Blog Archives

Did I Make Or Lose Money?

29/10/2020

A lot of times, we tend to benchmark our investments against... well... a benchmark.
Like S&P or STI or whatever.

And so... I wonder to myself.
If let's say I craft my own portfolio. And 5 years later, my returns are 15% in total. (Not annualized)
And 5 years later, S&P or STI or whatever, is 20% after any FX adjustments.

Do I consider myself "lost" money?

What if I beat inflation?
What if I didn't beat inflation?

Then we start talking about... oh I made money in nominal terms, didn't beat inflation. Blah blah blah.

And then I ask myself.
Does it matter?

I mean... we aren't fund managers managing a fund, trying to beat a benchmark.
We are just... well retail investors trying to make some money so that we can retire early, or plan for the future, etc.
How many of us have actually tracked our risk adjusted returns on our portfolio vs the benchmark?
Sharpe ratio anyone?

The thing is... actually, what's important for me, (or whoever), is pretty much... is the returns good enough for my/your objective?
For example...
If I invest $500k, my annual expenses is $25k, and maybe I don't expect inflation to increase my expenses by much every year, cos inflation doesn't affect every product equally.
So I require a 5% return on my investments.

If I look at my scenario above, where I made 15% return over 5 years, then I have failed.
Even if I made 23%, which is above the benchmark, I would deemed to have failed.

The thing is, actually, a lot of us are influenced by a lot of what the financial industry is doing.
Benchmarks, inflation, different allocations, whatever.
But we aren't measured the same way as the financial industry.
Most of us are just simple individuals trying to make our money last longer and be financially independent.

IF I had $10million, I just need a 2% average return annually and I would get $200,000, more than enough to survive forever.
That's enough for me to "win".
Doesn't really matter what the S&P or whatever arbitrary benchmark is performing.

Many of us tend to look at our portfolios against some other benchmark.
As I continue on this retirement journey, I find out that... it's really not important.

As long as I have a comfortable place to stay, good enough food to eat, enough clothes to wear.
That's good enough for me.

Lose money is really negative returns over the long run. That's really lose money.
Anything else... is pretty ok as long as returns cover my expenses in the long run.

Don't need to think so much about comparing against benchmark or what.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

1 Comment

Is there meaning to work?

27/10/2020

6 Comments

Reader Stacy Tan posted a comment couple of posts back.

Been thinking on the concept of work. perhaps can you can share your point of view on that?
-Stacy Tan

We could look at work in many many ways. Cos... we're human we overcomplicate things.
The question is pretty simply... What is work? Is there any meaning behind work? Why do we work?

So I'll tell a story.

The Story of Work on an Isolated Island

There's an isolated island.
Tom appears on the island. Don't ask me why. It's not important in the story.
He's all alone.
He's not really good at building a shelter. But he makes do with a fairly ok one with the branches and leaves and creates a makeshift shelter.
He finds water, so he's ok there.
And somehow he finds chicken on the island and he manages to capture them and breed them. So he now has a small chicken farm where he harvests eggs and gets to eat chicken everyday.
Everyday, he spends a bit of time keeping his shelter in place, cos it's not built very well. And he spends sometime tending to his chickens.

So he survives. Work in this case is simply, survival.

Hanks now appears on the island. Don't ask me why. It's also not important in the story.
Somehow, he's really good at building stuff. He can build a nice house in a couple of months and it will stand for 80 years with minimal maintenance.
So Hanks approaches Tom with a proposal.
Hanks tells Tom that he will build him a house and maintain it, in return, Tom must feed him with chicken for the rest of his life.
Tom thinks this is a good idea. With the new house, he is more comfortable, it is warmer, he feels more secure, he doesn't need to fix his house everyday.
Couple of months later, there are 2 houses on the island. One for Tom, another for Hanks.
Tom now only needs to tend to his chickens for a bit daily.
Hanks just sits around and chills everyday, and every couple of months, he helps Tom fix the house if there is any issue with the house.

Ok, so in this scenario, is Hanks lazy? Cos after he has built the house, he's now chilling.
Hanks has provided a "service" to Tom, his special knowledge and expertise has allowed Tom to free up more free time for the rest of his life, cos now Tom doesn't need to maintain his house .
Hanks has provided lifelong value to Tom.
And Tom is paying Hanks back with food.

This is economics. Specialization of tasks.
Work is still for survival.
Except that Hanks works less, cos of his special skill. BUT Hanks has provided good value to his community as the house he built has improved the lives of everyone. The value he has provided to his community is worth more than just the hours he worked. It's not the labour, it's also the knowledge of how to do it.

Wilson next appears on the island.
He's a doctor.
So he offers a deal to Tom and Hanks.
Build me a house, and feed me with chicken, and I will take care of you when you're sick.
Tom and Hanks both agree.
So couple of months later, now there are 3 houses on the island.
Tom is still tending to his chicken everyday, feeding the other 2 guys.
Hanks is sitting around chilling again, unless he's called upon by the other 2 guys to fix any issue with their homes.
Wilson is chilling as well, unless he's called upon by the other 2 guys when they are sick, then he spends a couple of hours gathering herbs and getting them well again.

Are Hanks and Wilson lazy?
Should they help Tom with the chickens?
They both have special skills they have already both made Tom's life better due to their special knowledge.
Hanks and Wilson have already provided value to society as they have overall improved the lives of everyone even though they do not work as hard as Tom.
They have already "contributed to society".

Somehow, one day, they found Robinson washed up on the shores of the island.
He's heavily injured and after Doc Wilson does what he can to save Robinson's life, Robinson is left bedridden and needs constant support.
Tom, Hanks & Wilson get together and discuss what to do.
They decide that they can't just leave Robinson to die so they all decide that they will have to take care of him.
Tom provides him with chicken, Hanks builds another house for Robinson and Doc Wilson takes care of him when he's sick.
Not only that, everyday, they each spend a couple of hours with Robinson to take care of him, feeding, bathing, changing, etc.
They don't particularly like it, but they decide it's the right thing to do.

So what has happened here? We now move out of purely survival and start talking about morality.
Tom, Hanks & Wilson decided not to just leave Robinson to die, even though Robinson is unable to contribute to society.

Next, Crusoe appears on the island.
Crusoe has little skills.
Tom, Hanks & Wilson, immediately have an idea.
They approach Crusoe and tell him that if he takes care of Robinson, they will take care of all his needs.
Crusoe accepts their offer.
Couple of months later, there are now 5 houses on the island. One for each person.
Tom feeds everyone with chickens.
Hanks is just chilling, unless called upon to fix houses.
Wilson is also chilling, unless called upon when someone is sick.
Robinson is always in bed and doing nothing.
Crusoe takes care of Robinson.
Tom, Hanks & Wilson are happy cos they don't have to take care of Robinson anymore
Crusoe doesn't mind taking care of Robinson as the other 3 guys take care of his survival.

So what has happened here? We have moved out of purely survival, we talked about morality, and now we have outsourced morality. But everyone is happy, cos everyone provides a service, skill, knowledge to society. Service to society isn't just about labour, it's also knowledge and skills.

BUT, the story doesn't end yet.
Another person called Friday appears on the island.
Friday is a jeweler. He finds nice rocks on the island and is able to craft them into nice trinkets.
Friday makes a beautiful unique ring and offers it to Hanks for him to build a nice house for him
Friday also makes another nice pretty ring and offers it to Doc Wilson for his services.
However, Friday makes a smaller ring for Tom, as Friday only wants chicken every alternate day.
Friday doesn't mind fishing to obtain food on the days that no chicken is supplied.
Friday doesn't give Robinson & Crusoe anything.
He knows that Crusoe will take care of Robinson anyway. So he doesn't need to give Crusoe anything.

Here, we start to see change in society. From survival, to morality, and now to wants/luxury.
I'm sure that everyone can see that the jeweler actually does nothing for society in terms of survival. But yet provides a service. He can make someone happier cos they feel special owning a product that is beautiful or unique.

The feelings of the people on the island start to change.
Hanks is happy cos he has everything he wants. His skills are irreplaceable and unique as he can build good houses.
Doc Wilson is happy cos he also has everything he wants. His skills are irreplaceable and unique as he can take care of patients and heal the sick.
Friday is happy cos he also has everything he wants. His skills are unique, but not necessary. He enjoys fishing so he does it every alternate day.
Tom is a bit upset. Cos he doesn't have a nicer ring. He has everything he needs, but not everything he wants. He would like a nicer ring, but his skills are unable to provide something for Friday to give him a nicer ring.
Crusoe is pretty ok, he knows he doesn't provide much value to society except to take care of Robinson. He has what he needs.
Robinson is glad just to be alive.

End story...

So... what do we see here?
How do you relate this to the current society we live in?
What is work? Is there any meaning behind work? Why do we work?

On the small island with little inhabitants, it's easier to see the value of labour, different knowledge, abilities, skills, etc.
Labour is available from everyone, but skills and knowledge isn't. And society has placed a higher value for people who have special unique skills. Even the jeweler has a unique skill even though he doesn't provide a necessary skill for survival.

The very baseline of work is very simply, survival.
If we provide a good enough service to society, in terms of knowledge or special skills, we are able to work less and enjoy more free time, like Doc Wilson, or Hanks.
On the island, there is no concept of money.
In the real world, money is just a proxy for the perceived value of the services provided by whoever.
If a doctor earns enough money in 10 years for him to not work for the rest of his life. That means that society has priced his knowledge and expertise as such.
If the doctor earns enough money in this 10 years, such that him and his children never need to work, then it just means that society has priced his knowledge and expertise as SO critical and valuable that they are willing to pay him as such.

It is society that places value on the things we do.
Society has deemed that the Kardashians provide entertainment value. And society has placed whatever value on entertainment such that they are able to live very luxurious lives.
I'm sure that it's obvious that they don't provide survival value.

In fact, survival value is very very cheap in our real world.
Food is relatively cheap in almost all developed nations if compared to the other jobs/services.

Anyway, if we go back to the questions...
What is work? Is there any meaning behind work? Why do we work?

Well, we work to survive.
BUT, most of us have moved past that. We work to earn money to live better lives.
Some of us have also moved past that, we try to find meaning to our work.
We even try to place meaning in other peoples' work.
We judge people as valuable to society or not valuable to society if they work or don't work.

Heck... people would say Kardashians are working so they are providing a value to society.
As compared to someone like me who is doing nothing. So people would deem me as providing no value to society.

In my case, society has deemed that the service I provided in my 7+ years working was enough for me to survive for the rest of my life. Note... SURVIVE. I'm not particularly rich.
The amount I made in terms of cash, is just a method of storing the value of my past services so that I can use it in future.

For me, I believe that there is no meaning to work.
Work was for survival. Once most humans moved past that, they decided to put "meaning" to it.
A "holier than thou" approach.
Typically, people who to continue to work, by need or by choice, judge early retirees as lazy and not contributing to society. Cos they feel that they continue to "provide a service to society" by working, providing labour or skills.
Whereas actually, the early retiree has ALREADY provided a service to society. And society has remunerated him for the services. He's just spending it slowly.

Humans are complex being... unnecessarily complex, I feel.
But we are what we are.
Putting meaning to things where there might be no meaning.

Imagine a steel cup.
If I show you a steel cup. It has no meaning. It is but a steel cup.
If I tell you that this steel cup was given to me by my late grandmother.
Suddenly it has meaning. Cos of sentimental value, cos of memories.
Imagine that one day my mum lost the cup, but I didn't know about it. My mum bought an exactly similar cup and replaced it. I never knew about it.
When I use the cup, I still think it has value.
Somehow, later on, I find out that my mum lost the cup and replaced it.
I kick up a big fuss saying that it's not the same cup. Suddenly the cup has lost it's meaning.
For all it's purpose, the new cup is indistinguishable from the old cup. But to me, it is different. Cos it's not EXACTLY the same one which my grandmother gave to me.

Now... this is what it is to be human.
It is what it is.
If you feels that this is reasonable behaviour, then so be it. There's no right or wrong.
If you feels that there needs to be meaning in the cup, needs to be meaning in life, needs to be meaning in work. Then so be it.
And if you're able to find meaning to life, or work or whatever. Then that's all fine and dandy.
You are happy with finding meaning to what you do, and that's ok.

BUT, if you're someone like me, who feels that there is no meaning in certain things.
I might feel sentimental about the cup.
But I might not feel that work has any meaning. Or vice versa...
And maybe you're like me, feeling certain things have no meaning. I'd say... then there is no meaning.
Don't need to bang your head against the wall or overthink things. Don't need to keep searching for meaning.
For me, I accept that there is no meaning, and I move on with life and focus on things that I find have meaning.
I have thought about it, whatever "it" may be, and I have concluded that there is no meaning. I don't want to keep staying on the topic. Maybe... maybe in future, I might find a job that has meaning, well... I'll revisit this idea again if it crops up. No point thinking about it at this point in time when there is no new information.

The problem comes when someone who feels that something has meaning... comes along and tries to convince someone that feels it has no meaning.
Like someone who feels that they are actively contributing to society by working, and that they are "holier than thou"... and they try to convince me that I should be contributing to society, else I'm lazy.
Well... you wanna work you work lor. What's that gotta do with me?

Similarly, the problem also comes when someone who feels that the cup has no meaning, and tries to convince someone that the cup which their grandmother gave is just like any other cup.
Hello... my cup, why you care how much I value this particular cup.

Anything can have meaning, anything can have no meaning. It's all up to you.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

6 Comments

Paypal allows Bitcoin Payments in the US

23/10/2020

1 Comment

This was such wonderful news in the Bitcoin world that the price of Bitcoin jumped over 10%.

I'm not saying Bitcoin will appreciate or depreciate. That's for markets to decide.
When someone else deems something is of value, then it has value, when people don't value it, then there's no value.

Now, let's think about this...
What's the big deal with Paypal allowing Bitcoin payments?
Ok... supposedly it allows Bitcoin to have more uses... more take up rate, etc...

But in the end, Bitcoin, is just like any other commodity.
It hardly behaves like a currency.

How about, one day, Paypal allows Gold ETFs to be used as a payment form?
What so hard about that?
The transactions would be the same, as when you pay for any item in USD.
You'll convert SGD to USD, then pay in USD.
Similarly, you can own Bitcoin, then pay with Bitcoin, Paypal will just convert Bitcoin to USD, take a cut of the commission and pay the merchant in USD.
They could do the same with a Gold ETF. You want to pay with a Gold ETF, Paypal just converts it to whatever currency the merchant wants and executes the transaction for you.

If you want to pay SGD and the merchant wants to receive Silver ETF... Also can!! Same same.

Heck... system-wise, we could even pay for items using DBS shares.
No difference. Cos in the end, everything is converted to another currency before being paid to the merchant.
Paypal is just being a "money changer" and taking a cut of the transaction.
For Paypal, it's just another service that they provide.

Whether this helps Bitcoin become more mainstream or not, well... not for me to decide.
Historically, mankind has put value on a lot of different things to make transactions, from seashells, to gold, silver, iron, gems, cans of sardines, packets of ramen, etc.

Thing is... let's not call it a currency... it's as much a currency as gold or WTI Crude is a currency.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

1 Comment

Unifying Nations Thru War

21/10/2020

1 Comment

If we go back in history, we'll find many nations were unified through war.
Many big/great nations... Usually, people are deemed to be "one people" via their language or history.

So for example,
During the Edo period, Japan was warring with itself. People of one language fighting with each other. Eventually, someone came out on top and "unified" Japan.

Happened in China as well. Romance of the 3 kingdoms, blah blah blah, eventually an Emperor emerged.

Napoleon unified France and the French speaking regions around the area.
Germany also unified all the German speaking regions.
Italy, and Spain also have a similar history.
India, Thailand, etc...

Throughout history, we see smaller nations, fight with each other then eventually unite, especially if they share a similar language and/or history.

Except for... the middle east area...
I'm sure that if allowed to, maybe decades ago, they would probably have duked it out with maybe 1 big unified nation.
Now, it would be hard to do so with so many other countries having a say in these things.
In my own opinion... the US will never allow them to be unified.
Can you imagine, a unified middle east? With significant control of the world's oil taps?
How powerful would that be?
Not a chance. The meddling US wouldn't allow that.
They'll probably be funding both sides of the war to ensure that the war keeps going for as long as possible.

Real? Or just Trump talking c0ck as usual?
Or a slip from his daily "security briefings"?

Control does not necessarily mean ownership.
Could just mean, the US has a hand in how the oil supplies flow.

For me, I believe that the US has a hand in the meddlings and instability in the middle east for decades, and they would want to keep that area "un-unified" for as long as possible. So that global oil supplies aren't controlled by a single big and powerful nation.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

1 Comment

A Cashless Society

20/10/2020

3 Comments

Do you think it's good for society to go totally cashless? (no more physical currency)
-Kuriko

A couple of posts back, regular reader raised the above topic as a potential post.
For me, I don't really think whether it's good or not, but rather, I think it's interesting to talk about it.
A cashless society.

Also, there's a lot of confusion? Misunderstanding? on what is considered cashless.
Card payment methods, such as credit cards, NETS, were already cashless a long time ago.
Although the "in" thing now is mobile payments.
So Singapore was already going cashless sometime back when most of our shops accepted card payments.

Did we go significantly further when we started introducing mobile payments in our repertoire?
From what I see/saw before I left SG or when I returned to SG, there wasn't much difference.
Most shops which previously accepted card payments, still accepted card payments. Not many accepted mobile payments.
Yes, there are some new retailers which have accepted mobile payments.
Hawker centers still accept cash with a few accepting mobile payments.
One big change I noticed sometime back, was that in NUS, all the canteen stores accept mobile payments.

Now, it seems like all the rage these days.
Cashless payments, card or mobile.
For me, I don't think of it as good or bad, rather, I ask "Why?".
For me, using card payments was for my own benefit.
Card rebates, promotions, discounts, 1 for 1 offers, don't need to handle cash/coins.
I enjoyed these benefits when I started using credit cards, and still do.
For me, there were no reasons to move to mobile payments, as there was no benefit to be gained.
There might be one reason I would move to mobile payments, which is to pay for hawker food, cos I don't like getting back greasy change. Which is typical when buying prata.

So, I wonder "Why don't more people move towards card payments?", since there is benefit to use it?
Then comes all the issues with credit cards and discipline in spending, debt, and stuff like that.

Then next comes... "OK, then why not debit cards?"
What's the big deal with mobile payments?
I started out by using debit cards.
Carrying one less card is only marginally better vs having it all on the phone.
Whereas having payments on a phone, I have to maintain another "account" top up that account, stuff like that.

Personally, I see very little use as a consumer to move towards mobile payments...
Except in NUS, where there are discounts when using mobile payments to pay for canteen stuff.

BUT... as a retailer, there are reasons to move cashless or NOT to move cashless.
If I'm an individual biz owner. I'm always at the shop, then I'll likely like cash. There are "tax benefits", in cash. I might accept card or mobile payments as it's more convenient or for big ticket items. But cash would be preferred.

Cashless payments are useful for businesses which employ staff, cos well... cash... there's always the issue of missing money. So for a business to pay a couple of percentage admin fees, it's a small price to pay to prevent other losses.
Mobile payments might be more cost effective for businesses cos all they need is a QR code, they don't need complex devices like a card reader, etc.

There are 2 major countries/economies which still do not embrace cashless payments.
Japan and Germany.
When I was in Germany, there was an ATM at the back of the beer house for me to draw money so that I could pay cash.
In Japan, cards are accepted, but apparently many Japanese still use cash.

When reading online, the most common reason why this is the case, is pretty much "They like to know how much they spend, and spend less when using cash".

When I was in France, credit cards weren't normal. They used debit cards. Even the market vendor accepted cards. They have the wireless card readers for processing.

Even in America, when I queue for groceries, there are a few lines which are specifically "card payments" only. Which indicate that many Americans still use cash.

As much as many of us have moved out of cash, there's also the other question.
Why have so many people embraced mobile/ cashless payments so readily?

Now, of course, if there's a benefit, then it makes sense.
That's how marketers work as well.
There are real benefits for using credit cards, but also negative impacts as well.
If there's an incentive, then it makes sense for people to start or keep using it.
If retailers start using cashless methods so as to mitigate losses due to pilferage, then they might want to also encourage consumers to pay via cashless methods via promotions.
With sufficient incentive, consumers will tend to want to shift towards cashless payment methods.
So maybe for some countries, maybe Japan/Germany, they have honest people, honest staff, retailers don't feel that it's necessary to switch to cashless payment methods so they don't incentivize customers to pay cashless.
But until now, I've not seen much positive benefits for mobile payments, at least in SG.

Maybe in China there's more benefits, I'm not sure, but I heard WeChatPay is significantly more convenient as it integrates into their lives, example, you can order food at a restaurant via WeChat, then split the bill with friends and pay via WeChat, all on one app.
So, it may make a lot of sense going mobile when in China.

Our parents, also don't frequently use card payments.
Simply cos, they don't feel the need to.
They don't trust the cards, and they are concerned about fraud.
To them, there isn't much benefits and the rebates aren't enough incentive to change.
My dad still writes cheques to pay for most bills.

Of course the last big problem is that all these cashless payment methods require electricity or battery power.
A card payment would require electricity for the card reader.
And mobile payments require battery for your phone and probably the recipients phone as well, so that they can check their account.
Apparently, in Japan, during the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, credit cards were not usable due to power outages.

Here's an interesting article https://blog.btrax.com/mobile-payment-in-japan/
It talks about cash and cashless in Japan.
Also, it talked about how PayPay, a payment app, incentivized users to download and use it's app.

In truth, I don't think cash, cashless, card, mobile payments changes anything.
It allows Governments to track fund movements. However, from a societal point of view, I think it doesn't make much difference as cashless has already been around for years.

Cashless payments, statistically, encourage people to spend more though, cos people don't relate money with physical cash, it's just a number online.
If someone just uses cash, and they don't carry enough cash to buy that pair of shoes, there's no way to get that pair of shoes. So they just leave the shop.
However, with cashless, they can always have alternative ways to pay for that pair of shoes. They always have a bank account linked to their mobile app, or card which allows them to pay for it immediately.
This hasn't changed recently, cos credit cards already allowed this decades back.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

3 Comments

Singapore 2050

19/10/2020

2 Comments

Regular reader TK gave me a challenge couple of days back...

... Here's 1 which I personally am interested to think about. If you were tasked with coming up with a plan on the future survival of Singapore in the world, what would be your game plan? It looks like no exciting companies want to list on SGX. Our homegrown blue chips are starting to lose their shine. Population size is small, home grown talent is relatively few. What's the true advantage that SG has and how to use that advantage to benefit the citizens of SG?
-TK

Truthfully, I never thought about it. Cos I've always just tried to make things work for myself. As in... this is the country I live in, then I just try to wriggle my way around, make things work for myself and live my life. Everything else, not my problem right?

Whereas this question posted by TK is a challenge, cos it makes me think of what I believe could be good, not for myself, but for Singapore as a whole.
Taking care of myself is easy. I can work, invest, live frugally.
Whereas thinking for a country and it's future economy and growth is a lot more challenging.

When I start thinking about this issue, I come up with a number of questions and statements.

Due to being a small country, I believe, Singapore needs to provide a lot more value per person. This can be achieved through only a certain number of industries.
Eg, Financial, where one person can process a $1,000 transaction, or a $100 million transaction.
Casino, where it is possible to make a $50 bet, or a $100,000 bet. You only need one croupier to deal the cards.
Software, games, apps, media/shows/cinema, all of these can be easily duplicated and sold throughout the world.
For a small country, production of products would likely not be sustainable in the future.
There are bigger countries which can have cheaper labour to do such industries.

This is the same idea as... IF I want Singapore to win an Olympic medal, what sport would I choose to train Singaporean talents?
I would choose a sport where Singaporeans have no competitive disadvantage.
The Asian physique is genetically smaller than many other countries/regions. They will be bigger than us, faster than us.
So if I were to think of a sport where Singaporeans have a chance to win, then it would be individual sports, shooting, archery. Cos we don't have an inherent body disadvantage. We just need to practice a lot.

Similarly, as an economy, Singapore cannot/should not focus on industries which require a lot of manual labour, it needs to be skills based and not labour based. Cos Singapore cannot afford to "waste" manpower doing low value add jobs.
Simply put, we have 5million population, everyone works 10 hours a day.
There are only 50 million manhours in a day. What is the best way to use these manhours.
It's not like China where they have 1.4 billion people. They have a lot of manhours to waste.

Questions that go through my mind are...
Why can't Singapore be like HK?
Why is Singapore media/shows/movies not as popular ask HK?
Why isn't Singapore like Cayman Islands, whereby the citizens don't even need to pay tax cos the fees that the Government earns through company registration is enough.

A company which develops games/apps/etc... doesn't need a lot of manpower.
I believe Singapore has the required talent and skills.

HOWEVER, I believe that Singapore and Singaporeans don't have enough business acumen.
It's like having an army of skilled soldiers with no good general.
Whereas a good general can do more with unskilled soldiers.

Furthermore, there are good enough jobs for skilled Singaporeans.
I'm ok being a Major, or Captain. I earn enough. Why do I need to take the risk and try to be a General?

Another problem I see, is that Singapore has very little problems.
Ride sharing is more useful overseas, where there might be little cabs, hard to find cabs, cabs might have unscrupulous drivers who charge different prices to different people. Think of Malaysia or Thailand or Europe.
Add that with people who have difficulty finding jobs...
And ride hailing apps becomes a really good idea.
This would/could never have come out of Singapore, cos Singapore doesn't have these problems.

Singapore's financial system is also crazy good.
We have FAST, we can transfer money from one bank to another in seconds. We have Paylah, Paynow, etc.
This isn't the same overseas. It's not easy to transfer money in other countries. It takes days with fees. So the idea of e-finance might seem more appealing.
Did Grabpay really change our lives in SG? No right? Cos we already had Nets, Visa, Mastercard, etc.
Whereas in China, payment wasn't made easy until Alipay and WeChatpay came around. SG already had multiple convenient payment methods, so we didn't need to think of better ones.

Supermarkets are all over the place located at convenient places.
So there used to be less reason to get groceries delivered. Once again very different from many other countries.

The thing is... Singapore doesn't have many of the problems that many of the other countries have. Even IF Singapore solves it's problems, these products and services might not be applicable to other countries.

And so I move on to TK's question...
First, a way to answer the question is... where do we want Singapore to be?
I think a lot of Singaporeans still believe, or want to believe that SG is the Switzerland of Asia.
Which I think is a good way to look at SG.

Ok...
So TK's question...
1) Coming up with a plan on the future survival of Singapore in the world.
Personally, I believe there isn't time to train homegrown talent. It would take another 2-3 generations at least to change the mindset of Singaporeans and grow the next generation of leaders or business leaders.
If I were the Government or some kind of planning agency, an option would invest Government money in home grown companies and link them up with other large companies overseas to help expand Singaporean products and services. Same as how Temasek supports companies within SG to keep the companies and economy stable, another Gov investment company can be for helping SG companies expand overseas.
Marketing, branding, etc... How come Redbull, a Thai drink, can end up known all over the world?
Cos it "gives you wings". There's so much marketing for Redbull.

So such a Gov company could force prominent Singapore companies to expand out of Singapore.
Similar to how Softbank believes start-ups don't expand fast enough and forces money onto the companies to push them to expand.
This is IF I want SG to be a country which nurtures it's own companies. But yet, so what if the companies expand to other countries? Will the overall economy in SG be better? I do wonder cos US has many big companies, yet the wealth is only concentrated within a small sector of society.

2) It looks like no exciting companies want to list on SGX. Our homegrown blue chips are starting to lose their shine.
I feel the problem with listing on the SGX has multiple issues.
There aren't many big global company which is listed on the SGX, so other big companies don't want to list on it.
Furthermore, more people know HK more than SG. Just by name, HK wins, and it's a better gateway to China. Singapore in this case is just a proxy for HK.
GLP used to be a big company listed on SGX, then it got sold and privatized and that's the end of it.
And our homegrown blue chips... well, they can't or aren't expanding much out of SG so... that's another issue. If the companies don't get big, then the world doesn't know about SG and there's less interest in the country.
Singapore is well known in certain circles, but it's less well known than HK.
Keppel used to be the biggest rig builder in the world, but how many people know about Keppel?
Cos... only certain industries know about Singapore and the companies.

Singapore companies have to sell outside of Singapore. The problem is the most of the biggest SG companies are Gov related companies and have no incentive to expand out of SG. It's not like a hotshot CEO trying to expand to make his place in the world.
BUT, that is also for the stability of SG, cos these companies MUST not fail as it is the baseline support of SG economy.

Another problem is the SGD. The SGD is not a globally recognized currency.
Compared to EUR, CHF, Chinese Yuan, even HKD is pegged to the USD.
No doubt, SGD is strong in Singapore and the region, but around the world, it's not widely known and accepted.

Once again, I wonder, so what if Alibaba listed on SGX? Not as though the typical Singaporean would have any improvements with their lives. Pride? Yes, Overall benefit to everyone? I'm not so sure.

3) Population size is small, home grown talent is relatively few. What's the true advantage that SG has and how to use that advantage to benefit the citizens of SG?
I think SG's problem is the problem of many European countries.
Everyone is comfortable.
Singaporeans are hardworking and willing to work. But they are comfortable, so there's no need to do much better. Life is good enough.
There's no more hunger, and there's not much opportunity.
If I'm a graduate, I can just find a cushy job and not take any risks and I'd be set for life. This is not so easy for many other countries.

Probably the easiest way to keep Singapore relevant, is for the Government to encourage global companies to set up HQ in SG.
The lucky thing is everyone in SG speaks English, we have a large enough skilled work force so as a gateway to Asia, SG is better than HK or China, considering language and political barriers.
BUT, the unlucky thing is that not everyone in SG speaks good mandarin. As a gateway to China, HK is way better, if not for the political issues.

4) Conclusion
I've been pretty much all over the place when talking about this.
The thing is... I feel there's a lot of issues within SG and the system and economy.
A business which makes it in SG doesn't have much of a chance when expanding overseas.
Even if the company can expand overseas, it doesn't mean that jobs and production will remain in SG.
SG is so small. It's different running a biz in SG vs Malaysia or China.
And so, it's hard for a biz owner to switch from running a biz in SG, to expanding to bigger countries. Cos it's just not the same.

So let's say Yeo's comes out with a great drink that is exported overseas like Redbull.
Production of the drink will still leave SG, so jobs will not remain in SG.

Even if a software type company creates the next Facebook, it may start in SG, but eventually will need to go where the talent and market is, meaning it will move to Silicon valley, and once again, jobs will not stay in SG.

So for me, I believe that SG will not be able to play in the field of the big boys. There just isn't a market big enough in SG. We are limited by our population and size.
Even if we have good products to sell to the world, the jobs will not remain in SG.
And businesses will not view SG as an attractive market due to the limited market.

HOWEVER, I think SG can be a good support country and do it will.
Hey, no shame in being the support player.
Being the Robin, or Alfred is not too bad. (Alfred even got his own show on Netflix hor.)
In any party there is also a healer, buffer, thief, etc.

And I think it's win-win for SG.
Don't need to think too much about being innovative, the citizens have good jobs in big MNCs.
People don't need to take too much risks, Gov just need to attract companies to set up shop as a gateway to Asia, SEA region, and of course the skills of Singaporeans must also be catered to this support role.
Regional/Global expertise, tax incentives, educated workers, maybe include coding as a subject in school, etc...
The problem is this position of support character is now being challenged. As MNCs can set up in HK, or Shanghai, etc.

So, for me, I believe that for Singapore and Singaporeans to have a good economy and a good life for residents, it's all about jobs. Good jobs. Cos I believe that having a SG created "Facebook" in SG, doesn't do much for the general population. It's just like any other company which creates jobs. Only the owners get rich. Same as companies which list on the SGX.
Which is what happens in US, many companies start in the US, but production moves out of US due to cost of production, thus, US has lost many jobs.

But if SG is able to consistently attract good companies to set up in SG, like FB, Apple, Google, Tencent, Goldman, etc... then SG should be able to continue to thrive.
It's like the Cayman Islands. They only register companies for tax purposes. And it's well known for providing this service.
So SG needs to set up good schools and institutions to prepare the workers for the different jobs which will be required by these MNCs.

Of course this is just my own personal thoughts, I might not be understanding the whole situation and I could be wrong about this whole thing.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

2 Comments

What is Reality?

15/10/2020

9 Comments

So couple of posts back, I mentioned that I had considered stopping my posts.
It's highly related to another post which I made last time about having difficulty talking to people.

I think it's about perspectives and reality.
What is reality?
Or what is your reality?
Is your reality the same as someone else's reality?
I was talking to a friend when I was back in SG.
The thing is, in your/our own perspective, anyone could be right, or anyone could be wrong. Cos, we live in our own realities.

During the US civil war, some people felt it was ok to keep slaves, some people didn't. They fought it out and now, generally, most people feel it isn't right to keep slaves.
This has become the current dominant reality.
However, it wasn't long ago, that the dominant reality was that it was OK to keep slaves.

Similarly, I might believe that people should be allowed to live whatever way they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. And we could debate this with multiple people for hours on end.
BUT, the dominant reality is that most of us are judged by society, the people around us, our parents, friends, etc.
What's wrong with someone retiring young? What's wrong with someone being a bum?
What's wrong with someone who wants to be LGBTQ? What's wrong with single mothers?
Absolutely nothing. They are living their own lives and won't affect you. But yet, society looks at them differently and treats them differently.
The idea that "If everyone does this.. then society will..." is stupid and flawed. Cos come on... not everyone will do this, whatever this is.
Same as, if everyone exercises, everyone would be healthier, but that's not happening anytime soon.
Or, if everyone stops smoking, then lung cancer rates would drop, but once again, people who want to smoke will continue to do so.

We could discuss how Trump doesn't deserve to be President. Even a cow would do a better job. Cos at least a cow does nothing. It can do nothing bad and the rest of the administration can do what it needs to do.
CNN, CNBC, multiple news outlets have debates, discussions on Trump and the issues. Hours and hours or discussion and debate.
So what? Trump is still President, and talking for hours doesn't change anything. That is the reality.
The other politicians in the Senate and House, who were supposed to keep the President in check aren't doing their job. That's the reality as well.
Furthermore, he has a really good chance to get reelected. It's not like his chances are low.
The thing is, what are we even talking about anymore?
If it isn't obviously apparent that Trump has issues, morally corrupt and isn't good for USA and the world, then any more discussion wouldn't help change anymore minds.
If after all he's done, someone still need convincing on why he shouldn't be President, then the problem is in that "someone".

Or I might think that climate change is real.
But the dominant reality is people don't care.
It's not even about climate change being real or not, the thing is, most people don't care. And we could once again talk about it being real or not, and so what? People still don't care.
Most people only care about their own convenience, comfort, happiness. Climate change is like... smoking. Until the patient gets lung cancer, change is probably not going to happen anytime soon.
UNLESS, politicians are willing to ban cigarettes.

Or some children may believe that their parents love them, cos that's their perspective based on past experience with their parents. But the reality could be that the parents are looking to them as a safety net in future and as an investment for their own benefit.
So what is the real reality in this case? From who's perspective should we look at?
To the child/children, they don't know anything. To them, their perceived reality is that their parents love them. Do they need to know the reality?

Or... what if someone is very happy to tutor another student for free?
Then a friend comes up and says, "Why you so stupid? The student is taking advantage of you! You should charge for your services!"
Then suddenly this person feels stupid and now has a nagging feeling of... "Should I charge for my tuition services? Am I stupid to be giving free lessons? Am I being taken advantaged of?"
What is the reality?
Maybe the student really doesn't feel anything and just doesn't mind free lessons. No ill intentions to be free loading off the tutor.
Even if the student is grateful for free lessons and not consciously taking advantage of the tutor, the friend definitely would still feel that the tutor has been short changed. Cos in his reality, services don't come for free.
Maybe at the start the tutor was ok with giving free lessons, and that was his reality, but after his friend said something, his perceived reality has changed.

Or like in Korea, where it's ok to go out with friends of the opposite sex one on one.
Where it's not a date. They could go out, eat, drink, get drunk, and it's all platonic.
But yet in other countries, it's not so simple.
Even in Singapore, it's rare. I never knew it wasn't ok to go out with a girl one on one. That girls will have additional thoughts... "is he interested in me?"
For me, I in JC/Uni, I went out with some girls, just for fun, and I never thought that it was inappropriate. Until my wife told me that that isn't really normal. Cos it's highly likely that they would misunderstand and that they would likely think that I was interested in them.
And if we look at some Middle Eastern countries, going out with someone of the opposite sex is almost impossible.
All of these are real. In their own realities.
Is there a right or wrong? Does it matter? In their own dominant realities, each country, person will work their way around it and try to live their own lives.

Or in school, there's always some feminine guy or nerdy in class who's always bullied/made fun of.
Where the dominant reality is to conform to some sort of norm in school, and it's socially unacceptable to be different.
Whereas to them, their reality is they may like studying, they maybe interested in feminine ideas, doesn't mean they are gay, maybe, maybe not.
Should they change to conform to the dominant reality? Is being ostracized worth holding on to their own realities?

So my discussion with my friend led me to think... what's there to really talk about?
The world is what it is.
People will believe what they want to believe. What is right or wrong or neutral doesn't matter.

I have my perspective, my view of what the world should be, and of course I think, "If only everyone does this, the world would be a better place."
Everyone will have their own perspective of what they want their world to be like.

Then there is the dominant reality of my country, of the people around me. What is considered socially acceptable, responsible, the right thing to say, the right way to react to people.
Why is it awkward to be silent when with someone? By right, it should be ok to be silent. But somehow socially it's weird.

Then there is the perspective of the politicians and what they view the country/world should be like.
Their actions can shape the dominant reality.
See what happened to the US due to Trump being in power. White supremacists and racists are more comfortable to show their true colours, cos it's now more socially acceptable to show it.

And some people struggle with the difference between what they feel the world should be like, vs what the dominant reality is.
Some people might feel that their parents should give them more support in their activities, or someone might feel that their careers should take off once they graduate, like what is shown on TV.
And they might get depressed when their perceived reality doesn't match up with the current dominant reality.

And as I thought more about it, I wondered... am I right? Or am I wrong?
And the answer is probably... I am right, and I am wrong.
Based on my own reality, I am right.
BUT based on the current dominant reality, I am very wrong.
Do I care? Or why should I care?

People will vote whatever politicians they like based on their own perceived reality. In some peoples' reality, they believe Trump is a good leader. And they deserve the leader they voted for, cos it's a democracy and the majority of people voted for Trump.

Same as financial planning, the people who read financial planning blogs are people who care about financial planning. They will naturally steer towards that direction. There's a good probability that they will take care of themselves. Anything that could be written has already been written, by me or someone else.

As I talked to my friend, I felt... disconnected. It's like... Living in a different world.
The idea that anything could be right, or anything could be wrong.
Or anyone could be right, or anyone could be wrong.
There is no right and no wrong.
It all depends on who's saying what to whom.
It doesn't matter whether it's real or not real, reality is what people believe of it, and that's all that matters.
And based on what people believe to be real in their own reality, people live their lives, make decisions, work, play, everything. We all do this to various extents.

And I got tired thinking around in circles, and thought... hey maybe I should stop writing. Cos I couldn't come to a conclusion. I kept thinking about things from other peoples' perspectives and I kept going around in circles, cos anything could be right or wrong depending on who's looking at it and how it's said or interpreted.

That's not to say I'm confused by my own reality. I like the way I currently live. So I'm ok with that.
But for writing, it's different. I find it hard to pen out my thoughts if I am unable to anchor on to certain fixed ideals/beliefs.
And when any ideal/belief could be real, then the conclusion changes based on the starting point.

Then I went back to read some of my past posts to think and reflect upon things and sort out my thinking.
And I get encouraged by comments like the below, or I receive messages or comments that my posts have helped them feel better about the decisions that they have made for themselves.

....By choosing your time to carefully think and share your thoughts via a blog about alternatives to a good/worthy life, you are helping me and others on their own decisions for life in a positive way. I feel better and enriched and with that. Who knows, it might result in me pursuing a different career which is also slower, enriching and empowering vocation to others?....

-Kuriko
Comment on one of my older posts

I suppose it's like the story of the starfish.

So hopefully now that I'm back in US, and have sorted out my thoughts, and have more time on my hands I'll be able to get back to posting more regularly again.
If anyone has any interesting topic to discuss or ask about, please feel free to comment below.
It really helps to trigger thoughts which I may have already thought about, but never thought to write about.
Or maybe it's a new idea which I've never thought about, and I think it's good to explore new thoughts and ideas.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

9 Comments

Traveling To and From SG During COVID

13/10/2020

2 Comments

Hi ERSG,
Can you describe your experience with immigration at Changi airport arriving and leaving Spore? For example, do you get questioned on why you are flying back to a high CV country

Reader Mel commented on the previous post and I think it would be interesting for readers to know more about the process, since not many people would have this experience.

I'll do this post as a Singaporean, I don't know about foreigners or work pass holders, and I didn't do any research on it.

Entering Singapore
So when we decided to return to Singapore, there wasn't much that needed to be done. Cos we're Singaporeans returning home. SG doesn't have restrictions on us going back to SG. We did have to complete a health declaration stating that we understood the SHN requirements, blah blah blah, 3 days before flying into SG.

It's really quite simple, except that finding a flight back into SG wasn't so easy, cos not many flights are flying these days.

In the plane, Qatar Airways, we are supposed to wear a face mask and face shield at all times unless eating. The plane is pretty much only 20% full. Each passenger is able to get 3 empty seats to lie across to sleep, and even then, there is still rows of empty seats, so there's really a lot of space.

Landing in SG is also a simple process. When we got out of the plane, it's the typical Singaporean efficiency. I think the Government/ICA has really hired a lot of redundant workers as ushers/guides to shepherd the travelers from the airplane to immigration. There's really A LOT of staff to usher passengers.
At immigration, the officer will check our passports and talk to us about our health declaration and that we understand that we need to serve 14 days SHN and we need to take a swab test, etc...
Then we are ushered to collect baggage, then through customs and to a gathering area.
At the gathering area, we wait for other passengers to gather and we are guided onto a bus to bring us to the hotel for SHN.
Checking into the hotel is the usual check in process.

The 14 day SHN is free for us, as we left SG before March 2020.
For travelers who left SG after March 2020, and return to SG, they will have to pay for their own SHN. Cos it's like, "YOU ALREADY KNOW THERE'S COVID, WHO ASK YOU TO GO AND TRAVEL!!!"
So if we return to SG next year and there's still SHN requirements, we will have to pay for ourselves.

For us, it's quite a simple process of just follow the ushers and we will end up at the hotel.
Then we just stay in the hotel for 14 days.
Regularly, ICA representatives will call us to make sure that we are still at the hotel, or they will knock our hotel doors and ask us questions or ask us to show our IC to determine that we have not left the SHN facility.

On the 11th day, we go to take a swab test. For us, we just needed to go to the hotel lobby where there is a bunch of medical staff who will perform the swabs for us. We have to pay for our own swab tests, S$186 per pax.
2 days later, someone called us to give us our test results.
Even if the test is negative, we still have to serve our full 14 day SHN.

Total time for SHN is 14 nights, 15 days.
Then we call our own cab/Grab and leave the SHN hotel.

Then life goes on as normal.

Leaving Singapore
This is pretty easy, it's as though we are just traveling.
No further questions asked.
Since we didn't buy a return ticket, they do ask a bit more questions.
Like why we are traveling to the US, what is our address in the US, do we have a long term visa in the US, etc.
This is the same as when we left for France without a return ticket. So there's no change in procedure due to COVID.

End
I think there won't be any tourists who would be coming to SG or SG tourists going overseas. There's really no point during this period.
Most people who are traveling are either people traveling due to work, or students, or they are going/coming home from work/study.
OH and people who are looking to relocate. Which I classify under work related travelers.
I think for new opportunities, people are willing to travel even during COVID conditions. Although for me, I would really wonder why anyone would want to relocate during this period.

I likely would not return to SG anytime soon.
Unless the SHN notice is lifted. Cos it really isn't worth staying 14 days at a facility. It's really no fun for me.
I WILL still make at least one trip back to SG next year, regardless of SHN requirements.
So, if SHN is still required near end of 2021, I'll still return to SG to visit my family and friends.
Else, if SHN is lifted earlier, then I will return maybe once every 6 months.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

2 Comments

Back in the US

12/10/2020

4 Comments

This recent trip back to SG was quite interesting.
I left US and took a 30 hour flight. It was painful.
16 hours from Houston to Doha, 8 hour transit, 8 hour flight to SG.
I couldn't wait to get off the plane.
Then I landed in SG, and spent another 2 weeks in quarantine.
This was painful as well, I couldn't wait to get out of the hotel.

Then once I was out, the next 3 weeks flew by super fast.
I went out with a couple of friends and family.
Unfortunately, I didn't meet up with everyone I would have liked to meet up with. There really wasn't much time. 3 weeks seems a lot but yet it's not.

Then just in what seemed like a blink of an eye, I had to board the plane again and take a 24 hour trip back to the US, transit was shorter so the total trip was a bit shorter.
8 hours from SG to Doha, 2 hour transit, 16 hours back to Houston.
Once again, the flight was painful and I couldn't wait to get off the plane.
I was pretty sad to leave SG but once I got on the plane, the pain of being on the plane made me forget about the sadness of leaving SG.
Yes, I really hate being on the plane. I really have no idea why people want to pay money to take a flight to nowhere.

Then once I landed in US, we took an Uber to our apartment and I was glad to be back to a comfortable place.
It's not that I love being in the US, but I really hate being on the plane. So I'm glad that I've landed and I'm more or less settled in already and life is back to a certain routine.

I went to a couple of supermarkets in the US a day after I landed.
And it felt weird, cos I didn't have to "scan in". I just walk into the supermarket and wander around looking for whatever I needed. Didn't need to "scan out" either.

I got a couple of new perspectives when I returned to SG.
Made me feel like stopping my posts.
I'll probably write a bit on what I realized in the next couple of days, and why these realizations made me feel like not writing anymore.
Hopefully I'll be able to get into the zone of posting again.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

4 Comments

Author

Archives