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
世界上大概没有一家银行面对“挤兑”而没有风险！因此，让银行倒闭的最大“软肋” -- 首先应该就是“挤兑”。
ReplyDelete而一般来说，“挤兑”的情况总是发生在“小市民” -- 也即是“小额存款” -- 因此，对于新加坡的私人银行来说，只要跟着市场走势，存有充足的“现金” -- 那么会发生“挤兑”的风险是很微小的。而造成硅谷银行“挤兑”的罪魁祸首，却是来自于美国的国家政策，导致了银行利息和债券利息的差异影响了“大客户”纷纷转向 -- 放弃了现有的债券转投私人银行赚取更多利息的原因。
新加坡并没有这样的风险 -- 其实更有风险的就是公积金局 -- 幸运的是公积金存款就是“牛” -- 因为就算是0利率也不可能发生“挤兑”的现象 -- 也就是说公积金局完全没有倒闭的风险。
当然，如果事情会有严重后果的话 -- 那就是执政党的国会议席因此变少了 -- 甚至导致政权更替。
可惜的是，