Quora Answer: Do Singaporeans View Colonialism Negatively?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do Singaporeans view colonialism negatively?”

Singaporeans are pragmatic.  If there were no colonialism, there would be no Singapore, there would have no development of Singapore as a global free port, there would have been no massive immigration of people from outside the region.  Singapore would have been a regional backwater, a Malay island, subordinate to an infighting sultanate, at the tip of the Malay Peninsula.

Singapore is what it is thanks to the ambition of Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles, who did not want to plateau as the Governor of Bencoolen, and wrote to Lord Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings, for permission to found a port along the Malacca Straits to counter the influence of the Dutch.  Singapore is what it is thanks to the efficient administration of Major-General William Farquhar, first Resident of Singapore.

It should also be noted that unlike many other parts of the world, Singapore did not actually want the British to leave.  What they agitated for, then, was greater self-determination in internal affairs.  Singapore was quite content to remain a British colony.  The announcement by Prime Minister James Harold Wilson, of the pull out of British forces from bases east of Aden, in January 1968, was viewed with trepidation.  This means, even after independence, Singapore was not keen to lose British protection.

In those intervening decades, however, things have greatly changed.  Singapore has navigated the challenges of independence, and grown wealthy.  With that wealth, and success, came a greater sense of nationhood, and confidence.  A wealthy, assertive Singapore has no use for the British.  There is this historical sense that the British abandoned us, from their mismanagement of the Pacific campaign that lead to the Fall of Singapore, to their abrupt pulling out from the colonies in the East Indies.  It was a Labour Prime Minister that pulled out, and abandoned us as a defenseless island, and it was Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Edward Richard George Heath, that mitigated that with the FPDA.

In that time, British prestige has lost much of its lustre.  The average Singaporean will not be enamoured with the calibre of British political leadership now, or the policies pursued by either side of the aisle.  Whilst the Fall of Singapore is taught in school, including the inept leadership of Lieutenant-General Arthur Ernest Percival, British help during the Konfrotasi, and the Emergency, is not highlighted, which colours the views of the younger generation.  This creates a divide across generations, on whether British rule was good for us.

If we can have an honest look, Singapore would not be where it is without the British.  Among all the colonial powers, the British had the best record of developing her colonies.  The Dutch were exploitative, and monopolistic.  The French still tie her former colonies to her.  The Belgians were genocidal.  The Portuguese and the Spanish looted theirs.  The British left Singapore, upon independence, with the one of the best ports, and airport in East Asia.  She left Singapore with a fully functioning civil service, and judiciary.  She left Singapore with educational institutions, and a legal system we still use.  At the very least, Singapore had the building blocks to become a successful, and wealthy city state.  For that, we are grudgingly grateful.

Quora Answer: Do the Decisions of Elected Representatives Supersede the Will of the People?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do the laws, and decisions, of elected representatives, supersede the will of the people?  If so, how is it actually a democracy?”

There is no such thing as a full democracy.  A full democracy is a system where every eligible person votes on every single aspect of governance, including the legislative process.  Considering the large number of people involved, this is both impractical and unwieldy.  This also assumes that every person has the inclination to understand every aspect of every policy.  That is simply not possible.

What countries practice are various forms of representative democracies.  This means that we elect representatives to a legislative body, or parliament.  These elected legislators, or members of parliament, then form the government, appointing people who are supposed to be qualified to make the decisions of government pertaining to their ministry or department of government.  These legislators, as a body, also propose laws, implement them, or strike them from the books.

This does not mean, however, that citizens are entirely divorced from this process.  Many countries have a feedback process where citizens may lobby their representatives to raise issues of concern, or even send feedback direct to the various organs of state.  These may include petitions, lobbying, or actions through no-government organisations.

If we simply allowed anybody and everybody, regardless of their qualities and capabilities, to have a direct say in every aspect of governance, all governments would be in gridlock, and nothing will get done.  Society would devolve into the chaos of some form of idiocracy.

Quora Answer: Do the Majority of the Rich in Singapore Support the PAP?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do the majority of the rich, in Singapore, support the PAP government?”

It is quite reasonable to say that a majority of the wealthy in Singapore do support the PAP government.  From a socioeconomic perspective, they have delivered.  If it is not broken, why fix it?  The concerns of the upper classes are not the concerns of the lower classes and vice versa.

For example, when we consider the impact of increased immigration, we view it differently.  To someone lower in the economic ladder, they see competition for jobs, even if that is not the reality.  For someone higher in society, they see a larger potential market.  To grow, we need the best from all over the world.  Where there is an inadequacy is how the policy is explained to the masses.  People who are disadvantaged naturally see danger, and not opportunity, because their concerns are more immediate – food and shelter.  It is, thus, government policy to address that in tandem with polices of economic growth.

As a business owner and a finance professional myself, I am not moved by emotive issues.  I am interested in facts and numbers.  In that light, the Opposition have not exactly put forth a coherent series of policies that I can agree with.  I am not convinced by a flat wealth tax, which would disadvantage me at no immediate gain.  I am not convinced by a reduction in national service, which would impact National Education.  I am not convinced by an immediate stop in immigration, because that would negatively affect the trade environment.  These are populist measures not grounded in economic reality.

Personally, as long as the government has delivered in the areas that matter, such as healthcare, economic growth and an improvement in the quality of life, it has fulfilled my expectations.  I am not interested in useless nebulous ideas such as “more democracy”.  How do we measure that?  As it is, I am not convinced that every single person automatically deserves the right to vote.  Why should my vote be equal to the next ten idiots who are casting it based on emotions, and immediate gratification?

I personally do not believe in absolute press freedom, or a liberal democracy style freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech must be balanced by responsibility for what is conveyed.  I welcome measures to curb the irresponsible “alternative” media.  We do not require online mobs, and the machinery of outrage pornography to achieve things, or to function as a counterbalance to the system.  Society needs to distinguish between those who know and those who do not.

As such, myself, and those like me, have little reason to vote against the incumbent.  Our authoritarian system made possible a social engineering exercise that dragged this country from a backwater to one of the wealthiest nations in the world.  I see no reason why we should change it because some idealistic fools think the grass is greener on the other side.

Quora Answer: Do the People of Singapore Want the British Back?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do the people of Singapore want the British back?”

Why ever for?  We have surpassed Great Britain in standard of living, and in wealth.  What can the British do for us, that we have not already done better?  If we want them back, it would be as investors and tourists.  You cannot turn back 50 years of independence.

It is arguable if most people in Singapore actually wanted independence back in the 1950s.  There was agitation for more self-governance, or even autonomy.  The people of Singapore understood then, that should the British pull out, this island did not have the economic depth, or the means to survive as it was.  Independence was achieved through a merger with Malaysia.  Separation was an unwanted reality, but Singapore not only survived, it prospered.  The British abandoned us then.

Now, Singapore is one of the major financial centres in the world, one of the wealthiest, most advanced nations, with a strong military and civil structure.  Why would we ant the British back?  In the half century that Singapore has prospered and grown, the United Kingdom has declined, and regressed.  It is a dead empire, harkening to lost glories.  What could the UK possibly offer us then?

If the question is economic growth, that is unlikely.  The UK have elected their own version of Donald Trump, a racist, misogynistic diplomatic bull in the EU china shop, who is busy destroying whatever semblance of continental unity, and alienating vast segments of the electorate through class and race warfare.  Singapore is a competitor with London as a global financial centre.  It is integrated within ASEAN as a founding member.  It has China on its doorstep.

If the question is military protection, that age is past.  The UK, according to the reports of its own Admiralty, has cut its defence budget to such an extent, under successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, that it is no longer in a position to enforce its interests in its near abroad, let alone an island at the other end of the world, in the middle of Southeast Asia.  Singapore has a larger tank, and fighter aircraft fleet than the UK.  We cannot depend on them for protection.

Singapore being part of the UK would only be a replay of the last stages of the British Empire, where she drained her colonies of wealth and resources to sustain her flailing foreign policy.  Singapore would be gutted financially to support a government that is focused on domestic survival.  When Great Britain cannot address the interests of Northern Ireland and Scotland, does anybody have confidence that she would care about our interests?

No sane person wants the return of British rule.  The Age of Brittania is history, and it should remain so.  Heaven forbid we be stuck with a Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a Nigel Paul Farage, or a Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

Quora Answer: Do Most Businesses Hold Their Cash in Money Market Funds?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do most businesses hold their cash in money market funds?” 

Not all companies do this.  We would certainly not expect small businesses and proprietorships to engage in this.  Companies with significant cash reserves would keep a significant portion of it in the money market, if the funds are not in private placement.  There are some advantages to it. 

Firstly, the return tends to hover in the region of low single-digits.  This is much lower than stocks, and corporate papers.  The returns, once we factor in the account or fund fees, might even dip below the rate of inflation.  This loss of purchasing power is only a concern when the funds are parked there for a significant period of time, and well-managed businesses do not do this. 

As opposed to keeping all that cash lying around, the money market diminishes currency exposure and mitigates against inflation, even if it may be at a temporary loss.  Losing 1% to underperformance of the market in the short term is still preferable to losing 3.5% to inflation, for example.  Money market funds are invested in certificates of deposit, Treasury bills, and short-term corporate papers, all investment grade.  This means that the risk is extremely low.  It will never earn as much as in an equity fund, but it will not be subject to sudden loss of portfolio value. 

Finally, since money market funds trade in instruments with robust secondary markets, the fund is extremely liquid.  This means businesses may liquidate holdings as appropriate to pay creditors when due, or take out funds to fund a merger or expansion.

Cairnhill CC Toastmasters Club: Words Can Move Mountains

On 22^nd January 2020, I was at Cairnhill CC Toastmasters Club as Language Evaluator, my 150^th club visit on the 206^th day of the Toastmaster year.  Mike Woon, DTM, served as Sergeant-at-Arms.  Terence Tan served as Toastmaster of the Day.  Fernando Young, DTM, served as Table Topics Master.

Words That Move Mountains

Melvin Tan, in his opening address, emphasised the importance of using the correct words, illustrated starkly through the example of suicide watch and speaking to the vulnerable.  He argued that words can move mountains, that words can heal, that words can kill, and that words can open people’s hearts.  The claim is not rhetorical exaggeration.  A 2022 study by Dr. Madelyn S. Gould and colleagues, published in Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, found that 90% of texters reaching out through the Crisis Text Line found the conversation helpful, with half reporting reduced suicidal ideation by the end of the exchange.  That outcome was produced through text, words alone, with no physical presence and no medication involved.  Tan’s central point holds that the specific words chosen, in a fragile moment, are not decorations around the support being offered.  They are the intervention itself.

From Drain Rat to Champion

John Liew shared childhood memories from his old neighbourhood in Chinatown, recounting the day he fell into a drain and nearly drowned, earning the nickname “Drain Rat” among the neighbourhood children.  His father responded by enrolling him in swimming lessons.  In his first competition, he finished first, counting from the back.  He persisted regardless, and eventually became a swimming champion, turning his own detractors into cheerleaders along the way.  He chose to stand where he fell, rather than avoid the water that had nearly taken him, and rode that decision into a different identity than the one his childhood nickname had assigned him.

Climate Change and the Overlooked Cost

Eliina Chan spoke on climate change, referencing regional natural disasters to support her position, before highlighting the effect on biodiversity, a cost frequently overlooked against the more immediately visible human toll.  A speech willing to name the quieter casualty, rather than resting on the more dramatic human statistics, demonstrates a thorough grasp of the subject.

Leadership, Practised Rather Than Merely Described

Zhou Ming Qin gave a presentation on exercises in multiple leadership styles, explaining the different approaches she practises and how she applies each depending on context.  A leader who can name which style she is using, and why, in each moment, has moved beyond instinct into strategic self-awareness.

A Lesson in Living

Angie Ng gave an account of her experience paragliding with her family, drawing the lesson that living fully means actively seeking out new experiences rather than waiting for them to arrive.

The Evaluators and Results

Sushant Pandita, Penny Radcliffe, June Tan, and Lim Chee Hoo served as Project Evaluators.  Best Speaker went to Angie Ng.  Best Evaluator went to Lim Chee Hoo.  Best Table Topics Speaker went to Rosie.  A meeting that opened by naming the weight language carries in a crisis, and closed with the freedom of a family paragliding together, covered a wide emotional range for one evening, and did so without a single transition feeling forced.

---

Terence Nunis, DTM | Division Advisor, District 80 Division M | Club Advisor, AIA Toastmasters | Past President & Founder, Awesome Toastmasters

Quora Answer: Do Financial Advisors Have a Fiduciary Duty?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do financial advisors have a fiduciary duty?”

In Singapore, yes, we do.  We represent the client’s interest to the insurer and bank.  There is a process called the Financial Health Review, and a Client Knowledge Assessment, that has to be completed before product recommendation.  Otherwise, it is product peddling, and that has legal consequences on the advisor.  Since all financial advisors, whether working with an insurer, a bank or an independent financial advisor, is registered with MAS, we all have to abide by a legal code of conduct.  This framework is known as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC).  The most severe consequences of failing in that fiduciary duty would be jail, fines and the loss of license.

Quora Answer: Do I Need to Serve National Service if I Accept Singapore Citizenship?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do I need to serve national service if I accept Singapore citizenship?”

If you are below the age of 30, and your citizenship application is as a dependent, based on your parent or guardian being granted citizenship, then you will have to serve National Service.  Upon the completion of your National Service obligation, ICA will send you a letter, and you have a specific period of time to convert your permanent residency to citizenship.

If you applied for citizenship as an investor, or were granted based on a skills requirement, you do not need to serve your National Service, because that would impact your ability to be an active investor, or a professional.

Quora Answer: Do I Need to be a Member to Attend a Toastmasters Meeting?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do I need to be a member to attend a Toastmaster’s meeting?”

You do not need to be a member to attend a Toastmaster meeting.  You can even take part in the table topics session as a non-member, and otherwise participate in the chapter meeting.  The table topics session is an impromptu speaking segment of 2 to 3 minutes.  However, you need to be a member to give a project speech, or to perform any form of evaluation.

Quora Answer: Do I Need a Financial Advisor if I Know a Lot about Finance & Investing?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do I really need a financial advisor to manage my investments if I know a lot about finance, and investing, but do not have enough free time to dive into it?”

You may know a lot about finance and investing, but that does not mean you have the license to do many of the things you know without the services of a financial advisor.  In the same way also, I know a lot about accounting, but I still hire an accountant so that I have the time to do my own business.  Unless I am a chartered accountant, it does not matter how much I know about accounting since it is not my signature that carries legal weight here.

A good financial advisor, just like a good lawyer, is hard to find.  He must not only have sound knowledge of financial instruments and derivatives, but he must also be up to date on the legal requirements pertaining to their management and ownership.  Unless someone is in that industry, he is not going to be at those meetings with the banks, the fund houses and the various government institutions.

Quora Answer: Do Financial Advisors Get a Bigger Commission for Trust Accounts?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do financial advisors get a bigger commission, or better incentives, for trust versus individual accounts?”

The commission structure is based on the products sold.  Whether the account is a trust, a company, or a natural person matters when it comes to compliance, underwriting, and corporate governance.  These are matters of legalities, and has no impact on the commission.

What is factored into the commission is the nature of the product, the amount paid by the client, the payment frequency, and the committed length.  These impact distribution costs, and the commission comes out of the distribution cost.  However, the financial institution may incentivise sales based on target demographic, or to promote a specific product, to gain market share.

Quora Answer: Do You Believe Heads of State Should be Morally Good?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do you believe a head of state should be a morally good person?  Why or why not?”

Whilst it is preferable that the heads of state be good people of sound moral character, that alone is insufficient.  The worse kind of fool is a pious fool.  A rational, morally ambiguous person is aware when he is making a decision based on national interests that would inclemently affect others.  He is self-aware that he may be committing a wrong.  A moral fool, on the other hand, can be led to commit egregious outrages and horrors upon people, and believe he is doing God’s work.

We know, from history, of the religious who visited great horrors on the infidels, the outsiders and the “enemies of God”.  When the Zealots attacked their fellow Jews during the siege of Jerusalem, as Titus attacked, they burned the food stocks, poisoned the wells and killed their own women and children for not resisting.  We have many examples by the Church, from the Albigensian Crusade, where they blockaded people in the cities and burned them down, to the Inquisition.  We have ISIS claiming a caliphate and engaging in genocide.  We have the Hindutva in India, murdering Muslims.

People make the mistake of assuming that morality means the same thing to everybody.  The moralities of various times justified child marriages, slavery, mass murders, pogroms, and all forms of evils.  And even when we take away religion, the atheists are no better.  Trotsky, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were responsible for millions of deaths.  Each of them saw themselves as moral men, upholding some imagined virtue.

In summary, we do not need more moral heads of state.  We need more leaders with common sense, and a sense of grounding.

Quora Answer: Do People Born into Rich Families Have an Advantage over People Born into Poor Families?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do people born into rich families have an advantage over people born into poor families?”

Being born into wealth, especially legacy wealth, and not the newly rich, affords two main advantages: the proper attitude towards wealth, and an established network.  People not born into wealth do not often have the advantage of understanding the role of money, and assets.  Being born into wealth conditions us to think in terms of asset acquisition for financial growth, instead of showing off.  Money is in the family, and there is no mystery, or wonder at it.  The truly wealthy have no incentive to show off, or keep up with others.  A newly rich person may buy a Ferrari, and imagine that it has aggrandised him.  A scion of old money may buy it, and understand that it is an asset that has a potential to appreciate in value to collectors.  People of old money are also careful about not flaunting what they have.  The acquisition of wealth is a means to access power, and gain influence.  Money is not the goal in and of itself.  Accordingly, there is little benefit in ostentation.  It invites unwanted attention, particularly from the authorities, and tax audits.  Only the foolish, and the young, feel the need to wantonly flaunt wealth.

Another understanding of being born into real wealth, is to have the benefit of being surrounded by people who truly understand how money, and finances, work.  There is an understanding that there are types of financial products the general public is no aware of, that there are advantages in running transactions through vehicles such as companies and trusts, and how to mitigate credit exposure.  There are ready sources of leverage, fund placement, and credit.  The wealthy also understand the benefit of insuring everything they can to mitigate, and outsource risk.  There is no benefit in undertaking any risk that is not mitigated and managed.  Poor people leave things to chance.

When it comes to relationships, and networks, this is where wealth is protected, nurtured, and propagated, within families.  Networks grant access to those in power, and opens doors to opportunities that ordinary people never have access to.  The world runs on networks.  Success is determined by who we know more than what we know.  There is no point being brilliant in something, or having a world changing idea without access to the people who can make it happen.  That is why mediocre people like Kylie Jenner can earn hundreds of millions.  It is the network, exploited successfully, for mutual gain.  The key to success, and wealth, is, and has always been, about knowing the correct people, and impressing them, or having something that appeals to their sense of self-interest.

Quora Answer: Do ETFs Always Own the Underlying Assets They Represent?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do ETFs always own the underlying assets they represent?”

Generally, an ETF, as the name does suggest, is a type of fund, which takes a stake, or owns several classes of assets, and securities, and then divides itself into shares, owned by shareholders, the people who bought the ETF.  For the most part, ETFs are straightforward, although the products are evolving, and gaining complexity.

The exception to the rule are synthetic ETFs, which do not directly own the assets tracked.  Rather, they use derivative products to replicate the chosen tracked index, which are complex mechanisms.  Because they are contractually obligated to match the return of this index, it is subject to significant counterparty risk.  Due to the complexity of the product, and the lack of transparency, it is almost impossible to enforce compliance, and it is starting to attract regulatory attention all over the world.  In essence, they are ETF in name, but should be classed as a distinct product.

Quora Answer: Do Companies Have to Show Who Owns Their Stock?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do companies have to show who owns their stock?”

This depends on many factors.  If the company is listed, this will be a listing requirement, for major shareholders, or those with a possible beneficial ownership.  Not all companies are listed, and not all bourses have the same listing requirements.  Mainboard listings certainly require some form of disclosure, perhaps the top twenty main shareholders, or if there is a potential conflict of interest.  This must be mentioned in the annual report, and the auditor’s report.

This also depends on the local registration laws.  If it is limited liability, this is not a factor.  Even if not, there may develop a situation where a company needs to disclose the identity of their major share owners, such as when required by a court of law, or when there is a merger, for example.  Aside from these, no, a company is not particularly required to show who owns their stock.

Quora Answer: Do Brokers Have a Fiduciary Duty to Their Clients?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do broker-dealers have a fiduciary duty to their clients?”

I am answering this specific to Singapore.  Within the context of local law, the fiduciary is expected to exercise loyalty towards his principal and is bound by strict legal obligations.  The primary responsibility is to act in good faith towards the principal.  Acting in good faith means avoiding conflicts of interest, and not unduly profiting from that relationship.

To be a broker in Singapore means having a licence, and an RNF code.  Part of the licensing programme includes an emphasis on ethics, and there is a strict compliance regime enforcing this.  As such, by law, the broker must exercise fiduciary duty.  Failure to do so has severe legal consequence.