TR EMERITUS

Managed to get a young man who I’ve been trying to guide along his path replace me in a meeting. I’ve been overcome with this strange emotion of satisfaction that after the second week on the job, he’s actually being allowed to do things without me and more importantly, he’s going to develop the confidence to it. As I reflect on the emotions of this moment, I realise that a lot of significant moments in life come at a point of letting go of certain relationships so that they can develop. As parents, we need to let our kids go and become the adults that they were meant to be. As mentors, we need to let our mentees go and be their own people. If I look at my own experiences, one of the most significant moments in my life was from a conversation I had with my Dad, when I told him I volunteered for a live-firing exercise in the aftermath of exercise Swift Lion (here’s the MINDEF Press Release of that awful day - https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/MINDEF_19970628001.pdf ). I told him that I was going and he said that he wasn’t happy about it (at the time, the possibility of coming home in a body bag remained very present). Then, he said “Talk about it with your mum. If you still want to go, I will support your decision no matter what happens.” This was the moment that I’ve felt closest to my dad as in he really showed me one of the most important aspects of being a parent – letting go. Dad has done many things for me. I’ve lived well and been educated at his expense. However, all the money he had spent on my schooling and was about to spend and all the luxuries I had enjoyed because of him didn’t mean as much to me as the fact that he was prepared to respect a decision of mine even if he was unhappy with it. Other significant moment came from letting go. In my professional life, the first instance came when my business partner at the time didn’t want to do the Polaris (now known as Intellect Design). He felt that there were too many risks involved because the deadlines were close. I chose to hang on and somehow despite everything I was telling the client about the very real chances of failure, the job proved to be a success and Polaris had a way of keeping me alive for a few years. Not only did I get work from them, but I made good friends and that opened the door to other parts of the Indian Expat community and to two of the three career highlights (the IIT and IIM Alumni events in 2012 and 2013). The other great career highlight came in 2006, when I was a freelancer pitching for the Saudi Embassy job with BANG PR, which was helmed by PN Balji, who had been for the better part of the time, the father of my profession of being a commentary writer and a PR consultant. It reached a stage, where Balji dropped out of the job and I became the only contractor. This was my opportunity to shine and by some fluke, me, with no real “experience” to speak of, managed a job traditionally reserved for government-to-government agencies. These experiences have made me understand that quite often, the people who limit us are not the people who dislike or even hate us. It’s the people who love us that harm us by not letting us grow. Think of parents who expect their grown children to report every detail of their life to them and still expect to have a say in what their adult children do. It also goes on in the professional world, where you have bosses who remind their employees that “If you didn’t work for me, you won’t survive.” This type of thinking is suffocating. It doesn’t allow for growth. A good parent will always want his or her kids to be able to survive without him or her. A good boss will ensure that the employees can survive without being employed by his or her organization. As Richard Branson argues, when you train your people so that they can leave, they won’t. Too many of us continue to struggle for relevance without realizing that we only become relevant to people when we allow them to be irrelevant in their lives.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able to meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

MAS made a staggering loss of S$30.8b in 22/23 due mainly to (a) S$21.4b translation loss of foreign assets which are primarily the foreign reserves, and (b) S$9b which is the carrying cost of the foreign reserves. There are those who understand it is the price MAS has to pay to stay the course to minimise the import of foreign inflation by pursing a monetary policy of non-inflationary growth. Those who do not appreciate this will never understand unless they invest a couple of hours learning monetary economics and MAS’s role in maintaining a stable price level. The purpose here is not to dwell on how the losses came about but rather on the bigger picture of where the S$25b to beef up MAS’s capital came from and whether past reserves were raided. The government injected additional capital of S$25b into MAS in March 2023. MAS is the government’s banker, so in the central bank’s book the transaction is straight forward – debit Government A/c, credit Share Capital A/c. As for the government, it has to make sure there are funds in their account. The Constitution defines ‘national reserves’ as the excess of assets over liabilities (ie equity) of the Government, statutory boards and 5th Schedule companies, of which MAS is one such. It defines ‘past reserves’ as reserves accumulated by the previous government. Current admin started in July 2020. The excess of assets over liabilities of MAS is represented by ‘Paid Up Capital’ and ‘General Reserves’. Thus for the current administration, the past reserves of MAS is basically S$44.88b. Apparently the losses of 21/22 (S$8.7b) and 22/23 (S$30.8b) caused past reserves to be raided as far as MAS is concerned. The President is the custodian of our past reserves. He/She exercises the power by withholding consent to any Supply Bill, Supplementary Supply Bill or Final Supply Bill – thereby blocking the Budget for the financial year, if past reserves are used. In other words, there is advance knowledge that the expenditure will cause a dip into past reserves. So it would seem MAS dipping into its past reserves in this manner (by simply clicking a keyboard to debit and credit the accounts) bypassed the mechanism of the second safety key of the President. Then again, the government’s defence will be that past reserves are not viewed at individual institution basis, but at national level. Singaporeans will again be locked out of any discussion by non-transparency. Where did the funds come from? Certainly not from operating revenue. Fiscal 2021/22 was overshot by S$4.2b after NIRC (net investment return contribution) from GIC and Temasek, and 2022/23 budget projected a deficit of S$3.6b after NIRC. There are 3 possibilities : a). Raise funds via issue of SG Treasury Bills. These are like bridge financing. Government uses this to raise funds when there is a time gap between receipt of operating revenue and expenditure. T Bills are very short term instruments. However, there is no evidence of such activity in March 2023. S$25b is a colossal sum and there would have been market talk at the time. b). Liquidate some of the securities MOF holds. These are liquid assets. But there are problems. S$25b is a massive sum. It is not easy to move them within a small window time frame without the market catching wind of it. These securities assets are also funds set aside for other intended purposes. c). Round robin trip part of the proceeds of the RGMS (reserves management government securities). These are foreign currencies so the funds are not at government's account with MAS but at various foreign agency banks. MOF sells foreign currency back to MAS for SGD which is credited to government’s SGD account with the central bank. MAS creates SGD25b to pay into the government's account. This is inflationary, but not if the funds are immediately used to credit Capital Account. But there are problems. First, the round robin tripping of RMGS proceeds is likely in contravention of the RMGS Act. Second, the RMGS were issued in 2022 Q1 – USD75b, Q2 – USD97.6b, Q3 – USD62.9b and Q4 – USD2.9b. All of these USD237.6b would have already been transferred to GIC. There was no RMGS issuance in 2023 Q1. However way the funds were put into the government's SGD account with MAS, it would not have appeared in any of the Spending Bills. That being so, the President has no way of knowing if past reserves have been utilised. Other than from past reserves, it's a head scratcher where the SGD25b could have come from. Singaporeans are better served if issues such as this are raised and clarified in Parliament, rather than on soap operas like Ridoutgate, unless of course one is meant to serve as distraction for the other.   Patrick Low * Article first appeared on Down The Rabbit Hole.      Read More →

Having actively participated in the presidential election of 2011, my experience left me disheartened. Despite investing a significant amount of personal funds, exceeding $100,000, and enduring a grueling campaign that spanned several weeks, I received less than 5% of the votes and lost my $50,000 deposit. This outcome was a profound personal disappointment. The aftermath of the election proved to be equally challenging. I was unjustly blamed by some for splitting the votes and allegedly causing the defeat of their favored candidate, Tan CB, by a slim margin. Such baseless and malicious accusations implied that the presidency was somehow owed to Tan CB, undermining the essence of fair competition. For the upcoming presidential election, I have already retired from my full-time office by more than 16 years, surpassing the qualifying period of 15 years that was in place during the 2011 election. Hence, I would be ineligible. However, I recently learned that the qualifying period has been extended to 20 years, which made me eligible. I am puzzled as to why the government made this change. It occurred to me that the other two losing candidates from the 2011 election, Tan CB and Tan JS, might also qualify under the current rules. I thought that they would stand a better chance, since they garnered more votes than I did previously. However, I later discovered that these two candidates would not meet the current requirement of having run an organization with shareholder's equity of $500 million, an increase from the $100 million requirement in 2011. Consequently, I am the only candidate among the three who remains eligible under the revised criteria. Despite my eligibility, I find myself uninterested in pursuing the presidency. I am now 75 years old, and my family members strongly object to my involvement due to the traumatic experiences they endured during the previous election, including ridicule from certain individuals who knew them. I was happy to learn that George Goh has expressed interest and enthusiasm in participating as an independent candidate, offering a refreshing alternative to the ruling party. He has assembled an impressive team and devised a compelling campaign strategy. Unfortunately, some friends have informed me that George Goh does not meet the candidacy requirements and is unlikely to be approved. Under these circumstances, my friends have urged me to enter the race in order to prevent a walkover. They perceived that it is a "duty" for me to participate, given my eligibility. If I were to accept this duty, would there be a reciprical duty for those who wish to see an independent president to come forward and actively support my candidacy? One suggestion proposed that I submit my application for eligibility and, in the event that George Goh's candidacy is approved as well, I could withdraw my application to avoid splitting the votes. This course of action would be seen as a noble gesture made in the interest of the people. However, if George Goh's candidacy was rejected, I might have to stand against the candidate supported by the ruling party and would face significant disadvantages. Without the backing of a political party, I would struggle to effectively reach out to the people and communicate my message. What should I do? As the days unfold, I hope for some form of enlightenment that may provide clarity and guidance regarding my potential involvement in the upcoming election.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →