardy now. It is hardrending when you read of senior citizens losing their entire life-savings in this ONE investment. But on the other hand, you cannot but feel how foolish they are for putting all their eggs in one basket. Has half a century of life and living, which probably included several recessions, not taught them about anything? Yes, many of the Relationship Managers (RM) that the bank employed should bear the blame for pushing otherwise risky products down the throats of aged investors who know nothing, or are not interested to know about the complexity of the product beyond the amount of money they are putting down and the interest they will earn.

Indeed, I have heard of young RMs gloating about the $20,000 they earn per month doing what they did, relieving old and maybe not-so-old but cash-rich people of their life-savings to put into 'principal-protected' and/or high-interest-yielding structured investment products. In retrospect, I am sure neither the RM, nor the investor, understood the nature of the mechanisms underlying these investment products. This calls to mind the true story of the wildly successful mortgage bond traders at Saloman Brothers (SB), before it collapsed in the 1980s, who weren't even trained in finance. (As told in Michael Lewis' Liar's Poker) It will be farfetched to equate SB's young and hot-blooded mortgage traders with today's RMs or the products they sold, but the role they played is not all that different, in retrospect.

In retrospect too, 'principle-protected' means nothing, and even plain vanilla savings deposits for that matter, if the bank that helms the investments and deposits goes bankrupt. We always see better after the fact. Our vision suddenly improves to 20-20. Truly the prophet is without honour in the free-wheeling world of leveraged investments. Who would have thought, much less predicted, that Lehman Brothers would collapse, or for that matter, AIG? Certainly not DBS Bank, and others whose error was to retail toxic investments and not see them for what they were, much like ignorantly selling melamine-tained milk powder. If the investments people in these banks, who probably have a ton of MBAs, cannot see a toxic financial product for what it is early, how much more the man in the street? (Interestingly, Lewis claimed that Salomon Brothers crumbled when it started to rely more on educated professional financial people rather than on people with raw trading skills but had otherwise no financial training).

For the rest of the 10,000, and more, caught in the repercussion of bank failures in the US, it is cold comfort. All have lost money, though none as spectacular as those that bought into the Lehman Brothers' mini-bonds and related funds. And all shouldn't expect the government to bail them out. Whatever money the government has belongs to the taxpayers. Surely you do not expect a lowly paid bloke like me who never dabbles in investments beyond FDs to foot the bill of others' failed investments? Where is the fairness in it? Would these same people who, if they had made money from these investments, share them with me?

So I think that the MAS is doing the right thing now. Investigate the matter, and if the Financial Institutions have breached any laws through the conduct of its RMs or others, or have been manifestly negligent, get them to 'do the right thing', as MAS' Managing Director, Mr Heng Swee Keat is reported to have said. There is no question that the Singapore government SHOULD NOT buy up these toxic assets with taxpayers' money so that the same investors who have lost a bundle get to invest another day in financial products that nobody understands. The lesson is a hard one, but we must be fair in the whole thing, particularly to those who have had no hand, not even a finger, on these financial toxins.

Even if the FI's buy back all the toxic Lehman bonds, like what the Hong Kong FI's have done, it'll hit the bank's shareholders. Oh well, in these stressful times, almost nobody will get away scot-free.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial consultant. Anything written here are my personal opinion. The reader should consult a professionally qualified person for advice on matters relating to investments and risk. However, it appears you can't trust anybody nowadays. You'd want to take with a pinch of salt what any finance person, qualified or not, would tell you nowadays, except the very helpful Mr Tan Kin Lian, who perhaps should stand for election for Parliament in the next General Election, seeing as By-Elections have lost its favour with the sitting government.

Picture shows the attractive but poisonous berries of the Yew tree.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Mike

Spy vs Spy

The Singapore Police has used CCTV (close-circuit TV) in public places for various purposes. The most 'profitable' of these must be those CCTV cameras that take pictures of a speeding cars. Many drivers have been 'caught' in the process and have had to pay up fines according to the traffic rules broken. And yes, CCTV cameras have also already been put up above street level at busy places such as Boat Quay, Orchard Road, Little India, Raffles City, Suntec City and Geylang (reported in Today - 12 August 2008) - places frequented by tourists, and other pleasure seekers.

Now, the Police is going one step further. It is evaluating cameras that have the ability to recognise faces. The use is obvious. If it can instantly recognise a face - the face of a person wanted by the law, then that information can be conveyed in real-time to a monitoring centre where the police can be informed to take the necessary action - immediately. What can be more efficient than that? We don't need so many police patrolling the streets anymore - these cameras will do the job. And in spite of the reduced number of police on the streets, the island will become even more secure. Singapore's famed low crime rate will be set to become even lower, except...

What/who are the police looking for? If it is for criminals and offenders, then even if these cameras can recognise faces, it isn't going to be very useful, eventually. Criminals and those on the Wanted list will probably learn to alter their physical features - grow a moustache or beard (or attach one for the female), put on spectacles, dye the hair - so much so that even the human eye can no longer recognise the person much less a camera. And experts and users of such cameras have admitted, it isn't very accurate now, though they hope that the accuracy can be improved with time.

This doesn't give me any comfort. First, we shouldn't be spending tax-payers money on technology that works approximately 50% of the time, or even 90% of the time. The mis-identified person can be put through such 'inconvenience' that the police can become the subject of lawsuites - unless the law protects them. Which gives rise to the issue of abuse and privacy concerns. I may not have broken the law, but I don't necessarily want anyone to know that I was at Boat Quay on a particular night at a particular hour. Simply put, it nobody's business, and shouldn't be, unless I have committed a crime. That's my private life, my personal preference. Similarly, I wouldn't like to think that somebody is monitoring my movements anyway and trying to determine who I am. Who is this person who has been given such powers? Would anyone feel comfortable being watched?

Yes, there are security cameras all over the island now - at MRT stations, at shopping malls, at bank lobbies, even at swimming pools (acting as pseudo life-guards). When you don't have that many people who can, or want to, walk around these places to keep an eye on everything, we use technology. That's fair enough. Sometimes, these cameras are pretty useful - like capturing the image of a person or persons who may have committed a crime, or looking for lost kids in the mall. But when facial recognition cameras are aimed at people in public places, well, I think a line needs to be drawn - between a need for security and a need for privacy. Otherwise, we may as well have Big Brother take over the running of our lives.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Rachel Montiel

Virtually gone

How the mighty are fallen and Virtual Map's own prophecy fulfilled, as spelt out in its own corporate tag-line. This big bad bully must feel awfully 'lost without it' (i.e. its website and business). Now that it is no more (what's that you say, they are trying to come back from the dead?), it appears that the public has become aware of alternatives. So even if it comes back, I don't think people would be as dependent on it as it used to anymore. Which may explain why the company is now hedging on selling flowers and wine.



If it can't sell directions, it may as well sell smells. Smells probably is the same business, I suppose, in helping one with directions (flowers) of the more romantic kind, or lose it (wine). I just hope they don't mislead, which may lead to another round of law suites.

Also, I hope it won't go back to its old habit of suing people, this time for copying their flowers and wines. Otherwise God, the original creator and absolute copyright holder, might not be too happy. Then it won't be facing a 100lb SLA gorilla, but hell, where, I heard, there is no return to life, at all.

Is this the end of Virtual Map? I wouldn't hold my breadth if I were you.


p.s. I hope they don't sue me for using their corporate logo in this blog. I will cease and desist if they send me a lawyer letter. I am serious.

Three of the worst

When you get 3 of the best - or worst - on the butt for nothing, you'd be upset and extremely so. Some would resign themselves to bad luck, a tacit admission that they shouldn't have been in that position (pardon the pun) in the first place. Others will see this as the height of injustice, particularly when it is the justice system that has perpetrated the injustice.

I am referring to the case of a Mr Dickson Tan, who was jailed for crimes he had committed. He was also sentenced to be canned. But unfortunately for everybody, he was canned 3 more strokes than what the judge originally ordered. Mr Tan reportedly raised the objection at the extra strokes but the prison authorities ignored his protest and went ahead to whack him another 3 times. It turned out the prisoner was right and the jailors were wrong. And Mr Tan's family and the lawyer advising them are demanding justice. In admission of its culpability, the government has reportedly already paid out an "interim" amount of $8,000, but out-of-court negotiation towards the the final amount eventually broke down. Now, in a reversal of roles, Mr Tan is taking the government to court.

Cases like these are rare in Singapore, and when it happens, it makes news. I leave the unfolding saga to the press to cover. Suffice to say that I sympathise with Mr Tan, and I don't think I will be far wrong to say that many Singaporeans and foreigners living amongst us feel the same way. The administration of justice is serious business in Singapore. It is one of those pillars that makes the system of government the envy of many. But mistakes will inevitably be made. And when they are made, justice must continue to prevail - for both parties. It is gratifying to note that the government is not shirking its responsibilities but it is not paying just any amount to appease the protagonists. This is also right, because whatever payment is agreed upon, it is the taxpayers' money.

I am in no position to say whether $3 million is the right amount of compensation. Ultimately, the court will decide. When a professional Property Valuer puts a value on a piece of property, it is based on certain concrete parameters - like location, amenities, age, floor size, etc. But how do you value the suffering, the hurt and the pain of the excess 3 strokes of the cane? Should the economic measure of "diminishing returns" be used? After all, he had deservedly suffered the correct number of strokes of the cane before he suffered the excess. Is each subsequent stroke more painful than the earlier one? There may be a case to say no. But of course, lawyers would like to use more subjective measures because that is the only way they can argue a wrong to a right, an ambiguity to a clarity. In this case, compensation for medical expenses is an objective measure. But 'loss of future earnings' and, particularly, loss of 'marriage prospects'? How does getting whacked an extra 3 strokes lead to this? Sure, Mr Tan is reportedly suffering from schizophrenia, paranoia and post-traumatic stress disorder, but how can anybody, including his psychiatrist, say for sure that these are due to the extra 3 strokes and not to the first few deserved ones? Of course, "expert" witnesses, both probably well-regarded psychiatrists, will be trotted out to give evidence for and against the case (if this goes to court, i.e.), using the same medical diagnostic techniques that are part of their profession. It is a wonder that we often  see these same diagnostics give rise to different interpretations by these experts.

Which is why, and pardon me for saying so, I often feel that psychiatrists sell snake-oil more than anything else. And lawyers, what to say about them? They sell lizard-oil, I suppose. Now I need my head examined...

Image source: morgueFile.com.  Author: Dave Watts

Lincoln Lesson

The National Library Board (NLB) did something fantastic recently. It sent out 800,000 mailers to its delinquent members to request them to settle their outstanding fines. According to reports, some of these fines have been outstanding for as long as 11 years. According to its external auditors, delinquent accounts should have been settled on time - a important practice in good governance.

My concern is that Singapore has 800,000 book reading people who have chosen not settled their fines. We are not talking about traffic fines, parking fines, etc. How much can a library fine amount to? S$1, S$2? But a letter writer to Today stated that he had a 20 cents fine dating back 11 years. That is astonishing as I understand from my many years as an active library member that additional penalties are levied on unpaid fines. So a 20 cents fine 11 years ago would have accumulated to quite a tidy sum today. NLB is probably also remiss in not recording the accumulated penalties on top of fines. To think that all these years, I have been faithfully and honestly paying all my library fines, not that there were many in the first place.

800,000...now that's not a small number of people who are basically not honest. Many of them would probably have thought 20, 30 cents are peanuts that the NLB can absorb. But really, it is dishonesty any way you look at it. It is not so much whether NLB needs the money or not (it probably doesn't going by the fact that it left its debtors alone for so many years), but whether a person, after agreeing to the library rules and profiting from its free services subsequently reneges on it by refusing to settle their fines. All of which reminds me of the oft-quoted stories of how Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the US, walked 6 miles (that's almost 10 km travelling there and another 10 km for the return journey - a total of 20 km!) to pay back a few cents to a woman who had overpaid for dry goods at the store that Lincoln ran, and on another occasion, finding that he had used a four-ounce weight instead of an eight, he walked miles to deliver to a woman the full order of tea she had paid for. Lincoln was then all of 22 years old.*

So whether one owes 10 cents or $10, the right thing to do is to return what is owed. Somehow, a people who is more much more well-to-do, with all the comforts of modern living compared to Lincoln in 1831, cannot see the virtue of honesty. This is probably symptomatic of a society drunken by Totos, 4-D, Lucky Draws and the specter of Casinos in its own backyard. They don't mind spending time every week, if not more often, lining up to buy those lucky numbers but rationalize to themselves that it is a waste of money driving/walking/taking the bus down to the library to pay a 10 cents fine. Their economics may be spot-on, but their morals leave much to be desired.

I hope these 800,000 see the error of their ways and turn to the straight and narrow. Be honest. It is not about the money, it is about doing the right thing. Make good your debt. Be responsible. You don't want tax payers, like me, to pick up the cost of the mailers for you too, do you?

* Source: Sandburg, Carl (1993), "Abraham Lincoln". Galahad Books, Page 25.

Don't you hear the whistle blowing

So goes a line in that old nursery rhyme, "I've been working on the railroad". Today, whistle blowing refers to something more controversial, and requires a lot more guts from the person doing it. Corporations can be quite messed up today, and its people may not be behaving ethically. So unless there is a system to weed out such improper behaviour, somebody has to do the whistle blowing. This is when the systems and processes, and more especially when the people who are supposed to be the guardian of proper corporate behaviour are not doing their jobs, not to speak of the guard himself stealing the cake.

Apparently, this also happens in the Armed Forces of Singapore. 2Lt Li Hongyi, erstwhile son of PM Lee Hsien Loong, whistle blew on his superior officer for his improper conduct (going AWOL) when his initial complaints got no response from the army's chain of command. He then let fly an e-mail that he had addressed to no less than Mr Teo Chee Hean, the Defence Minister, detailing the failings of his fellow officer. Normally, this whistle blowing would have been the right thing to do. But what 2Lt Li did wrong was to copy that e-mail to persons that may not need to know about the case. After all, this is the Armed Forces, and you don't go shooting off your complaints so the whole world will know that the Forces stink in some parts. As an officer, he should have had better judgement.

E-mail, as some have pointed out, is so insecure an instrument that I wonder why the Armed Forces allowed it as a channel of communications on Army matters right up to the Defence Minister. Today, it was whistle blowing. Tomorrow, some classified information can be leaked, to the benefit of all our enemies and the detriment to our country. Now, some crook or spy can take a leaf from the 2Lt of how to communicate in the Armed Forces, since that channel does not seem to be restricted.

2Lt Li may have done the right thing, but he certainly did it the wrong way. The Army was right in reprimanding him. He should reflect on the error of his ways.

But let us also give credit where it is due. PM Lee did not shield his son in any way. He let the military law to run its course and, in the process, punish his son accordingly. Now, this one action refutes many aspersions cast on the 'Lee' dynasty. We are a country ruled by law, not 'Lee's' law, but Singapore law. As a Singaporean, this is something to be proud of.