Skip to main content

Butterfly or Frog: GIC return in US$?

If you are buying shares of a local listed company, e.g. DBS or SIA, do you expect to receive dividend or performance forecast in US$? So, why are you receiving GIC financial information in US$?     
SIA, DBS, CapitaLand, Sembcorp, Hyflux, and other listed companies have investments and income from overseas.  Do you accept their annual reports in US$?  And they give you dividends in US$.  The answer is No.

Local investors will be very confused if Singapore companies give their sales forecast and business performance in non-Singapore dollars.  It is like a Singapore investor buying USA or European shares or bonds without considering the foreign exchange risks. Or, maybe the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore is doing the same and so we have the following news: 
[GIC reports use nominal return in US dollars to avoid confusion: Josephine Teo]http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/gic-reports-use-nominal-return-us-dollars-avoid-confusion-josephine-te
Reporting GIC performance in US$ is what kind of behaviour? - Butterfly or Frog#1. To the PAP government, it is a butterfly so that they can show you our reserve in US$ - an international currency flying here and there all over the world. And to the stakeholders or the general public, the PAP is treating them like a frog. Frog lives in a well and knows nothing about the outside world.

So, the PAP pretends to present a GIC butterfly to the public and assume the public are frogs and they don’t know about the operations of international finance. 

Coincidently, the citizens also think the PAP is behaving like a beautiful butterfly but they are not frogs as they want to find out the true colour of the butterfly. The PAP tries very hard to present a US$ butterfly.  However, we want to see the butterfly in S$.  Is this so difficult? Yes, according to a PAP MOS: [Minister of State for Finance Josephine Teo explained that the GIC stopped publishing its nominal returns expressed in Singapore dollars three years ago, to avoid confusion when comparisons are made with other fund managers or global indices.]

The PAP is afraid of confusions or comparisons. Our GIC in US$ is a confusion to Singaporeans. We don’t even know our reserve performance in our own currency!  This is really uniquely Singapore. Perhaps, in US$, the GIC butterfly shows its beautiful side and in S$ it is another colour- a colour that the PAP government finds it hard to present. Why do comparisons bring confusion when the PAP government has all the fact to present?

Perhaps, our butterfly when compares with other international fund managers or sovereign wealth funds is just a little red dot – not that colourful and beautiful.

According to Professor Kishore Mahbubani, happy butterfly seems to be objective and unhappy frog tends to be subjective. #1 
   
However, the GIC presentation in US$ is really not objective at all.   It is confusion and is afraid of international comparisons. No wonder, the PAP has to think negatively about Singaporeans and assume citizens are frogs – thinking subjectively and always unhappy about the presentation of our reserve.

Think about it if you are investors, employees or civil servants, you will only get to know the company performance in US$ (and paid in US$), not in S$, do you want to invest or work for this company?

If we accept this type of argument (return in US$), then we are really the boiling frogs or well frogs.  Boiling frogs mean we don’t know our reserve performance at all and its risk level without check and balance.  Well frogs mean we don’t care about the reserve and let the PAP decide without transparency and accountability.     

This argument may also lead to future reporting in other currency, e.g. euro, Chinese Yuan.  Since the PAP assumes we agree with the US$ reporting, they may even come out with multi-currency reporting depending on which butterfly is most suitable and presentable.


#1
[Singaporean society could either emerge as a happy butterfly, flitting around in a garden city, or it could emerge as a lonely frog, croaking away unhappily in a little well.

Objectively, the odds should favour a happy outcome. Subjectively, we seem to be headed for an unhappy outcome.]
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/singapore-butterfly-or-frog-20130309

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...