Being a dad, or a mom, is the easiest thing in the world. There is no qualification or eligibility criteria.
In fact, in Britain, a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl have just become parents.
I feel like a fool for making a big deal about what it is like to be a mom, or a dad.
Hey, relax, take it easy. Anyone can do the job.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
Aarggh....
Don't read the local newspapers.
Don't read the local blogs.
Don't see, don't hear, don't think.
Don't talk, don't discuss.
Just accept...accept... accept.
If you can't change the world, why get upset?
If you can't overcome the system, why get frustrated?
Just accept... accept...accept.
This is the key to happiness,
That's what I've been told.
Accept...accept...accept.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Let Banks Set Rates
The Association of Banks in Malaysia recently announced a reduction in credit card interest rates of between 1.0 - 1.5% to interest rates ranging from 13.5% to 17% per annum. This means that card holders, who have a good credit record, defined as having made minimum payments promptly over 12 consecutive months, would now be paying only 13.5% p.a.
This seems reasonable to me, notwithstanding that Bank Negara's overnight rate is now at 2.5% p.a.
Thus, I do not agree with the call made by the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry yesterday to force banks to lower credit card interest rates further. A similar call is made today - not surprisingly - by P Gunasegaram, Managing Editor of the Business Section of The Star, in a comment entitled Credit Card Rates Can Be Lower.
There are three reasons why I am against this move.
Firstly, banks must be free to set their own rates. This is the most basic of free market principles. If the risk-reward equation is not palatable, banks will just tighten credit. And where will that lead us?
Secondly, running a credit card business is not as simple as what Mr Guna makes it out to be. It is not simply a matter of interest plus fees earned minus cost of funds minus default rate and voila! that's the profit margin of the bank. Mr Guna has failed to add in other salient costs including overheads, marketing and promotions and infrastructure cost that is relevant to any business.
Furthermore, in the credit card industry, especially in Malaysia, fraud risk is high and banks need to factor in that cost, including the cost for prevention. Mr Guna has also overlooked the important fact that many credit card holders are actually funded interest-free by banks from the period when the retailers are refunded to the point when the credit card holder actually makes payment, sometimes as long as 45 days later. The banks earn nothing from this group of credit card holders, what with the current competitive landscape which offers free cards and even throws in discount privileges.
Thirdly, further interest rate reduction will simply encourage more spending. Alright, the mantra we constantly hear in the current economic climate is "spend, spend, spend". But I would caution that we still need to spend responsibly. We do not want to entice spending that will lead to excessive debt.
I am all for helping current credit card debtors who are unable to settle their debts. The simple answer is discipline and debt restructuring. There is no easy way out.
This seems reasonable to me, notwithstanding that Bank Negara's overnight rate is now at 2.5% p.a.
Thus, I do not agree with the call made by the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry yesterday to force banks to lower credit card interest rates further. A similar call is made today - not surprisingly - by P Gunasegaram, Managing Editor of the Business Section of The Star, in a comment entitled Credit Card Rates Can Be Lower.
There are three reasons why I am against this move.
Firstly, banks must be free to set their own rates. This is the most basic of free market principles. If the risk-reward equation is not palatable, banks will just tighten credit. And where will that lead us?
Secondly, running a credit card business is not as simple as what Mr Guna makes it out to be. It is not simply a matter of interest plus fees earned minus cost of funds minus default rate and voila! that's the profit margin of the bank. Mr Guna has failed to add in other salient costs including overheads, marketing and promotions and infrastructure cost that is relevant to any business.
Furthermore, in the credit card industry, especially in Malaysia, fraud risk is high and banks need to factor in that cost, including the cost for prevention. Mr Guna has also overlooked the important fact that many credit card holders are actually funded interest-free by banks from the period when the retailers are refunded to the point when the credit card holder actually makes payment, sometimes as long as 45 days later. The banks earn nothing from this group of credit card holders, what with the current competitive landscape which offers free cards and even throws in discount privileges.
Thirdly, further interest rate reduction will simply encourage more spending. Alright, the mantra we constantly hear in the current economic climate is "spend, spend, spend". But I would caution that we still need to spend responsibly. We do not want to entice spending that will lead to excessive debt.
I am all for helping current credit card debtors who are unable to settle their debts. The simple answer is discipline and debt restructuring. There is no easy way out.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Open Your Doors Wider
Fed-up with all the talks about multi-billion dollar stimulus plans from various countries? You are not the only one.
I am not an economist but because I read more than the Average Joe on what's going on with the economy, I feel a bit more frustrated than the Average Joe. The consensus is that nobody really knows what needs to be done. Well, can't say I am surprised. If they had known how complex and interwoven things are, they would not have got all of us into this fine mess in the first place.
So now I refuse to read beyond the headlines when they try to impress us with the size of the stimulus package. By now, I am numbed by the magnitude of the bailout money.
But an article by the award-winning author of The World Is Flat and The Lexus And The Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman, caught my eye. Entitled Open-door Bailout, it throws up something different from the common mantra of Spend, Spend, Spend.
I am not an economist but because I read more than the Average Joe on what's going on with the economy, I feel a bit more frustrated than the Average Joe. The consensus is that nobody really knows what needs to be done. Well, can't say I am surprised. If they had known how complex and interwoven things are, they would not have got all of us into this fine mess in the first place.
So now I refuse to read beyond the headlines when they try to impress us with the size of the stimulus package. By now, I am numbed by the magnitude of the bailout money.
But an article by the award-winning author of The World Is Flat and The Lexus And The Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman, caught my eye. Entitled Open-door Bailout, it throws up something different from the common mantra of Spend, Spend, Spend.Two main points he made to the US government:
1 Leverage on immigration. Hire the best brains in the world, instead of shutting them out.
2 Tap the vast entrepreneurial energy that is the trademark of the US (think Microsoft, Google, Intel) by starting a government-funded venture capital bank.
He writes better than me, so I will leave you to read the actual article. I know it's alway easier said than done but at least, somebody is thinking out of the box.
Friday, 6 February 2009
Unlikely Singapore Will Have Any Octuplets...
The world cheered when it heard of a mother in California giving birth permaturely to a set of octuplets on Jan 26. However, soon enough, when the circumstances leading to the birth leaked, the cheers turned to outrage.
The mother, Nadya Suleman, aged 33, is a single mother who already has 6 children. With these 8 babies added to her brood, she will raise single-handedly 14 children. And note this: all 14 children are borne out of infertility treatments or more commonly known in this part of the world as assisted reproduction.
There have been many questions asked on moral grounds alone. In the latest revelation, Nadya Suleman claims that she loves babies and has so many of them to fulfil her childhood dream and to lift her from depression. Well, I think that this is not a good enough reason. It smacks self-centeredness and immaturity. Did she even think about the lives her children will likely lead? In fact, if I were to go further, I would recommend that she undergo a psychiatric check to make sure she is not of unsound mind. Depression is a clinical disease which could lead to awkward and awful situations.
This single mother has been living on disability payments totalling US$165K over the past 6 years. Okay, she has a rightful claim to the disability payments (due to pain in the lower back that arose from the workplace) but the point is that financially, she will find it a struggle to bring up 14 children. It sure does not seem a responsible decision to voluntarily go for "infertility" treatments under such circumstances.
Nadya's own mother says Nadya is a really nice girl if you get to know her and wonders aloud why the media and the public are hounding her daughter. Well, Mrs Suleman, your daughter may be a nice girl but her actions are outrageous.
The doctors have a role to play in this too... what are they trying to prove?
BUT my main frustration is how the US government could have allowed this to happen.
Because the US believe in non-discrimination (sometimes to ridiculous extremes), in individual rights and in non-interference of personal choices, the US government did not issue firm guidelines on these procedures. Thus, there are few checks on who can undergo such infertility treatments to ensure that the rights of the babies are protected.
In Singapore, the rules are clear. The mother must be married and under 45, consent from the husband is required, and a maximum of 3 embryos can be placed in the woman's womb. In the co-funding arrangement, the government will pay S$3k and the rest will be footed by the individual.
These rules sound fair. There may be some shouts from the singles camp but I would say if you want to have babies, go get married or opt for adoption.
I agree with the rules because it shows a responsible government who, not only makes sure that the state's money is used with good justification, but more importantly, provides a check to ensure that all those who seek to become parents are responsible folks.
The US government should learn the expensive lesson of over-deregulation. We know what happened in the financial markets. The government's hand is still necessary in many areas, not to dogmatically control, but to ensure that the rules are there so that good people can continue to live freely, safely, harmoniously and productively for the good of all. Let Nadya's case be the warning bell.
The mother, Nadya Suleman, aged 33, is a single mother who already has 6 children. With these 8 babies added to her brood, she will raise single-handedly 14 children. And note this: all 14 children are borne out of infertility treatments or more commonly known in this part of the world as assisted reproduction.
There have been many questions asked on moral grounds alone. In the latest revelation, Nadya Suleman claims that she loves babies and has so many of them to fulfil her childhood dream and to lift her from depression. Well, I think that this is not a good enough reason. It smacks self-centeredness and immaturity. Did she even think about the lives her children will likely lead? In fact, if I were to go further, I would recommend that she undergo a psychiatric check to make sure she is not of unsound mind. Depression is a clinical disease which could lead to awkward and awful situations.
This single mother has been living on disability payments totalling US$165K over the past 6 years. Okay, she has a rightful claim to the disability payments (due to pain in the lower back that arose from the workplace) but the point is that financially, she will find it a struggle to bring up 14 children. It sure does not seem a responsible decision to voluntarily go for "infertility" treatments under such circumstances.
Nadya's own mother says Nadya is a really nice girl if you get to know her and wonders aloud why the media and the public are hounding her daughter. Well, Mrs Suleman, your daughter may be a nice girl but her actions are outrageous.
The doctors have a role to play in this too... what are they trying to prove?
BUT my main frustration is how the US government could have allowed this to happen.
Because the US believe in non-discrimination (sometimes to ridiculous extremes), in individual rights and in non-interference of personal choices, the US government did not issue firm guidelines on these procedures. Thus, there are few checks on who can undergo such infertility treatments to ensure that the rights of the babies are protected.
In Singapore, the rules are clear. The mother must be married and under 45, consent from the husband is required, and a maximum of 3 embryos can be placed in the woman's womb. In the co-funding arrangement, the government will pay S$3k and the rest will be footed by the individual.
These rules sound fair. There may be some shouts from the singles camp but I would say if you want to have babies, go get married or opt for adoption.
I agree with the rules because it shows a responsible government who, not only makes sure that the state's money is used with good justification, but more importantly, provides a check to ensure that all those who seek to become parents are responsible folks.
The US government should learn the expensive lesson of over-deregulation. We know what happened in the financial markets. The government's hand is still necessary in many areas, not to dogmatically control, but to ensure that the rules are there so that good people can continue to live freely, safely, harmoniously and productively for the good of all. Let Nadya's case be the warning bell.
A New Low
I am totally incensed. And I am not the only one.
The news that the defection of 3 Perak PKR assemblymen has resulted in BN recapturing the state is a new low for politics in Malaysia.
In the first place, it is morally wrong that we give our votes and mandate to a certain person and this person takes it as a trading card to better his own personal position. Party-hopping has no place in the democratic process. In the electoral process, the person who is running as an assemblyman stands on a certain platform if he belongs to a party. The electorate, who votes this assemblyman to be its voice in the state assembly, is also voting in the party.
I would ask the 3 assemblymen who defected whether they would have got any votes if they had run as independents.
Secondly, if the UMNO were to stoop so low as to be in collusion with the assemblymen, two of whom are under a cloud of corruption scandal, how could it ever hope to win the support of the majority of the Malays? Is it not short-sighted to focus on grabbing power in the state? What does it actually mean to the electorate who is bound to cry foul?
UMNO must have more respect for the decency of the Malay community and try to salvage whatever lingering trust the community might still have for the party. This is NOT the way to go. This is NOT the way that BN will win the hearts, minds and soul of the Rakyat. There is always the next election.
Suffice to say, in my humble opinion, UMNO and BN may have won the battle, but it has lost the war.
The news that the defection of 3 Perak PKR assemblymen has resulted in BN recapturing the state is a new low for politics in Malaysia.
In the first place, it is morally wrong that we give our votes and mandate to a certain person and this person takes it as a trading card to better his own personal position. Party-hopping has no place in the democratic process. In the electoral process, the person who is running as an assemblyman stands on a certain platform if he belongs to a party. The electorate, who votes this assemblyman to be its voice in the state assembly, is also voting in the party.
I would ask the 3 assemblymen who defected whether they would have got any votes if they had run as independents.
Secondly, if the UMNO were to stoop so low as to be in collusion with the assemblymen, two of whom are under a cloud of corruption scandal, how could it ever hope to win the support of the majority of the Malays? Is it not short-sighted to focus on grabbing power in the state? What does it actually mean to the electorate who is bound to cry foul?
UMNO must have more respect for the decency of the Malay community and try to salvage whatever lingering trust the community might still have for the party. This is NOT the way to go. This is NOT the way that BN will win the hearts, minds and soul of the Rakyat. There is always the next election.
Suffice to say, in my humble opinion, UMNO and BN may have won the battle, but it has lost the war.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Calling GOOD people...
First Geithner, now Dashcle. President Obama's nominees for cabinet posts have been tainted with tax evasion and other charges.
Just goes to show... it's not easy to find GOOD people, as in morally good and having good character, and not just good in their work.
If only all our ministers here also go through such inquiries...
Just goes to show... it's not easy to find GOOD people, as in morally good and having good character, and not just good in their work.
If only all our ministers here also go through such inquiries...
Monday, 2 February 2009
Big Boys Do Cry
... and that's ok.
I'm referring to the tears shed by Roger Federer when he lost the 2008 Australian Open to his younger, and now better, rival, Rafael Nadal in the 5-set thriller in sizzling Melbourne yesterday.
I think tears make a stronger man. Firstly, it takes a bold man to show his emotions. Secondly, it shows how much he cared. He played passionately, probably visualizing a final battle that will confirm once and for all whether he has indeed past him peak. And when the results showed that someone else will now take over the throne, it must have been devastatingly heartbreaking.
My respect for him as a player did not diminish one bit with those tears. On the contrary, I will always remember that shadow of sadness across his face when he realised the inevitable.
But cheer up. You will always be remembered as one of the giants in the history of tennis.
I'm referring to the tears shed by Roger Federer when he lost the 2008 Australian Open to his younger, and now better, rival, Rafael Nadal in the 5-set thriller in sizzling Melbourne yesterday.
I think tears make a stronger man. Firstly, it takes a bold man to show his emotions. Secondly, it shows how much he cared. He played passionately, probably visualizing a final battle that will confirm once and for all whether he has indeed past him peak. And when the results showed that someone else will now take over the throne, it must have been devastatingly heartbreaking.
My respect for him as a player did not diminish one bit with those tears. On the contrary, I will always remember that shadow of sadness across his face when he realised the inevitable.
But cheer up. You will always be remembered as one of the giants in the history of tennis.
Banker Bandits
Not too long ago, bankers were commonly described as boring, stodgy, conservative, unimaginative, tight-fisted.
Today, bankers are seen to be greedy, morally decrepit, too creative for their own good, narcissistic, wasteful.
What happened in between? Dare I say it? Could it be related to the shift in the world's financial center from London to free-wheeling Wall Street?
As a former banker, I do not want to be associated in any way with the morally corrupt CEOs of Wall Street's financial institutions. Give me stodgy anytime.
By now, we are hoarse for crying out loud over the US$18.4 billion bonuses paid in 2008 to these bankers who have brought, not just their banks and the US economy, but the whole world, to its knee. These bank executives, who carelessly took risks without having to put any of their own money on the table, are criminals if they think they still deserve the bonuses, paid by taxpayers money.
As for that famous US$1,405 trash can that was purchased by the former Merrill Lynch CEO for his remodelled office, I would suggest that the US government frame it as a constant reminder of idiotic extravagance.
Today, bankers are seen to be greedy, morally decrepit, too creative for their own good, narcissistic, wasteful.
What happened in between? Dare I say it? Could it be related to the shift in the world's financial center from London to free-wheeling Wall Street?
As a former banker, I do not want to be associated in any way with the morally corrupt CEOs of Wall Street's financial institutions. Give me stodgy anytime.
By now, we are hoarse for crying out loud over the US$18.4 billion bonuses paid in 2008 to these bankers who have brought, not just their banks and the US economy, but the whole world, to its knee. These bank executives, who carelessly took risks without having to put any of their own money on the table, are criminals if they think they still deserve the bonuses, paid by taxpayers money.
As for that famous US$1,405 trash can that was purchased by the former Merrill Lynch CEO for his remodelled office, I would suggest that the US government frame it as a constant reminder of idiotic extravagance.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Recession Is....
... finding 483 vacant carpark lots at noon in Mid-Valley on a Sunday.
Initially, we thought the digital signboard might have malfunctioned (I always wondered how they got the numbers since the carpark lots are not tagged, unlike in Singapore), but the truth bore out when we entered the basement carpark. We got a lot next to the carpark lobby.
Lol, we do not need the economists to give us leading or lagging indicators. Like what my former boss from OCBC used to say, just look out over the Keppel Shipyard from one of the highrise buildings at Shenton Way in Singapore and view the stacks of containers there. During the good times, the place will be stacked high with containers. No prize for guessing how it is nowadays.
Bleak, bleak, bleak....
Initially, we thought the digital signboard might have malfunctioned (I always wondered how they got the numbers since the carpark lots are not tagged, unlike in Singapore), but the truth bore out when we entered the basement carpark. We got a lot next to the carpark lobby.
Lol, we do not need the economists to give us leading or lagging indicators. Like what my former boss from OCBC used to say, just look out over the Keppel Shipyard from one of the highrise buildings at Shenton Way in Singapore and view the stacks of containers there. During the good times, the place will be stacked high with containers. No prize for guessing how it is nowadays.
Bleak, bleak, bleak....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
