Fine! and Free Rides!

 Screw you all! I'm out of here! Muahahahahahaha Quick quick quick let's go!

What recommendations from the COI I want to hear? Fine for SMRT! Free rides for commuters!

SMRT team has completed their findings on why their trains were so crap in December last year with its back-to-back 15 and 17 December train disruptions. So much for that December holiday month. SMRT staff didn't have holiday mood, and those who were stuck coz the SMRT trains suck also didn't have holiday mood. Butch Saw Phaik Hwa also didn't have holiday mood as the incidents derailed her SMRT CEO career.

The new transport minister, terrified that he would become jobless like Raymond Lim, quickly shook his head and made loud disappointing sighs at SMRT. So worried about keeping his job and making voters happy that in the recent SBS Transit MRT NEL disruption between Dhoby Ghaut and Harbour Front on 15 March, he actually went down to make his rounds and made sure the press took photo of him making his rounds and using his eye power! Whether push buttons or not is unimportant. What is important is to be seen to be pushing buttons. The former SAF general still remembers how to wayang from his military days.

In 2008, SMRT was fined close to $400,000 by LTA for a disruption for about 7 hours between Tanah Merah and Pasir Ris MRT stations. At that time as SMRT CEO was Phaik Hwa, SMRT was not worried as she could easily earn back the money from SMRT ad and shop rental businesses. Funny hor? SMRT a transport company was profitable not because of its transport operations but its retail offshoot. The December 2011 disruptions were worse than in 2008 and also the CEO who made SMRT profitable is no longer around. SMRT is screwed, and we commuters would be screwed next as the cost would be passed on to them in one way or another. You mean we won't?

SMRT completes inquiry into December service disruptions
Posted: 28 March 2012 1840 hrs

SINGAPORE: The SMRT Internal Investigation Team (IIT) has completed work on the December service disruptions and submitted its report to the Committee of Inquiry convened by the government.

The Board of Directors of SMRT Corporation Limited commissioned the IIT to review the causes and handling of train disruptions on the North-South Line on December 15 and 17.

SMRT said on Wednesday that the team reviewed the causes of the disruptions and the organisation's response to them.

It also made recommendations to prevent a recurrence and improve the organisation's response capabilities to mass disruption incidents.

The IIT submitted its report to the SMRT Board, which then submitted it to the COI.

SMRT said since the December 2011 incidents, it has been implementing its improvement plan to prevent a recurrence and enhance its capabilities to respond to train disruptions.

It said it appreciates the findings and recommendations provided by the IIT.

It added that it will carefully study and evaluate them, and consider further improvement measures that may be required.

SMRT said it will wait for the Committee of Inquiry's response and will implement further improvements as may be needed.

Got Primary One Registration Priority? Think Again!

On the surface, citizens can rejoice, pop champagne or a non-alcoholic drink and thank Ganesha, Allah, Jesus, Guanyin, Buddha or Monkey God that citizens finally, finally have a proper head start in education over foreigners. A few days ago, MOE announced that Singaporeans have a priority over PRs in primary one registration. Whenever there is balloting, which is confirmed 100% in popular or branded schools like Nanyang, ACS, Tao Nan and some elitist others, PRs would not stand a chance unless there is no ballot required.

Happy? KNS. YOU SHOULDN"T BE IF YOU ARE A 100% LOCAL. Why? This is because MOE just said that citizens should be given absolute priority in each phase. Not absolute priority in primary one registration. There is an important difference!

There are 3 main phases in the annual primary one registration.

• Phase 1 - for a child who has a sibling in the primary school
• Phase 2 -  2A1, for a child whose parent is a former student of the primary school and is an alumni member, 2A2, the same, but the parent is not an alumni member, 2B is when the parent is from the same clan or church related to the school or a parent volunteer, 2C is for the child who cannot qualify for Phase 1, 2A and 2B.
• Phase 3 - for non-citizens and non-PR.

What MOE is telling you is that PR can still qualify for each phase as long as there is no balloting in that phase. So that means a Tiong or Pinoy PR can still qualify and be ahead of other Singaporeans in a later phase e.g. a PR who is a parent volunteer in branded school X (qualify for phase 2B) is still ahead of a local parent who stays near the branded school X but did not volunteer in the school (qualify for phase 2C) in the primary one registration.  Is this fair to Singaporeans? Not really if we value citizenship, the responsibility of NS etc. Volunteering in a school, alumni, church-clan ties in primary school registration are perfectly fine and is a useful checklist to distinguish locals from locals, and their desperation however misguided to put their kid in a branded school. However, as PRs do not wish to commit their stake in Singapore, why should they have the same access to branded schools as Singaporeans? Why should they have the same privileges as citizens?

PRs should be restricted to Phase 3 registration only, and not anything earlier. PRs can enrol their kids into a primary school only when all the citizens who want to put their son or daughter in that school have done so under Phase 1 or Phase 2. Any remaining seats can then be given to PRs. That is what priority is about. Simple as that. This recent MOE pledge to keep Singaporeans happy and give citizenship a premium is just hollow.

Fewer PR children in top schools after P1 rule change?
By Sharon See | Posted: 26 March 2012 2141 hrs

SINGAPORE: The more popular primary schools may have fewer Permanent Resident (PR) children from now on, said observers.

They said this is one possible outcome, following the government's move to tighten the Primary One (P1) registration exercise.

Under the change announced on Sunday, PRs will remain eligible for the same phases of the P1 registration exercise as citizens. However, when balloting is necessary in a specific phase of the registration exercise, citizens will be given absolute priority over PRs, even before home-to-school distance is considered.

The change will take place from the P1 registration exercise this July.

Last year, nearly half of all primary schools held ballots for the P1 registration exercise.

With the latest change, some popular schools told Channel NewsAsia they are expecting a much smaller intake of PR children.

Competition for the popular schools is already fierce, even among Singaporeans, and one MP said it would make sense for PRs to avoid "brand name schools" - where balloting will most likely take place.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, chairman of Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, said: "If they think that they want their child to go to a certain school, they have to consider whether that school would require balloting or not. If it does, quite honestly, they should put their efforts in volunteering in a school where balloting may not take place."

Property analysts also expect a slowdown in PRs going after HDB resale flats near popular schools.

Mr Eugene Lim, ERA Realty Network's key executive officer, said: "The premium that buyers have been known to pay for being located near good schools is as much as 10, sometimes even 15 per cent.

"So, if there are less buyers competing for these units near these good schools, technically the premium would go down. But it's still early days. It's very hard to say at this point if the prices will be affected, because for the gap that is vacated by the PRs, the locals will come in and fill it, as locals still have to compete for the 1km rule if there are more locals applying for the limited places available in each school."

Mr Lim added that buying a residential property with the intention of being near "good schools" is more prevalent among Singaporeans than PRs. He said HDB flats near "good schools" would likely be in greater demand than private properties.

According to Mr Lim, PRs currently make up about 20 percent of the HDB resale market and 13 percent of the private property resale market.

What the Hell is a Heritage Centre

What the hell is a Heritage Centre? Oh! Museum. SMILE. What the hell is foreign subversion? Oh! Foreign-inspired criticism of the government. Oh! Like this case in China where a writer telling people about their rights was jailed for 10 years. SNEER.. Is the museum going to show how Mas Selamat escape and was caught? Oh! I would pay to see that. SMIRK. Why the hell is MOE in the picture in the pipeline? Oh! National education. SNIGGER.

There is a role for ISD in our society, caveat stated so please, please, please don't knock on my door in the middle of the night ok Mr ISD Man, and espionage and terrorism are invisible and silent scourges to Singapore. All countries have their own versions of the ISD for national security reasons and Singapore should not be any different in keeping watch on the real bad guys. Disbanding ISD is an awful idea. In contrast, redefining ISD's powers and scope is an awesome idea.

At the end of the day, it's a big bad brutal world out there with crazy turbaned terrorists holding AK47s and homemade bombs, and countries spying on each other to gain an upper hand in military, political and economic competition. With all the SAF fancy toys bought over the years, our neighbours are probably interested in how and whether they might be used. Their spies are surely here - maybe even the wanton mee man in the kopitiam bear Mindef is spying on them! With hotheads running around in Bali again and still shouting "kill infidels", it is also unsurprising that some of them might decide to come Singapore for a holiday and then make a one way trip to heaven with its 72 virgins, bombing out Orchard MRT!

Singapore 'attractive target for espionage, foreign subversion'
by Syed Amir Hussain 04:45 AM Mar 21, 2012

SINGAPORE - Even as the threat of terrorism persists post-911, the concurrent internal security "threats of espionage and foreign subversion are just as salient today as during the Cold War", said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean yesterday.

Mr Teo, who is also Home Affairs Minister, noted that Singapore is situated "at the crossroads where the spheres of influence of major powers intersect" and also "an open society in a highly globalised world", which makes the country "an attractive target for espionage and foreign subversion", even by "friendly nations".

Speaking at the 10th anniversary of the Internal Security Department's (ISD) Heritage Centre, he noted that a Singaporean Embassy staff member in Moscow was compromised and worked for the Soviet Union against Singapore's interest during the height of the Cold War. During the 1990s, the ISD dealt with "several cases" of espionage involving friendly nations. "The adage that "there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests" rings true," said Mr Teo.

In highlighting other internal security threats such as the issue of self-radicalisation, as well as racial and religious extremism, Mr Teo noted that technology has been "a major game changer".

A few cyber espionage attacks have already been countered, and more are expected, he said. "Our vulnerability has increased because of our own inter-connectivity, the cache of classified information that can potentially be stolen through electronic media, and our heavy reliance on IT systems for essential services," he added.

While he noted that "the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and its affiliates continue to be a threat to Singapore" on the racial and religious extremism front, Mr Teo felt "the new variable in the racial and religious field is cyberspace".

He said the Internet allows irresponsible, offensive and at times seditious comments about other races and religions to be made anonymously.

Dangerous remarks on the Internet can go viral very quickly, "spiral out of control and rapidly damage inter-communal relations". "If transposed into action in the physical world, the consequences can be dire", added Mr Teo. He further noted that online and self-radicalisation also represent new forms of the terrorism threat.

Yesterday, the new Counter-Terrorism gallery at the ISD Heritage Centre, which showcases security operations and intelligence work undertaken by ISD officers, was officially launched.

The new gallery includes new cases and exhibits over the past 10 years since the disruption of the JI network here and features the inner mechanisms of the JI such as security tradecraft, recruitment efforts, physical and military training.

The Heritage Centre hosted over 10,000 visitors last year and has reached out to another 70,000 through mobile exhibitions in schools, tertiary institutions, community centres and shopping malls.

And as part of the ISD's outreach efforts, Mr Teo said the Heritage Centre will be working with the Ministry of Education to reach out to all national schools through mobile exhibitions that are "more student-centric" over the next two years.

One Event, Office Politics, Many Versions of Truth

Ok this interesting incident at NYC is not entirely related to Singapore politics, or is it?

An executive director at Goldman Sachs resigned on a bad note and shot out a stinker of a public explanation about how Goldman Sachs was an evil empire and the usual bad mouthing. Consequently, there was a Bloomberg editorial response, a funny cynical one, giving the hard truth impression that the Goldman Sachs quitter was just not cut out for the job. What we did not hear were the views from Goldman Sachs management on their reasons behind the bitter resignation. Were they being proper gentlemen not wanting to be drawn into the fight directly, or silence was guilt. Who is telling the truth? Everybody! Nobody! This thus leads me to talk about people who left their organisation after some years of loyal service, and then like suddenly spun around to ominously explain that they left because the organisation is not what it used to be.

Former PAP MP turned presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock is one example. Bringing back a past issue, what were the exact nature of his departure such that instead of quietly fading away like other PAP MPs, he beat his own drum and waved his own flag to challenge the PAP in some ways during the election?

Why I am leaving Goldman Sachs
The failure of belief in doing right by the client is the most serious threat to its survival
by Greg Smith
04:45 AM Mar 16, 2012
Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs.

After almost 12 years at the firm - first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London - I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money.

Goldman Sachs is one of the world's largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a sceptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs' success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients.

The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients' trust for 143 years. It wasn't just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organisation.

I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

DECLINE IN MORAL FIBRE

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our gruelling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world.

In 2006 I managed the summer intern programme in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Mr Lloyd C Blankfein, and the president, Mr Gary D Cohn, lost hold of the firm's culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm's moral fibre represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia.

My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm.

This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership.

Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader?

(a) Execute on the firm's "axes", which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit.

(b) "Hunt Elephants." In English: Get your clients - some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren't - to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them.

(c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly 0 per cent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.

If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client's success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as "muppets", sometimes over internal email.

Integrity? It is eroding. I don't know of any illegal behaviour, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client's goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don't trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn't matter how smart you are.

A WAKE-UP CALL

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is: "How much money did we make off the client?" It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave.

Now project 10 years into the future: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about "muppets", "ripping eyeballs out" and "getting paid" doesn't exactly turn into a model citizen.

When I was a first-year analyst I didn't know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.

My proudest moments in life - getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics - have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts.

Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn't feel right to me anymore.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist.

Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons.

People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm - or the trust of its clients - for very much longer.

Greg Smith resigned on Wednesday as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm's United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Yes, Mr Smith, Goldman Sachs is about making money
by BLOOMBERG EDITORIAL
04:45 AM Mar 16, 2012

Apparently, when Mr Greg Smith arrived at Goldman Sachs almost 12 years ago, the legendary investment firm was something like the Make-A-Wish Foundation - existing only to bring light and peace and happiness to the world.

Mr Smith, who was executive director and head of the firm's United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, does not go into details in his already notorious op-ed article in Wednesday's New York Times, Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs. But one imagines Goldman bankers spending their days delivering fresh flowers to elderly shut-ins and providing shelters for abandoned cats.

Serving clients was paramount. "It wasn't just about making money," Mr Smith writes. "It had something to do with pride and belief in the organisation."

It must have been a terrible shock when Mr Smith concluded that Goldman actually was primarily about making money. He spares us the sordid details, but apparently it took more than a decade for the scales to finally fall from his eyes.

He says that Goldman's culture has changed. "It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients."

And he warns: "Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist." It's tragic that Goldman is losing an employee who realizes that you need customers to stay in business.

We have some advice for Mr Smith, as well as the thousands of college students who apply to work at Goldman Sachs each year: If you want to dedicate your life to serving humanity, do not go to work for Goldman Sachs. That's not its function, and it never will be.

Go to work for Goldman Sachs if you wish to work hard and get paid more than you deserve even so. (Or if you want to make your living selling derivatives but don't know what a derivative is, as Smith concedes in passing that he didn't at first.)

Goldman and other investment banks do perform an important role in our economy, and Goldman bankers - most of them, at least - can hold their heads up high. But it is not charity work. Goldman's clients are mostly very well-off. Mr Smith's lament that the bank no longer serves their needs above and beyond its own does not tug at our heartstrings. BLOOMBERG

SERS - Tweaks or Not, Not Exactly One-for-One Swap

Constants in life - tax, death, change and can't please everybody. HDB unveiled what is supposed to be goodies for people affected by SERS. SERS basically means the government kicking you out of your old bigger home usually in a CCR or OCR, and then moving you to a nice new smaller home away, sometimes across the street, sometimes much further away. Not everybody likes that trade-off although SERS is more attractive now with the new rulings.

Now, those who are SERSed have more options in the flats they can pick. Previously they were just stuck with what HDB pointed them to. So for those staying at the HDB blocks at Rochor Centre, who were not exactly SERSed but treated in the same way as they were evicted for the North-South Expressway, can decline the Kallang flats.  They can instead choose and have a priority at a BTO or under a SBF. Sounds great!

There is a caveat to the priority though - 5% of  any BTO and SBF supply is for those on the priority list - WHICH IS COCK. HDB evicted someone, so out of goodwill by HDB if it had manners, that someone should pick wherever-whatever he wants and have a priority regardless of that silly 5% rule.

Still, big smile everyone for the SERS tweaks! Hey, why isn't the old uncle at the back not smiling? You know no need pay stamp duty when you get your replacement flat right? That's because the old uncle doesn't want to move. He has lived in block 69 in that D1-D8 HDB flat with that squat toilet and zinc toilet doors with a hook latch inside since when SBS buses had conductors punching tickets, and is happy where he is. He does not want to move out to live in a smaller unit, regardless if it is new. And he is afraid that once he moved out to another estate, the ghost of his dead wife cannot find him at his new home and keep him company anymore. Really? Really.

Alas, money can't solve everything but it can make difficult decisions easier. The main shaky foundation over the popularity of SERS despite the tweaking is the max $30,000 or 20% discount off the replacement flat. While the cost of HDB flats has soared since, this cap has not changed since SERS started in 1995!

BTW why isn't Khaw blogging about these changes to SERS? WTF

New changes 'more favourable' for SERS residents
by Esther Ng 04:45 AM Mar 15, 2012

SINGAPORE - Residents who have to relocate under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) will enjoy priority allocation for coming public flat sale exercises. They can also defer the entire resale levy till they sell their flat, or have it capped at S$30,000 with the remainder waived.

These were among the tweaks to the 17-year-old scheme - announced by the Housing and Development Board - to make it "more favourable" for affected residents.

According to the HDB, eligible SERS lessees will be given priority in a Build-to-Order or Sale of Balance Flat exercise launched from this month onwards, instead of being saddled with a flat at a pre-selected location.

SERS lessees may apply under the Resettlement/Relocation/Tenants' Priority Scheme in the application for BTO and SBF flats, where 5 per cent of flat supply from each exercise is set aside for priority applicants. "In the event that SERS applicants are not successful under the 5 per cent quota, they will still be included in a second round of computer ballot together with all other public applicants for the BTO/SBF flat supply," the HDB said.

"Previously, people had complained that the replacement flats were too far. This move gives residents more options," said property watcher Chris Koh.

PropNex chief executive Mohamed Ismail added: "Many of these SERS residents are seniors - their children have grown up and bought flats in towns farther away - so this measure allows them the chance to buy flats near their children and live nearer to them."

The HDB said it "regularly reviews its policies and processes to ensure they remain relevant and meet the needs of residents". The latest enhancements came after "taking into consideration feedback from our residents", it added.

Previously, SERS lessees who sold their first subsidised flat had to pay a resale levy for buying a second subsidised flat, or were liable to pay the resale levy for the SERS replacement flat.

Under the changes, they may defer the entire payment of the resale levy or premium without interest till they sell or transfer the replacement flat. Alternatively, they can choose to pay an amount capped at S$30,000 if they pay the levy or premium before they collect the keys to their replacement flat. The balance amount will be waived.

The HDB said it has also worked with the Central Provident Fund Board to relax guidelines on the use of refunded CPF money to purchase a replacement flat.

Those who are aged 55 and above will now be allowed to use a portion or all of the refunded CPF money in their Retirement Account to buy the replacement flat.

Last November, the Government announced that flats at Rochor Centre will make way for a new expressway. Apart from Rochor Centre residents, the new concessions will be extended to other SERS lessees whose grace period to apply for a flat has not expired yet.

These include residents from Blocks 321 to 323 Clementi Avenue 5; Blocks 1 to 3 East Coast Road; Blocks 1 to 3, 5 to 22 Redhill Close; and Blocks 167 to 172 Boon Lay Drive. HDB also announced it will grant a 10 per cent rental rebate to all shop tenants at Rochor Centre, in view of their petition and the coming tunnel boring works.