I tend to think of this trend as being very unhealthy! The whole family is on gadgets instead of talking to one another! Observe the portion in BOLD.

The Straits Times
Sep 4, 2011
Wired families
The use of electronic gadgets during family time is becoming common as Singapore gets more wired

By Melissa Sim

It is the weekend and in Mr Effendy Ibrahim's family, that means the children get one to two hours to play games on their favourite gadgets.

Four-year-old Fatih Hamdani plays Angry Birds on his mother's iPhone. His two brothers - Amirul Haziq, 10, and Adib Rifa'i, nine - are engaged in a virtual Pokemon battle on the Nintendo DS.

Eldest brother Naufal Zahin, 11, grabs his father's iPod and loads up Gravity Guy, in which he plays the main character being pursued by the Gravity Troops.

Meanwhile, mum and dad are also technologically engaged: Housewife Suliha Yusoff, 38, the expert in shooting virtual hoops, has a Galaxy Tab on her lap, while Mr Effendy, who is the consumer business head for Asia at technology company Symantec, checks his e-mail on his Blackberry.

Snap a photograph of this and call it the modern family portrait and you would not be far from the truth.

These days, it is common for families to spend time at home, in one another's company, but engaged in their own virtual realities. This does not mean that is all they do together as a family, but it is a new version of what people have always called family time.

An easy place to spot these wired families is in restaurants, where everyone - parents included - are glued to their gadgets instead of talking to one another.

The young children would be playing games on their iPads, the father would be checking e-mail messages on his Blackberry and the mother would be taking pictures of the food with her iPhone.

Wireless Internet, coupled with the proliferation of hardware from tablets to smartphones and content - from movies to games to books - have made it painless for people to get hooked up anytime, anywhere.

Surveys by the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore show that last year, 84 per cent of resident households had access to at least one computer - be it a desktop, laptop or notebook - at home. More than half, or 52 per cent, had two or more computers, up from 38 per cent just five years ago.

And this does not include mobile phones and other gadgets which also provide access to games and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

In a Digital Consumer Report carried out by market research group Nielson, nearly one in four, out of slightly more than 1,000 surveyed, said they had a tablet computer in the household.

The survey, which was conducted in Singapore in June and July this year, also showed that 70 per cent of those surveyed used smartphones.

Like the introduction of television in the 1960s, concerns have been raised about the impact of wired devices on family interaction.

Psychiatrist Adrian Wang says that once or twice a month, he receives complaints from parents who say electronic gadgets are distracting their children and that the children do not know how to communicate any more. These parents usually have children between the ages of eight and 18.

Counsellor Tammy Fontana from All In The Family Counselling says children also complain that parents are really never 'present'. Even if they are reading or studying in each other's company, parents are constantly on the phone texting or checking e-mail messages.

She says: 'Kids are very aware of this and the message that is communicated from the parent to the child is 'you are not that important'.'

Although attachment to one's electronic gadgets may drive a wedge between family members, counsellors and psychiatrists who spoke to LifeStyle believe technology could, as easily, be used to bring families together, as long as the usage is well managed.

It should be pointed out that in the days when one family shares one television set, its members would fight over the remote control and the programme to watch.

In contrast, mobile electronic gadgets let family members pursue their interests while being in the same room, from watching the latest episode of Glee to shopping online to chatting with friends via Facebook.

While it is tempting to demonise mobile electronic gadgets for trapping family members in their own virtual worlds, the reality is less straightforward.

Often, there is a 'spillover' effect. For example, Dr Wang says families can get together to play Wii or share YouTube videos.

The father of a nine-year-old son says he still 'gets a kick out of it' when his son wants to share a video he enjoyed.

He adds that spending time this way is fine, as long as it is not at the expense of other forms of family time. 'You still have to go to the bird park,' he says matter- of-factly.

Single mum Jasmine Elisa Chng, 30, a public relations consultant who lived in Boston and returned to Singapore three months ago, would post videos of her daughter Mariko on a YouTube channel for her extended family to keep in touch with the two-year-old's development.

Ms Chng's mother, accountant Sally Low, 59, would check the channel every morning for new videos.

Now that Madam Low, Ms Chng and Mariko live together in Singapore, there is less need to post videos online. Instead, they gather to watch Mariko's old YouTube videos or search for Japanese videos online, which Mariko - who is half-Japanese - enjoys.

'Instead of just watching TV, we are doing something interactive,' says Ms Chng.

Similarly, Mr Effendy's family may seem to be occupied in their own virtual worlds, but often, the children will show one another how to get bonus points in their various games, or the family will gather together around a computer to buy books or shoes online.

It may not be a traditional way of spending family time but it is hardly dysfunctional. Best of all, it is not 'forced' family time where daddy dictates to the family how they should spend their free time.

Technology has also made communication easier in the Oh family. The family of nine live in a two- storey bungalow in the Holland area and while at home, often send messages to one another through messaging application Whatsapp.

Ms Alessandra Oh, 26, a post-graduate student, says her family will use the application to locate people in the house or arrange a time to gather.

'Our texts usually say, 'where are you?', 'let's watch a movie downstairs' or 'let's go out and grab ice cream',' she says.

When it comes to gadgets and technology, Dr Daniel Fung, senior consultant of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Institute of Mental Heath, has this piece of advice: 'If you can't beat them, join them.'

Last year's Norton Online Family Report showed that on average, Singaporean children have 76 online friends - a higher average than their peers globally who have, on average, 56 online friends. A total of 101 Singaporean children aged 10 to 17 were surveyed.

Dr Fung says parents used to ask children to bring their friends home, but now 'if your kids and their friends are on Facebook, get on it and see what's happening and see the interaction'. 'If they are on Twitter, follow their tweets,' he adds.

But if husbands and wives or parents and children are discovering a lack of communication, perhaps it is time to hit that power-off button.

The key to managing technology, says Ms Fontana, is 'turning off gadgets as they distract people from the substance of your life'.

Often in counselling, she tells couples or families to turn off the TV or Facebook for a week and see what happens.

She says: 'It's amazing how much families reconnect and learn about one another without the TV or other gadgets. As with everything, moderation is key.'

suntimes@sph.com.sg

Does your family have rules governing the use of mobile electronic gadgets? Write to suntimes@sph.com.sg

hi,

i want to share some of the findings i have discovered regarding SCB trading platform.

1. SCB is the custodian of any shares purchased thru their platform. CDP will not be. Any shares held under CDP will not be able to be sold thru SCB. You can transfer the CDP shares to SCB account.

2. AR will be mailed to you by SCB. If you need to attend AGMs, you will need to call SCB to make arrangements. All dividends will be deposited into your SCB account.

3. You will need to have sufficient funds in your trading account before you can buy anything. But it will be deducted on T+3.

Would be glad to hear from forumers on point no 1. The only downside risk is that SCB collapses. What will happen to all the shares held by them?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <>
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:10 AM
Subject:
To: kate You <>



Want to get a sense on the likely outcome of the 2011 Singapore
Presidential election?

1) If you are Singaporean, go to: http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/532944

2) Indicate your choice.

3) View results.

4) Send it to as many Singaporean friends as you have.

5) Check back to link to view results.

An amusing article talking about buffets at AGMs!

The Straits Times
Aug 22, 2011
Time to end AGMs' annual general makan
Firms, scrap the buffet before someone gets hurt in scuffle for food

IT'S TIME to do away with the almost-obligatory buffet spread provided by many listed companies to the shareholders attending their annual general meetings (AGMs).

Now, I know that getting between hungry shareholders and their expected repast is going to make me as popular as another S-Chip accounting scandal.

But having covered my share of such events, which public companies are required to hold annually, I've come to believe that the post-AGM buffet is a bad idea.

This is because the free food has the unfortunate effect of abetting some rancid behaviour on the part of some shareholders.

What sort of behaviour?

Well, for starters, the exodus of shareholders for the exit door of a room before the meeting has ended, all making a beeline for the buffet room to secure a place at the head of the buffet queue.

Some shareholders carry containers to take away the food, never mind that it is meant for the consumption of shareholders attending the event.

The choicest items - such as chicken wings, prawn fritters and fish fillet - often run out first, although I have it on good authority from a straw poll of a dozen companies in industries ranging from utilities to finance to services, that they all cater for more food than the numbers attending.

Company spokesmen and retail shareholders shared other horror stories with me. One shareholder would routinely turn up at a company AGM with a grocery cart-load of empty containers she would then fill with food.

Another person recounted how some shareholders show up with their extended family - including toddlers - along as 'observers' so they too can enjoy the buffet.

In a letter to The Straits Times Forum page last month, SMRT shareholder Leong Hoe Cheong shared how some shareholders would go around collecting uneaten food off others' plates to pack home.

And then there's the shareholder who, halfway through the AGM meeting, left the room hurriedly and went straight to the buffet area, where he proceeded to open the lids of all the buffet trays over the protests of the serving staff. He then carted off an entire tray of satay (spiced grilled meats). Yes, he took even the steel warming tray.

I've seen with my own eyes how a swarm - there really is no other word to describe them - of shareholders cleaned out the buffet spread. And then, fortified by the feast, they made their way into the company's meeting rooms. There, they headed straight for the cafe bar and wiped out the coffee packs, tea bags, sachets of sugar and non-dairy creamer. They even took away the plastic stirrers and styrofoam cups.

To be fair, most retail shareholders do not behave so badly. Many of those I've had the pleasure to speak to are courteous, queue up in orderly fashion, don't pile their plates without regard for others behind them, or take along containers to da bao (pack) the food.

But the behaviour of a minority is downright offensive. In fact, one of my greatest fears is that a bad accident will happen one day.

I once witnessed an argument between two middle-aged men after one scooped up a mound of all the remaining cuttlefish balls from the buffet tray - depriving the other of the delectable morsels.

I was one of the aggrieved ones in the queue behind with no sotong ball to savour. And while I had fun imagining two angry, hungry grown men in a full-on food fight, I also felt troubled.

That heated argument was one shove away from serious trouble, as we were surrounded by hot food in containers heated by flaming tea lights.

It's time to do away with those free-for-all buffet fests after an AGM, before a major incident erupts.

After all, AGMs are for shareholders of a company to meet with its management and board of directors to discuss serious matters, elect new office-holders, and obtain shareholder approval for major business decisions.

It is not an annual general makan, even if some treat it as such.

Some companies have in fact got rid of the buffet. A few replace buffets - which reward the impatient and unruly - with packed meals for all. Some give out food vouchers. Even these alternatives attract greedy shareholders - some rejoin the food queue for extra packets of food or extra vouchers.

But at least they are safer options.

For those companies that want to retain the buffet or fear offending shareholders if they do away with it, I suggest that they have serving staff at each food station to control portions given out.

I know my suggestion to do away with the free buffet will give shareholders who are regulars at annual general makans, severe indigestion.

If you are offended, let me pose this question.

Why do you buy a company's shares?

Probably because of its growth prospects or generous dividend yield. I doubt the food provided at AGMs, no matter how good it may be, was part of this calculation.

Consider the potential downside that a melee or accident at an AGM can cause to the image or share price of the company whose shares you own.

Now, I warrant that's a prospect most shareholders will agree is even less appetising than missing out on a buffet.

Companies say they offer the buffet as a 'thank you' gesture to shareholders. As a shareholder myself of several companies here, I say a better gesture is to have a smooth, safe AGM with no prospects of a stressful, potentially unrowdy scramble for free food.

Better still, put the resources spent organising a buffet for several hundred people to better use, to grow the business, or even give out higher dividends.

In my books, that's a far better way to make shareholders drool.

chuahh@sph.com.sg

I just wonder what important lessons and values we can derive from this news in singapore context

Friday, Aug 19, 2011
WILHELMSHAVEN, Germany - Sixty-nine-year-old German Heidemarie Schwermer never thought she could go so long without money, but what begun as a 12-month experiment became a unique lifestyle 15 years ago.

With only a touch of makeup, a light pink cotton sweater and string of fake pearls, the elegant pensioner with a warm smile says she can hardly remember the last time she spent a cent.

Instead, since 1996, she has lived by a unique scheme of swaps and barters she says has held her in good stead.

Not a religious ascetic or a commune dweller, Schwermer is an urbanite living in the heart of a materialistic society and says she has no plans to go back to the world of euros and cents.

"Giving up money gave me quality of life, inner wealth and freedom," she says.

Turning one's back on consumerism in Europe's top economy, particularly now in a period of relative growth compared to its neighbours, has a radical charm rooted in a tumultuous life history.

Born during World War II in what was then East Prussia, Schwermer as a child joined the flood of refugees expelled by Russian forces.

Her family arrived in Germany penniless.

"I saw how you were considered to be even less than worthless if you did not have possessions or money," she said.

In the late 1960s, she spent a year in Chile, and "I saw extreme poverty there."

Back in Germany, she had two children, divorced and moved to the western city of Dortmund in 1982, where she opened a psychotherapy practice. "I wanted to understand what is going on in the minds of human beings. But that was not enough, I wanted to do more for the world," she explains.

Thus the idea was born in 1994 to start a swapping network for people short of cash - a groundbreaking notion. Pensioners and students answered the call in droves.

Schwermer began to housesit in exchange for payment in kind. She quickly noticed that she could take care of almost all of her material needs without ever stumping up.

In 1996, she took the decisive leap: she quit her job, moved out of her rented home, gave away all her possessions, closed her bank account, cancelled her health insurance and threw herself into what was planned as a year without money.

Those closest to her were baffled. "My daughter was worried to death, my friends nearly cried. Now they're behind me."

Schwermer flopped on sofas where she could and started writing a book about her experience, which has also been translated into other languages.

"I earned a lot of money with that book," she confides. "I gave it all away to passersby, in five-mark bills", Germany's currency at the time.

She has appeared on television, moderated seminars and been the subject of a documentary film.

Now she is editing her third book in a house in the northern seaside city of Wilhelmshaven where she is crashing for a while. In return, she takes out the trash and mows the lawn.

Schwermer gives her pension of 700 euros ($1,208) per month to "acquaintances who need it" and refuses to think about old age or go to the doctor.

She found a health food store in Dortmund that gave her discarded produce, and now in Wilhelmshaven a friend sometimes hands her vegetables from her garden. If need be, she occasionally seeks the help of a soup kitchen.

"Of course I worry if there is nothing in the fridge," she says. "In the beginning I was afraid all the time but what I love above all (about the lifestyle) is not knowing what will happen tomorrow."

Schwermer said she is not seeking disciples but perhaps "to help people reflect on their way of life and their relations with others."

In two months, she will take out her small suitcase, which holds all of her earthly possessions, bound for Destination Unknown.

The Straits Times
Aug 20, 2011
Borders' Wheelock store: It's the end
Bookstore ordered to vacate Orchard Road mall by next Tuesday

By Jamie Ee Wen Wei

BORDERS' flagship store at Wheelock Place will close for good, ending days of speculation over the fate of the 13-year-old bookstore.

It has been ordered to remove its stocks and vacate the Orchard Road shopping mall by next Tuesday. Its Parkway Parade branch will, however, stay open.

The spotlight has been on the bookstore since its Wheelock outlet closed suddenly on Tuesday. A statement from the company that day put the closure down to a dispute with its landlord, and assured customers and business partners that it was working to get things in running order again as soon as possible.

But news of its definite end came yesterday in a statement from its appointed interim judicial manager, Mr Tim Reid of recovery firm Ferrier Hodgson.

Mr Reid, whose job is to draft proposals to prove in court that Borders' business is still viable, conceded that Borders Singapore had been running at a loss, and said the 'large rent' at Wheelock Place had put a strain on the company.

He said the sudden closure this week did indeed come out of a dispute with its landlord, Wheelock Properties.

The company was late in paying its rent this month, and the amount written on the cheque was incorrect. A cashier's order for the owed sum was subsequently handed over, but Wheelock Properties, having set legal action in motion, was unwilling to reverse its action, he said.

'The company is therefore unable to reopen its store in Wheelock Place, which it has occupied for the last 13 years,' the statement from Ferrier Hodgson said.

Mr Reid told The Straits Times that the landlord was legally entitled to re-enter the premises because of the default in payment.

Earlier media reports that the company was two months behind in rent were off-base, he said.

When contacted yesterday, Wheelock Properties again declined comment. It would only say that the matter was being handled by its lawyers.

Yesterday, staff at the Wheelock outlet were clearing out shelves and packing books into boxes.

The bookstore will hold a sale to clear its stock at a 'significant discount' once it finds a suitable location, the statement from Ferrier Hodgson said.

One regular customer, Dr S.M. Chew, 46, was sad to learn of the store's end. He said: 'I will miss it. I used to come once or twice a month to browse. It was probably one of the largest stores here.'

The Parkway Parade branch showed little hint of trouble yesterday. It was still business as usual.

Mr Reid said Borders has enjoyed loyalty from its staff and customers during its years of operation here, and that he looked forward to continued support for its Parkway Parade store.

Ms Stephanie Poh, the general manager of Parkway Parade, described the four-year-old branch as a 'valued retailer' and said Parkway Parade would continue its support for the company and work with Mr Reid while he considered its future.

For months now, Borders Singapore has tried to distance itself from the debt problems of its Australian and United States offices. Its statement on Tuesday said the closure of the Wheelock store had nothing to do with the trouble in its overseas branches.

In February, Borders Singapore's Australian parent, REDgroup Retail, entered voluntary administration, mired in debt. All Borders outlets Down Under have shut down. The Borders Group in the US, which sold the Singapore stores to REDgroup in 2008, declared bankruptcy in February.

jamieee@sph.com.sg

Never cross an accountant! Haha!

The Straits Times
Aug 18, 2011
Man seeks refund after romance fails
Woman says jewellery and other items, costing nearly $400k, were gifts

By K. C. Vijayan

A HIGH Court suit is set to be a test case for whether gifts in cash and kind are returnable after a romantic relationship hits the rocks.

The suit in question involves gifts ranging from sparkly baubles and tech toys to condominium deposit payments and even investments in the production of music videos.

Widower Chan Kok Sang, an accountant in his 60s, reckons he must have spent about $400,000 on divorcee Caroline Tong during their courtship, in the belief that she would marry him.

Now that she is not going to do so, he considers what he gave her to be 'friendly loans' which are to be repaid.

Ms Tong, a real estate agent in her 40s, denies the claims. Her argument is that the items were unconditional presents given during their relationship.

On her part, she is making a counter-claim for half the proceeds from the sale of a $1.24 million condominium unit in Keppel Bay, a property registered in both their names.

The couple acknowledge that they were in a relationship from 2007 until last year.

During that time, they entered into a string of joint investment ventures and he bought her several expensive gifts - the jewellery alone came to about $90,000.

Now, all these expenditures will be up for scrutiny before the courts to settle the intentions behind them.

Mr Chan contends in court documents that marriage was on the cards, and that Ms Tong had breached a promise to wed him.

They had gone as far as to have made-to-measure wedding rings ordered, allegedly at her request.

She also allegedly asked for the ser tiang ching, the pieces of gold traditionally given to Chinese brides, as a signal of his intent to marry her.

Ms Tong says in defence documents that she returned the wedding proposal items, but it is unclear whether she did so only after the relationship foundered.

Mr Chan, represented by lawyer Anthony Tan, points out that if items like jewellery pieces are returned, it shows they were not meant to be gifts; other items still held by her should thus be similarly treated and returned.

These include watches, bags and branded accessories like a notebook and iPad.

Mr Chan also claims he lent Ms Tong $48,000 to buy a flat in St Michael's Road, but she says the sum was given to her to accompany him on a trip to Hong Kong in July last year.

Mr Chan claims to have also advanced her $79,000 to help launch two VCDs of her songs in Hokkien and Mandarin, but she says he made the investment with her in a venture to produce music video albums for sale in Singapore and overseas.

She says in defence papers filed by her lawyer K. Ramalingam that the first VCD has generated about $6,000 so far, a sum due to him for his part in the investment.

Through her lawyer, Ms Tong is asking that Mr Chan account for the rental income received from their condominium apartment in Keppel Bay.

She claims it was she who sourced the flat and that they had agreed it was to be a joint investment, with each of them having a half-share of the property.

Mr Chan bought the unit with his money, registered it in their names and obtained a mortgage under her name since he was past 60 and ineligible for a long-term loan.

He paid a part of the purchase price, and the rental was supposed to have gone into servicing the mortgage. He is seeking a court declaration to sever the joint ownership and have the property reverted to just his name.

Ms Tong, who graduated with a master's in international business from the University of Technology in Sydney, is also a professional singer who has performed for charity organisations and theatres in recent years, going by her Facebook page.

vijayan@sph.com.sg

Another Op-Ed from Warren Buffett. He's actually asking the US GOvt to tax him more! Haha!

August 14, 2011
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

The Straits Times
Aug 16, 2011
Call for Sunshine Empire trio to get stiffer sentences
Firm was an elaborate fraud on a large scale, argue prosecutors at High Court

By Selina Lum

PROSECUTORS yesterday pushed for heavier punishments for the trio involved in the Sunshine Empire case.

They are appealing at the High Court against the sentences handed down last year to James Phang Wah, his wife Neo Kuon Huay and Jackie Hoo Choon Cheat.

Sunshine Empire was a multi-level marketing company which sold 'lifestyle packages' to people who took part in the scheme.

The court heard that they were promised high returns, but the returns were paid out not using genuine profits but by recycling funds from new participants.

The prosecution argued that Phang, the 51-year-old founder of the company, should have his nine-year jail term increased to nearly 14 years.

And Hoo, a 31-year-old former company director given a seven-year jail term for collaborating with Phang, should have his sentence raised proportionately.

Neo, 48, was fined $60,000 for falsifying payment vouchers with her husband. The prosecution argued that she should be sent to jail for six months.

The trio are appealing against their convictions. Phang and Hoo are appealing against their sentences.

Yesterday, Mr Subhas Anandan, the lawyer representing Phang and Neo, argued that Sunshine Empire was not a fly-by-night company and there was enough evidence to show that it was a sustainable business.

He said it had collected millions of dollars without a single member of the scheme making a complaint.

There were no victims, he argued, and the police were relying only on the evidence of their expert witness, who said this business model would not be sustainable for more than five years.

Hoo's lawyer Philip Fong said Sunshine Empire was not a Ponzi scheme, which promises high returns and uses money from new investors to pay old investors.

Mr Fong argued that it was was a multi-level marketing company, not an investment scheme, and did not promise guaranteed returns.

But Deputy Public Prosecutor Aedit Abdullah argued for a deterrent sentence, saying it was an elaborate fraud on a large scale that had the trappings of a legitimate enterprise.

Phang received US$5 million (S$6 million) from the scheme in consultancy fees and, while Hoo did not get any direct consultancy fees, the DPP argued that both were intimately involved in the scheme.

selinal@sph.com.sg

During every market upheaval, new "investors" will learn some very old lessons - that speculation without risk control is akin to gambling, and the consequences will also be as such!

This article was taken from http://www.littlespeck.com, and is written by Seah Chiang Nee of the Star.

Market blues
Singaporeans are nursing large losses, the worst hit being short-term speculators who borrowed money to trade, treating the stock market like a casino.
By Seah Chiang Nee
Aug 14, 2011

ONE investor closed his stock market account and swore never to return, while another detailed his portfolio – now covered in red – asking fellow-traders for advice on what to do.

Even as the answers began to come in over the day, the shares had dropped further, deepening his losses.

Like previous meltdowns, this one has its fair share of victims, who are wondering what went wrong, what caused the worst stock tumble in three years.

Between Aug 1 and 10, some S$105bil was wiped off the Singapore stock market. Whenever something like this happens, there is pain and despair, at least a few bankruptcies and plenty of soul searching.

I was told by a friend that the pastor in his small suburban church prayed on Sunday for divine help for congregation members to survive the turmoil.

One blogger said he had been unable to sleep for several nights after losing money on the market, adding: “I told myself to go on. My heart will go on.”

As the country celebrated its 46th National Day, many Singaporeans – especially speculators – are nursing large losses that were sparked off by America’s historic credit downgrading.

The worst victims are short-term speculators who borrowed money to trade, often treating the stock market like a casino.

There had been moments of panic in the market these past few days, people dumping shares for whatever price they could get, said a broker.

“They feared that keeping it another day could mean bigger losses,” he added.

The losses ranged from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. But those who buy for long-term investments are less vulnerable to such sharp meltdowns.

The debt woes of Washington (and Europe) are affecting the world, particularly Singapore more than any others in South-east Asia.

About a third of Singapore’s merchandise exports go to the US. In addition, the US had invested some S$40bil (RM99bil) in some of the biggest corporations here.

A US in trouble would be a severe blow to Singapore, and equity holders know it.

For several months now, the government has been gearing its citizens to prepare for more global financial trouble.

Technical recession

It now warns that Singapore may fall into a technical recession – growth declining in two consecutive quarters – by the year-end.

For many Singaporeans, this sudden shift in fortunes from boom to gloom is a bit akin to the Twilight Zone. It was something that ran counter to what they had been told earlier.

Until the US downgrade, things seemed to be going well for this city of millionaires. Properties, houses, cars were selling at record high prices and luxury products were virtually flying off the shelves.

Last year, the economy grew by 14.7%. So how can this turn into a technical recession within such a short period, many asked.

In fact, the government warnings had been more serious. The next financial crisis, which could come in the next four or five years, would be worse than any previous ones, several leaders had warned.

But the people had paid little heed to the warnings of approaching crisis since early this year. This probably explains why many Singaporeans were poorly prepared.

Instead of being cautious, people were still indulging in a buying spree – of stocks and shares, properties and cars, instead of adopting a cautious approach.
As a result, prices of houses and cars were pushed to historic highs.

The Straits Times Index (STI), for example, rose and rose until it reached a record of 3,227 on Aug 1. Crisis then struck, and it crashed nearly 420 points or 13% to 2,810 (at this writing).

Among the pessimists were Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who urged Singaporeans to prepare for a rough road ahead in the next three to four years.

Another, a presidential candidate and former finance minister, Dr Tony Tan, also warned of major difficulties ahead for the republic.

Asked if it would overwhelm Singapore, Tan replied: “We are in unchartered territory here.”

Singapore has developed into a materialistic society, in which many youths want to make a fortune – quickly, rather than earn a steady income.

When the days were promising and stock prices rising, the market had been attracting a rising number of fresh graduates and inexperienced housewives to start trading accounts.

Investment clubs had been mushrooming in tertiary institutions in recent years, with more and more students being active in the market.

The past few days, like previous market tumbles, serve as a valuable lesson that fortunes are seldom made by speculation. The growing balloon of stock gambling has been pricked.

Some of these newcomers are today staring at huge paper losses and probably having to hang on for some time. In some cases, parents will have to help.

And the uncertainties still have some way to go.

A writer calling himself “a new improved investor” in lamenting his losses of S$7,000 said: “I think I may not survive this one.

“Anyway, a lot of people feel that I should not play shares. Looks like its true!”

Amid all the gloom and doom is this advice by DoReMi, in case there are one or two victims too overwhelmed by losses to consider doing something desperate: “Cheer up! No matter how much you lost, you still have a life to live. Think of your loved ones!”

(This was first published in the Star).