Blame it on the 66.6

No it is not the Anti Christ I am talking about. It is the cursed 66.6% who voted for PAP. I am sick and tired of people blaming the 66.6% for voting PAP. I am not even sure how the 66.6% came about because there are so many walk overs. Techinically 66.6% only applies to the voters not 66.6% of Singaporeans.

People who blame the 66.6% ought to wake up. They are putting their fate in the hands of other Singaporeans. They emasculate themselves and make themselves powerless. Think about it again. If every believer can preach the Hammer Gospel or the Bible according to Chee and just convert 1 non believer. You would have your 66.6% flip the other way around. Do you part and stop whinning. Preach your gospels according to way of the hammer or Chee's glad tidings. Discuss and talk about it. Think of ways to change their minds and address their fears. You don't have to be a disciple to talk about it. If you are seduced by the dark side and is won over by them, then you deserve their rule. And if you too ashamed of the gospel to even talk about it, then I guess we would just have to accept our fate.

The Anti-Christ is coming. Whose nemesis is it going to be? You Singaporeans hold salvation in your hands. Don't complain when judgment day arrives. Paradise or Hell is ours to build.

Minibonds short term gain long term pain

If there is mis-selling then the bank ought to do the right thing. By doing the right thing what I mean is to buy back all the toxic assets at the original value and compensate consumers.

There should be no compromise and the banks should take responsibility if mis-selling is systemic. It should not be a case by case basis because it has nothing to do with the risk appetite of the consumer but the misrepresentation of risk profile of the product. Those guys with high risk appetite wouldn't go for a 5% PA returns. Even town council is dubbed. You think the town council has high risk appetite? Are they going to pay the TC back? Will they also be the vunerable investors? The statement is they are not significantly affected? Maybe they are vunerable investors to DBS?

I believe that the banks should be taken to task and made to pay. This is to ensure that they look before they leap the next time. They know that the regulators will be breathing down their neck, and if they decide to let consumers take extra risk without justified returns, they will have to eat the fruits of their schemes.

Why not train the consumer to be more savvy? It is good lesson for them. Caveat emptor? Don't buy if you don't understand the product. What this means is a lot of people will not want to invest in structured products because the trust isn't there anymore. Besides you can't train everyone to be more savvy but you can definitely controls the banks and make sure they look into consumer's interest before they think of their profits.

Besides, putting sole responsibility on the consumer is not the solution . The whole problem arises from bad product and the marketing of the product. Punishing the FIs would lead to them being more responsible in their selection of structured products and the way they market it, because they know they will be made to pay if they did something wrong. If MAS let them get away with mis-selling just to protect them from losses then we can guarantee somewhere along the line we are going to have this problem of mis-selling appearing in another form. They will also sell some toxic product with high revenue and let the consumers take the risk. I am not saying we won't see these happening if MAS acted to make the banks pay back. However, I think the FI will think twice before attemping some stunts.

If we protect consumer's interest, people would want to put their money with us and use our fund managers.

Will banks become too conservative and more banks would pull out of SG as a result of tighter regulations? Maybe but that is for the regulators to make sure that the balance is correct.

I am not an investor in any of the minibombs but I am all for payback to the consumers if mis-selling is proven. I think MAS should step in and do something about, cos sitting on the fence is rather painful. Sooner you act the less damage to repair.

So if DBS were to pay out whose money are we using? Probably tax payer's money, since our government has invested a huge chunk in it. Along with it maybe our CPF money used to buy bonds in GIC. Do I think it is fair? I would rather the bank be principled and act in good faith. We are all in the same boat and if it means delayed CPF withdrawal I am willing to sacrifice for my fellow singaporeans.

From silence to confusion

He replied on the 8 May after my post on the 6th

Below is his reply.

Dear Palmist,

The concrete ledge you have queried is under the window where M.S. escaped through. He would have likely stepped on this ledge to reach the window.

I am unable to paste the photos here but you can see them in the following website:jean'site

He seemed confused. Either he didn't read my post properly or he didn't read the COI report. Is is easy to understand why he was mistaken and confused because there was no concrete ledge above the toilet door after all. My only conclusion is that the COI report is not accurate. Looking confused doesn't help to dispell the fact that the COI is inaccurate.

Dr Lam Pin Min's silence

A while ago, I asked in the p65 blog about certain discrepancy in the Mas Selamat escape. His reply was "Thanks for the comments. I agree more details will help clarify the perceived “irregularities”."

So I decided to asked him, since the details will clarify irregularities why not ask the gov to publish those details so that it they can put to rest the speculation. I also disagreed with him that those are perceived irregularities because I cannot see and concrete ledge in the famous toilet picture. I then asked him to point it out to me and correct my perception if I am wrong. However I did not receive any reply. In fact my reply was 'censored' It is obvious then he cannot show me the concrete ledge and his silence and censoring, points to discrepancies in the COI report. I think I have done my part as a citizen to point out the discrepancy. The parliament has decided to turn a blind eye to obvious errors in the report. If anyone is complacent it would the the ministers not the citizens.

I am however a bit suprised that Dr Lam Pin Min decides to take on the challenge to blog about the Mas Selamat case. I wonder if he was arrowed to do it or he volunteered himself to defend the indefensible in order to score some political points. When I first read the blog I thought he was pretty brave to engage people on this. I guess they have the right to censor, so no biggy if things go out of hand. However they are dealing with the internet. You can't really put a muzzle on me.

I sincerely wish Dr Lam a good career, but I think he made an error trying to blog about this topic, when he is not prepared to take it on with sincerity. I would have respected him if he dare ask those questions I posted in parliament.

A skeptic's view on Mas Selalmat COI(we can't be complacent)

There are so many inconsistency in the COI report compared to the pictures published.

Firstly the greenish grey pants was hung over the CONCRETE ledge above the urinal cubicle door.

There is no concrete ledge in the picture shown in the straits times. It is a plastic folding door. Are they talking about the same place?

There is also no water tap in sight so why did the COI report that Mas turned on the tap INSIDE the cubicle.

It is actually not a norm to have door for urinals much less for a security facility where you want to monitor the movement of rehabilitating prisoners.

If you look at the escape window it is located just below the celling. The door does not cover right to the top where there is no view of what's going on inside the cubicle. In fact if you look at the rear of Family Visitation Block where toilet was situated you can see right into the toilet. It means if Mas trys to escape from the window he can actually be seen from where the guard is standing. The view of the ventilation window is only partially blocked by the door. So how did he escaped without the guard noticing him.


The ledge below the ventilation window is also not normal. Nowadays the cistern for the urinals are usually hidden behind the walls or they are on the same side of the urinals. I makes no sense to have a ledge in the toilet because that is not space efficient.

As you can see from the picture above there is a white pipe going from the middle of the toilet to the left side where the urinals are. It is interesting that the point of the pipe's entry is not blue but cement. It probably means that a hole was created and patched up after the building was completed. A new addition the was not originally part of the toilet. There is also the middle portion with a blue pipe that is slightly darker with a new cement block.

We definitely cannot be complacent this time and allow the COI to report things that are not accurate.

Streetdirectory down???? Yellow pages to the rescue

Check out yellow pages. They have all the maps of streetdirectory.com complete with VM 2008 'copyright'!!!! : )

Citigroup Good Investment?

Came across this video on citigroup.





Some say it is a good buy. Don't know who this guy is but if what he says is true, then GIC would be throwing money into a bottomless pit. As shadowy as those hedge funds are, our GIC also has their own agenda even if they claim that they are taking a 'hands off' approach in the investment. I guess we will never know and only time will tell. Let's wait for the show to unfold. The jury is still out.

Another piece of news from ST forum to consider.