Astro Toastmasters @ Radin Mas TMC as Project Speaker, 04th July 2019

On the 04^th July 2019, I was hosted at Astro@Radin Mas Toastmasters Club, as a project speaker.  This was my 3^rd club visit, on the 04^th day of the new term.

I gave my icebreaker for the Dynamic Leadership pathway, since I have already completed my Visionary Communication path.  I spoke about my first voyage in the merchant navy, as a deck cadet, and some of my misadventures.

The venerable Katherine Kang was actually the first speaker.  She spoke about the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and her impression of it, as a little girl.  It was a riveting account of history relived.  She also mentioned, briefly, the death of his brother, Robert Kennedy.

Li Shan Shan gave a humorous speech of the types of travellers that bedevil tour operators, and some of the lengths people go through to get a bargain.  Being the sort that would prioritise convenience and comfort over cost, it was an insight into the minds of other kinds of travellers.

Naveen Giri spoke of the time, long ago, when he was in the Army.  It was a story of pain and regret, when he was stung by a giant centipede during his jungle training after forgetting to check his boots before wearing it.  Such was the way he wove the story, we all felt his pain.

After the voting, the results were as follows:

Best Prepared Speech: Myself;

Best Evaluator: Aaron Ting King Hean; and

Best Table Topics Speaker: Steven Yap.

Pasir Ris Elias TMC as Toastmaster of the Day, 03th July 2019

On the 02^nd July, I was at Pasir Ris Elias Toastmasters Club, as toastmaster of the day.  This was my first club visit of the new term.  Pasir Ris Elias Toastmasters Club is a cozy club, and an ideal place for those who want to ease themselves into public speaking without the pressure of a large, demanding crowd.

In her inaugural speech as president, Kathy Pillay spoke of her excitement, and trepidation, in equal measure of managing a team, and taking the club forward.  She spoke of her experience in last term’s contests, where she did well.

The first project speech was by Marian Nathan.  She gave a presentation about psychology, and the stages of need, as we get older.  It was very comprehensive, and obviously well-researched.

The Immediate Past President, Iman Yusoff, then spoke about growth as an entrepreneur, and how it is important for us to be receptive to feedback, and develop a positive relationship with it.  It was more an inspiring speech by a natural leader, than a level 1 project.

The table topics session was rather lively, and full of banter.  This is a close-knit club, and everybody knew each other well.

Since there were two project speakers, and evaluators, we finished ahead of schedule; and there was no voting.  The best table topics speaker was Hana.

The Difference between a Chiasmus & an Antimetabole

The following is a technical explanation, concerning rhetorical devices, on the difference between an ordinary chiasmus, and an antimetabole.

A chiasmus is a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect.  It is reverse parallelism or syntactical inversion. 

For example, in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, he wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  Here, the chiasmus is found in the parallel of “injustice” with “justice”, which contrasts with the “anywhere” and “everywhere”.  Both parallels are opposites, antithesis.

For example, Emiliano Zapata, the leader of the peasant army during the Mexican Revolution, is purported to have said, “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”  Here, the chiasmus is found in the parallel of dying and living in contrast to the allusion of being on the feet and on his knees.

An antimetabole is a subtype of chiasmus.  An antimetabole is the repetition of words in consecutive clauses, but in an inverted or transposed order.

For example, Winston Churchill, in his “1941 Mansion House Speech”, said, “Now, this is not the end.  No, it is not even the beginning of the end.  But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”  Here, the antimetabole is found in the transposing of the words, “end” and “beginning”.

Foer example, Malcolm X, in his “1964 Speech at the Audubon Ballroom”, said, “We didn’t land at Plymouth Rock.  The rock landed on us.”  Here, the antimetabole is found in the transposing of the words, “land” and “rock”.

In summary, a chiasmus would have the second clause filled with antonyms of the first, whereas, the antimetabole would have two words transposed, instead of using antonyms.

Rhetorical Devices: Antithesis

In this sixth article on rhetorical devices, we take a look at the antithesis.  The antithesis is a person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else.  It comes to us from late Middle English, where it originally denoted the substitution of one grammatical case for another; from late Latin; from Greek, before that.

Antithesis is originally from Greek, “antitithenai”, from “anti” (ἀντί), which means “setting opposite”, and “tithenai” (θέσις), which means “placing”.  The plural of antithesis is antitheses.  It is used as both a rhetorical and literary device as a proposition that contrasts with or reverses a previously mentioned proposition, or when two opposites are introduced together for contrasting effect.  Parallelism of expression serves to emphasise opposition of ideas in antitheses.

An antithesis must always contain two ideas within a single statement.  Whilst the ideas may not be structurally opposite, they serve to be functionally opposite when comparing two ideas for emphasis.  Aristotle said the use of an antithesis enhances the audience understanding of the point the speaker is trying to make.  This comparison of two situations or ideas makes choosing the correct one simpler.  Aristotle further stated that the use of antithesis in rhetoric is similar to syllogism due to the presentation of two conclusions within a statement.

An antithesis is used to strengthen an argument by using either exact opposites or contrasting ideas, but it may include both.  They typically make the argument memorable. In rhetoric itself, the antithesis is a figure of speech which involve highlighting a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast in the words, clauses, or sentences, within a parallel grammatical structure.  The following are some examples of antitheses, many taken from Aristotle’s “On Rhetoric” itself.

Marcus Tullius Cicero said, “I defended the Republic as a young man; I shall not desert her now that I am old.”  Here, the antithesis is a simple statement contrasting two things, using a parallel structure.

“Man proposes, God Disposes,” is a common antithesis of unknown origin.  This is what we call a double antithesis, where “man” is opposed to “God”, and “proposes” contrasts with “Disposes”.

This passage, from the Gospel according to Matthew, the point made is emphasised by first being contrasted with its negative:

Matthew 10:34

³⁴ Do not imagine that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have come to bring not peace, but a sword.

Shaykh Abu Muhammad Sa’adi Muswlih ad-Din ibn ‘Abdullah ash-Shirazi (q.s.), the Sufi poet simply known as Sa’adi of Shirazi, wrote, “Two things show feebleness of mind: holding your breath at the time for speaking, and speaking when you should be silent.”  This involves a chiasmus, where the contrasted words switch places.

Then there is John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s famous line from his 1961 inauguration speech, where he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  This is an example of a negative-positive antithesis, and the chiasmus-antithesis, combined.

As can be seen, an antithesis gives depth to an idea by providing contrast.  It is a simple way of making a pithy statement profound.

Rhetorical Devices: Anaphora

This is my fifth article on rhetorical devices.  In this, we discuss anaphoras.  In grammar, an anaphora is the use of a word referring back to a word used earlier in the text or conversation, to avoid repetition.  In rhetoric, it is simply the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses.  An anaphora is a rhetorical device that consists of repeating a sequence of words at the beginnings of neighbouring clauses, lending them emphasis.  The opposite of an anaphora, which will be discussed in its own article, is the epiphora, or epistrophe.  An epiphora is repeating words at the end of clauses.

The combination of anaphora and epistrophe results in symploce.  In rhetoric, symploce is a figure of speech, in which a word, or phrase, is used successively, at the beginning of two, or more, clauses or sentences, and another word, or phrase, with a similar wording, is used successively at the end of the clauses.  It derives from the Greek word, meaning “interweaving”.

The term “anaphora” is itself derived from the Greek “ana”, which means, “back”, and “pherein” which means, “to bear”.  In Greek, “anaphora” (ἀναφορά) literally means, “repetition”.  It arrived in the English through Latin.

Aside from the obvious function of emphasising ideas, an anaphora is a rhetorical device which adds rhythm to a word, making it more pleasurable to read and easier to remember.  The repetition at the beginning of a sentence creates emphasis.  Anaphoras may also create an artistic effect to a passage.  It is also used to appeal to the emotions of the audience in order to persuade, to inspire, and to move them for, or against a position.

The following are three examples of anaphoras.  In each, there is an emphasis on a certain theme.  For Charles John Huffam Dickens, it was about the complexities of the time.  For Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, the emphasis was martial spirit and resistance to the Nazis.  And for Martin Luther King Jr., it was an expansive call to action, for unity.

Charles Dickens wrote , in “A Tale of Two Cities”, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way ...”  This is one of the best literary passages utilising anaphoras to juxtapose contrast.

Winston Churchill, in his famous “Never Surrender” speech, said, “We shall not flag or fail.  We shall go on to the end.  We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills.  We shall never surrender.”

Finally, this is an excerpt from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have Dream Speech”: Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.  I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state, sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.”

Rhetorical Devices: Anadiplosis

In my fourth article on rhetorical devices, we will talk about anadiplosis.  Anadiplosis is from the Latin anadiplosis, from the Ancient Greek anadiplosis (ἀναδίπλωσις).  The word is a compound of “ana” and “diploun”, which literally means “to double”.  In English, the plural of anadiplosis is anadiploses.

An anadiplosis is a figure of speech, a rhetorical device, in which a word or phrase used at the end of a clause or expression is repeated near the beginning of the next clause or expression.  It is used to emphasise a specific concept or thing.  The repetition of the word calls attention to it as a main point of the speech.  The word need not be the very first word in the sentence.

The most famous example of anadiplosis is Yoda’s counsel about the Dark Side, in Star Wars: “Fear is the path to the Dark Side.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering. Suffering leads to the Dark Side.” This quote is a series of four anadiploses within a larger anadiplosis, the Dark Side of the Force.  It highlights four related concepts in a series of escalating consequences: fear, anger, hate and suffering.  This is, in itself, also a form of climax, another rhetorical device.

Whilst Yoda’s quote is famous in pop culture, it is actually a variation of an older quote, from William Shakespeare’s Richard II: “The love of wicked men converts to fear, that fear to hate, and hate turns one or both to worthy danger and deserved death.”

Another example is the oft-used slogan, “When we win, we win big.”

Yet another example, from literature, is from John Milton’s poem, Lycidas:

“For Lycidas is dead,

Dead ere his prime,

Young Lycidas and hath not left his peer.”

Rhetorical Devices: Amplification

In this third article on types of rhetorical devices, we take a look at amplification, which is a form of auxesis.  Firstly, “auxesis” (αὔξησις) is the Greek word for “growth” or “increase”.  In the field of rhetoric, it refers to varying forms of expounding in speech: hyperbole, which is an intentional overstatement in speech; climax, which are a series of clauses of increasing force; and amplification or amplification, a rhetorical increase. In ancient Greece, these were collectively known as “auxanein”, “growing”.

Amplification is the expansion of details of a statement , such as in an abrupt sentence. It is also a means to provide depth when setting a scene, which the audience may otherwise miss.  Amplification is used to increase rhetorical effect, to add importance, to make the most of a thought or circumstance, to add an exaggeration, or to change the arrangement of words or clauses in a sequence to increase force.

In “A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices”, by Robert A. Harris, it is said that, “Amplification involves repeating a word or expression while adding more detail to it, in order to emphasise what might otherwise be passed over.  In other words, amplification allows you to call attention to, emphasise, and expand a word or idea to make sure the reader realises its important or centrality in the discussion.”  The example cited in the book is thus: “In my hunger, after ten days of rigorous dieting, I saw visions of ice cream - mountains of creamy, luscious ice cream, dripping with gooey syrup and calories.” This allows the audience to recognise the depth of the yearning for ice-cream.

A humorous example of amplification in speech is found in this scene from “Black Adder Goes Forth”, played by Rowan Sebastian Atkinson: This is a Crisis.  Here, he first states succinctly that there is a crisis.  Then, he elaborates using exaggeration and hyperbole on how large a crisis it is using vivid imagery.

Another, more dramatic example, is this other scene from “Patch Adams”, starring the late Robin McLaurin Williams, where he expounds on the definition of doctor, and medical care: Patch Adams Speech - Being a Doctor.  Here, he makes a dramatic, controversial statement.  And then uses amplification to clarify it at length, and in depth.

Amplification is a useful tool to set the stage for a speech.  It is also a useful tool to end with a dramatic call to action, but putting forth an ending statement seemingly contrary to the body of the speech, and then clarifying it to create closure.  This was one of the favourite rhetorical devices of Cicero, and many Roman orators.

Rhetorical Devices: Allusion

I thought that I would write a series of short articles explaining the various literary devices that we can use to enhance our public speaking.  This is my second article, which is about allusion.

The word “allusion” is derived from Late Latin, “alludere”, which denotes a pun, metaphor, or parable.  However, in English, an allusion is a figure of speech, a rhetorical device, in which an object, an event, or, indeed, anything, from a distinct, unrelated context, is referred to.  This may be a direct reference, such as phenomenon from popular culture, or is may be a subtle reference known only within a certain group.  This makes allusions a useful device to make a crowd feel like they are part of an in joke, and create intimacy with the audience.  Technically, an allusion is a passing or a casual remark that has a wider meaning.  It is an incidental mention of something, whether direct or indirect, which has a broader implication.  For example, you could say, of someone whose business venture failed spectacularly, “His Titanic has sunk.”

Richard F. Thomas, in “Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference, from Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, distinguished six specific categories of allusive reference applicable to a wider cultural sphere:  casual reference, which is “the use of language which recalls a specific antecedent, but only in a general sense” that is relatively unimportant to the new context; single reference, where the audience is intended to “recall the context of the model and apply that context to the new situation”; self-reference, where you reference your own body of work, or even the same speech; corrective allusion, where the imitation is clearly in opposition to the original source’s intentions, perhaps, a parody; apparent reference, where the allusion seems to refer to something specific, but is found to be otherwise upon closer inspection; and multiple reference or conflation, which is several simultaneous allusions to several sources, but fusing them into something new.

Examples of literature replete with various types of allusions include Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock” or Thomas Stearns Eliot’s “The Waste Land”.

For example, in Homer, brief allusions to the mythic themes of the generations prior to the main narrative abound, because they were already familiar to the epic’s audience.  This is common in all sagas, across many cultures.

Martin Luther King, Jr., famously alluded to the Gettysburg Address in the beginning of his “I Have a Dream” speech, by starting it with “Five score years ago ...”; reminding the audience of Abraham Lincoln’s “Four score and seven years ago”, which opened the Gettysburg Address.  This was a clever attempt at equating the gravity of his speech with the Gettysburg Address.

Another form of an allusion is a sobriquet.  A sobriquet is a title or phrase we associate with something else.  For example, instead of referring to Singapore, we call it “The Lion City”; or New York is “the Big Apple”, or “the city that never sleeps”.

Certain allusions should be avoided in speech because they have been diminished through overuse, becoming trite and a cliché.

An example is “15 minutes of fame”.  This is based on a quote by Andy Warhol, the 20^th century American artist.  He commented on his sudden popularity, saying, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”  Today, every time someone gets airtime on the news, we hear someone talk about those “15 minutes of fame”, an allusion to Andy Warhol’s remark.

Another famous example is “Catch-22”.  This phrase originates from a 1961 Joseph Heller novel by that name.  Catch-22 is set on a U.S. Army Air Force base in World War II; “Catch-22” itself refers to a regulation that states an airman’s request to be relieved from flight duty can only be granted if he is judged to be insane.  However, since anyone who does not want to fly dangerous missions is obviously sane, there is no way to avoid flying those missions.

In the book, the unnamed old woman in Rome explains that Catch-22 means: “They can do whatever they want to do.”  This alludes to the theme of the novel where authority figures consistently abuse their powers with impunity.  In our current era, “Catch-22” has come to describe any absurd or no-win situation.

Rhetorical Devices: Alliteration

I thought that I would write a series of short articles explaining the various literary devices that we can use to enhance our public speaking.  In this case, it is about alliteration.

Alliteration is from the Latin, “ad” meaning, in this case, “more”; and “littera”, which means “letters”.  In essence, alliteration is conspicuous and obvious repetition of identical initial consonant sounds in successive or closely associated syllables within a group of words, regardless of spelling since it is about how the words sound, not how they are written.

Whilst some literary experts may accept the repetition of vowel sounds, or repetition at the end of words, as alliteration; alliteration narrowly refers to the repetition of a letter in any syllables that, according to the poem’s meter, are stressed.

Alliteration is actually part of a broader literary device known as consonance.  Consonance is a broader literary device identified by the repetition of consonant sounds at any point in a word.  Alliteration, however, is a special case of consonance where the repeated consonant sound is in the stressed syllable.  Alliteration may also refer to the use of different but similar consonants, such as alliterating “z” with “s”, such as from the medieval poem, “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”.

Symmetrical alliteration is a specialised form of alliteration containing parallelism, or chiasmus.  Both parallelism and chiasmus will be explained in some detail on their own post.  In this case, the phrase must have a pair of outside end words both starting with the same sound, and pairs of outside words also starting with matching sounds as one moves progressively closer to the centre.  An often-cited example would be “rust brown blazers rule”.  In that sense, a symmetrical alliteration is similar to palindromes because of their language symmetry.

The following are works that use alliterations.

Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven” has many examples of alliteration.  An example would be: “And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain”.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” has the following lines of alliteration:

“The fair breeze blew, the white foam flew,

The furrow followed free.”

Robert Lee Frost’s “Acquainted with the Night” has: “I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet.”

William Butler Yeats’ “The Lake Isle of Innisfree” has: “I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore.”

William Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” has:

“And churlish chiding of the winter’s wind,

Which, when it bites and blows upon my body.”

Walter Abish’s novel, “Alphabetical Africa”, is a noted example.  The first chapter consists solely of words beginning with “A”.  The second chapter with words beginning with “B”.  This alphabetical pattern continues until chapter 26.  It then reverses for the next 25 chapters, back to “A”.

In rhetoric, alliteration can be used to move the audience emotionally.  For example, the “H” or “E” sounds can soothe; the “P” or “B” sounds seize attention.  The “S” sound instinctively implies danger, or deception due to the Biblical association with the snake in the Garden.

The emotional pull of alliteration has been used in many famous historical speeches.  The following are some excerpts of this:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: “Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.  With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth God’s Work must truly be our own.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech”: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Barack Hussein Obama’s Inaugural Address: “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”

Ronald Wilson Reagan’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial Address: “And our nation itself is testimony to the love our veterans have had for it and for us.  All for which America stands is safe today because brave men and women have been ready to face the fire at freedom's front.”

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Understanding Singapore’s State Debt

Sovereign states raise revenue through borrowings, taxation, and foreign exchange.  Singapore has relatively low taxation, and does not borrow externally.  The Singapore government borrows from the CPF.  This means most of the debt issued by the government is held in country.

The CPF accumulates the mandatory contributions from Singaporeans, permanent residents and people who work here.  It pays a fixed rate of return to its account holders.  Currently, that rate is 2.5%  for the Ordinary Account, and 4% for the Special Account.  Should the total of both accounts be below $60,000, the CPF pays out 1% more for each.  It is estimated that the CPF holds close to S$200 billion of investment assets under management, but this also means it as close to S$200 billion in liabilities in the form of member accounts, since it has to eventually pay it out.  The CPF does not own thee funds; it holds it in trust.  

According to CPF financial statements, 95% of CPF investment assets are “special issues of Singapore Government securities”.  This means CPF is the primary purchaser of the debt issued by the Singapore government.  This makes the CPF part of a system that takes contributions from the people, mainly citizens, pays them an interest rate for this, and then lends that money to the Singapore government at rates that closely match the interest to be paid out.  This is a clever means of managing public debt.  This system provides a significant cash flow to the Singaporean government, which are structural budget surpluses.  From 1990 to 2010 alone, the sum of budget surpluses and net lending is estimated at more than S$500 billion.

Assuming, here, that this S$500 billion earned just the 7% GIC claims per annum, instead of the 27% per annum claimed by Temasek Holdings, we would still be looking at well over a trillion in assets.  Of course, I am quite sceptical of the numbers Temasek Holdings claims because that would mean they outperform even the best funds out there.  These numbers provide a buffer spread over the CPF interest rates.  If we account for the public misfires in both, should they earn well below that spread, the government must subsidise the CPF.

From the data we get from Temasek Holdings’ own website and elsewhere, and from the best estimates of GIC, their assets under management are around S$500 million.  This is commensurate to the amount taken from the CPF, and the budget surpluses.  That is not good.  If we assume an inflation rate of 2%, discounting the nominal return of nothing, we are looking at accumulated losses solely due to inflation of over 30%.  This is what we should have versus what we actually have.

If we take this at face value, the government has been subsidising GIC and Temasek Holdings paper losses despite the fact that they have not earned a return sufficient to cover their CPF obligations.  That would explain measures to increase the minimum sum, to increase the length of payout and raise the withdrawal age.  I say this because based on public records, we have S$500 million in assets that are unaccounted for.

There is, of course, the over S$300 billion in foreign reserves that MAS manages, as mentioned in their records.  This is the third source of government revenue, our foreign reserves.  Foreign reserves grow through current account or trade surpluses.  In Singapore, the foreign reserves are controlled by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the central bank.

Since 1980, Singapore has run a structural trade surplus averaging 10.2% of GDP.  This is mainly due to currency management policy, as opposed to fiscal policy.  We have been very good at this.  Consider, for example, Saudi Arabia, which is one of the largest exporters of oil.  In that same period, their trade surplus averaged just under 10%.  Singapore has no commodities that we produce.  In 2006, our trade surplus peaked at just over 25% of GDP.  To keep our currency value down, and more competitive, MAS regularly buys large amounts of foreign currency.  These become our foreign reserves.  This also minimises inflationary pressure.  Otherwise, our sustained trade surplus would put an unsustainable upward pressure.  Of course, this does not help when other countries are performing badly economically, such as what we see with the Malaysian ringgit and the Australian dollar.  To lend further perspective to what we are talking about, from 1980 to 2010, Singapore has a current account surplus of around US$350 billion.  If we convert it to local currency based on annual average of the year of the surplus, we get aroundS$600 billion.

From this, we can establish that the source of the foreign reserves are distinct from taxes and borrowings, and those numbers should not be part of the initial discussion.  We have effectively ruled them out.  This means the S$300 billion in foreign exchange reserves has no bearing on the discussion of attributing our debt.  The foreign reserves have been paid for by consistent current account surpluses.  Even during the recession of the early 1980s, when Singapore ran a trade deficit, our foreign reserves grew from S$14 billion to S$30 billion.

Considering the amounts in the foreign exchange reserves and the historical current account surplus mentioned above, the numbers are certainly plausible where they are.  It must be stated that not all the current account surplus is translated into foreign exchange reserves.  That would be illogical.  There is natural currency appreciation, as well as liquidity measures that would affect this.  That being said, there is a close correlation between the two, which can be tracked.

From this, we have further established that the foreign reserves have been paid for, from the current account surplus, barring some possible transfers made from MAS to GIC for investment.  This means that the foreign reserves are distinct from government surpluses and borrowings, and cannot account for the discrepancy mentioned above.  As such, there is much that many of us would like to understand about the nature and structure of our state debt.  My fear is that it is significantly larger than reported.

Being Good All the Time is a Weakness

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in “The Prince”, “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.  Hence, a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”

There is virtue in the proper, ruthless exercise of power, because it maintains society.  As a practise, every once in a while, when people have forgotten their place, I choose one of my detractors, someone who has done, what I consider to be an egregious wrong, and with careful, deliberate acts, I make an example of that person.  It is never personal.

People cannot have this notion that they can overstep boundaries, and challenge us in our own space.  This idea that we must always forgive our enemies, especially if they are family, and let them be only enables toxic people.  People do not understand the language of compassion.  That is a myth.  People understand only power.  After making an example, then is the time to speak of compassion, and be magnanimous.  That is also a lesson.

We Subsidise Our Own SMRT Fares

From a certain perspective, Singapore is a command economy masquerading as a capitalist one.  Considering the vulnerability of the economy to international tensions and trade disputes, it is a logical course of action.  The contention here is that we have been privatising profits and socialising losses.

We can, however, observe that the establishment views this as a necessary evil, and have only done so when absolutely necessary.  An example of this cut back would be the government’s declining to bail out Hyflux, which is absolutely correct.  Hyflux grew out of reckless optimism, and less than optimum management of debt and leverage.

Still, we have seen this in companies linked to Temasek Holdings.  I have spoken about Olam in a separate post, so I will not go over it again.  Another example would be SMRT.  We should note, just like the case of SingTel, and similar companies and state assets treated as capital injection into the SWFs, the capital for SMRT was subsidised by the government, and by extension, the taxpayer.  We say this because it is a fact that the entire tunnel network, the rail network, the cost of the stations, the depreciating assets that are the taxis, buses and trains, the supporting infrastructure – they are all paid for by the government.

This is not necessarily bad.  It ensures that there is an overarching central planning which efficiently maximises the use of scarce resources, such as land, and optimises property and fixed assets.  This also lowers costs tremendously, and those savings are passed on to the consumer.  There is a reason why our transportation costs are very low.  We subsidise it ourselves.

What it does do, however, is skew the numbers in the financial statement, and the company portfolio, making their management look better than they really are.  Until we had the recent breakdowns, due to systematic cost-cutting in maintenance and procurement, at the expense of future performance, the government could parachute any general, who would then set up a management team of his background, and it would work.  Being a senior military officer does not make one a better manager because management in an extreme hierarchical environment is significantly different from management in a corporate environment.  And they have been found wanting.

For example, in 2015, SMRT recorded a net profit of $91 million.  In 2016, it jumped to $109 million.  In 2017, it plunged to $26 million.  Last year, it was a loss of $86 million.  This is because all those years of cutting cost on maintenance and replacement with inferior parts caught up with that.  That is what happens when we have a management system where people do their “National Service”, and need to look good for the term, and then pass the buck to the next person.  One of the reasons mentioned in 2017 is that fare increases did not keep up with maintenance costs.  This is only part of the story.  These maintenance costs are compounded from short-termism of previous years.

Regardless, we can also posit that the massive profits of previous years were in part due to the subsidised capital injection by the government funding the infrastructure.  Were we to consider the cost of this, they are not performing spectacularly.  They are able to declare these impressive profits because there is no cost booked in the acquisition of the network.  People can disregard it if we get a return in terms of a world class system that runs on time.  That the executives cannot even keep the trains running without breakdowns is a management failure despite a huge subsidy.  They do not even have competition to contend with, being a state monopoly.

This comes to the second point.  When SMRT profits, I do not see fare subsidies, since it is a profit centre.  But when there are losses, as there is now, we have fare increases spoken of.  The profits are extracted by shareholders, and are bonuses for the executives.  The losses are our problem.  This needs to be addressed, and the relationship made more equitable.