CREATION ACCORDING TO BIBLE AND QURAN

All civilisation has their unique creation story which is about the birth of their tribe or race. Here we look at the creation stories of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, solely from their scriptures. Whether they should be taken as mythology or historical accounts, is up to one’s persuasion.


GENESIS:

Chap 1 (KJV)

(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (13) And the evening and the morning were the third day. (14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Chap 2.1-2 (KJV)

(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


In 1976 Zachariah Sitchin wrote “The 12^th Planet” which is basically an embellishment of the idea that gods were extraterrestrials. An advanced alien race called Anunaki lived in an undiscovered planet called Nibiru. A task force arrived on Earth where they mined for gold. A revolt broke out as the workers could not take the demands of working in mines. So they bio-engineered homo sapiens to work as slaves in the mines.

Sitchin claimed to have based his book on years of studying the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Sumerians. This was the earliest recorded civilisation of humans found in Mesopotamia (today’s Iraq). The Sumerians appeared some time in 4,500 BC. Sumerian is called a language isolate which means it is one of it’s kind, not related to any known language. Which means expertise is rare. The Sumerians wrote on clay tablets in the form called cuneiform. These were first discovered in the 16^th century AD and deciphering took a long time from 19^th to mid-20^th century AD.

Sitchin’s work has been totally discredited for amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language, he had a Mesopotamia-centric world view and wholly misunderstood Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian literature, his scientific, archaeological, astrological, geological and biological knowledge as relates to Sumeria have been found wanting. Mainstream academia considers his works pseudo-history and pseudo-science.

Yet Sitchin’s books sold by the millions. The genre of alien-being astronaut gods has a ready market of atheists, liberals, agnostics and conspiracy theory enthusiasts who cannot get enough ‘proof’ for their anti-God anti-Christianity polemic.

Aside from the astronaut gods belief, many hold the view that Sumerian culture and religion  influenced the Jews who where guilty of plagiarism. Non-believers push the narrative Christianity evolved from pagan worship of Sumerian Sun God via Sol Invictus of the Romans brought by Constantine when he converted to Christianity. Islam to them is also a pagan religion based on Nanna the Sumerian Moon God, represented by the moon icon on every mosque. What seems most interesting is the Sumerians have a few stories as told in the Epic Of Gilgamesh, also appear in the Old Testament, such as the flood story. Supporting this view is the fact Abraham came from Ur, a city in Mesopotamia. He would have continued Sumerian pagan practices after God took him out of Ur into Canaan.

The counter arguments are many. Judaism is monotheism, Sumerians were pagans. There were Semitic people living in Sumeria as well as the region north west of Mesopotamia. It could well be the Semites influenced the Sumerians. When stories similar to the Bible are studied in detail, there are major differences. For example, in the flood story, Noah was adrift 40 days and nights and the flood was universal. Sumerian flood was localised and lasted only 6 days and nights. Flood stories are also to be found in many other cultures far away from, and had nothing to do with, Mesopotamia, such as South Americas and Polynesia. Noah’s universal flood explains it.

QURAN:

Allah created everything in 6 days, the same as the Bible. Details are different but that of course does not mean Quran is wrong. Quran is adamant the task took 6 days as it repeats this many times, for example :

Surah 10.3:

Surely your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne, conducting every affair. None can intercede except by His permission. That is Allah—your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. Will you not then be mindful?

Surah 11.7:

And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water - that He might test you as to which of you is best in deed. But if you say, "Indeed, you are resurrected after death," those who disbelieve will surely say, "This is not but obvious magic."

There are many other verses where same is mentioned, eg surahs 7.54, 25.59, 32.4, and 50:38.

So did Allah really take 6 days to complete His creation?  There is a problem counting the number of days and inconsistencies in the sequence of events. Let’s work through this.

Surah 2.29:

He it is who created for you all that is in the earth, then He went up to heaven and proportioned it as seven heavens, and He is knower of everything.

هُوَ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ لَكُم مَّا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًۭا ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ فَسَوَّىٰهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَـٰوَٰتٍۢ ۚ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌۭ ٢٩

The keyword is ثُمَّ (thumm pronounced as thoumba) which means ‘then’, something that comes after. So Earth was created first then heaven. Back then, there was no Arabic for ‘space’. Heaven here means space. Quran has a huge problem with science in this sequence. Earth does not exist in a void, it exists in space. Earth has to come into being at the same time as space or after. It is scientifically impossible for Earth to come first, for where will it be placed as there was no heaven or space yet? According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe was created in one big explosion of energy. Is Quran saying Earth was created first and then comes the Big Bang.

This error in sequence is seen again in the creation verses Surah 49.9 to 49.12.


Surah 49.9 to 49.12:

(49.9) Ask ˹them, O Prophet˺, “How can you disbelieve in the One Who created the earth in two Days? And how can you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of all worlds.
(49.10) He placed on the earth firm mountains, standing high, showered His blessings upon it, and ordained ˹all˺ its means of sustenance—totaling four Days exactly—for all who ask.
(49.11) Then He turned towards the heaven when it was ˹still like˺ smoke, saying to it and to the earth, ‘Submit, willingly or unwillingly.’ They both responded, ‘We submit willingly.’
(49.12) So He formed the heaven into seven heavens in two Days, assigning to each its mandate. And We adorned the lowest heaven with ˹stars like˺ lamps ˹for beauty˺ and for protection. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.”


First a digression. A Facebook friend likes to promote his religion online. Nothing wrong in that. A few days back he posted regarding (49.11) the time when heaven was still like smoke. He attributed this to the greatness of Allah to see what James Webb telescope is now showing us, that primeval space indeed looks somewhat like smoke. I don’t know if he realised the error of Quran’s sequence of creation and the number of days.

These verses reinforce surah 2.29. Earth was formed first (49.9) and then space or heaven (49.11).

The Earth and its sustenance was already formed (49.9 and 49.10) when Allah then (recall thoumba) turned to heaven, aka space aka universe, which at that time was ‘still like’ smoke. He then got Earth and Heaven to willingly come together. So before Allah put Earth into the universe, shouldn’t one ask where did he place it?

If that was bad, try counting the number of days.

Now look at the sequence and number of days. First Earth was created in 2 days. The mountains and it’s sustenance, ie the waters, rivers, vegetation, rees, etc. took 4 days. Finally, He formed the heaven, or space, or universe which took another 2 days. The math clearly shows 8 days for creation, not 6.

It gets worse.

Surah 79.27-33:

(27) Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it.
(28) He raised its ceiling and proportioned it.
(29) And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness.
(30) And after that He spread the earth.
(31) He extracted from it its water and its pasture,
(32) And the mountains He set firmly
(33) As provision for you and your grazing livestock.

Notice the sequence is now Heaven, Earth, and sustenance. The Quran changed the sequence of creation?

Notice also Adam and Eve do not appear in these creation verses.




Typo, scripting, or printing errors are understandable. But for Quran, it is an important issue because it claims for itself to be the true words of God. Word for word, it is without error and immutable. Allah is all-knowing, a statement repeated over and over again in the Holy Book. What can explain for the inconsistencies in number of days, sequence of creation and the scientific impossibility of placing Earth outside the Universe.

Quran is a simple narration of creation. It dwells not on the philosophical issue of TIME.  

The Bible presents an organised view, encapsulated in Genesis chap 1. More significantly, the Bible establishes two Truths that science has no alternative explanation. First, according to the Bible, in the beginning, there was VOID, or nothingness. Second, there was a beginning of TIME, ie when God created the Universe. This idea of a beginning of TIME so scared non-theological scientists that has them hesitating accepting The Big Bang Theory. For recognition of Big Bang means accepting there was a beginning of TIME, thus existence of a creator, GOD. 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

ANACHRONISM IN QURAN – BROTHERS SOLD JOSEPH

The Gospels have been subjected to historical inquiry for hundreds of years and came out none the worst. The Quran has been spared this intensity of scrutiny in the past. The age of internet facilitates research sharing and corroboration. Inevitably a growing number of private enterprises focus their magnifying glass on the Book out of academic fascination or polemical pursuits, in what has been essentially a virgin field. This effort has thrown up many interesting aspects that demand scholarly response but which has yet to hit mainstream historical researchers.

“Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology may all be drawn on, and the historian's skill lies in identifying these sources, evaluating their relative authority, and combining their testimony appropriately in order to construct an accurate and reliable picture of past events and environments.” Wikipedia

Anachronism is the attribution of events or things to a period which they do not belong. The Quran suffers from numerous lapses of anachronism. Let’s examine an instance here.

Surah 12-20:

وَشَرَوْهُ بِثَمَنٍۭ بَخْسٍۢ دَرَٰهِمَ مَعْدُودَةٍۢ وَكَانُوا۟ فِيهِ مِنَ ٱلزَّٰهِدِينَ

Google translation:

“And they sold him for a reduced price - a few dirhams - and they were, concerning him, of those content with little.”

This verse relates to the story in the Old Testament of Joseph, the youngest son of Jacob. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and they schemed to kill him. Eventually the brothers sold Joseph to some traveling merchants passing by on their way to Egypt.

In the days of Old Testament people paid for goods and services in metals such as silver and gold. The most commonly known weight was shekel. There are higher and lower denominations of shekels.

The relationship of the weights known as talent, maneh, shekel, beka and gerah can be determined from the Gospels and other written records.

1 Talent = 60 Manehs
1 Maneh = 50 Shekels
1 Shekel = 2 Beka
1 Beka = 10 Gerahs.

Two other weights are pim and kesitah. The absolute value of pim can be determined from archaeological finds. Kesitah is an archaic weight whose metrological value is lost.

All these are just terms of weight, just like present day pounds, grams, or tons. The relationship laid out nicely such that if we know what is the weight in present day term of say grams for shekel, for example, then we know the weight of talent, maneh, beka, and gerahs.

Shekel, being the most common, so there will be pieces of silver with this weight. Goods may be sold at say, 2 shekels of silver. Then 2 pieces of silver at 1 shekel each change hands.

The Chinese were the first to use minted coins with the advent of bronze-cast coinage (771 – 221 BC). In Western history, the first coins were found in today’s Turkey dated to 700 BC during the Lydian Empire. Dirham, as a currency used in the Levant, came only in late 7th century AD.

The Quran has a huge problem - it is out by over a thousand years. As the standard Islamic narrative goes, the Quran was put together sometime 7th - 8th century AD. An exegetical reading points to the writer inadvertently inserting the real world currency into scripture, a coinage which was not in use till a thousand years later. It was an error noticed by neither man nor God. If it indeed was human error, which is understandable, then the Quran has a larger problem. It claims for itself to be the true exact words of God, thereby error-proof, is immutable, has not changed one single word or letter for 1,400 years, and is protected by God. 

Let’s compare to what the Gospel says.

Genesis 37:28 (KJV 1900)

“Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.”

The brothers were paid with 20 pieces of silver that weighed 20 shekels. The Bible got it right that the price was pieces of metal. Coins were not yet in use.

The Bible does not provide a wishy-washy “a few Dirhams” but a specific price of 20 shekels of silver. The danger of being too specific is, can it stand up to historical evidence. During the Patriarchal Age (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) Egypt was an importer of slaves from the Levant up to Lebanon. Inflation was also an economic phenomenon the ancients had to suck up to. The reference price for slaves depends on the relevant period. During the 2nd millennium BC, which was Joseph’s time, historical records show Asiatic slaves fetched about 5 to 15 shekels while Semitic slaves commanded a higher rate. 20 shekels was common. Joseph indeed would have fetched 20 shekels, supporting what the Bible said. The reason for the premium on Semitic slaves is they were given higher level tasks like scribes and supervision of Asiatic slaves.

Slave trade data are evidenced in legal records of ancient Babylonia. The Hammurabi Law Code is a Babylonian legal text composed in 1755-1750 BC inscribed on a basalt steele. It is very well-preserved and it records, amongst a vast amount of information, the mean prices for slaves.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

ISRAELI EMBASSY’S FB POST : LOOKING BEYOND THE STREET LIGHT

 

The Israeli Embassy made a Facebook post recently which the Singapore government objected and requested it be taken down. The embassy obliged and said the post had no official approval and erring personnel has been penalised.

Two issues the Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam was unhappy with were:
a. The post pointed out “Israel is mentioned 43 times in the Koran. On the other hand, Palestine is not mentioned even once.”
b. “.. that archaeological evidence such as maps, documents and coins show that Jewish people are the indigenous people of Israel”.

The Minister called the post “insensitive”, “inappropriate”, “completely unacceptable” and “an astonishing attempt to rewrite history”.

In the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas conflict, there has been massive arguments in social media on which side holds the high moral ground as the rightful people of the land. The issue goes far beyond the Balfour Declaration and 1948 founding of the state of Israel into misty antiquity.

When Joshua led the peoples of Moses into the Promised Land, they settled into a northern kingdom called Israel, and a southern kingdom called Judea. Ten of the tribes settled in the Kingdom of Israel and they were known as Israelites. The two tribes that settled in Judea were known as Judeans, or Jews in short form. Today they are collectively called Jews.

Indeed the Koran mentions “Children of Israel” 43 times in different context. Sometimes it refers to Israelites , sometimes it means the progeny of Jacob and other times it refers to the Israelite community generally. Does it include the Judeans is a question for etymologists and theologians. Here are some examples : Surah 2.83, 3.49, 5.12, 7.137, 10.90, 7.105 and so on.

Does the Koran mention Palestine? Not even once. Most will contend the term Palestine (or Palestina in Latin) was coined by the Romans in 2^nd century BC when they named a Roman province Syria Palestina, which covered the swath of land West of the River Jordan to the sea,

But those who betted on the Romans are wrong. There have been much earlier use of names outside of Biblical accounts that sounded like Palestine. Egyptian hieroglyphs mentioned Peleset, a neighbouring people they have been at war with since 1150 BC. Statute of Padisset, dated 800 BC, mentioned trade between Canaan and Paleset.

The Assyrian word for Paleset was Pilistu, first mentioned in the 800 BC Nimrod Slab. A century later, Palistu was again mentioned in Esarhaddon Treaty.

The Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions provide no description of location and are preceded by Old Testament accounts. The scripture mentions Palestims (Philistines), the people that lived in the towns on the southern coastal stretch (corresponding to Gaza and further northern towns of Eshkelon and Ekron) who had been at war with the Israelites. Goliath, the giant that David fought against, was a Philistine. Before you can say “aha”, Philistines were not Arabs. They were a maritime people of Aegean or Mediterranean origins, probably from Crete.

The first written record came from Greek historian Herodotus who wrote in 5^th century BC of a district of Syria called Palaistine which he located somewhere between Phonecia (where Lebanon is today) and Egypt, and covers the coastal stretch and lands further East up to the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley, in other words “from the river to the sea”.

Then came the Romans who named their province West of River Jordan to the sea as Palestina, or Palestine.

Whether Peleset, Pilistu, Palaistine, or Palestina, it is clear these were just geographical names in antiquity. There was no race of people called Palestinians. The Koran has it right in no mention of Palestinians.

It follows the Israeli embassy’s post was factual. But we live in dangerous times when factual info can land one in trouble.

The government has generally taken a hands-off approach to social discourse in the public sphere even on religious issues. The red line is where religious issues are brought up to serve political agendas or meant for mischief to steer sentiments. The government’s concern to manage communal sensitivities in a multi-religious society is understandable. That Singapore's Muslim leaders have been mature, responsible, compassionate, and with great interfaith co-operative attitude, is the consequence of decades of nurturing and gains in trust, something all stake holders and government can take credit for. But always cognisant the status quo cannot be taken for granted. Vigilance remains imperative.

Shanmugam’s objection to the selective quoting of scripture to support a political narrative is a criticism of the embassy ‘searching under a street light’. This is an idiom for observational bias often attribute to 13^th century Turkish philosopher Mullah Nasreddin. It means the tendency to look for answers where it is easiest to look, ie look at where the light shines and avoid unlighted areas.

However the Minister’s point that the Facebook post was “an astonishing attempt to rewrite history” actually puts him at odds with history and the Koran.

Back to history. Were there no Arabs in the region in antiquity? The nomadic Nabateans inhabited the area East of River Jordan in the 5^th to 3^rd century BC. Nabateans were of Arab origin who mysteriously disappeared from history, leaving behind their famous cave buildings in Petra. Like the Nabateans, except for the Jewish people, all the other names in antiquity such as Moabs, Hitities, Philistines, Canaanites, have all disappeared from history.

The challenge for legitimacy to territorial inheritance and thus the right to sovereign nationhood is what’s keeping two peoples with different ideologies locked in a life-and-death struggle for more than a hundred years. Online internecine battles on legitimacy to territorial inheritance centred on one side claiming evidence from scripture, and the other on indigeneity.

Many claims the so-called Jews in Israel today have nothing to do with the Jews of antiquity. Well in fact the Jewish genome has been extensively studied under advanced scientific means and the evidence is there is a Jewish signature amongst Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and Crypto-Jews.

At the same time, the same group argues Palestinians have been DNA-tested to trace their origin to the Canaanites, thus they actually predates the Jews to the land. This seems unlikely since Canaanite was a catch-all name for miscellaneous groups of Semitic speaking people in the region. Being non-homogeneous, there is no common DNA marker. Leaving the science aside, unschooled Muslims may be shocked to know what the Koran actually says of the matter.

Surah 5:20
And ˹remember˺ when Musa (Moses) said to his people, “O my people! Remember Allah’s favours upon you when He raised prophets from among you, made you sovereign, and gave you what He had never given anyone in the world.”

Surah 5:21
“O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has destined for you ˹to enter˺. And do not turn back or else you will become losers.”

Surah 5:22
They replied, “O Musa! There is an enormously powerful people there, so we will never ˹be able to˺ enter it until they leave. If they do, then we will enter!”

Surah 5:23
Two God-fearing men (Joshua and Caleb) —who had been blessed by Allah—said, “Surprise them through the gate. If you do, you will certainly prevail. Put your trust in Allah if you are ˹truly˺ believers.”

These verses of course refer to the Battle of Jericho where the Jews defeated the Canaanites and entered the Promised Land. Here is evidence Allah gave the Promised Land to the Jews and instructed the destruction of Canaanites. Muslims that put up the argument of Palestinians having Canaanite ancestry need to understand it is at odds with the Koran.

More on the history. After the Romans came the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922). Under Islamic law, if Jews pay a jizya (a special tax), they are called Dhimmis, protected and allowed to stay. In reality they were mistreated as 2^nd class citizens, considered dirty, spate at, treated as lower than animals, not allowed in certain trades, segregated in certain quarters in squalor. When a Dhimmi sees a Muslim approaching, he must move to the other side of the street. (Note that Hitler’s Germany adopted similar practices except the Germans considered Jews mental retards). Discrimination under Muslim rule forced massive diaspora of Jews out of Palestine. This hollowed out the Jewish population, the economy, which in turn also hollowed Arab Palestinians.

Mark Twain (real name Samuel Clemens) visited the Holy Land in 1867 and this is what he said:

“There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride 10 miles, hereabouts, and not see 10 human beings.”

“Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies.”

Mark Twain described a desolate uninhabitable land at the end of the 19^th century which held through the turn of the 20^th century.

The splinkling of Jewish and Arab settlements lived peacefully. They were known as Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians.

After WWI, things took on a spectacular change. Both Jewish and Arab population began increasing rapidly. What happened to cause this change?
|
For the Jews, there was both pull and push factors. Zionism, Balfour Declaration and 1948 Declaration of State of Israel were factors for ‘aliyah’, a Jewish term for the ‘act of going up’ (to the Holy Land of Jerusalem). Aliyah describes the return of Jews from diaspora to their land of origin. In more current times, the economic success of Israel is another pull factor. The pogroms in various parts of Europe and increased discrimination in Islamic countries in the throes of nationhood were push factors.

For the Arabs, economics was the pull factor. There were a couple of factors that was beginning to drive the economic engine. First, Great Britain was given responsibility for the Palestine Mandate. That meant bringing in capital and technology to get the region moving along. The discovery of oil in the surrounding area in Iraq and Persia (present day Iran) with refinery activities and transportation across the region enroute to Europe and Suez Canal meant jobs. Labour follows employment opportunities. There follows a migration of Arabs from the poorer Middle East countries into Palestine.

Those that look at scripture and convoluted United Nation’s resolutions to try make sense of the situation, are searching under the street light. The problem is staring at us right in the face. It is all a matter of demographics.

Arab Palestinians see Jewish immigration as an invasion of newcomers they equate as invaders or occupiers. These are easily quantified from government records that breaks down population growth from birth and from immigration.

On the other hand, Arab Palestinians view their own immigration numbers as people with deep roots to the land. Poor documentation of resident list by the Ottomans and weak census by British Mandate, aggravated by the fact immigration is mostly illegal, means unreliable data. Based on the logic of observable link between economic disparities and migration trends, it is beyond doubt the growth in Arab Palestinians parallels that of the Jews, ie. driven by recent immigration.

What seems apparent is a people expert at using immigration as warfare tool, as evidenced all over Europe currently. The growth in own numbers are all sons and daughters of people who have lived on the land since time immemorable. And so it is represented to the world, any growth in Jewish numbers is a Zionist invasion, and growth from Arab immigration are indigenous Palestinians. Therein the case for a Palestinian instead of Israeli, state.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

SIMPLYGO FIASCO : THE BIG DATA AMBITIONS AND $40M DILEMMMA EXPLAINED

"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." ... Abraham Lincoln

Land Transport Authority of Singapore had eggs in their face in the aborted migration of card-based transit ticketing system (CBT) to account-based transit ticketing (ABT). CBT cards - Ezlink and NetsFlashPay, were to be replaced by ABT card - SimplyGo-Ezlink (SimplyGo for short) by1 June 2024. Barely two weeks after announcing the dateline, government walked back its planned move in response to public outcry. Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat went so far as to say the planned move was a "judgement error".

The criticisms were centred on two main issues. The new SimplyGo card does not display fare charge and credit balance on the train and bus card readers and it cannot be used for ERP (electronic road pricing) and carparking.

The public condemns SimplyGo as a retrogression, a backward move. In fact, a retro word doesn't quite capture the essence of the fiasco. The Germans have a better word -- verschlimmbesserung. This means making a change for the better but end up worse than before.

However, people are seeing the card for the system. The SimplyGo system is the whole backend infrastructure, developed and managed by Acclivis Technologies, that enables payment by credit cards, bank cards, mobile and wearables, SimplyGo card, as well as cloud storage of commuters' accounts, transaction data, and big data analytics.

It has been one huge PR disaster for the government and explanations so far have not been crystal clear. Chee's "end of life" speech at the press conference was obfuscating. He explained the June dateline to migrate to SimplyGo was due to the ROD (run out date) of the CBT system. A further S$40m for hardware and maintenance is required to allow the CBT system to continue till 2030.

Folks are incensed additional $40m tax money to be spent is system design error but Chee seemed to place blame on the public. Because you complained, more spending is needed. The public has got it wrong. It does not cost anything to retain the use of EZlink and NETsFlashPay cards. What Chee meant was after a series of focus group discussions from 2020 to 2023 with about 1,000 commuters from different groups, they realised older generation folks have difficulties with the use of apps in SimplyGo. For this reason it was decided to retain the use of CBT Concession cards till 2030 and this requires additional spending of S$40m. The government felt this was necessary spending. So the S$40m additional cost is independent of the decision on the fate of EZlink and NETsFlashPay cards. Whether these cards are discontinued or retained, the $40m will sill have to be spent.

The same card readers accept both CBT and ABT cards as well as mobile and wearable devices, so most folks are perplexed about the S$40m spending. What Chee did not explain is the topping up of stored values. SimplyGo cards are topped up via the app or Web. EZlink, NETsFlashPay, Concession cards require top up kiosks. In order to continue using CBT cards, S$40m is needed for additional kiosks for the new MRT stations being built, replacement of hundreds of existing aged ones reaching end of economic life, and maintenance.

Why are top up kiosks required for CBT cards? This is because stored values are encoded into the microchips by these kiosks. The debit and credit computation of CBT cards are done in the microchips which is why card balances can be displayed on readers immediately. Stored value or balance is credited or increased when commuter tops up, and decreased or debited when commuter taps out.

On the issue of non-display of fare charge and card balances, the revelation of focus group discussions in 2020-2023 is a shocker to many. A product review is normal. However, SimplyGo went live in 2019. Fundamental weaknesses should have been uncovered at much earlier product specification stage.

Minister Chee explained SimplyGo does its computational work in the backend system and is thus unable to display fare charge and card balance at card readers. It has the info but to download it to the card readers take some delays not acceptable in a fast moving commuter traffic situation.

Let's consider how the system works. When a commuter taps in, the card reader sends certain info via internet to the backend for authorisation. If it's a credit card or bank card, a message goes to the issuing bank via the processor's network, to confirm availability of credit. The issuing bank responds accordingly. If it's a SimplyGo card, the system checks for card balance in commuter's account. Whether approved or denied, the backend sends the info to the readers. In the case of trains, the turnstile is released for commuter to enter. If authourised, the system keeps the transaction open. When commuter taps out, certain info is sent over to the backend to allow the transaction to be closed. In the case of trains, the turnstile is released for commuter to exit.

These messaging here and there takes place almost instantly. So the question is, when a commuter taps in, how long will it take the backend to check a SimplyGo card balance and send the info to display on the reader. And on tapping out, how long will it take for the backend to update and send the info to the reader so he knows the fare and balance upon exit. Is it nanosecond, microsecond, or millisecond?

I can offer an explanation here but note it is speculative. SimplyGo is probably not updating accounts in real time. That is why Minister Chee is technically correct that SimplyGo can show balances on card displays but it takes too long. This also explains one of the complaints of many commuters that the system is slow in updating their accounts. 

In evaluating systems, outside of cost issues, we see features in two groups - 'must have' and 'nice to have'. For commuters, the SimplyGo card must have fare and card balances displayed on card readers immediately. All other features the government pointed out such as cancel lost cards, top up stored values on the go, topping up for someone else, checking travel expenses, dynamic pricing etc,  are just nice to have.

For the government, it sets grand plans. In this instance it is all about 'smart city'. In the Smart Cities Index Org report for 2022, Singapore was ranked 26th. London holds top spot. Basically, smart city is about the application of Information Communication Technology in urban development. The government has road maps for various aspects. In transit systems, the envelope to punch is MaaS (Mobility as a System) which is one single platform for trains, buses, taxis, ride-hailing services, electronic road pricing, carparking and bike-hailing services. The road to this is via SaaS (Software as a Service) which is to use a cloud service provider, taking away the IT function from transit operators. This approach seeks to abandon monolithic closed loop proprietary systems for a fee-based system from a specialist service provider and allow transit operators to focus solely on running the trains and busses instead of ticketing technology. Acclivis Technologies, a Singapore SaaS wholly owned by Hongkong Telecom, designed, built, and manages the SimplyGo system.

In his 27 Jan 2024 Gutzy article, Terry XU said SimplyGo is a classical case of technology for technology sake. Is this fair comment? What does the government want out of a transit ticketing system? In two words - Big Data. Transaction data captured by the system provides rich information on transportation patterns which serves urban planning and development. CBT systems do not capture transaction data. 

In the case of credit and bank cards, transaction data is captured by SimplyGo. For stored-value cards like EZlink, NETsFlashPay, and concession cards, transaction data is not captured. That is the underlying reason why CBT cards have to be phased out.

It is not a problem to have SimplyGo do transaction data capture for CBT cards in same manner as for credit and bank cards. The problem is CBT cards are not personalised so the data has limited utility absence demographics and locations details. The simple solution is personalise EZlink and NETsFlashPay cards similar to credit and bank cards. However, this solution requires card value top up kiosks to be retained which carries a high cost (old ones need replacement, additional ones for new stations, maintenance).

ABT or account-based ticketing provides the solution to doing away with the top up kiosks. Enter SimplyGo cards. Personalised. Transaction data capture. Top up on the go without kiosks.

The only problem is SimplyGo cards do not display fare charge and card value balance on readers. As mentioned, transactions of SimplyGo cards are not updated in real-time. Will real-time update solve the problem? Perhaps.

Another issue the public is concerned is the cost of SimplyGo system which LTA is not sharing. An SaaS project would mean LTA bears no development cost and the vendor recovers cost in a fee structure that is generally higher in the first few years and subsequently lowered thereafter. By accepting credit and bank cards, transit operators are merchants with several charges to take care off, such as processors' network charge, ACH (automated clearing house) charges, etc, on top of SaaS fees. Transit fares are super micro payments in very high volumes. Fortunately, the various card processors allow for aggregation which reduces volume and cost. In fact, without aggregation, it is economically not feasible to use credit and bank cards for transit ticketing. How much of these increased ticketing cost has been worked into fare increases is the question.

For more than 50 years, the PAP has normalised a nanny state governance where, perhaps well-intentioned, tough regulations have been rammed down on the public. There is cocky confidence the public will bite the bullet and negative sentiments will be numbed with passage of time. This SimplyGo farce has been a plebiscite on the need for immediate display of fare charge and stored value balance on fare card readers. The admission of 'judgement error' is a big deal for Singaporeans. It is a paradigm shift in the government's policy execution that public voice matters. It is good this time the powers that be had chosen to heed Abraham Lincoln.

Note:
I am currently parallel publishing at Substack. Do visit and subscribe here. 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

MEASURING TEMASEK AGAINST 20 RED FLAGS FOR NEXT WIRECARD CRASH

"Temasek can afford to be contrarian because it has its own balance sheet and can think long term."  .... Ho Ching  

That was Ho Ching in the aftermath of the FTX fiasco and US$275m write off. But Temasek did exactly the opposite of what she said. The FTX decision was made at a time when Sam Bankman-Fried was still a hero. The contrarians were those who raised red flags. Temasek joined the rest, meaning ant-contrarians, blindly getting on what they thought was the gravy train.

I have often mentioned one should refrain from criticising investment decisions with the wisdom of hindsight. Do so on the basis of pre-fact knowledge. In the Wirecard fiasco, one analyst stood out. In early 2019 when investment houses were all still putting out buy orders, Neil Campling, a technology analyst at Swiss financial firm Mirabaud Securities, called the German fintech at 'zero'. Now that's the stuff of contrarian views. 

Wouldn't it be nice to know who is going to be the next Wirecard? After the collapse of Wirecard, Mirabaud Securities posted a check list of red flags to watch out for. Let's do a tongue-in-cheek line up of Temasek against these red flags.

1. Massively promotional CEO who actively looks for publicity and spends a lot of time courting Wall Street/investors etc and is very media savvy.

Yes and No.
Previous CEO - Checked.
Current CEO - No

2. Huge CEO/Senior Management compensation package NOT tied to cash flow or Earnings but just to Sales and/or the stock price, creating the possibility of egregious wealth creation if the stock goes up a lot. Huge pledging of collateral by the CEO in return for margin loans to fund a billionaire lifestyle.

Huge compensation package tied to asset valuation. Egregious wealth creation from unearned income computed in an opaque environment.
No assets collateralised to benefit CEO.

3. Management compensation generally way out of line with peers despite notably less profitability.

Checked.

4. Glossy future projections that have a habit over a long period of being proven to be too optimistic.

Temasek never makes glossy projections. For them the investing environment is always in difficult times. On the other hand, in years of poor performance, their default refuge is always on the 20 year long term ROI. This of course is a 20 year running average ROI which is bolstered by high ROI of earlier years when state assets were transferred to Temasek at cost thus giving it a head start in high profitability. All the benefits of those head start years have by now moved out of the rolling 20 year time frame.  Going forward we are likely to see Temasek heap self-praise on current year performance in a good year and down play a dipping 20 year ROI.

5. Questionable product quality, ie defects (boon??) or debatable technological leads over similar products.

Checked.

As an investor, the portfolio quality is what we are interested in. As investments go, you win some, you loose some. It is the opaque model of Temasek's operation that has Singaporeans capable of independent thinking greatly concerned. The concern is very real when you realise there is no exit strategy for 30% of the portfolio locked in secretive private equities.

6. Some evidence of self certifying, whether it be through strange international subsidiaries or not having an Auditor or experiencing unusual and slightly sudden end of quarter surges in revenues, up to and including the last day.

Checked.
The financial statements are retreating into summarised numbers.

7. Unusual or unverified and large Receivables in a business where the product is exchanged for cash up front.

No.

8. Evidence that the company is existing on a shoestring, not paying Suppliers, Employees, Landlords etc.

Absolutely not. 

9. Unusual margin progression, with SG +A going down over time despite a rising global footprint, or GM's staying flat despite much lower ASP's over time, for instance .

(Explainer : SG+A = Sales, General & Admin expenses, GM= Gross Margin, ASP = Average Sales Price)

Not applicable. 


10. High levels of Gross Debt. Cash balances not matched by notable Interest Income thereby suggesting they are fraudulent.

No.

11. High employee turnover, especially in the LEGAL and FINANCE areas. Co-founders or Board members leaving.

No.

12. Aggressive pursuit via paid third parties and/or “heavies” of any critics or people who have too many questions, which in any case are “boring”.

No lah, in Singapore it's POFMA or libel suits. But there is an army of Internet Brigade that engages in frivolous comments. I don't know if this is a paid and organised force.

13. Dislike of Hedge Funds.

No.

In fact Temasek has placed bets on some hedge funds and has some hedge fund-like vehicles. - 

14. Possible Narcissistic Personality Disorder on the part of the CEO. Additional points if he/she uses Twitter a lot..

Yes and No.
Previous CEO was prolific on Facebook.
Current CEO - No.

15. Large cabal of outcasts/weirdos/bloggers/Twitter groups who have been saying for years that everything is amiss but just get a lot of criticism because the stock keeps going up ergo they must be idiots.

Checked.
The Internet Brigade is well known, fawning at anything written in good light and attacking ... er, contrarian views.

16. Slowing top line growth rate despite all the hoopla and supposed “growth stock” status. Evidence of competitors rapidly eroding unsustainably high market share.

Not applicable.

17. Loss making. Ideally never made a profit but likes to pretend it did or failing that, that it will for sure in 2-3 years due to highly questionable new products. But the 2-3 years gets pushed out constantly,.

No

18. Extensive use/exclusive use of NON-GAAP Accounting and occasional bridging to get from a Net Loss to a (small) Net Profit via poorly explained one-offs/Other Items/unusually large Credits of some kind in a desperate attempt to get into an Index by illicit means.

Of the past 10 years financials I looked at, I think there is only 1 year in which this sort of window dressing happened. 

19. Weak Board, preferably also small and ideally in hock in some way to the CEO, who therefore do his/her bidding. Helps if some of them are related physically to the CEO.

Checked. 
Many non-executive board members are highly esteemed folks. But there exists the inescapable PAP entrenched network. 

20. Gullible media, gullible analysts and dozens of paid bloggers who produce Price Targets out of nowhere based on “Option Value” or put another way products that are at least 5 years away from having any material impact.

Checked.
Not in the sense of producing Price Targets, but never questioning anything.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF TEMASEK BEING 

THE NEXT WIRECARD -- THE VERDICT 

Mirabaud Securities' 20 red flags are actually applicable to operating entities and not for an investment company setting. 

Although some boxes are checked, there is no question a Wirecard type crash can ever occur at Temasek. As Ho Ching said, Temasek has the balance sheet. Size matters. There will certainly be the occasional bumps of investee corporate failures. But there is no guarantee against Prince Jefri Bolkiah type of core family betrayal that caused massive losses in Brunei and Kuwaiti sovereign wealth funds. Public vigilance remains key.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

IS SIMPLYGO A CASE OF PUTTING LIPSTICKS ON A PIG?

SimplyGo has been derided as taking one-step-forward-two-steps-back or a case of fixing something that ain't broke. Some pilloried the government for the inability to come up with a one-payment-card-for-all solution. Is SimplyGo "putting lipsticks on a pig", a term that refers to making superficial or cosmetic changes to a product to make it seem like a new one.

The contentious issues are SimplyGo (a) does not immediately display card balance on MRT fare gates and bus card readers when tapping in and out; (b) cannot be used for motoring (carparks and Electronic Road Pricing gantries). 

I will deal with two areas. One, is on the system. Many have written on this but I have not been able to find one that explains comprehensively. There is much confusion. To this extent can be attributed a failure in change management - the new product have not been sold to the public. Two, and this is what readers expect of this blog - a discussion of some issues no one talks about.

Talking about systems, it is impossible not to hit you with an array of geeky acronyms. With apologies in advance.

Before SimplyGo :

NFC : Near Field Communication - this is a technology that allows an NFC scanner to read data from another NFC device at a very short distance of about 4 inches. New smart mobile phones, smart wearables, EMV cards and other smart cards are NFC enabled. NFC does not require pairing like Bluetooth or passwords like Wifi. Simply hold the device near reader and end-to-end transaction is completed in micro seconds.

RFID : Radio Frequency Identification - this is a technology more or less similar to NFC but the scanner is capable of reading smart cards at much greater distances. This is used in motoring (carparks and ERP.)

TransitLink : Entity owned by train and bus operators SBS, TIBS and SMRT to integrate ticketing of the public transport system and manage ticket sales.

CEPAS : Contactless e-Purse Application - this is a Singapore specification standard owned by Enterprise Singapore. It is adopted in Nets FlashPay and EZlink cards to enable interoperability of transit ticketing and motoring. 

Nets FlashPay : It is a protocol that enables contactless direct debit-credit payments at point of sales Owned by DBS, OCBC and UOB. Nets FlashPay cards are stored-value cards used for motoring and retail stores. By incorporating CEPAS, Nets FlashPay cards can also be used for transit ticketing.

EZlink : It is a protocol that enables contactless direct debit-credit payments at point of sales. Owned by LTA. EZlink cards are stored-value cards used for transit ticketing and retail stores. However, it has very limited merchants. By incorporating CEPAS, EZlink cards can also be used for motoring. 

Concession cards : These are contactless stored-value cards for use on trains and buses.

Tourist Cards : These are contactless time-based cards for free travel on trains and buses for limited number of days.

Standard Tickets : These are single trip cards. High physical infra cost are required and usage had fallen drastically. These tickets were no longer issued by 2021.

Closed Loop : This means the cards are proprietary and cannot be used elsewhere. All the cards in use are closed loop.

Prior to SimplyGo, the Singapore transit ticketing system was legacy card-based system. This is a system that uses stored-value cards. We have long gone past magnetic stripe technology and moved to smart cards. The use of smart cards that hold a microchip allows for NFC contactless technology. It also allows for frontend debit/credit computations, enabling for card value balances to be displayed almost immediately on the train fare gates and bus readers upon entry and exit.

Card-based systems are proprietary systems which are monolithic, with high investments in infra, technical HR, and maintenance. It is also difficult to scale and costly to make changes. The system does not capture data of travel patterns of the public.

After SimplyGo (2019)

SimplyGo : This is an account-based transit ticketing system for train and bus services. It is an SaaS developed and managed by Acclivis Technologies and Solutions for LTA. It is the back-end ICT (information communication technology) infrastructure which uses IBM technologies that cut across IoT, AI, big data, cyber-security and predictive analytics.

SaaS : Software as a Service - it is a software distribution model in which a cloud provider hosts applications and makes them available to end-users over the internet.

Cloud computing : It offers on-demand availability of computer system resources, especially data storage and computing power, without direct active management by the user. Deployment is not location constrained as long as internet is available. Development is modular in contrast to monolithic proprietary systems.

Open Loop : SimplyGo is an "open loop" system which means that it leverages existing open tokens and processes that are not proprietary to the transport network, allowing for the use of credit cards, mobile phones and wearables as contactless devices. 

SimplyGo-EZlink card : This is the EZlink card upgraded for use on SimplyGo. It no longer adopts CEPAS standards.

EMV : This is a technical standard used in payment cards of Europay, Mastercard and Visa. EMV cards are contactless credit cards.

e-Wallets : This is basically an app that contains a file holding your information such as bank account number, pay card number, password, name, etc that allows you to make payments from an account hosted somewhere.

Digital wallets : These are e-wallets that enables you to access your payment account to pay for transactions online.

Mobile wallets : These are e-wallets that enables you to access your payment account to pay for transactions in the physical world.

The Pays : A collective reference to Google Pay, Apple Pay, and Samsung Pay. Some smart phones come with built-in apps that allow you to set up mobile wallets where you set your bank account and/or credit card details. Your mobile phone is the contactless device that you simply hold near the vendor's scanner to make payment. There is no need to key in account numbers, PIN, passwords, etc. The Pays allow you to make payment directly from bank accounts or credit cards.

Concession cards & Tourist Cards : These remain in use.

SimplyGo went live in 2019. It is account-based cards built on cloud computing which also allows contactless credit cards and smart devices like mobile phones and wearables. Currently it runs parallel with card-based NETs Flashpay and EZlink (which includes concession and tourist cards) until these are withdrawn. According to Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat, about 30% of riders have already switched to SimplyGo. (No details are provided, but I suspect majority are those who like to use mobile phones and wearables as their contactless devices.)

Account-based transit ticketing is like a new era for transit operators. We have been told London and Singapore are the only two countries having this. Too bad London beat us to the coveted first spot. Masabi, a US-based SaaS vendor, did a survey with transport agencies which showed 22% of respondents have already deployed account-based transit ticketing systems, 24% will deploy and 24% are at the research stage. I cannot get behind the paywall so I do not know who the respondents are, what are the numbers, and what countries. Is Singapore really number 2 and does it matter?

SimplyGo Back Office at Acclivis

Who developed SimplyGo? Some report name LTA, others say TransitLink. Acclivis Technologies was contracted by LTA to develop and manage SimplyGo. Acclivis is a local company which started out as a software house owned by Singaporeans and has now grown into a formidable SaaS vendor. In 2015 it was acquired by CITIC Telecom, a company listed on the Hongkong Stock Exchange. So now a foreign-owned Singapore company has a product that is most sought after in transit services all over the world. SimplyGo is a cutting edge tech project that will put Singapore on the forefront as a smart city. It's no secret that technology companies receive significant grants and soft loans from Enterprise Singapore, a government agency. Here's to guessing if Acclivis availed of such financial support and how much. 

LTA announced this month the EZlink cards will cease to be used by 1 June 2024. This drew public outcry mainly on the point card balances are no longer displayed on MRT fare turnstiles and bus readers immediately on entry and exit. Official explanation is debit/credit computations are no longer done at frontend equipment but at the back end where the accounts are kept. Technically it can still be displayed but will take a few seconds. This is unacceptable in a heavy traffic and fast moving environment. That is why it was designed not to display. 
 
Mr Chee pointed out the London system too does not have immediate display of card balance. This is a non-sequitur and it's amazing the defensive Minister would attempt to pull this one out.

In light of unexpected public outcry, Mr Chee recently announced a policy flip flop. The 1 June 2024 dateline is off. To accommodate the public's demand for immediate display of card balances, the government will pump in S$40m to be used for hardware replacements and systems maintenance required to extend the use of EZlink and Nets FlashPay cards. There is a pinch of petulance methinks. Much clarification is needed :

(1) What additional hardware is required when existing train fare gates and bus readers are currently used for both card-based (EZlink and NETs FlashPlay cards) and account-based (SimplyGo-EZlink cards). In fact, in it's initial plan, concession and tourist cards would continue after 1 June 2024. These cards display value balances. It means the same hardware will still be in place. It's a discombobulation. 

(2)  The modularity of cloud computing has a huge cost advantage in maintenance. It seems to me to tweak the system to display balance immediately for SimplyGo-EZlink cards is a matter of adding the debit/credit computations at only the frontend module, the way it is currently doing for EZlink cards. This doesn't seem like a S$40m job.

(3) Netizens ask if S$40m is for maintenance and hardware, what is the cost for the whole SimplyGo project? Here I am speculating. There is no investment cost for LTA or transit operators. Acclivis is the SaaS vendor contracted to design and manage SimplyGo. Vendor earns on a pay-as-you-go fee basis, using some formulae such as number of trips, registered riders, etc. It is similar to toll charges where where the government pays nothing for road construction and contractors earn from toll collection. (Singaporeans are not familiar with this as we have no PPP projects).

(4) If project development is free, why the S$40m maintenance cost? The reason is frontend debit/credit computation for SimplyGo-EZlink cards was not in original specifications. You want new functionality, you pay for it. That's basically Mr. Chee's innuendo, as if it's the public's fault. 

(5) So why was the frontend debit/credit computation for SimplyGo-EZlink cards left out in the first place? I suggest 2 reasons. (a) No survey of riders' preferences. (b) Frontend computation was unilaterally considered redundant since same is done at the backend for the accounts. They had London as precedent.

One of the advantage of SaaS account-based system over proprietary card-based system is cost. This is very true of new entrant transit operators. For systems already in operation, the Masabi survey showed ticketing takes up to 10%-20% of operating cost. At this level any significant cost savings on ticketing does not seem to be able to translate to high savings in total operating cost. Cost does not seem to be the driver for change. 

As SimplyGo allows riders to pay fares by credit cards and direct debit to bank accounts, the nature of transit operators has changed to that of merchants. They are now involved in millions of mircro payments per day either through the ACH (automated clearing house) or credit card companies. How much merchants' transactional cost has been passed down to riders in the last few fare increases?  

As mentioned, SimplyGo is a SaaS project, so the financials work as in 'toll gate'. Vendor gets paid on some formula of usage such as number of  trips. The first few years normally carry a higher rate for vendor to recoup development costs. The rate subsequently tapers off. Again, if I am correct here, how much has this been reflected in recent fare increases?

There are several other minor benefits for transit operators and riders which I do not cover here. For example, by using SaaS, transit operators leave ticketing systems to market specialists and focus on running  trains and buses. The major driver for operators seems to be accounts-based system captures vast amount of data of the public's travel patterns. Big data analytics may provide useful information that can assist in policy making.

One casualty of migrating to SimplyGo is NETs whose Flashpay cards will no longer be used as SimplyGo has abandoned CEPAS. There is thus no interoperability between motoring, trains and buses. The reason for this may well be commercial. Everybody wants a slice of the merchants pie. NETs has basically cornered the market. It is possible transit operators see SimplyGo cards an opportunity for a new market to earn some fee income.

Is SimplyGo a step in the right direction? One thing is for sure, businesses must never get left too far behind in technology. As a matter of fact, SaaS is no longer nouveau, and account-based system is gaining ground. The next frontier in transit ticketing systems is MaaS.

MaaS : This stands for Mobility as a Service. It integrates various forms of transport and transport-related services into a single, comprehensive, and on-demand mobility service which offers end-users the added value of accessing mobility through a single application and a single payment channel.

Think of trains, buses, taxis, ride-hailing services, electronic road pricing, carparking, bike-hailing services, all coming under one single platform. That would be a heck of many notches up as a smart city for Singapore - one orgasmic dream for techno-bureaucrats.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

1% GST INCREASE IS A DOUBLE SALAMI ATTACK ON SINGAPOREANS

At a recent Xmas gathering of some old school chums, a friend reminisced about some pranks he did. He told of a certain teacher who used to have him order her fishball noodle from the tuck shop, an old local term for school canteen. The dish came with six fishballs. Enroute with dish to the Teachers' Room, he would pick two fishballs for himself. The teacher was none the wiser. It was an act of sheer teenage fun for a glutton he was not. Do rest assured he is currently not with Grab or other food delivery services.

I am reminded of a story I read in primary school days. A group of rats stole a cake and hid it offsite, intending to keep it for the coming winter. Till then, no one was allowed to touch it. One of the rats could not keep his mind off the cake. He thought to himself he just wanted to see and smell it. So he cooked up a story of wanting to visit a cousin in another part of town. Off he went to visit the cake instead. Over-powered by temptation, he thought a small bite would surely go unnoticed. And so he nibbled. One bite followed another, before he realised it, he had eaten a quarter of the cake. On returning home, folks enquired about his cousin. When asked what's his name, the rat mumbled "Quarter Gone". The next day, the urge was too strong, so the rat went to visit cousin number two. This time the cousin's name was "Half Gone". The third cousin's name was "Three-Quarters Gone". Finally, the fourth cousin's name was "All Gone".

In Godfather III, Michael Corleone wanted to transform the family mafia empire to legitimate business. First order of the day was to buy out a Las Vegas casino from Moe Greene. Michael's reason was Moe was making losses. An incensed Moe asked :"Do you think I'm skimming off the top, Mike?".

To "skim" is to take away something, a little at the time so that it is not noticed. It could be fishballs, a bite of a cake, casino takings, etc. The term "Salami Slicing" was used for acts like these. The term is credited to Hungarian dictator Matyas Rakosi in 1940s, who boasted how his Hungarian Communist Party destroyed opposition Smallholders' Party in a step by step manner he called "szalamitaktika", Hungarian for cutting the salami one thin slice at a time. The term "Salami Slicing" expends the idea of stealing assets stealthily in small amounts to non-assets such as personal information, or inconspicuous actions taken one step at a time towards a major objective. 

In the monetary world, salami slicing is as old as when metal coins appeared in the first millenium. When metals like gold, silver or nickel were used, people clipped tiny bits off the coins. Over time, coins are debased as they lost weight and intrinsic value of the metal became lower than the face value. To counter this, coins were minted with stripe etchings at the rims, which is still practiced today. 

In the nascent stage of computing some 50 years ago, I learnt about the problem of approximation errors. This goes into deep engineering science covering floating rates, differentiation, mantissa and other exotic terms. These topics drove me nuts and I am none the wiser after all these years.

As I understood it in layman terms, the problem is like this. In computing, data needs to be stored in certain field lengths. So sufficient size is allocated for each specific field. Where monetary value is concerned, it had to deal with 2 decimal places to account for the cents. The integers to the left is not a problem since adequate length size can be allowed. But the fractions to the right is set at 2 decimal places with 2 byte lengths to account for the cents. This becomes a problem with certain financial applications like interest and foreign exchange computations which deal with strings of decimal places of undefined lengths. The system has to truncate to 2 decimal places after rounding. But the truncated numbers to the right cannot simply disappear. They are placed in a holding account which statistically move towards levelling out because they can be positive or negative.

Technically, a programmer can code by rounding down the decimals. In a round down the bank looses and customers profit. The programmer routes the credits of the truncated parts to an account he controls. Each is a fraction of a cent, but over thousands of transactions and over time, the balance builds up.

While I have read about this decades ago, I have yet to see a real case event of this quintessential salami attack. Trust Hollywood to present art for real life to follow. "Superman III" has a sub-plot of a quite similar salami attack. Several films carried slight variations of salami attacks, such as in "Hacker" and "Office Space".

Almost all who have written of salami attacks describes one form where small amounts are transferred from many customers to a perpetrators accounts. The amounts are so small customers do not bother or notice. But none can refer to any actual case. They can't. because it cannot be done. These writers have no understanding of accounting processes. Accountants and auditors will tell you entries originate from transactions that come with reference or control numbers. The programmer may code-force the entries through but he has no transaction control numbers. All these entries absent control references will be easily exposed.

Many have written on the topic, from bloggers, serious writers, researchers, to academia, etc. I googled for examples of digital salami attacks and found four commonly quoted ones. But these all came from one single source, Thomas Whiteside in his 1978 book Computer Capers. Not to distract from the blog proper, these cases are described below for those who like to know more. My opinion on these is they are most likely concocted. Firstly, they lack specifics of name, time and place. Secondly, in those days, software development was using lower level generation languages, many were assembly driven, using huge libraries. Development is seldom a one-man show but a big team effort. Thirdly, to install a new or modified corporate system is no simple job. It requires machine shut down, code compilation, testing, authorisation process, before it can be put in live environment. It is difficult to contemplate such a complicated process can byass various operating and control levels.

The only authentic case I know of an insider who redesigned programs to embezzle small amounts at a time was at Taco Bell, Libertytown, Marryland in 1997. Willis Robertson was able to reprogramme his Taco Bell driveup-window cash register - causing it to ring up each $2.99 item internally as a 1-cent item, so that he could pocket $2.98 each time. He amassed $3,600 before he was caught when he bragged about his crime to co-workers. This is a limited scale, relatively simple technically, and all within the control of one man. Absolutely possible.

Many experts have written about the possibility of salami attacks in the Fintech sphere, especially in the ACH (automated clearing house) network. One such opportunity is in the practice of "micro deposits". When you open an online banking account, or wallet, such as Paypal, FX-crypto-stock exchange brokerages, etc, there are links to your banking account for onboarding or withdrawing into fiat money. Or use of some platforms with backend links to ACH, like Simplygo. All these online accounts or platforms may initiate a micro deposit of a few cents up to a couple of $ to your bank account. The purpose is to authenticate your account and test the complicated routing codes are working.

There is a celebrated micro deposit case of USA vs Michael Largent who was indicted in 2008. He opened 58,000 trading accounts with E*Trade and Charles Schwab under various fictitious names. The two brokerage houses sent him a total of US$50,000 in micro deposits. If you are wondering did he break his fingers opening 58,000 online accounts, well it seems he wrote a software to automate account creation. My question is why did the brokerage houses accept trading account names with different bank account names.

I tend to think salami attacks probably occur more outside computer domains. One that I was  personally acquainted was in 1970s. I was part of a team conducting an audit at Far Eastern Bank. When I was working on cheque books and stamp duties, it was narrated to me how an old messenger had embezzled funds. He was tasked to make payments for stamp duties on cheque books. I think at the time it was $15 per book. He would collect from petty cash, pay for lesser number of books each time and pocket the balance. It went undetected for decades. But he was very fortunate the bank was family run and the folks sympathetic to old employees. No police report, just a reprimand. I often wondered, would I have been able to detect that embezzlement.

By now, most readers would have gotten ahead of the blog and understand what GST is all about. In the preceding blog "What the fuss about a mere 1% increase in GST" I showed the math how it translates to a much higher tax revenue than the 1% suggests and how the rounding up profiteering tactic prospers vendors tremendously. So whilst gulping down fishballs may be schoolboy mischief, and quintessential salami attacks in computerised settings are not as prevalent as experts write about, the 1% increase in GST is true blue salami attack, with both IRAS and vendors slicing Singaporeans in broad daylight one purchase at a time. For IRAS it is fiscally legal, for vendors it is just capitalism in progress.

*************************

Extracts from Computer Capers (Thomas Whiteside 1978) :

(a)"The embezzler was evidently using the bank's computer to transfer twenty or thirty cents at a time, at random, from 300 checking accounts at the bank and diverting the money to a dummy account for his own use. The computer criminal was careful never to divert sums from any particular account more often than three times a year. Because a customer was unlikely to notice such a small discrepancy in his monthly bank statement — or, if he did notice it, to find it worth his while to go to the bank and argue over it — the embezzlement was likely to go on and on."

(b)"Two programmers who were employed by a big New York garment firm instructed the company's computer to increase by two cents the amount withheld from their fellow-employees' paychecks each week for federal taxes. They further programmed the computer to direct the two cents per employee per week to their own federal withholding accounts. The result was that at the end of the year they received the money in the form of refund checks from the Internal Revenue Service, which had been acting as an unwitting bagman for the embezzled sums."

(c)"One way in which the computer criminals might employ the salami technique is to round down any sums ending in fractions to the nearest whole number — for example, fractions of pennies as these are computed in interest-bearing accounts. In the meantime, the criminal has established a dummy account at the same bank, and he programs the computer to divert the surplus from the round-downs to this account. Quietly accumulating year in and year out, these fractional sums can mount handsomely, and usually neither the bank nor the depositors know what is going on."

(d)"A programmer working at a mail-order sales company had its computer round down odd cents in the company's sales-commission accounts and channel the round-downs into a dummy sales-commission account he had established under the name of Zwana. He had invented the name Zwana because he knew that the computer processed the company's accounts in alphabetical order, and he could easily program the computer to transfer all the round-downs into the last account in the computing sequence. The system worked perfectly for three years, and then it failed — not because of a logical error on the culprit's part, but because the company, as a public-relations exercise, decided to single out the holders of the first and last sales-commission accounts on its alphabetical list for ceremonial treatment. Thus Zwana was unmasked, and his creator fired."

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.