11 Letters

Received some mails (see bottom) talking about things relating to September 11 that were made up of 11 letters. So I decided to join in with this writing: 11 verses, each line with 11 letters:


11 Letters Mail

1. WTC bombings
Or 11 September.
Osama terror?
Where's proof?
US didn't show.
But all's sure.
Or are scared
(see Pakistan).

2. Why US picked?
And not other?
As an example,
your country
Switzerland?
US deserve it?
US arrogance?
Or was it just
blind terror?
Islam's abuse?

3. So who's right?
Islamic nuts
and Talebans?
Bush's Junior
and Israelis?

4. But who Cares?
Anyhow whack.
Retaliation.
Then crusade.
Then another
eye for an eye.
Afghanistan,
many will die.

5. Osama speaks:
Planes storm
keeps on till
Israel is out
of Palestine.

6. America says:
Rocket storm
will not stop.
No mid ground.
You're either
with us or not.

7. Now the US get
anthrax mail.
Osama repeat?
Al Qaeda guys
so fantastic?
Resourceful?
Or is that all?

8. Say my friend:
Everything's
in God's Hands.
All's so grand.

9. Ask my friend:
How shall the
insanity end?
Perhaps till
all lives' end?

10. So do nothing?
As we pretend,
everything's
In God's Hands?

11. But I wouldn't
let's pretend.
Me & my friends,
a Gandhi said
we are a part
of the change
we wish to see.

Just 11 letters.....


At 14:55 17-10-2001 +0800, you wrote:

Shoot, I should have known it too.
The "US Arrogance" I was talking about has 11 letters!
The biggest example of that arrogance and a root cause of the bombing :
"Palestinian" also has 11 letters!
"So I was right" has 11 letters too......


(Below mail about number 11 appearing in things related to Sept 11 incident, and response from a person by name of Dave)

EE LIN KHOO
10/17/2001 03:13 PM
Subject: eleven letters!

Best Regards
Khoo Ee Lin
DID : (65) 882-1246
Fax : (65) 882-1762
168 Robinson Road #15-00 Capital Tower Singapore 068912
Email : eelin.khoo@jpmorgan.com

This is funny!! (read all the way to the bottom :)
I don't know who David is, but his response is hilarious!!!

Original letter:
The date of the attack: 9/11 - 9 + 1 + 1 = 11
September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11
After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year.
119 is the area code to Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11
Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11
The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11

More.......
State of New York - The 11th State added to the Union
New York City - 11 Letters
Afghanistan - 11 Letters
The Pentagon - 11 Letters
Ramzi Yousef - 11 Letters (convicted or orchestrating the attack on the WTC in 1993)
Flight 11 - 92 on board - 9 + 2 = 11
Flight 77 - 65 on board - 6 + 5 = 11

(Dave's response)
Oh my God! How worried should I be?
There are 11 letters in the name "David Pawson!"
I'm going into hiding NOW. See you in a few weeks.

Wait a sec ... just realized "YOU CAN'T HIDE" also has 11 letters!
What am I gonna do? Help me!!! The terrorists are after me! ME! I can't believe it!

Oh crap, there must be someplace on the planet Earth I could hide!
But no .. PLANET EARTH" has 11 letters, too!

Maybe Nostradamus can help me. But dare I trust him? There are 11 letters in "NOSTRADAMUS."

I know, the Red Cross can help. No they can't... 11 letters in "THE RED CROSS," can't trust them.

I would rely on self-defense, but "SELF-DEFENSE" has 11 letters in it, too!

Can someone help? Anyone? If so, send me email. No, don't... "SEND ME EMAIL" has 11 letters....

Will this never end? I'm going insane! "GOING INSANE???" Eleven letters!!

Nooooooooooo!!!!!! I guess I'll die alone, even though
"I'LL DIE ALONE" has 11 letters.....

Oh my God, I just realized that America is doomed!
Our Independence Day is July 4th ... 7/4 ... 7+4=11!

~Dave
PS. "IT'S BULLSHIT" has 11 letters also.

Why the Chicken Crossed the Road on Sept 11

Saw a chain mail on 'Why the Chicken Crossed the Road' (see bottom) and decided to contribute a new one with September 11 as backdrop.


Forget about those old chicken stories. We have new chickens on the loose and can start a new set......

BUSH JR.
It's war. No, it's crusade. No, no, I meant it's war against terrorism (sorry papa, I screwed up). They're either with civilisation or they are with terrorism. So they had to cross the road. I call it infinite justice. No, I call it enduring freedom (shit, again!)

BLAIR
We were with them from the beginning and we will cross the road to be with them till the end.

OSAMA
They're either with Islam or they are with arrogance/hegemony. So they crossed. And the storm of chickens shall continue till those other chickens are out of Palestine.

PLO
We do not want to give any chicken any reason for anything....
(PLO tried to stay clear of the whole incident to avoid being linked to/as 'terrorists')

RUSSIA
Those chickens can use my side of the road to launch attacks on chickens on the other side as long as they let my chickens whack other chickens on my side of the road...
(US used to criticise Russian actions against Chechen muslim separatists. Now Russia wants US to support their Chechen actions if the Americans want Russian support in return)

CHINA
We have chickens too and those chickens should not cross anymore roads to whack other chickens.
(China pleaded for restrain, to no avail)

INDIA
We also have chickens on our side of the road and those chickens should help us whack our chickens too.
(India used opportunity to get US support against Kashmiri muslim separatists)

SAUDI
We are not letting any chicken use our coops to fly over any road to get to any chicken on the other side. We think the world should review its road system.
(When they realised the Americans intended to use Sept 11 as excuse to attack Iraq, the Saudis said they will not allow the US to use their bases in Saudi for that purpose)

NATO
We hereby invoke Article 5 of our alliance whereby an attack against one chicken is considered an attack on all chickens.

ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS
Any road that crosses any chicken's path is a crossing to all chickens and shall be considered a Holy Crossing. Then it is the sacred duty of all chickens from all over the world to cross it. (you see any difference between this chicken speak and NATO's chicken talk?)

UN & SINGAPORE
According to the UN Charter and UN Resolution 2468 every chicken have a right to self-defence. So they have a right to cross the road to whack chickens on the other side. What about UN Charter and UN Resolution 1357 on self-determination & sovereignty? They don't apply to some types of chickens.

MUSHARAF
We tried our best to convince those chickens not to cross the road but they did not listen. Now they deserve whatever happens on the other side of the road. For me, I am just chicken all the way.
(Pakistan which supported the Talebans claimed that they tried to convince them not to go against the Americans)

SADDAM HUSSEIN
The mother of all bad chickens had just been whacked by some good chickens that crossed the road, and will soon cross all roads to roast innocent chickens like us. We should come together to build the mother of all roads to stop it from crossing....
(Soon after Sept 11 the US tried to 'link' Iraq in various ways to Osama, and later used those lies as excuses to invade Iraq)

HOWARD
Those chickens whacking chickens shows how dangerous a world we live in. What Australia need is an experienced chicken that knows what to do. That's why we stopped that shipload of chickens from coming in.
Elect me and I make sure no chickens cross over to Australia.
(Australian election took place soon after Sept 11, and after Australia turned away a ship load of refugees from Middle East or Afghanistan)

INDONESIA
It is the chicken's right to cross the road. That's because they think those chickens on the other side whacked their fellow chickens. They have made it known to us that they are only going after those chickens that did it and not all chickens. So we are not taking sides.
(Indonesia was trying to explain why Sept 11 happened)

MALAYSIA
We are not aware of any of our chickens crossing that road. If they have proof that our chickens were involved, they can let us know. We will conduct our own investigations and take the necessary actions.
We have always been tough on chickens crossing roads.
(There were reports saying that some Malaysians have links with perpetrators of Sept 11)



(Original mail received)

To: kianwing.sam@cypress.com.sg, cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com, lim_christopher@jpmorgan.com, James_Chong@yahoo.com
Subject: FW: Why the chicken crossed the road....what they all said

Question - Why did the chicken cross the road?

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER:
To get to the other side.

ARISTOTLE:
It is the nature of chickens to cross roads.

RONALD REAGAN:
I forget.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN CONSULTANT:
Deregulation of the chicken's side of the road was threatening its dominant market position. The chicken was faced with significant challenges to create and develop the competencies required for the newly competitive market. Andersen, in a partnering relationship with the client, helped the chicken by rethinking its physical distribution strategy and implementation processes. Using the Poultry Integration Model (PIM), Andersen helped the chicken use its skills, methodologies, knowledge, capital and experiences to align the chicken people, processes and technology in support of its overall strategy within a Program Management framework.

RICHARD M. NIXON:
The chicken did not cross the road. I repeat, the chicken did NOT cross the road.

JERRY SEINFELD:
Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn't anyone ever think to ask, "What the heck was this chicken doing walking around all over the place, anyway?"

BILL GATES:
I have just released the new Chicken Office 2000, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook.

MAHATHIR:
You know, I am tired of all this..'apa-nama' chicken-chicken bisnes....the foreign powers should stop intervening in our domestic affairs and just leave our chickens alone..... if they want to...'apa nama' cross the road, they should be allowed to cross the road .. Malaysia is a democratic country, we let our chickens do whatever they want to do.... as long as they don't threaten the Malay unity and try to topple the government...and if they plan to do so...we won't hesitate to use the ISA...

ABDULLAH BADAWI:
Ini semua adalah khabar angin sahaja...jangan percaya khabar - khabar angin ini semua...biasalah ini adalah taktik pembangkang untuk memecah belahkan perpaduan ayam - ayam semua...jangan percaya..jangan percaya....

SAMY VELLU :
ayyooyoo...belakang cerita lain kali, kalu itu ayam mau pigi jalan-jalan,beritau sama saya juga, saya bolley buat lebbey banyak toll........

COLONEL SANDERS:
I missed one?

BILL CLINTON :
I've had so many chicks, I can't remember...

Much Ado About Churchill

A few days after Sept 11, I saw the following quote in JP Morgan's 'Technology Industry Daily', and suspect someone was trying to make a point on how America should respond to the attack. So I wrote back to the 'editor'. Resulting exchange follows....

Hi Arthur,

It is scary to think what happens when people do take recommendations like your 'quote of the day' to heart. Did it occur to you to ask who did or will follow that maxim? Last week's event looked like a tremendous whack by any measure. Unless you believe only Americans and British can do that. So please don't encourage extremism to anybody. The world need sense and moderation more than Rambo-like behaviours.....

Quote for the day
"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time--a tremendous whack."
- Winston Churchill



From: Arthur Iger on 09/21/2001 07:47 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

The quote was meant by Churchill as a guide to public speakers, not as a recommendation for how to pursue a war.

I think that Bush did a good job in his speech of laying out American war aims -- these included taking on only terrorists and the governments that harbor them. I believe that they didn't include massive reflexive bombing as in Vietnam, or symbolic scuds or knocking down pharmaceutical plants as in the Clinton administration. In WWII there was a demonization of the Japanese and German people. One of the great things about America now is that it is multi-ethnic, and they vote, so there isn't really a group that can be scapegoated.

Most other enemies that we've fought have been after stuff. With the communists, it was about the struggle for which system can provide the fastest route to economic development and the fairest distribution of the goods created. In WWII, it was largely about territory and markets. This time, the fight's about cultural values. The terrorists want to get rid of market economies and go back to rule by the priest class. They don't want additional territory and they don't want additional goods and they don't want to take material goods away from their subjects. They're very reactionary. I'm not sure that there's a middle road to dealing with a group that has no demands.

art


To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Churchill's greatest speeches as his use for Britain came only after the war had started. He had another quote along the same line when the US entered WWII : "Germany's fate is sealed. Italy's fate is sealed. Japan will be thrashed. The rest will just be subdued by the use of overwhelming force". Churchill did not make such statements as guide to public speakers. Many such Churchillians still exist in your part of the world and they play their hands as do others in the current war/crusade/infinite justice/revenge/retaliation (from Bush's repertoire). Ignorance applied/assumed is as dangerous as arrogance.

Interesting summary of the values involved in the carnage last week. And what power wielders want (money, markets, territory and influence) although some can be satisfied with less (only influence). So I would agree with it to some extent. Especially if we don't bother to understand why the terrorists got to believe what they believe in in the first place. Why the US and not say Finland, Belgium, Germany or Japan. Or the contributions of especially the US and Britain to the state of affairs in the Islamic world centred in the Middle East (remember also oil?). Or that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have many similarities (so the 2 sides are not that different compared to say Hinduism/Buddhism). Or that the US is a great democracy only within the US and only quite recently if we count the 'coloreds'. Democracy ceased to exist the moment governments run an empire (Robert Taft). I'm sure people will understand what their demands are if they really bother to listen or had democracy in mind e.g. Palestine. But that's more complicated or less palatable for many to discuss/imagine.

There is always a middle ground as long as people are willing to accomodate each other - live and let live, and face up to the truths. But then that's not consistent with a superpower's image of itself.

Rgds
CCK


To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

My comments in italics below.

From: Arthur Iger on 09/24/2001 09:33 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Chee-Khiaw,
Whatever the issues, I think that blowing up innocent civilians isn't the route to resolving them. Anticipating your response, I would agree that the U.S's frequent use of its overwhelming military power against civilian targets isn't a model for how to resolve conflicts.

[CCK: Agree but when will people, especially the very arrogant ones not on the less fortunate end, hear the things I talk about below if it is only words?]

One of your other points, the need for a middle ground. I'm not sure that there's a middle ground acceptable to both parties. There's a fundamental conflict of values. I also wonder if the Saudi arabs who seem to be leading this terrorist gang really represent the wishes of the Arab or Afghan people. So a middle ground with out-of-the-box extremists isn't what the US should be seeking. It's hard to say what most people want in these middle eastern countries because none of them are run by a representative democracy.

[CCK: You are right that the few that did this is probably in the minority. Like you said, you will never how wide support for those bombers really is (not for their method but their underlying sentiments). Especially so, when Bush goes round dictating how the world should react ('you are either with us or you are with the other side' as if the world is in such easy black and white). The only reason why the US gets its way and ended up convinced that the world is as simple as that is because it got used to threatening others in many ways.

And the question is why they do it. Why not earlier. Why not someone else. There are structural problems in the current world system that many rich people led by the Americans do not think has any fault because they have head start and advantages (including wealth from the colonial days that ended only 50 years ago - a short time in human history). There are people elsewhere not as extreme as those bombers who think otherwise. It is more than values. It has also to do with basic needs, respect and self-esteem of many less fortunate people/countries. The arrogant conduct of your country and disregard of what others think/feel/need should be looked at. It also has still to convince everyone that Osama is the and only guy involved. Getting the real perpetrators is acceptable but not to ignore the underlying causes for that carnage including why the US government was caught totally off guard. The latter are not of focus to the general American public because of how the US government had managed it e.g. declaring 'war', 'crusade' etc. Americans are not as 'free' as they think.]

One of the interesting aspects of this conflict is that the US is totally unprepared for this fight. Its military and intelligence services are designed to fight a WWII style army. Missions have been added, not taken away. Using stealth fighters and smart bombs against tents and caves in the desert isn't going to "get" the enemy. The Bush administration shows no willingness to think beyond adding missions. In the end, unless force structures are seriously rethought, the cost for this fight will be unnecessarily overwhelming.

[CCK: The US is unprepared because it thought it can get away with its ways and no one will dare mess with it. It is fear not truth that's behind some of the acquiescence and respect for the US. Some countries could probably have warned the US but did not. How can we all know for sure they didn't know?]

Civilian structures are designed for efficiency and not control. It will be interesting to see if the US can remake itself in the face of this new threat and still remain a free and vibrant society and economy.

[CCK: Power, influence, bullying, efficiency and state of the economy are not God chosen measures of greatness or truths. If you can find them in the Bible let me know. Compassion, caring, sharing and living together are in all religions. Not only within man-made borders but wider. No God I know of talk about creating borders or flags. But many free people are not free enough to think of things that way.]

art


From: Arthur Iger on 09/25/2001 08:28 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Chee-Khiaw,

I think that countries act rationally in their self-interest. After WWII, the U.S. was afraid of both another depression and of Communism. So it helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan -- not for altruistic reasons, but because it realized that the collapse of trade after WWI led to WWII. The US approach to open access to its markets has led to the incredible prosperity that many countries now enjoy. The ideological fight with the communists also led to open markets -- which allowed developing countries to join with the US in the benefits of prosperity.

Capitalism helps create prosperity, but it also changes the power structure within a society. Traditional feudal and theocratic classes lose power to commercial classes. This change is very threatening to traditional societies and their power structures. The challenge for many countries is to adapt capitalism in ways that maintain their unique cultural identity.

In the US, many people believe that capitalism is inextricably linked to individualism and freedom of speech. Many emerging countries don't agree and want to maintain tighter control. Whether it's due to a self serving desire by the ruling party to maintain control of the levers of power , or a genuine nationalism, depends on your perspective. In my view, in the long run, governments always govern with the consent of the governed.

As to US bullying, most countries have a vested interest in continuing the current system that has brought them much prosperity. That's why they go along with the US. There's an old expression, "When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold." No government that wants to stay in power will risk their country catching a cold.

art


To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Arthur,

We are getting much closer to the underlying problems but again we are less than honest with ourselves.

WWI and WWII were fights for more resources (including oil, thus current middle east) and markets/territories where the likes of Britain/France had more of versus the likes of Germany and Japan. The US and Russia did not have that problem and refused to join in for some time (until attacked). If they thought that their trade were restricted the US or Russia would have been the ones initiating war. The other reason for WWII was the punitive war reparations applied on the Germans after WWI. US and Britain decided after WWII that it is better to share the world with those countries than Russia and because they realised that Germany and Japan are not countries they can afford to humiliate for long without pushing them to 'the other side'. Other smaller ones are different matter (according to the likes of Churchill).

Free trade was never a problem for the world. In fact, the world is less free now than a 100, 200 or 1,000 years ago. Then most people could go to most parts of the world to live or work without 'permits' or 'green cards'. A look at the history of the US would show that. Although as we all know, that US 'freedom' also came with quite a bit of slaughtering and slavery of others (that's also not new).

You are right that self interest is the underlying problem (not easy even for the ones enjoying it to say that). That's selfishness not selflessness. That's another way of saying that one has less consideration for others. Another aspect of arrogance. Hardly a virtue in any culture or religion. And if that is the case, one can assume that one should expect some reaction at some point in time if one pushes too far. It is rational. Custer's Last Stand (or rather his Last Attempt at Humiliating Others Somemore), WWII, MacArthur's Korea and now WTC in their own ways are just a few examples.

Rgds
CCK

p.s. Capitalism has a long existence (well before the US discovered it). You may perhaps be thinking about the 'capitalism' of those counter-arguing with the likes of Marx. That's an awfully short history! Freedom (from colonialism, slavery, feudalism etc.), equality and science/technology not capitalism perhaps have greater contribution to the prosperity we see the last 100 years. Again, that should be manifest in US history alone.


From: Arthur Iger on 09/27/2001 09:46 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Chee-Khiaw,

The concepts of arrogance/humility that you refer to exist in the west, but my guess is that they are more important and meaningful in eastern cultures. Harmony is another value that I believe is more important in eastern cultures.
art

To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Arthur,

All the concepts that I refer to exist everywhere on Earth. Easterners are no different from westerners if we take away the prejudices, arrogance, selfishness & greed. The whites of many western cultures generally live in great harmony with each other. I assume that is important or meaningful for them. Though it may not be so great if we include other 'colours'. I suspect they don't think the latter is important or meaningful.

That is not to say that those behaviours do not exist in the East either. I saw those behaviors when Singapore was starting out as a poor nation and saw it grow as Singapore got richer by the year. That's partly how I arrive at my views. I thought the Asian Financial Crisis was good for Singapore. It brings them back down to Earth. But then I also saw the Americans celebrating their 'irrational exuberance' and 'free market system'.

Many countries West and East, North and South (poor as they may be) take great care to look after all their people of all races. Spain/Portugal could have been like Britain. They ruled the high seas before the Brits got out of the Channel. But they have much better acceptance of blacks in their life and were the first European countries to have black soccer players. They may not be the richest but you will find greater harmony and less killings there. The bombers did not miss them out by accident.

Some of the greatest killings/dyings in this world were results of poverty and lack of basic education - things taken for granted by many among us the 'fortunate'. Some of us takes things too far when we behave arrogantly towards these 'less fortunate'/'able' people (quotes used because they involved some prejudices). These are great challenges being faced by the world outside the rich countries that WTO or 'globalisation' does not address. We lie to ourselves sometimes. For e.g. that 'capitalism' or 'prayers' will somehow make the world better. But how does a family of 5 or 6 living on less than US$20 a month has the capital or blessing to do anything? Not to say to get an ROE of >15% demanded by 'investors' (later quotes used because something else is hiding behind those terms). That is the income of more than half the people in this world. Unless you don't live in the same world as me. Or you don't care.

Arrogance appears when one focus and succeeds in one's greed to gather greater wealth/power/etc. especially if at the expense of others. It usually makes people feel good to be ahead of others materially.

Humility and harmony will come if we bother to be aware and care about the problems of the others esp the 'less fortunate'/'able'. No matter what colour (as long as one is less tinted by it) or part of the world you come from. Try either of the above on your kids or grandchildren and see for yourself.

I don't make money from all my views/comments. No great ROE to show at yearend. Just trying to do my little part in creating some awareness, and more humility/harmony. All of us should/can. Definitely should not do otherwise. And we don't have to learn from Churchill. The world had seen more enlightened and better teachers.

Rgds
CCK

From: Arthur Iger on 09/28/2001 10:10 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
cc:
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Chee-Khiaw,
I think that we are different, to a degree. Somewhere I read that there are studies of brain development that are linked to language and culture.

I wish that I could find the reference. I recall it as a legitimate source, though that might not be the case and I may be mis-remembering what I read. Nonetheless, it seems intuitively correct. Just as the brain of a person who is born blind or deaf, for example, develops heightened awareness with his/her other senses, a brain nourished by a certain language or culture will grow in different ways. Brains grow in response to stimuli in the environment. Is it a major factor? I don't know.

But I use the point to justify the point about people being different. Americans, generally, will be disgusted by the thought of eating an insect, but other cultures see them as treats.
art


To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Arthur,

Would be interested in how you conclude that your source is 'legitimate'. And not view it as a possible attempt at justifying some arrogance. Like claiming 'supremacy' of humans versus other organisms by taking brain size into consideration (even then only certain parts of the head).

Like you said, one's senses can get heightened when one uses them i.e. they grow if used. Otherwise if not. They were not born with predetermined developmental paths. Like you said, one's mind grow with stimuli. So, did Americans stimulate their minds by putting themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Africans, Vietnamese, Koreans or Afghans? In the shoes of the poorest of the world instead of brandishing their wealth and power, or exhorting the virtues of their 'capitalism' and 'free market'?

Language and culture can probably determine to a certain extent one's thinking process and prejudices/etc.

Environments (including governments, media, religious authorities etc.) probably also determine one's behaviour & outlook. When practiced in extreme or with subtlety they can in fact manipulate esp. those less aware. Those terrorists are probable examples, so are all of us.

So may ignorance play a part (e.g. the Sikh American killed because he 'looked Afghan'). I bet half of Americans do not know what 'Sikh' is before that. What a display of great freedom in that case - ignorance and arrogance taken freely!

You may think genes also play a part. Who knows for sure? Hitler thought so. America disagreed then.

Before Jesse Owens, many might think that only whites run fast. Mostly they and the Japanese took part in the Olympics! The latter would at best be a wonder for the ignorant, and because of great cultures for the arrogant. The truth?

Before Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh only whites win golf tournaments. Genes? Neither Africans, Indians nor Thais used to win golf tournaments - so genes cannot be the reason. The more likely truth is that before that the likes of Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh were likely to be cleaning someone else's barns just to survive.

Many relatives of your forefathers would probably be horrified with eating the first turkeys the Indians brought along. I hope you look at your Thanksgiving Day the way I do - an appreciation of the goodwill shown by the native and non-native people that partook in those first celebrations, not your God that those natives did not believe in (as many Thanksgiving Day proclamations have it).

Many people will not put the above that way to their children. Americans included for I find no 'legitimate' reason why they should not. They are just a few examples of how those in power and arrogance hijacks and corrupts the truth.

It takes awareness of all the above, some fair history and the desire to understand others' situations (putting one in someone else's shoe in your language) to get a balanced view of this world. Formulating an internal comprehension of how things really work and not what others tell us how they work. That means to discover the world bigger than one's own - another way of saying not to be selfish/arrogant. Read not what you are told or what your neighbour says. Discover what you are not told or your neighbor doesn't know. There are a lot of truths hidden from people both subtlely and otherwise. And not many want to or can break out of that unreal world. The flat world before Copernicus is a good example. The 'free market and capitalism are answers to everything' when the world is not truly free is another.

Which is why one should not have those behaviors I mentioned.
Which is why one should get to know as many languages and cultures as possible, and not read them from a narrow set of sources. So what did the Chinese, Iraqis, Belgians, Icelanders or Indonesians said about lessons from WTC? They are too irrelevant for Americans to bother about?

With awareness and the desire to really understand our world, I am certain you will arrive at similar views. Hopefully it also brings humility, moderation and compassion. Not just because it makes one feel good. But because one will then see the terrible results of doing otherwise.

Rgds
CCK


To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Arthur, My comments in italics. Rgds CCK

From: Arthur Iger on 10/01/2001 06:35 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution

Chee-Khiaw,
My Thanksgiving holiday thoughts generally go to being thankful that America took in my parents and my sister when they were on the run from the Nazis. (I know that a lot of others didn't get in and died in the death camps as a result).
[CCK: Many people died in Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and elsewhere too. Many millions of them remain poor and homeless today. They will probably die that way without us talking about them. I sympathise with them all. I also sometimes wonder why Jews seem to be enmeshed in the most extreme of situations: doing really well in certain environments like capitalism where greed plays such a key role, and the worst of modern conflicts where hatred/arrogance are so prominent. Perhaps they are all accidents or someone did not 'work' hard enough.]

I'm thankful for the richness of the land, its openness to immigrants, and its ability to reward those who are willing to work hard. (I'm also aware that there's a lot more work to be done.).
[CCK: If that's the case, why do the likes of Woods, Jordan, Powell or Rice appear only 200 years after the creation of the US? It is and was not as simple as that.]

Anyone can leave America who thinks that they can get a better deal somewhere else. (So far, more people want in than want out.)
[CCK: That's a very arrogant way of saying things considering my questions above. That sounds like the beginning of all the exoduses familiar to your forefathers. And you seem to think you can decide things for America! That may perhaps be the case but I don't think many in free America are aware of it.]

I am sorry that America is seen as arrogant in many quarters. America is a great power and, whatever the reality, that's how great powers are perceived.
[CCK: In many eyes Nazi Germany was a great power too. If sorry is all we end with, then we do great injustice to the many who died before us.]

Thanks for your thoughts,
art

2% or 98% Test

(My response to this mail at bottom)

Subject: Try this - 2% or 98%

It's FUN, try this ! Follow the instructions!
NO PEEKING AHEAD!
Free will or synaptic wiring? You be the judge.

Do the following exercise, follow these instructions, and answer the questions one at a time and as quickly as you can! Again, as quickly as you can but don't advance until you've done each of them. Now, arrow down (but not too fast, you might miss something).

Think of a number from 1 to 10

Multiply that number by 9

If the number is a 2-digit number, add the digits together

Now subtract 5

Determine which letter in the alphabet corresponds to the number you ended up with (example: 1=a, 2=b, 3=c, etc.)

Think of a country that starts with that letter

Remember the last letter in the name of that country

Think of the name of an animal that starts with that letter

Remember the last letter in the name of that animal

Think of the name of a fruit that starts with that letter

Are you thinking of a Kangaroo in Denmark eating an Orange?

If not, you're among the 2% of the population whose minds are different enough to think of something else. 98% of people will answer with kangaroos in Denmark when given this exercise. Freaky, huh?

Keep this message going. Forward it to people you know and see if they can see if they are usual or unusual.


(Below is my response to above)

To: lwee111@yahoo.com.sg
cc: family, friends
Subject: Re: Try this - 2% or 98%

Hi,

This is what maths and probability says:

100%: The maths part of this always ends with 4. Therefore starting letter is always D

100%: There is only 1 western country with name starting with D.
D for Denmark - everyone that reads English looks west! Unless you're African, Latin Am or has interest on the 'bigger world', you'd probably not know Djibouti & Dominica Rep existed (who cares?)

98%: Few animal names start with letter K (Kangaroo, Koala, Kancil).
But unless one has strong interest in nature or is SE Asian, one wld probably not think of Koala or Kancil. Anyway, most SE Asian that knows Kancil won't get to do this test (can't read English). The others are more happy to see a Kangaroo than a Kancil (wonder why).

98%: With Kangaroo, one can probably only end with Orange....
Everyone in Singapore buys orange because it is 'better' (to follow someone else's practice)! Apple, Avogado etc if you thought of Koala. Lemon, Lychee, Loquat, Langsat, Longan etc. if Kancil.

So if one ends with the 'standard' solution and is amazed by it, it's probably a celebration of/in ignorance and more. Great test to see what kind of friends you have without insulting them....

Rgds
CCK

Japanese Occupation Stories

Japanese at Taiping Reservoir (Sept 2001)

Was talking to my father night about arrogance of the US that resulted in the WTC bombing. Discussion shifted to WWII and the Battle of Britain. Father was interested in the V1 and V2 rockets that the Germans used in that battle since Germany was first to use such weapons. I agreed with him that the Germans were technologically very advanced. Told him about some Americans arrogantly using their Apollo space program as prove that their technology is better than others including Germans. When in fact many of the scientists that worked in the US space program were ex-German scientists that developed the V-bombs of WWII that were 'extricated' from Germany and sent to the US after WWII.

Then discussion went into why those powers fought WWI and WWII. And then to why Japan attacked and wanted to occupy China way before WWII started. Father then said that even before WWII started the British appeared a bit scared of the Japanese and cited the example of 4 Japanese businessmen that went fishing at the Taiping Reservoir before WWII. Apparently, no one was allowed to fish at the reservoir and the Sikh guards would chase any locals hanging around there. But when these 4 Japanese turn up to fish, the guards would just turn the other way and pretend not to see them.

I told father that it may not be fear for those Japanese. They were probably spies with backings from the Japanese government - similar to what I read about in Singapore before WWII. I suspect that the British could be aware of their presence and real intentions, and did not want to create a fuss unnecessarily. According to father some of the Japanese were owners of a dentistry and photo studio in the middle of Taiping town (near the clock tower) which also happens to be very near the town's police station and army barrack.


'Bakero' and the Slaps

During the Japanese occupation of Malaysia, the Japanese troops would station guards at every major road intersection. Every one that passes the instersection must alight from their bicycles (no cars as they would have been commandeered by the Japanese) and make a bow to the guards before proceeding on. This would have to be repeated at each intersection. Otherwise, they risk a thorough wallop.

In one incident, my father and a friend was cycling towards Chan Sow Lin Road in old KL. They had just made the mandatory bow at an intersection when they saw a guard sitting at another intersection nearby that never used to have guards. My father remembered suggesting to his friend that may be they should alight and make a bow. But his friend apparently thought there was no need to. The reason was they had just done one at the last intersection which was in full sight from this one (perhaps he thought the guard would have noticed them making the earlier bow and would not require a repeat so soon after). So, the 2 of them did not stop their bicycles.

Then they heard a loud 'bakero' (I understand it means something like 'bastard' in Japanese), and the Japanese guard furiously waving at them to go towards him. According to my dad, the guard caught my dad unaware and my dad got a good tight slap on the face. Having witnessed what happened to my dad, his friend tried to avoid the slap when it was his turn. Apparently, this made the Japanese guard more furious and he went on slapping this poor friend until he was satisfied. This friend of my dad apparently could not hear anything for a good while after that.


They Took Away My Uncle

According to my dad, I had an uncle who is my dad's second elder brother. This young man was taken away from his home one evening by Japanese troops and never returned. No one knew what happened to the poor young man. My father suspect he was taken away to do force labour or something.

After the war, Japan was never made to account for things like that. I finally got the reason when I found out a few years ago that as part of the surrender agreement which the British, Americans and the Chinese Kuomintang government signed, Japan was not required to account for any of its deeds during WWII! I was very surprised when I read that. Even Germany had to account and pay reparations.

I could accept that Britain and America wanted Japan on their side against red Russia, and Asians are not important to them, but I wondered how the Chinese Kuomintang government could have done that given that China suffered the most under Japan (with more than 10 million deaths). In fact, Japanese troops seem to pick on the Chinese wherever they went. That is one reason why I have no respect for the Kuomintang government. In fact, few in China then had which was one of the reasons they were overthrown soon after WWII.

World 101: The Price of Super Arrogance

Less than 24 hours ago, four commercial airliners taking off from various parts of the US were commandeered for a series of suicide attacks on 'major symbols of American power': the World Trade Centre and Federal Reserve Building in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The most severe of the attacks resulted in the collapse of both 110-storey high towers of the World Trade Centre resulting in untold loss of lives. The sad loss of innocent lives does not hide the fact that the missions were well coordinated and executed. The attacks happened within hours of each other early yesterday morning as office workers were going to work.

Taking a cold objective look at the news pictures of a plane flying straight into one of the WTC towers, one cannot but see an uncanny similarity with the precision bombing so proudly displayed in recent years by the US and its allies in Yugoslavia and the Middle East. In fact, the same cold objectivity and awareness of some recent histories had the Americans warning themselves that such a thing was waiting to happen. And despite President Bush's instruction to the FBI to conduct a 'full investigation' I am afraid that one important but very basic lesson will be missed: that there is a price to be paid for super arrogance.

For no country in modern times has been attacked as such. There is no reason to unless some people somewhere had been so insulted or humiliated as to be willing to sacrifice and take so many lives of non-combatants merely to register their displeasure at the conduct of a nation's government.

To understand what extreme arrogance we are talking about one need to imagine which nation in only the last few years would fit the following descriptions:

- One that condemns other countries for selling arms and providing military support to others while enjoying more than 40% market share of the more than $15 billion annual arms market;

- One with 5% of world population but contributing 30% of its pollutants that arrogantly walks out of environmental management meetings (Kyoto Protocol) because reducing the harm it makes does not serve its national interest;

- One that deems it a right for it to have spy planes flying within a couple of hundred miles of another's shores and thousand of miles from home while it deems the same action by others as hostile. And has the gall to demand immediate release of its aircrew without considering the fact that they were involved in a midair collision that took the life of one of the other's pilots, and landed in that country's soil in a clearly unfriendly act. And top it off with an insulting $34,000 compensation for all the troubles it created (a US spy plane emergency landed in China);

- One that claim that a potential 'yellow peril' competitor cannot be trusted at the same time as it unilaterally attempts to abrogate a series of nuclear arms treaties just when its older rival is at its lowest ebb, hoping to attempt a replay of an old cold war strategy of engaging the upcoming competitor in an impoverishing arms race it could ill afford;

- One that played a distinguish part in engineering a 'divide and manipulate' state of affairs in the Middle East by creating countries that did not exist before and supporting whichever that happen to serve its purposes while it lasts. Until one of them occupied a smaller oil rich neighbor. Then in the name of the free world, it undertook a mother of all wars to guarantee that the oil fields will remain well carved for easy manipulation;

- One that celebrated so much its thorough annihilation of its opposite in Iraq in a one sided mismatch that the nation made management gurus out of its generals. It still deem it its right to enforce an embargo against the other and to bomb selected sites at its sole discretion whenever it wishes (first Iraq war of 1990);

- One that so arrogantly displayed its military prowess for the world to see in those videos of precision bombings in Iraq and Yugoslavia only to brush off the bombing of the embassy of a third country friendly to one of the attacked nations as only a mistake. And one that it thought can be made up by a few million greenbacks;

- One when its people demonstrate in front of its guests do so in the virtuous names of justice, freedom and human rights but ascribed the same thing that happened after it bombed someone else's embassy to possible acts coordinated by the agrieved government (US planes bombed Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia by 'accident');

- One which obviously found it too shameful to exercise its veto rights on UN resolutions condemning an ally it supported financially and militarily for occupying the land of others but which arrogantly thinks that it is the only country eminently qualified to manage any 'final negotiated settlement' of the problem;

- One which tells the ally that took 600 Palestinian lives within a year (at an exchange rate of 4 for 1 of its own) to 'exercise restraint' but tells the other side to 'stop its suicide attacks' when 90% of the latter's dead were stone throwing demonstrators and not suicide bombers killed by the security forces of the first;

- One which claims to support the 'one country' principle of a large country while thinking it prudent not to be involved in influencing a peaceful integration but worthwhile making distinctly clear military sales and commitments to one side (Taiwan);

- One which supported a corrupt government when it suited its purposes during the cold war but only to have a global institution it has tremendous influence to dictate terms for assistance that was so well represented by the arms folded 'do as we say' arrogance of the IMF head a few years ago in Indonesia;

- One that arrogantly thinks it has the moral authority to preach human rights to others by hoping to force others in the UN to make annual declarations about its perceived lack of such in others. While only slightly more than a hundred years ago (only a short time in world history) its forefathers had almost wiped out entire peoples whose land they took by force and deceit;

- One whose seemingly virtuous declaration of independence was really only meant for an uncolored subset of its people up till recent times. Well manifested by the cases where it tried to make an espionage accusation stick to one of its own national, and where some that were suppose to 'protect and to serve' pumped half a dozen bullets into a man taking out his wallet in New York City but walked free because the victims were colored by their skins while the perpetrators were not;

- One whose vice president had the cowboy arrogance to accept another country's invitation to a regional head of country meeting (APEC) only to walk out of the welcoming dinner. But before publicly humiliating its Malaysian host in front of all its distinguished guests and with the whole world watching. All in the name of 'reformasi'.

Many perhaps understood something from Deng Xiaoping's reminder to the Chinese that for the sake of the long-term development of their country, they should be ready to accept some short-term humiliation. But more important was what he did not say which was implied by Zhou Enlai when he said that Americans have no sense of history. And although it may suit the Americans well to forget things quickly and to continue to ride rough-shod over others time and again, many other people of the world do not suffer from similar memory lapses. And they will remember insults and humiliation for a long time. Just waiting for the right moment for payback.

And unless the Americans practice what it preaches and that includes its own 'reformasi', it will continue to earn the scorn of many. Not a few of which will be glad to pay to make them pay for their super arrogance.

Additional Notes:
- US refused to sign the land mine treaty banning use of land mines
- US refused to submit its own citizens to the International Court of Justice but expects everyone else to
- The moment Bush Jr. was elected president the US insisted that South Korea should terminate discussions on possible peace and re-union with North Korea supposedly because North Korea 'cannot be trusted'. South Korean Kim Dae Jung travelled to Washington the first weeks of his election to 'convince' him that talking peace makes sense.

Jewish vs Singaporean Mothers' Questions: Malaysian Answer

In this year’s ‘Teachers Day Rally’ the Prime Minister of Singapore last week exhorted Singaporeans to change the way they approach education to encourage and develop greater creative thinking. To illustrate his opinion on why Singaporeans are less creative than others (which is not necessarily untrue), he compared Singaporean mothers to mothers in Israel this way: "In Israel, when a child goes home his mother would ask ‘How many questions did you ask today?’ In Singapore, the mother would ask ‘How many marks did you get for your test?’ ‘No prizes for guessing which child grow up to have more depth and breadth, and which one will suffer from tunnel vision and stress’" Of course we don’t believe all Singaporean mothers or Israeli mothers do what the PM said they do. He was generalising a bit. Although the Singaporean audience took a light-hearted laugh to that, I fear the comparison and perhaps more will stay in many less well-informed and analytic minds.

So lest they get the wrong idea and think that there is a genetic or cultural cause to the issue, the PM should have put it in its proper context. For example, he could have qualified his joke by telling Singaporean mothers not to seriously imagine that by asking their children the question he said Jewish mothers ask is a ‘sure fire’ way to develop their creativity. Or reminded them that in the course of history the Jewish people have had their fair share of achievements and catastrophes that no one can entirely dismiss as not attributable partly to their culture which includes what Jewish mothers teach their children. But more importantly, he should have stated that the problem of creativity and its inhibition by established institutions (i.e. not just parents and teachers but also those in power) is not a new one. It has been there for time immemorial and the Jews suffer from that as much as everyone else. Einstein who was a Jew summarised it pretty much by saying that ‘It is surprising how creativity can survive formal education’. Just to put things in perspective, I’ve not read anywhere that Einstein had attributed his well-known creativity to his Jewish origin or his mother asking him about the number of questions he asked in school. But he did either switch off or drop out entirely from school! Of course, by that small example I am not recommending that mothers hope the same happens to their children. But I do mean to say that governments and established institutions may be the greater cause of the problem - something not apparent to many present at or who read about the Teacher's Day rally.

PM Mahathir of Malaysia said essentially the same last weekend when he talked about how policy makers earlier and Islamic influence in school in recent years affected the educational outcome of an entire race so dear to him. His equivalent of PM Goh's 'mother question' parable was one about no one daring to question Islamic interpretations that resulted in schools requiring students to play footballin long pants. To be fair, he also recognised that established institutional influences were not the only cause - laziness and taking the easy way out were some others. His honesty at this late a juncture when his motive is questionable did not help but nevertheless instructive.

For those who know what Singaporeans and the Singapore government are like (a generalisation, of course) the real reason why creativity is an issue was not really because they see the value of creativity and independent thought for its own sake. Though to be fair, some do see it that way. Like the Singapore PM alluded, the more important reason was to make Singaporeans more entrepreneurial (better term for making more money) in this environment of increasing competition so as to ensure Singapore’s survival in a more globalised world. Creativity and independent thought are just the means to get to that, hopefully. Therein may lie Singapore’s real problem but that is not said or worse may not be admitted. For the overriding desire to make money has never been a problem to them. Making less or not enough is. For those familiar with the topic of making money, it is perhaps not unfair to again generalise that that is also where the Jews excel. That attribute besides others is also the reason for some of their historical troubles but that is a separate topic. Perhaps, that was not a coincidence. For the PM must surely have a greater power of observation than to only notice Jewish mothers’ one question on their children’s schooling!

So why did the Singapore PM chose to use the above comparison? Instead of saying for example, that Sim Wong Hoo’s mother probably never asked him ‘how many marks he scored’ daily. He could have easily checked with Sim Wong Hoo if that was the case. Perhaps he has a basis for that. Perhaps as a race, the Jews are indeed more creative. For there can be many examples of that. The likes of Einstein and Feynman were some of that. And Goldman, Morgan and Salomon are good money making examples.

But one probably cannot but admire the Jews for their ultimate of all creations. Were they not the ones that came up with the nice notion that began with the claim that man is created in the image of God? Perhaps it does not matter to many that that claim was probably to get those with equally egoistic imagination (but may be less independent minds) to feel good enough to buy into the whole scheme which so happens include the notion that Jews are ‘the special children’ of God while all other humans are only ‘His children’. We all know what a vast institution and following that creative notion had helped create over the last 2,000 years.

Given the above examples, one can possibly understand how some people may be convinced that the Israelis are indeed more creative than say Singaporeans. Who else but an especially creative people would be able to come up with an idea that can make so many feel so good telling themselves that they are not their equal? Of course, the Bible did not really say that literally but then which one who follows that book read it that way? (Although here we are only looking for examples of Jewish creativity, one may wish to keep in mind that they also have other characteristics that may be partly the cause of less desirable events like the Exodus, the Holocaust and the sorry state of affairs in present day Middle East. Unless of course, one looks at those events simplistically and thinks it was someone else’s fault alone.)

But continuing with the same example above, we can also learn a bit more about creativity and its development. Other than Einstein, Galileo Galilei was probably the finest example. Galileo is not Jewish and God knows what his Greek mother asked him everyday (Singapore should get their best scholars on that one for the next rally). But I believe we all know about that little story of how Galileo tried to prove to the people around him that Copernicus' suggestion that the world was not flat and not everything revolved around the Earth was right. He did not say anything about his mother’s questions either but he undoubtedly displayed creativity and independent thought. But the government and people of his time backed by some creative but more stupid interpretation of the Bible insisted that Galileo was wrong. To which Galileo’s reply was "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". Of course, we all now accept that Galileo was right and the power operators of the institutions that persecuted him continued on with a smarter outlook than to contradict head-on with the likes of Galileo and science. But who knows that Galileo was sent into exile for that. And the fact that the suggestion that earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way round was first made 100 years before that. The guy who did that was less fortunate. He and his idea were burnt in a Christian ritual. God knows how many suffered the same fate as that guy and Galileo. Few or no followers of the Church will be told things like that. Too unimportant compared to the 'big picture'. This is but one example of what established institutions and men in power including governments can do to people and their creativity.

That is perhaps also where Singapore’s problem lies. And you will see the creativity behind the way it was made not so apparent. By that little parable about mothers, the Singapore PM may have managed to create an impression (sub-consciously at least) that the lack of creativity had more to do with the parents. When in fact it was largely because of the way the whole country was or had to operate for the last 36 years. Although the government of the time might have few other choices, it nevertheless was a major cause. For the country’s development since independence its leaders relied on 2 things that played a part in stifling creativity.

Firstly, Singapore’s early strategy for development was to rely on foreign MNCs and as LKY eloquently said ‘to act as a first world oasis in a third world surrounding' for the MNCs to operate out of. So the government put its best brains and resources into attracting and helping those MNCs operate from Singapore including giving them tax incentives their local entrepreneurs did not get. Given limited resources (as is always the case), it also effectively ignored its local enterprises and entrepreneurs. It was a case of the more equipped and better-endowed foreign companies getting premier support while the less developed local ones having to fend for themselves.

As we will see, it was also "first class support for those playing second fiddle and second class support for those fiddling on their own". Most MNCs by necessity required a work force that are more proficient with the mechanics of application and operation (to implement head office or foreign manager instructions) than one possessing a level of entrepreneurial or creative ability that may eventually threaten their employers’ existence. In other words, the MNCs were better served by having better doers than thinkers. Quite possibly, some of the foreign managers were doing it for selfish reasons. Expatriate life in a first world oasis is actually pretty good. The above elements combined to create a situation that was obvious to many Singaporeans: that the fastest and shortest path to a decent living was to work in the corporate world of the MNCs. It was the smart thing to do then. Having to operate in a mode desirable to their employer was a small price to pay for that advantage.

The Singaporeans who could not take advantage of that opportunity were the ones that were not educated in English the lingua franca of the MNCs. Or those that did not score well in the English tests conducted by the government. These people had to strike it out on their own. Sail the high seas, so to speak, the way their forefathers did for centuries, on their own. If you don’t believe this, you can talk to graduates of the original Nanyang University (Nantah). Although many of those involved would disagree (no differences in opinion allowed?), what happened to Nantah is a good example of what governments can or try to do to societies which can affect its people’s creativity. Nantah, an educational institution like many of the greatest in the west that Singapore tries to emulate, was formed spontaneously by a community of men and women that were proud of its past and hopeful for a brighter future. It came about unassisted by those in power then, the British. Its Chinese origin and focus, and relative closeness to communist thoughts practiced in China in the 50s and 60s made it a source of discomfort for another subsequent Singapore government. Which closed it down and reconstituted it in a social re-engineering exercise to manage dissent, and ensure future generations look at the world the way the government does. An exercise some politicians were cock-sure would guarantee Singapore’s future survival. It doesn’t matter how important it was to a people’s pride. Thus, a whole different language and world-view was closed in a way no modern government proud of its people (not to say their pride and creativity) had done before. At least not to my knowledge and if you don’t believe it you can go check with the Israelis. So much about encouraging diversity, differing views and confidence so necessary for creativity to even begin take root.

But that was not an issue then. Equipping and, more importantly to the government, moulding (see education ministry's motto below) children for the MNC world was top priority and paying dividends (monetary wise for the population and politically for those in power). So much so that most parents gladly cooperated by sending their children to English schools and accepting the closure of Nantah. Some even blindly go to the extent of imitating names and other practices similar to their future employers. Presumably that was advantageous. May be it was someone's idea of making Singapore look more like a first world oasis. It was a dubious necessity that needed no creativity but few cared. Like the PM would say, no prizes for guessing which the few that would be bothered by it are. But these people have undesirable (different) views. And they also 'happen' to be the ones that did not do so well in the English based environment and fell on the way side - treated almost like pariahs by their government and their more successful English-speaking neighbours. However it was easy to get rid of them because they don’t generate significant income for Singapore then. The easiest way to prove them wrong was to leave them to their own devices and see what happens. They will come running to the government for help one day and repent, or some thought. But hey, that’s not exactly Adam Smith’s laissez faire but close enough! Of course that was not the intent and so not noticed by the fathers.

The above category of people and their families, if not for their wealth if they were successful, would also form the so-called ‘heartlanders’ (with a not very positive connotation to it) their PM talked about not quite long ago. If one bothers to, one cannot but also notice that this group of Singaporeans is where the most entrepreneurial of its people had came from. They form the bulk of the local businesses that was not priority for the government. The Mustaffas and Kweks included. Had he done superbly in his English education, Sim Wong Hoo would now probably be only an executive (although may be a top one) in an MNC and not be heading Creative Technologies, a global company that the Singapore government so proudly extol in convenience. Sim Wong Hoo probably thanked his heavenly stars that his mother did not push him to earn an admired Queen’s scholarship, was not rich enough to send him to Cambridge, and did not name him Harry. And I doubt he would take issue with his mother not asking him questions the way Israeli mothers do. Of course, if his mother did do all the above and he has reason to be thankful, he would likely be thanking something else in imitation and not his ‘heavenly stars’ or his mother. May be that’s why Sim Wong Hoo’s mother’s tack of questioning was not analysed for a potential PM rally punch line.

Secondly, in the above situation the only significant Singaporean entity that can or may be allowed to identify and develop the creative and entrepreneurial spirit is the Singapore government and civil service. Better control. And as history had proven, that was indeed the case and in a number of instances they did do a very good job at it. SIA is a good example. But you don’t need an LKY or an Einstein to tell you that bureaucrats and governments, and creativity and entrepreneurial abilities don’t mix very well very long. And many Singaporeans can probably come up with a few cheeky comparisons of the different responses you might get from a Singaporean bureaucrat and a Singaporean Chinese businessman when you have a suggestion or a complaint. No contributions from me - it’s not my area of interest. Besides, they say that’s not so safe a creativity to display in Singapore.

But the best example of the limits of bureaucratic involvement is probably the recent case of DBS’ takeover bid of OUB. Goldman is one of the top money making firm admired and mentioned earlier that DBS paid top money for services in that cowboy-like misadventure that caused DBS shareholders another $2million to buy everyone’s scared silence. All because their supposedly top value service provider or professionals (clearly no one was paid enough to take the blame or say which one should) took a cheap swipe at their ‘Chinese businessman’ competitor. And remember the ‘they are worth every cent we pay them’ certainty just a few months before? That may be representative of Singapore’s problem. So is the fact that I’ve yet to see anything creative from Singaporeans on that incident so far!

Equally ominous is Singapore's education ministry’s seemingly creative motto: ‘moulding the future of our nation’. No prizes for asking questions on what mould means or what the future will be.

Now that the likes of China and India are open to the free market, Singapore (like many other developing countries) found that there are 2 choices: compete with the likes of China/India or the MNCs. The former is a downward journey. Over the weekend (many things happened in Singapore and Malaysia last week) LKY described this Singapore dilemma as 'squeezing between 2 huge convoys'. It is actually more like 'caught over-stretched for straddling 2 trains whose tracks are fast diverging'. That was what the 'first world oasis in a third world surrounding' strategy that worked well in the past was meant to do - straddling 2 worlds. But the China/India train is too far for Singapore to be go-between for the MNC train. So is their cost structure.

Competing with the MNCs is more salivating - greater margins. Except that that’s not the way Singapore is used to or moulded for. That’s when the government discover that the past strategy of playing compliant but expensive brand-name bridesmaids to MNCs in a poorer neighbourhood does not work as well any more (last weekend PM Goh also spoke proudly about some westerner talking about Singapore's brand name). Does not matter if it comes with premier gown fitting service in the form of the government. For the MNCs, there are cheaper and better ones to be had in the likes of China. As LKY and the likes learnt quickly from Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), the Chinese that remained in China are made of slightly different stuffs from those that came to Singapore. Never mind if SIP was supposed to be mutually beneficial - of course, with Singapore thinking it can get away with a 60% share.

So to continue to deliver, the government has to look for the edge the country needs to compete with the MNCs. Despite what it says, buying expensive foreign talents may not be worth it. There are other considerations. Surreptitiously it attempted to search for the traits displayed in the people it has ignored in the people it managed to mould which was of course glaringly absent. Saying that publicly would be admitting mistake and political suicide. The people that will be more willing to attribute their abilities or success to the government do not have what it takes. So, some better story had to be told. Like, Singapore is too small to have much home grown creativity (that is if they are not already dead). But equally small Israel was probably as instructive on governance as it was on creativity (and may be more). So someone decided that limiting the PM’s public comparison to mothers would suffice.

So the whole issue of creativity in Singapore may be a case where now that the need to meet is well apparent, the father is calling for his forsaken child to appear before him. Until that happens, mother’s tack of questioning may have to be called into question.

Everything above has to be true. I do not have the creativity or the depth of imagination to come up with the above from nothing. That’s because my Malaysian mother had never asked me how many questions I asked in school.

Conversion and Dedication

Received this mail about 'conversion' from someone and decided to write an equivalent one about 'dedication' (at bottom)


The Conversion

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "accident of evolution" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the atheist cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and, even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the bear dropped its right paw... brought both paws together... bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."



(This is what I sent back to sender of above mail)

Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. - Voltaire

Voltaire forgot to say that they do the same with parables.
So here's a dedication to your story on 'conversion'.


The Dedication

A Christian was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "father of Christ" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped over a rifle and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick the rifle up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Christian cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You worship me for all of these years; teach others about me; and, look down on others who do not believe in me. What do you expect me to do to help you out of this predicament? Did I not ask you to have faith as a believer?"

The Christian looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to lose faith in You as a Christian now, but perhaps you could give me another chance to test my faith as a Christian?"

"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the Christian dropped his rifle, brought both hands together, and with the Christian's head in both paws the bear could hear him say: "Lord, by being made the food of this bear I trust I shall be with you soon in eternal glory. For that I am truly thankful to Thee."

Brainteaser for Asian Geniuses

I received a chain mail with supposedly Mensa Brainteasers that claimed that those that score high marks are geniuses. As the teasers had a number of items relating to the Bible and western history, and one on South African currency, I figured it was probably from some South African white out to 'prove' that people of his type are smarter than others (presumably blacks in his home country). The teaser was clearly stacked so that such a person will have an unfair advantage (and score higher). So I decided develop the below brain teasers that is more stacked in favour of Asians. That way we can have more Asian 'geniuses' and less white ones!


Subject: Re: Mensa Brainteaser

Try my MENSA test below.

May be we can give the below items to some westerner and tell them they are genius only if they get more than 6 correct, and see how they perform. Doesn't matter if you can't get them yourself. Anyone who wants answers to below can get from this self declared genius (if South African whites can do it so can I).

a. 13 S in M
b. 5 S in S F
c. 100 S in 1 R
d. 16 T in 1 K
e. 3 P in a S T T
f. 28 D in a L M
g. 15 P to a B G
h. K is the H B for the M
i. M is 8 T the S of I and O
j. 5 B of C C
k. K M is from I

US Copyright Laws

From: Chee-Khiaw Cheng
bcc: friends, family
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: U.S. Copy Right Laws

Below is an interesting example of how the big money makers are using the US Copyright Laws to their benefit. See how the real life use of such laws is different from their more noble aims as stated in the US Constitution :

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads 'Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'

I am not aware of any major scientific minds (of the fundamental science kind) that are too concerned about patenting their discoveries. Imagine Einstein and the likes suing kids in school to make an example of them!

The US are changing their patent laws to recognise 'first to patent' instead of 'first to invent'. US laws used to recognise that if one can prove that one had invented or discovered something ahead of others, the law will accord the rights to the invention to that person and not the one who makes a patent registration first. This reversal could be driven by developments in 'modern medicine' (big industry in the US & West) where pharmaceutical companies are analysing many traditional herbal medicines (esp. from developing countries) for active healing ingredients. Given the old interpretation, the pharmaceutical companies will not be able to claim that a particular 'active agent' extracted from a known herb is their discovery since the traditional users of those herbs will be able to claim 'first use' or 'first knowledge'.

So, do you think you should live by those laws?

Rgds
CCK


bkjchua@pacific.net.sg on 08/10/2001 01:15:47 AM
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Fw: e-book.htm

Chee Khiaw, Please forward this. Boycott Adobe! Ben


From: Benjamin Chua
To: Caitlin Pitt ; K & E Lammon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: e-book.htm

Read an e-book to your child, go to jail?

By Robert Menta- 12/26/00

A number of months ago I did a story called "Copyright Office Ruling Possible Setback to Fair Use". In that article I wrote this:

In an effort to give copyright holders more protection, the US Copyright office decided to allow only two narrow exemptions to a new federal law that gives copyright holders a whole new level of protection. The law, which makes it illegal for Web users to hack through any barriers, copyright holders put around their content, will be in effect for three years.

The Philips Expanium is a CD/MP3 player. Now available on Amazon for $199

This content, which extends to everything from music to books to films, caused a firestorm among libraries and universities who argued that the law is too broad and media companies could use the new law to restrict their traditional rights.

The point of the article was not that copyright holders don't have a right to protect their interests, they do. It was that the law allowed too much leeway for abuse by allowing copyright holders to use technology to redefine the concept known as fair use.

How? Well, the fundamentals of fair use essentially allow the person who purchases copyright material to share it with others. That means you the buyer can read the content to another individual, trade the content, copy the content on cassette, etc. Not only have we enjoyed these practices for decades, but we accept them as a matter-of-fact right.

Copyright holders, on the other hand, love to have everyone pay several times for the same content. Simply put, it makes them more money. In their greed, conglomerates and oligopolies have come up with the recent notion that you no longer own the book or CD you purchased at the store, you are only renting it. Therefore you are subject to multiple charges.

Prior to technology, there was no way to enforce this notion so it was moot. Fair use was fair use and no matter how many times the major music labels screamed back in the 1980's that cassettes were killing the industry, they found no sympathy in the courts or in the marketplace.

But now, with digital content like e-books and MP3 music, there is technology coming to put such a notion to practice. The ruling by the copyright office opened the door for the corporations to in practice take away the fair use rights of the consumer by fully protecting any technology that strips it. Publishers can now write legal clauses saying you are forbidden to do this and that with the content you purchased. If you override the technology that is supposed to prevent this with shareware you download from the Internet, you become a felon.

But come on, are copyright holder really going to put outlandish restrictions on how you use the books and music you buy? Will the abuses the libraries and universities fear actually happen? Folks, that is the point of my article to you today. It already started.

The example I am about to show you is quite atrocious, one I was alerted to in a recent posting on Slashdot. The posting points out the fine print in the licensing of Adobe's new e-book product Glassbook, a snapshot of which you will find below. Glassbook has taken a number of literary classics in the public domain and digitized them. They then put these restrictions on what they deem fair use. It is almost comical if not surreal:

Copy: No text selections can be copied from the book to the clipboard.

Print: No printing is permitted on this book.

Lend: This book cannot be lent or given to someone else.

Give: This book cannot be given to someone else.

Read Aloud: This book cannot be read aloud.

According to Adobe, if you read Alice in Wonderland from their e-book to your son or daughter, you have violated their copyright. If you use shareware to copy a passage of it for your kids book report, you have committed a criminal act as now defined by the US Copyright Office.

Remember the student in Oklahoma whose dorm room was raided because he downloaded music from Napster? (see Oklahoma Student to be Sacrificial Lamb in MP3 Wars). He just recently plead guilty to a misdemeanor in that case so he wouldn't drive his family bankrupt in legal fees. In an effort to exert their self-proclaimed rights, oligopolies and self-interest groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) look for individuals to be their "examples". People they ruin to scare off others and dictate their vision of right and wrong. A vision solely driven by the singular goal of increasing profit.

Want to hear the ultimate irony? Adobe pulled the transcription of Alice in Wonderland from Project Gutenberg, a library of electronically stored books, mostly classics that can be downloaded for free and viewed off-line. The goal is to make these books free and accessible to all people, specifically those who have limited access to these works. Adobe downloaded the books for free, repackaged it, and are stripping away the open permissions that Project Gutenberg already endowed upon you. The right to freely read and pass on fine literature because it will better the world.

See what we mean by self-proclaimed copyrights? Take what's in the public domain, plant a flag on it like it was the Oklahoma land rush, claim ownership for your company, make up your own restrictions, and take people to court if they don't pay up. This is what the implications of the US Copyright Office's recent decision have brought upon us.

Our advice? Start by doing the worst thing you can do to Adobe's new e-book - don't buy it. Then go to Project Gutenberg's site and download a few stories.

More Than A Brain Teaser

To: EDNA.TEO@bbl.be
bcc: friends, family
Subject: MORE THAN A BRAIN TEASER

Hi dear,

The below 'test' wants you to believe that 'according to MENSA, if you get 23 of these, you are a 'genius''. As you will see once you complete it or get the answers to this thing, you are actually being judged on whether you are a 'genius' based on a set of knowledge for which South African christians have an advantage. Reasons :
- 3 of the items relate to the Bible
- 2 of them relate to South Africa
- some to do with the U.S. but none of them has anything to do with Asia or other religions

So you can see how a South Africa christian would have an advantage. Does not matter if you know the Koran and Asia very well.

Very typical of many things in the west. They set the rules and tests. Everyone else try like hell to live up to them not knowing what they actually mean. If you believe them, 'Freedom House' (nice name heh?) says that Israel has greater democracy than Singapore. A Morgan in-house editor (American of course) quoted that to me in an exchange. Of course, it just 'happens' that white Americans are closer to the Israelis than Singapore, and it does not matter what happens to the Palestinians in Israel. For Freedom House, Palestinians don't count (may be partly because their Bible says the Jews are special and the Palestinians did not get special mention).

Other than the above test, white South Africans have other examples to offer. One of them (an Andersen consultant) told me 15 years ago that they could not let the black South Africans run the country because they would kill each other (the Zulus will kill the others, and vice versa etc.). As you know, South Africa had been run by the blacks for most of the last 10 years without the killings the whites claimed would happen. Also if one is to believe the whites in South Afica and Zimbabwe (ex-white Rhodesia), statistics would 'prove' that whites produce more per acre of land than blacks. It therefore imply that the blacks are inferior to the whites. Of course what they hope we all forget is that the whites had all the money (generated in large measure through slavery and white controlled natural resources) and best arable land (forcibly taken from the blacks over the last few hundred years). Out of desperation some blacks in Zimbabwe recently tried to re-occupy the better lands owned by whites. But the whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe now insist everyone should live by the law. Of course, it also means that they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth and best land, and the blacks will have to catch up the 'proper' way. After robbing the towns for centuries, the robber's children now want the law to come to town.

As is in many things in life, be careful with such tests.

Rgds
CCK

p.s. I got this 'test' about a month ago. One of the reasons I first suspected (and later confirmed after working out 28 of them) that the test was by South African christians, was the e-mail address that came with the test instructions I got - it had an e-mail address with a South African internet extension (".za"). The people who sent me the thing, of course, got my response to the above effect. That e-mail address (at the top of the spreadsheet) has been removed from the version you sent. May be someone took that out by accident...... In the meantime, let the world be tested for their smartness the South African Christian way. They'll be no smarter for it.

The Incomparable Creativeness of the Corrupt

The Malaysian government has a scheme that allows citizens to use their EPF (compulsory savings equivalent to CPF in Singapore, if you discount the abuses done with it) money to buy personal computers. The official reason was to encourage the use of IT in the country. However, citizens can only buy their PCs through government approved sellers. Below is a sample of the real story behind the 'scheme' - an entry by a Malaysian in a discussion forum in The Star's (a local newspaper) website - another way for someone to make money out of the unwitting.

It reminded me of similar reports from Indonesia before 1997. The Indonesian education ministry actually considered implementing a ruling that each school-going child should visit a particular new theme park at least once in their school life. Such visits were supposedly good for the education of the kids and would cost more than US$10 per entry. Of course, the facts that the theme park was built by someone well connected with the corrupt government, and the poorest Indonesian families earned not much more than US$10 a month were irrelevant. Another recommendation considered by the ministry was that each school child should only wear school shoes of a particular make. Not clear what educational value shoes of that particular make would give but they were produced by a company linked to one of the President's sons. What an education the whole country got in 1997. It is sad to think that a government could do such things to its own citizens and get away with it for so long. May be for some it is as easy to live with lies as it is to lie to live.

The Malaysian's story below....

I would like to take this opportunity to share my experience with regards to this topic.

I have ordered a PC through one of Pos Malaysia's official vendor, HK COMP TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. (thereafter refered to as HK COMP) based on their broucher :- PIII 933Mhz, 64MB SDRAM, ASUS CUV4X Motherboard, Aztech Q3D 64Bit Sound Card, 2000W Subwoofer Speaker system and 17" Colour Monitor worth RM3450/=.

After nearly two months I eagerly received my PC from Pos Malaysia. To my suprise there was no 2000W Subwoofer speaker system. Instead there was only a 600W speaker system (no subwoofer). Of course I immediately called the HK COMP to inquire about the difference. They simply said that they have no stock at the moment and will exchange it for me when there's stock. What displeased me the most was the attitude of HK COMP of not informing me first before they delivered the PC. Won't you feel cheated? That's not all.

Then I discovered the sound card supplied was also different. Instead of the Aztech sound card it was a cheap CMedia sound card (cost about RM38 - I checked). Hey what's going on? When inquired, HK COMP just simply said that the CMedia sound card is the same as the Aztech sound card. What kind of excuse is that? Just because a Kancil has 4 tyres and 4 doors, does it make it the same as a Waja? What do they take me for? After much scolding they promised to send the 2000W Subwoofer speaker system and change the sound card FOC.

After using the 2000w subwoofer speaker system, I found that one of the speaker was not working properly. So I brought it back to their office to exchange it for a new one since it's still under warranty. As one of the staff brought out a supposely new speaker, I asked them whether was it new? Yes was the reply. Then I requested for it to be tested first. As they took it out of the box I noticed that it seems to have wear and tear marks on it. Hmmm... is it really new I asked. True enough, after testing it, one of the speaker was not working at all. After further inspection I can confirm that it has been used for quite sometime and most probably someone returned it and now they are trying to pass it off as NEW. Clearly unhappy I questioned their integrity and they have nothing to say. They proceeded to ignore me trying to be busy with other things. Out of frustation I just took one of the working (but USED) speaker and walked out.

I thought that was the end of my problems. Now comes the most shocking part. I discovered that the Motherboard supplied was also different from what was agreed. They gave me a ASUS CUV4X-C m/board instead of a ASUS CUV4X m/board. After comparing through the internet, the CUV4X-C has only 2 DIMM slots compared to 3 DIMM slots on the CUV4X. I haven't bombared HK COMP yet since it's the weekend. I would definately ask them to change it for FOC at my house or ask for a refund.

Now, what if I'm a new PC user. Do you think I would notice these things? NO WAY!

The questions is how are Pos Malaysia and Odasaja going to make sure that their vendors supply what they promised to the buyers and don't get shortchanged and cheated on the not so obvious parts of the PC? I feel that this is and issue of most utmost importance since we are at the mercy of the EPF PC scheme and we cannot change or choose what we need or desire. I know the reason Pos Malaysia got the rights to supply PC's because the government wanted to stop some unscruplous buyers from withdrawing their EPF money with no intention of buying PC's.

But now it seems that the plan has backfired. Now it's the vendor that is in the position to cheat and shortchange the customers. Please be wary of this and make sure that you throughly check what you are getting. I'm going to lodge a complain with the relevant authorities and warn everyone I know about the dishonesty of HK COMP. I hope that other vendors are more honest.

US Advantage via the USD

Sometime in 2000 I had a discussion with 2 friends on the Asian Financial Crisis and the strength of the US market then (Greenspan's 'irrational exuberance' was still very much alive then). There were people predicting that the Dow would reach 20,000 where the average PE would be 40. That seemed odd to me as PEs in Asian markets were reportedly less than 10 - for me the obvious thing was for money to flow into Asia but that was not happening.

But my 2 friends assuredly explained my observation by saying that the Asian Crisis was caused by corruption and bad management of Asian companies, and people were willing to pay a 'premium' for American stocks because they had better management practices. One said that American companies for example know when to cut loses if investment returns were bad but Asian management do not. But I said that I didn't believe such 'west is better than east' stuff (to me people are the same everywhere).

This was despite the fact that a lot of people were already warning about the 'unreal' economics behind the internet boom. Although I could not explain it, I said that I suspect the strength of the US economy could also have something to do with the US dollar. This is on top of the benefits accrued to it by whacking Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and getting $90 billion payments from the stupid Arabs, Japan and Europe (for expending all of America's old armaments on Iraq! In accounting lingo, it was deriving income from fully depreciated assets).

Some months later I received the below mail from one of them who happen to be an economist.

In subsequent discussions with this friend, I suggested that the 'USD advantage' may also explain why the Europeans had created the Euro (I was still quite 'blur' about this topic then), and why the US wants to whack Iraq (there were already 'speculations' that it was partly because Saddam Hussein was asking for oil payments in Euros).

But this friend told me that he does not think the above 'advantages' are real as the market is 'free'.


Hi,
I remember your question about the advantages the US enjoys because of the special status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. One such benefit is called seignorage - though it is a benefit accruing not exclusively to the US government. The Americans simply could benefit from it more than any one else on earth.

Rgds,
Yin Sze


Seignorage

Seignorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost of its production. In the classic example, the sovereign holds the exclusive right to create money and thus profits from minting coins that cost him less to produce than their face value. He himself spends the coins into circulation. How does this differ from seignorage in our fiat money system?

Seignorage from Federal Reserve Notes
The U.S. government has the exclusive right to issue Federal Reserve notes. As of November 2000 a total of $550 billion in notes were outstanding with an annual replacement cost of about $450 million. The present value of those costs, continued indefinitely and discounted at 5%, is about $9 billion. The seignorage resulting from the monopoly on note issue is therefore worth about $550 billion - $9 billion = $541 billion. Is this a true windfall for the U.S. government? In order to understand the answer to this question, we need to look first at the details.

Acquiring the Notes
The Fed buys the notes from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Treasury at a cost of about 4 cents each. It sells them at face value to banks on demand. The Fed is required by law to pledge collateral at least equal to the amount of currency that it issues. Most of that collateral is in the form of Treasury securities owned by the Fed.

The term collateral here is only symbolic. Treasury bonds do not represent a claim on the real assets of the government. They are merely interest-bearing IOUs that are guaranteed to be repaid at maturity in legal tender, more Federal Reserve notes.

Effect of Cash Withdrawals
Consider what happens when a bank buys Federal Reserve notes from the Fed. Its deposit at the Fed is debited accordingly. However the Fed's reduced liability to the bank is balanced by an equal increase in its note obligations. The sale of notes is a reversible transaction. Banks can sell notes back to the Fed and regain deposits at any time. The Fed simply swaps two liabilities as it buys and sells notes to banks.

Now consider what happens when the public increases its cash holdings by withdrawals from banks. Since a bank's vault cash is a part of its reserves, net withdrawals of cash reduce the aggregate banking system reserves. In order to support the Fed funds rate as set by the FOMC, the Fed must replenish those reserves. It does so by buying Treasury securities in the open market, thereby restoring deposits to the banking system.

In effect, the public trades some of its Treasury bonds to the Fed for the additional cash. The public foregoes interest earnings on those bonds in proportion to the cash it holds. Those bonds become assets of the Fed, and remain as obligations of the Treasury. The Treasury must pay the Fed to redeem the bonds when they mature.

Maturing Treasury Bonds
How does the Treasury cover the redemption of maturing bonds? If it has a budget surplus it retires them with the available surplus. Otherwise it rolls them over, i.e. sells new issues to pay for the old.

If the Fed owns the maturing bonds, there are two options. The Fed can simply debit the Treasury's account at the Fed in exchange for the bond. In that case the Treasury must replenish its funds by selling new bond issues to the public. The purchase of new T-bonds would result in a loss of banking system reserves if the Fed did not replenish the reserves by buying more bonds from the public. Thus the Fed must replace the bonds in its portfolio as fast as they mature simply to maintain its control over short term interest rates.

The second option is for the Fed to roll over its maturing bonds directly with the Treasury. The new bonds are paid for out of the proceeds of the maturing bonds. Whether the public or the Fed owns the maturing bonds, the total supply of T-bonds outstanding remains unaffected by the redemptions.

Reducing the Treasury's Interest Cost
When the public increases its cash holdings, the Fed's portfolio of T-bonds increases while the public's ownership of T-bonds decreases. This reduces the interest cost on government debt because the Fed rebates most of the interest earned from its T-bond portfolio to the Treasury. Other things equal, the more cash the public holds, the lower is the cost of servicing the national debt.

Seignorage vs Deficit Spending
In a sense the concept of seignorage in a fiat money system is incongruous. The government has unlimited spending power and thus has no need for seignorage. Normally it covers any shortage in tax revenues with the sale of bonds, paying whatever interest rate is demanded by the buyers. Under extreme conditions as in wartime, the Fed could be required to buy them. In effect deficit spending would then be funded from newly created money rather than recycled money. To avoid the obvious inflationary implications, special controls would be needed to restrict the amount of credit creation by the banking system.

A Case of Real Seignorage
Real seignorage exists for those Federal Reserve notes that have migrated overseas, an estimated 60% of the total issued, or about $300 billion. At a cost of a few cents each, those notes bought foreign goods and other assets at face value for the U.S. As long as the notes remain overseas, those purchases are virtually cost-free. An interesting question then is: who is the actual beneficiary of that seignorage?