TR EMERITUS

To: President Obama Through American Embassy 27 Napier Road Singapore 258508 Main Tel. No: (65) 6476-9100 Main Fax No: (65) 6476-9340 Mr President, As you grace our country with your presence during these APEC meetings, we beseech you to take some time off your meeting schedule to meet with MAS Chariman Goh Chok Tong, Finance Minister Tharman and bank CEOs to discuss compensation measures for minibond holders and investors that have lost entire life savings due to your predecessor’s failure to bailout Lehman Brothers in 2008. A total of S$375 million (US$258 million) worth of Lehman-linked structured products was sold to 8,000 retail investors who did not have the financial acumen to understand the risks of these complicated products. The total number of structured products, which value evaporated overnight, is closer to S$500 Million.  Our misplaced faith in the US banking and financial regulatory system, together with predatory sales tactics, had left us exposed to the whims and fancies of ruthless bankers and the former Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson. Minibonds investors in Singapore have been filing complaints and lawsuits against various financial institutions, but many lack the resources to proceed with the lengthy and costly litigation process. The spillover damage has also been hefty. Eight town councils in Singapore – institutions entrusted with funds meant for the maintenance and running of Public Housing facilities – had about S$16 million invested in troubled structured products. The effort of some (e.g. Great Eastern Life) to redeem the original capital injection value of these products is but a drop of water in an ocean of judiciary irresponsibility. While three of the US biggest banks have exited the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) – a fund meant to save financial institutions from collapse – and handed out US$29.7 billion in bonuses, Singaporean investors are left wondering where was the Lehman Brothers Rescue? Here in Singapore, investors holding credit-linked notes linked to Lehman Brothers had received no coupon payments (as of Oct this year) toward the end of the grace period. Yet another event of default as US banks trade TARP funds for bonuses. Many people have the mistaken impression that investors have been assisted by the Singapore to get a fair compensation. This is the impression is forged by the streams of feel good press statements that misguide the uninformed reader. The truth is, Singaporean investors have been shortchanged. Less than 20% has been compensated, while our neighbours in Hong Kong and Taiwan are getting more headway as 777 Singaporean investors continue to be ignored by Prime Minister Lee who declined to meet the investors or to delegate his officials to resolve this issue. Not much else has transpired as Singaporeans are ignorant of their human or contractual rights and unable to seek redress outside of governmental assistance due to years of a nanny state under the Lees. Former CEO of NTUC INCOME Mr Tan Kin Lian had been an earlier crusader for our rights and we thank him for it. It heartens me that our plight is not forgotten and that Mr Yap Keng Ho is reigniting the spirit of justice. A few affected investors and I are standing behind Mr Yap’s open call for resolution and invitation to gather at Speakers’ Corner. In the spirit of American’s 1st amendment, we will gather at Hong Lim Park and make our demands heard. Demands that the US be held culpable for its fair share in this debacle. Mr President, Although you did not preside over this debacle, the current injustice is within your reach to fix. Yours Sincerely, Anthony Lee  Read More →

Translated from Shin Min Daily The Ang Mo Kio suicide cum murder tragedy which robbed the lives of two children and their father could have been averted had the friends of Mr Ng Chee Kiang been vigilant enough! A week before the tragedy took place, Mr Ng had confided in his close friends that he wanted to end his life together with his children. His friends were worried about this persistently low mood and took turns to keep him company. Throughout the entire week, other than during working hours, his friends will visit him at his place every evening and drink beer together at the nearby coffeeshop. On that fateful day, Mr Ng was still contemplating ending his life. His friend tried to dissuade him for four hours to no avail before returning home in the evening at 6pm. He didn't expect Mr Ng would set his flat on fire killing his two children before plunging to his death from twelve stories high. The friend was very remorseful and regretted not calling the police earlier. He felt that had he remained behind to keep Mr Ng company, the tragedy would not have happened. Mr Ng was declared a bankrupt in 2003 following mounting debts from gambling and stocks. His marriage was reportedly on the rocks as a result of his financial situation. Mr Ng used to splurge on his wife and his children and frequently overspent using his credit card.  Read More →

作者:冀居·谢 最先提出“平衡”和“制衡”是两个完全不同概念的是早报的曾昭鹏。他还爆料说：『事实上，《环球时报》相关报道引述的‘新加坡《南洋邮报》’是一家不存在的报纸，相关内容其实来自一个名称接近、摘取别人新闻为主的网站。‘制衡中国’的表述是该网站译自法新社的报道，不够严谨的翻译飘洋过海到中国，激怒了中国网民。』 于是11月5日早报刊登御准的译文，里头的文字： 『中国的崛起是东亚现代化成长故事的一部分。这是从日本1868年的明治维新开始。在中国，它始于1978年12月邓小平的对外开放政策。印度在1991年对 世界开放。中国和印度可以，也会在科学和科技上赶上西方。她们会让亚洲恢复到欧洲殖民主义席卷她们之前的领导地位。世界秩序将会重新平衡』 果然没有“制衡”。不过，有一点想象力的读者可以知道，在欧洲殖民者到来之前，成吉思汗曾经把版图拓展到欧洲，那时是中国称霸。 到了8日周兆呈就在专栏开炮：『一个网站毫不严谨的翻译，被另外一家中国媒体同样不严谨查证、或刻意地炒作，李光耀资政在美国的谈话继而被发酵成众多中国民众据此进行声讨、乃至中国外交部门需要就此表态的事件。』 不懂外语的韩山元更好笑，他在另外一个论坛这么说： 『将“平衡”说成“制衡”，如果不是误译，就是别有用心。《环球时报》按理应公开道歉，但是如果它不按理出牌，不道歉呢？我们能做什么？ 至 少我劝大家好好读一读李光耀那篇演讲的全文，以免被断章取义者与错译者误导。全文就刊在11月5日联合早报的言论版。早报的翻译就根本没有“制衡”二字。 有一段话倒是值得注意：“亚细安（即东盟）的共识是美国在东亚依然是不可取代的。但她不能再独自处理新的复杂局面来维持稳定。因此，必须寻找一些新的架 构，如一个在东亚的共同体的概念。”』 原来中国有上亿的网民，还有许多大陆媒体和香港凤凰卫视，我都看到他们多次评论李资政的“制衡论”，一切仅仅是源自一篇不严谨的译稿给一家不负责任的报社登出 来，你认为这有可能吗？难道那些人都是超级弱智，不懂得搜索网络，不懂得上新加坡政府网站索取原文，和韩老先生一样不懂外文？ “制衡 ”这个词是个新鲜事物，怎么来的我也不知道，总之一般的词典都不收这个词，可能的原因是还没有定说，没有约定俗成的规范用法。不信的话，你可以亲自去查 证。此外，“制衡”也不是一个翻译名词，因为英文里面根本没有一个单词是可以和“制衡”对应的。所以毕业自美国名牌大学的曾昭鹏硕士说的“‘平衡’和‘制 衡’是两个不太相同的国际关系概念”，根本就是一坨“牛屎”。 比如： For the development of diversified culture, avoiding one culture dominating the world, we need different counterbalance, which requires different culture.（为了促使多元文化的发展，为了世界不至为一种霸权文化所覆盖，我们需要不同的文化来制衡。） 曾昭鹏的文章写道：『还原李资政以英语回应提问的谈话，他其实说：“再过二三十年，中国庞大的体积将使得包括日本与印度在内的整个亚洲，都不可能在分量与国力上与之抗衡，所以我们需要美国来达致一个平衡（balance）”。』 ——不过是藏头去尾，要美国来“制衡”不是呼之欲出吗？ 新加坡国立大学东亚所郑永年所长受访时指出，『所谓权力平衡（制衡）的概念，在不同的历史阶段代表不同的含义。它最早出现在欧洲时，指的是多个国家组成不同的集团以相互抗衡，或者小国联合起来对抗某个大国，以避免弱肉强食的命运。冷战时代，美苏间的权力平衡包含着更激烈的对抗性。美苏争霸，军备竞赛采用螺旋式上升模式，双方以成千上万枚核武器相互遏制。不论是欧洲史上的战术平衡，或冷战时代的平衡，都有一个共同的特点：势均力敌的双方彼此隔绝，互不往来。』 按他的意思，所谓在“制衡”必须具冷战意志，打不起来“平衡”不可以叫“制衡”。——当然，那是他家的事，这样的定义连我也觉得太窄了。20年前冷战已然结束，“制衡”这个词干脆当成化石不就得了。 “制约 ”是所有词典都收录的词，我个人觉得所谓“制衡”和“平衡”都是“制约”的委婉说法，因为“制约”（to restrict、handicap or impede）较强人所难，在外交辞令上不能面面俱圆。“制衡”照字面解，就是“人为去平衡”的意思。因为人类社会天性嗜血，在上世纪就经历了两次世界大 战，还有韩战、越战、中东战争，冷战结束后还有海湾战争、阿富汗战争、伊拉克战争等，短暂的和平都是人为去争取来的“制衡”产物，不是天然什么水滴石穿的 结果。利用人为的因素放进“变数”（如李资政到华府去向奥巴马建言），来维持运动中的平衡，当然都可以叫做“制衡”。 郑永年指出：『李资政陈述的既是他对中国实力和潜力的评估，也符合他向来所抱持的观点：亚太区必须存在势力均衡的格局，才不会出现一个在区域独霸的国家。新加坡不能制定国际社会的游戏规则或影响国际格局，只能被动地接受既存的国际现实，力量均衡是一个符合新加坡利益的区域状态。』——要是用“制衡”这个概念，就不需要口水多过茶了。 还有李光耀说：“The UN system and Bretton Woods institutions will still be important. But for some time, it has been clear that the present system can no longer ensure international stability. America has now signalled that emerging major powers will be included to manage the world order.”——要维持目前的全球稳定，所有崛起的大国都要参与“制衡”世界秩序（老李当然是要拉拢美国，万万不能缺席），这个意思还不够明白吗？ 为什么要大玩“制衡”定义呢？因为他们不敢真正批评中国，或者说连得罪也不敢，最后只好把矛头指向可以欺负的个体《环球时报》。那么不管怎么泼妇骂街对中国政府/主流都颜面无损；即可以护主又不会得罪中共，这是聪明人玩的把戏。 李资政这种制衡见解到底对不对？我留给高明去评论。但是对于中国鹰派的反应，我觉得用“制衡”翻译不够严谨这种说词实在太逊了，中国鹰派的致命伤有两点： 对“华侨”的观念陈旧：最佳代表是中国网民说“把他们当华人，他们却不把中国人当自己人”，他们还停留在清末孙逸仙说的“华侨是革命之母”的时代，还不知道人家跟他不是同一国了。 对“中国和平崛起”深信不疑：仍然膜拜毛泽东“深挖洞、广积粮、不称霸”那套。这点我印象很深，那天看到凤凰卫视时事评论员说这是几千年传下来的传统，一定会以德服人，说得好像真的一样。 来源：大马论坛  Read More →