THE MATH IN TOTO LOTTERY AND A GOOD TIP

My previous blog showed for the 6 months Jan-Jun 2024 Singapore Toto provided an average chance of hitting the jackpot of 1 in 7,239,221 compared to probability theory of 1 in 13,983,816. All gaming systems are based on probability theories so how can Toto throw up outcomes of winners twice the expectation? One would be forgiven to ask if there were phantom winners.

This blog looks into the probabilities of winning under the different systems, ie systems 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and system roll.

System 6 (S$1):

Singapore Toto is picking 6 winning numbers our of 49 numbers. The total number of combinations of 6 numbers as showED in the computation in the previous blog is 13,983,816. If a punter buys 1 bet, the probability of hitting jackpot is 1 in 13,983,816.

System 7: (S$7):

The number of combinations of 7 numbers out of 49 numbers is :


The number of winning combinations of 6 out of 6 is:


The number of loosing combinations of 1 out of remaining non-winning numbers is :


The probability of picking 7 numbers which include the 6 winning numbers is :


5.0057867e-7 is scientific expression for huge numbers which means move the decimal places 7 points to the left.
P = 0.0000005005867

The probability of hitting jackpot with a system 7/49 is = 0.00000050057867 or 0.000050057867 %

Expressed as a fraction P = 1/0.00000050057867 = 1,997,688
The probability of hitting jackpot with a system 7/49 bet is 1 in 1,997,688

Compare this to buying 7 x 6/49 bets which has a probability of 7/13,983,816 = 5.0057867e-7 which is 1 in 1,997,688

Thus it does not matter whether a punter buys 1 x system 7/49 bet for $7 or 7 system 6/49 bets @ $1 for S$7, the probability of hitting jackpot remains the same at 1 in 1,997,688

System 8: (S$28):

The number of combinations of 8 out of 49 numbers is :


The number of winning combination of 6 out of 6 numbers is:


The number of loosing combinations of 2 out of remaining non-winning numbers is:


The probability of picking 8 numbers which include the 6 winning numbers is:


The probability of hitting jackpot with a system 8/49 is 0.000002002314675765185 or 0.0002002314675765185 %.

Expressed as a fraction P = 1/0.000002002314675765185 = 499,422

The probability of hitting jackpot with a system 8/49 bet is 1 in 499,422

Compare this to buying 8 x 6/49 bets which has a probability of 28 / 13,983,816 = 2.002314675765185e-6 which is 1 in 449,422    

Thus it does not matter whether a punter buys 1 x system 8/49 bet for $28 or 28 system 6/49 bets @ $1 for S$28, the probability of hitting jackpot remains the same at 1 in 499,422

System 9 ($84), System 10 ($210, System 11 ($462) and System 12 (924):

The same computation will show the probability is the same for :
1 System 9/49   ($84)   or 84 system  6/49 bets @ $1 the probability is 1 in 166,474
1 System 10/49 ($210) or 210 system 6/49 bets @ $1 the probability is 1 in 66,590
1 System 11/49 ($462) or 462 system 6/49 bets @ $1 the probability is 1 in 30,268
1 System 12/49 ($924) or 924 system 6/49 bets @ $1 the probability is 1 in 15,134

The House never loses:

As far as probability theory goes, if you buy the following number of bets, you should be able to strike the jackpot but it will cost you ::

System 6  : $1    x 13,983,816 bets = $13,983,816
System 7  : $7     x 1,997,688 bets   = $13,983,816
System 8  : $28   x 99,422      bets   = $13,983,816
System 9  : $84   x 166,474    bets   = $13,983,816
System 10 : $210 x 66,590     bets   = $13,983,900
System 11 : $464 x 30,268     bets   = $13,983,816

As can be seen here, gaming systems are based on probability theory. It all boils down to the probability of picking 6 numbers out of 49 which is 1 in 18,983,815 chance. Punters will never win by going all out because :

1. The guaranteed price money is way too low. 

2. Only 38% of pool money is allocated to jackpot prize. It may not be enough. 

3. The sales may not be enough. As shown in the table in the previous blog, for the 6 months Jan-Jun 2024, ticket sales cannot support a $13,983,816 payout. 

On top of these numbers, there is no guarantee a punter can hit jackpot at his attempt at all-out bets. There is a phenomenon called geometric distribution or waiting time distribution. This describes the probability of observing the first "success" after a certain number of "failures". For example, in a throw of coins, if 'head' is the winner, there is a 50% chance of success. However, it may take a few failures before a success turns up. There could be a run or streak of tails before a head turns up. Probability theory is true if the events are played over many times. The more the times played, the more it's true there is 1 in 13,983,816 chance of hitting jackpot with a 6/49 bet.

Systems roll ($44):

A systems roll bet is where a punter picks only 5 out of the 6 winning numbers. In other words, it is getting exactly 5 correct numbers out of 6 winning numbers in a lottery where you choose from 49 numbers

The number of combinations of 6 numbers out of 49 numbers is :

The number of combinations of 5 out of 6 is:

The number of combination of 1 out of remaining numbers is:

The number of combinations of favourable outcomes is:

The probability of picking 5 correct numbers is:

The probability of hitting jackpot with a system roll is 0.0018499 %

Expressed as a fraction P = 1/0.000018499 =  1 in 54,201

Compare this to buying 44 x 6/49 bets @ $1 which has a probability of 44 / 13,983,816 = 0.0000031464945 or 0.000464945 % or 1 in 317,814 chance.

There seems to be an anomaly here. A punter is better off putting his $44 on a system roll bet where he has a 1 in 54,201 chance of hitting jackpot than to buy 44 x 6/49 bets of @ $1 where his chance is 1 in 317,814.  One system roll gives him roughly 6 times more chances than 44 bets of 6/49.

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.

SINGAPORE TOTO PRODUCES JACKPOT WINNERS BELIES PROBABILITY THEORY

Philippines has several lottery draws and the most difficult to win is the Grand Lotto 6/55. On September 2022, a strange event occurred. 433 people won a share in the jackpot by picking the correct 6 winning numbers. If that is not crazy enough, one punter bought 2 tickets with the same 6 numbers. The jackpot was pesos 236m, giving each winner about pesos 545,000. The probability of a punter picking 6 out of 55 numbers is 1 in 28,989,675. The probability of 433 independently picking the same 6 numbers is so small as to be impossible. Well, not quite. There could have been some sort of significant event that took place where gamblers conjure up some likely numbers, such as date of birth, death, age of some prominent person who died etc.. Nothing of the sort happened during that draw. Then again, there was something. The election was just over and Boongbong Marcos had won. Loyal supporters are appointed into various positions and loyalties are rewarded. Up and down the levels whether national or local, the same is played out. Pagcor, the regulatory agency taking care of gambling, has always been held as a cash cow for shenanigans.

So is Singapore's Toto lottery any cleaner? I recall decades ago, Toto agency outlets had a certain percentage reward for jackpot winning tickets sold at their counters. The outlets where winning punters bought the tickets used to be announced. This serves to authenticate the system since the winning outlets can vouch for it. For reasons unknown, this practice stopped many years ago. There's no way for the public to vouch winnings.

Singapore Toto is 6 out of 49. Picking the correct 6 numbers is simply random luck and a matter of probabilities. The number of combinations are 49! / 6! x (49-6)! This is factorial math and can be simplified to :  49x48x47x46x45x44 / 6x5x4x3x2x1 = 13,983,816. This means the 49 numbers can make 13,983,816 of different combinations of 6 numbers. One of the combination is the winning set. This means a punter buying a system 6 ticket has 1 in 13,983,816 chances of hitting the jackpot.

But it does not mean that there is a sure winner for every 13,893,816th ticket. It means that over a long period, the statistics will show on average there is a winner in every 13,983,816 thickets. Put another way, suppose each draw has a sales of 13,983,816 there is a good chance of a winner at every draw. But there could be a series of several draws with no winners.

I parsed the numbers for the 6 months from January to June 2024 to see what I can find. The number that I need to have is the tickets sold at each draw. Since 38% of sales collection goes into the jackpot and this figure is shown at Singapore Pools website, it is possible to determine the number of tickets sold. The total number of tickets sold during the 6 months were 333,004,263. There were 46 jackpot winners. This means the average winning was 1 in 7,239,221.

For the 6 months data, Singapore Pools' experience of a probability of 1 in 7,239,221 does not comport with statistical probability of 1 in 13,983,816. It is twice as easy to win at a Singapore Toto draw than statistically possible. Something does not add up. 

During the 6 months, there were 11 draws with 2 winners. The probability of having 2 punters to independently pick the same 6 numbers out of 49 is extremely impossible. The odds are (1/13,983,816) x (1/13,983,816) which works out to 1 in 195,547,109,921,856. The odds are so slim as to be in the reaml of impossibility and yet there were 11 such events out of 51 draws.

What about the chances of 3 punters independently picking the same 6 numbers? The probability is (1/13,983,816) x (1/13,983,816) x (1/13,983,816 and the answer to that is 1 in 2,741,171,473,428,326,816. That probability is actually saying it is impossible, and yet during the 6 months it happened not just once, but 3 times. 3 times out of 51 draws is preposterously testing credulity.

The probability of 2 or 3 punters drawing the same 6 numbers are infinitesmally small as to be impossible. However the randomness of statistics mean that by flukeshot, it can happen. But having 11 flukeshots of 2 winning punters, and 3 flukeshots of 3 winning punters, in just 51 draws, is a tale too tall. It's a smoking gun that something is not adding up.

The data for the draws in Jan - Jun 2024 is in the table below. There were no cascading draws, so less complications. Tickets are $1 for a system 6 set.

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.

PRO SE LITIGATION AND A SINGAPOREAN'S MISSION TO SEEK JUSTICE

"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"
(unknown)

If you hold a religious view and engage in online social chatter with a young smart alec liberal endowed with a  university education, chances are at some point, you will be called "flat Earther" or have "sky daddy' thrown at you. Raymond Ng is one such. I do not know RN personally but we have crossed swords in Facebook. He has never applied "sky daddy" on me, but "flat Earther " often. I find him brash, irascible, and has a super ego. On the positive side he is intelligent, and brave as to a willingness to discuss real issues. A natural Trump-hater, which seems to me is a birth defect of most liberals. Funny thing is if you engage on the opposite side of an issue with RN, he comes across exactly like Trump - direct, tempestuous, no-holds barred.

RN has trashed me on some of my views, as I of his. There is no love-lost because it is simply a battle ground of ideas. I do hate it when RN goes ad hominem and counterfactual in his arguments, which was often. But I have no problems, no matter how hard-hitting he came out, on the ideas and views of the issues discussed, however much I disagree with his position. I actually find some kindred spirit in our riposte on the intellectual side of an issue, which generally do not happen often at FB. I suspect there is some mutual respect for original thoughts since RN returns to my posts despite some fiery exchanges.

That prologue is necessary so readers understand where I stand with Raymond as I pen this blog on something that he is working on. RN's degree is in Computer Science and his work has involved IT and systems. He has in recent times learnt how to use AI in preparation of legal pleadings, self-taught himself on court procedures, has the gumption to take the road to pro se litigation and bring civil suits against some people who allegedly defamed him. AI has empowered him to do pro se litigation and unshackled him from the constraints of legal fees. He is on a zealous mission to exact justice for the pain he suffered and warned his many detractors of impending legal actions coming.

I have seen several posts on FB of allegations of a financial scam by RN. It is not my purpose nor interest to dwell on the veracity of these allegations. The use of AI and RN's pursuit of pro se litigation is what I am interested in. RN had agreed to sit down with me, not for a formal interview as I am not a qualified reporter, but a chat over coffee, to help me understand his legal pursuits.

Before I get to the chat, a primer on pro se litigation. This is a term for someone who represents himself in a legal case. The adage "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln but the origin is not clear.

Reasons why lawyers should not represent themselves include : Lost of objectivity due to emotional involvement, personal bias clouds the legal objective issues, third parties are better at negotiating on one's behalf, decision making may be impaired as personal stakes get confused with best objective strategy, professional judgement is compromised by personal interests, additional stress, conflict of interest of two personas, etc. Perhaps a better way to put it is a lawyer who represents himself is amongst the fish in the tank, he cannot see the water he is swimming in.

Here we have RN, a non-lawyer, representing himself. In addition to the problems a self-representing lawyer faces, as a non-lawyer, RN has to navigate the minefield of Court Procedures which includes the drafting of pleadings, submission of evidence;  the intricacies of the burden of proof as a plaintiff; countering the defense arguments which in defamation is usually built on the alleged acts, publication, or speech, as truth, fair comment, and privilege, which requires a thorough understanding of legal doctrines and precedents.

Despite the legal difficulties and risks, there are people who are prepared to self-represent in four situations - they think they can do better than a lawyer in the case, legal cost considerations, where no lawyer is prepared to take up their case, and lastly in certain courts such as family courts, employer-employee disputes, and small claims tribunal, where self-representation is common. I have had an experience of self-representation as a plaintiff in the Small Claims Tribunal where I came off pretty well. I knew the small claims court is in reality a mediation process, so I understood the psychology of give and take and how to present myself in the eyes of the mediator. The defence also self-represented. She was half and hour late, totally unprepared, and her first mistake was a patronising approach to the mediator seeing him of the same racial stock and she being a fairly good looker. The mediator put her in her place immediately. I was in the good grace of the mediator as I had humbly acceded to his request to wait for 30 minutes and my evidence was well documented.

Most jurisdictions allow self-representation in both civil and criminal cases because of the fundamental belief every man has a right to defend himself. Singapore is no exception. In Singapore we call someone who self-represents a Litigant-In-Person (LIP). A corporate body may elect a director or employee to represent them with the leave of the court. Non-lawyers cannot represent someone else, but in some cases are allowed to attend to give support and advice litigants.

Singapore judiciary has made efforts to support LIPs by providing resources and guidance to help them navigate the legal system. Guides, information booklets, and online resources that explain court procedures and legal concepts in simple terms are readily available to LIPs. Certain court processes have been simplified to make them more accessible to LIPs, eg Small Claims Tribunal is a very informal setting. Avenues for legal aid and pro bono services are available for those who cannot afford a lawyer. The Community Justice Centre, a non-profit organization, provides support to LIPs. It offers free legal clinics, practical assistance with court procedures, and emotional support to help individuals manage their cases. Online platforms and digital resources provide easy access to legal information and allow individuals to file documents and manage their cases electronically.

It's been said judges are mindful of the challenges faced by LIPs and may exercise discretion and allow more leniency in the presentation of evidence. But it is fair dinkum that in privacy, the courts and lawyers in a pro se litigation must surely hold some disdain because the inexperience of an LIP most certainly will cause more time spent in the courts.

I have not been able to locate any study of pro se litigation in Singapore to have an idea of the success rates. Here are a few cases that I managed to dig up :

Ms. Xu Yan v. SPH Magazines Pte Ltd. (2019):
SPH published an article in Her World magazine which Xu Yan claimed was defamatory and had injured her reputation. She sued and won when the High Court ruled in her favour. This is an illustration of the importance of accurate and fair reporting by media.

Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General (2012):
Tan was charged under Section 377A of the Penal Code for consensual sex between adult men. He argued Articles 9 and 12 of the Singapore Constitution guarantee his rights to equality before the law and personal liberty. 377A violated his rights. His charge was eventually reduced to a lesser offense and he pleaded guilty. The 377A charge thus became moot. But the High Court dismissed Tan's application, stating that he lacked standing to bring the constitutional challenge because his charge had been reduced. However, Tan appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that Tan Eng Hong did have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A, as the law had directly affected him by leading to his initial arrest and charge. What Tan won was he had standing to challenge the constitutionality of 377A. It was a procedural victory.

This ruling did not result in Section 377A being struck down. It paved the way for subsequent legal challenges to the law and is the basis for legal battles regarding the constitutionality of Section 377A in Singapore.

Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General: (2013)
Vellama filed a constitutional challenge regarding the timing of by-elections in Singapore. Her pleading was when a parliamentary seat is vacated, a by-election must be held by a certain time and not at the unfettered discretion of Prime Minister.

The High Court dismissed her application. She appealed. The Appellate Court ruled that the Prime Minister has discretion on the timing of by-elections, but this discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in good faith, considering the public interest. The court made no attempt to decide on a timeframe for a by-election, leaving the matter to the Prime Minister.

It was a partial victory for the LIP.

Dr. Ting Choon Meng v. Mindef (2016):
Ting had designed a mobile medical station known as the Station With Immediate First-aid Treatment (SWIFT) for the Ministry of Defence. SWIFT was a rapid-deployment medical station intended for use in military operations and disaster relief scenarios. It is designed to be easily transportable and quickly set up to provide immediate medical treatment in the field. Although Mindef liked the prototype, the contract was awarded to a third party and it became a legal dispute. Ting held the patent but in the end, he did not pursue the case as he could not challenge the financial might of Mindef.

In the course of the dispute, Mindef had made a statement that Ting alleged it suggested his patent was invalid and that he was not the original inventor. Ting sued but lost. The court ruled the statements made by Mindef were not defamatory and were based on factual and legal grounds. Additionally, the court noted that Mindef's comments were made in the context of defending itself in ongoing patent litigation, which provided a legitimate basis for its statements. Statements made in the context of legal proceedings are generally upheld to ensure that participants can speak freely without fear of litigation.

Suing a man on the street for defamation is one thing. Suing a public body is an entirely different matter. The case highlighted the complexities of defamation law, particularly in the context of public bodies defending their actions and statements in legal disputes. There are matters the court will take into consideration which includes the protection of qualified privilege, un-inhibited open and honest discourse is necessary for public oversight and accountability. 

I hope Raymond pays attention here as I believe he has brought a case against Health Science Authority and Raffles Girl School.

A coffee chat:

Raymond was gracious enough to buy me coffee and spent several hours with me. I want to make it clear again that my purpose was to hear directly from him how he employed AI to assist him in his legal pursuits. It was not an opportunity for him to sell me his virtues and his innocence in some allegations arising from a failed coffee vending business called Vendshare. Credit to him that he made no attempt to persuade me his innocence. In fact he volunteered that he was under police investigation for fraud regarding Venshare franchise scheme three years ago. He said police has not taken any action, but he has no idea if the case is still active or closed. 

A bit on the Vendshare story as the legal pursuits originated from it. About 3 years back RN promoted a scheme where franchisees bid for lots in particular coffee vending machines at particular locations. The business model was franchisees put up a franchise fee and operate and can earn a share of the profits, if any. The business failed, killed by the pandemic. Bad blood ensued and franchisees claimed the whole thing was a scam and lodged police reports. 

Rice Media, a local online news outfit, carried an article on Vendshare that RN considered damaging. Quite a number of people shared the article. Under the Defamation Act and Penal Code, anyone sharing a libelous article can be guilty of defamation and criminal defamation in the same way as the original author. RN sued Rice Media but the case was stood down due to the death of a key witness. There were several people who shared the article and engaged in online running feuds and attacked RN. I have seen some of these. I make no comment as to the legal standing of any party. 

RN pointed out the lessons learnt in the case against Rice Media was his lawyer made too many pleadings. He felt in a defamation suit he should just focus on the nexus of the case and ignore peripheral issues. This is now his approach. As to the AI he basically confirmed what I had thought it was all about. AI helps him to analyse each particular aspect of a case and helps to formulate how it should be pleaded. RN mentioned something about monetising his AI capability in these defamation cases. I am not too sure of the details. It vaguely seems to offer assistance to those willing to take the same LIP route and RN's methodologies can offer justice and more social equality to those who want to seek redress but cannot shoulder heavy lawyering costs.

Raymond's wife Iris, whom I featured in a July blog "RGS Exam Question On Ethics Of Doing Harm Is Not So Easy" could not find reconciliation with her alma mater Raffles Girls School regarding an exam question she claimed defamed her. Yesterday she served pre-action letter to the principal. RN will be assisting Iris to pursue a pro se litigation.

Raymond is also currently pursuing a case against Health Science Authority. This is a case for judicial review. This case involves a breach of Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines as well as the Health Products Act where HSA is the regulatory enforcement agency. A certain big pharma had ran promo advertisements which featured certain celebrities endorsing the medical product. In Singapore, the rules on advertisements for medical products are very strict. No celebrities, including actors, sports stars, or other public figures, can be used as endorsers. This is to prevent the public from being unduly influenced by the fame or authority of such individuals when making decisions about medical products or services. 

On Vendshare-related cases, RN has filed a suit against someone and is working on building another case. I had the impression several more cases may be on the way.

RN is also in the process of serving a legal papers on the ex-nominated MP Calvin Cheng. This is also a libel case. I have no details. I read recently in social media of a clown show played out at the condo where Cheng resides as he 'courageously' but naively refused to receive the service of legal papers. To Lee & Lee he went. Folks, it's going to be a David vs Goliath show. As of writing, the originating claim and statement of claim (previously called writ of summons) have been served..  

In the Raffles Girls' School case, Iris is within her rights to seek redress if she feels government creep into a private individual's space needs to be addressed. I respect the courage.

The HSA case is an open and shut case. It would be interesting to see how the agency wriggles its way out. Raymond is doing national service as it is apparent no less than three official watchdogs have been sleeping on the job. The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore operates under CASE (Consumer Association of Singapore) and is responsible for promoting ethical advertising practices in Singapore. IMDA (Infocomm Media Development Authority) is primarily focused on media content regulation, but also has a role in overseeing advertising in the media, particularly in terms of content that is broadcast on television and radio. The HSA regulates advertisements relating to health products to ensure no false or misleading claims and comply with the Health Products Act. So a big hoo-ah to Raymond for sticking his neck out.

After more than 4 hours over coffee with Raymond, I can add a bit more character observation. The self-confidence is over-bearing and could have been the human relation part that generated the bad blood in the Vendshare venture. The man is very direct and one can even appreciate him for his frank views and steadfast objectivity in his arguments. If I were to measure him, I would say there's too much science and too little on humanities. There is a high level of ethical egoism, which is where a person's interest is exclusively in things that have value for them, and they disregard anything without personal benefit. What shone clearly is Raymond has what is known as efficacy-bound interest which describes a person's interest is bound by their belief in their ability to effect change. If I am not in a position to change this and that, why bother. His approach on most matters is basically legalism, that is, examining every issue solely from a legal perspective, disregarding moral, ethical, or other considerations.  Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that holds that the validity of a law is not connected to its morality. He is without doubt a legal positivist, one who believes that law is valid if it is created according to proper procedures and authority, regardless of whether it is just or ethical. My bottom line view of Raymond is a positivist or legalist, someone whose outlook on issues is based on legality as the sole criterion for judgment.

From my perspective, I get a sense of an unstoppable force once RN has made up his mind. He is on a trajectory to hit an immoveable force in the RGS and HSA cases. My prayers are out for him, not just because I am usually a sucker for the underdog, but I honestly feel the two cases are for the plaintiffs to loose. It would be a good day for pro se litigation when he wins.

 

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.

THE HULLABALOO OF THE SALE OF NTUC INCOME

CNA's 4 Aug report on the joint statement by NTUC Enterprise and NTUC Income regarding the controversial sale of majority stake in the insurer to Allianz must have bruised some egos. I was not interested on the issue so I kept my peace. But I had always thought that if we believed in free market, then what shareholders want to do is nobody's business, as long as no laws or regulations were breached. The appeal to nativity sentiments has no value unless it has to do with national interests, such as the case of Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Airlines, power generators, etc. Chung Khiaw Bank, in my opinion was not national interest, despite the infamous Lee Kuan Yew - Slater Walker showdown in years past.

All who have objected to the sale that I have read about were displeased by what they see as a priority of profits over social service to nation. To me this is pandering to virtue signaling, a zeigzeist of our times. Nevertheless, I have respect for ex-Income CEOs Tan Kim Lian and Tan Suee Chieh, and Prof Tommy Koh for voicing their opinions even though I do not agree with them.

All who agrees with the sale seems to be liberal young successful types, like the uppity character ex-NMP Calvin Cheng, whose parents, I hope for their sake, know how to keep quiet.

I am not now coming to sound smart after the erudition by the CNA article but to share some thoughts from different angles.

As a cooperative (till 2022) Income owes it's members the responsibility to perform a service at a cheaper rate to them. That is the covenant of a cooperative. But insurance is a numbers game and NTUC membership base does not provide the critical mass, Income had to extend sales to the public. At which point, it became a profit seeking enterprise, for Income cannot justify employing the cooperative's resources to benefit non-members. However, it is still not in breach of its covenant to members if profits of Income accrues to the benefit of members.

Income cannot sell its products anymore cheaper than the next insurers without making losses. It can only sell as competitively as another insurer would. Insurance is all about actuaries and risk probabilities, the math applies to all insurers equally which means a commonality to the pricing computation. But riders and coverage allows insurers vast opportunities to differentiate their products, and thus the appearance of a price difference

The truth of where Income has been of great benefit to Singaporeans is it brought micro-insurance to the small man, somewhat similar to Grameen Bank which brought microfinance to the unbankable mass of population in Bangladesh.  (Although Mohammud Yunus gained fame and Nobel Peace Prize for his microfinance model, his Grameen Bank created in 1976, was preceded by the SEWA Bank of India founded by Ela Bhatt 4 years earlier in 1972.)

Income sold small policies to the lower percentile market which other insurers at the time were unable to serve. "Micro-insurance" needed a mass marketing model which other insurers' cost structure could not support. Income, being quasi-government, had advantages in the form of special access for mass promotion. For example, I remember those days Income was the only insurer allowed to hold marketing events in army camps.

Over time technology has now lowered the cost to reach the lower end mass market and Income finds their niche eroded, CPF insurance schemes further exacerbated the situation for Income. The traditional business where Income had been strong in is the domestic personal insurance market covering life, health, auto, home owners, rental, maids, etc.  With traditional markets shrinking over the years, Income had to strike out in two directions.

Income has to move into the big-boys arena of commercial insurance market (property, public liability, workers' compensation, business interruption, professional liability, commercial auto fleets), specialty insurance market (marine, aviation, cyber attacks, events, pets, etc), Reinsurance market (Treaty reinsurance, Facultative Reinsurance), and Government and social security insurance market. For these, Income has to internationalise their business but they just do not have a presence outside of Singapore.

To play the big boys' game requires huge capitalisation and a whole new set of expertise and technology of which Income is completely out of depth. Income has to do what the big insurers do -- they need to be able to syndicate out their exposures to average out their risks. Re-insurance is still possible for small insurers like Income, but it's less cost effective such as in proportional re-insurance and there are different jurisdictional regulatory requirements for re-insurance that may be problematic.

You read chairman Lim Boon Heng mention the incident where Income's quotation was lower but they still did not win the contract. In this big boys game, price is not the winning criteria. The insured party has a risk exposure on the insurer. Thus the credit standing of the insurer becomes an issue. Income will be measured against giants and found wanting.

Basically, Income is at a cross-road. I can best explain it with this analogy.

There is a self-help financing scheme known as Rotating Savings and Credit Association (ROSCA). This is as old as anyone can recall and it exists with slight variations all over the world. Singaporeans probably know this by the term "tontines". This is strange as "tontines" is actually the term used in West Africa. In Latina America it's "cudinas", in some Arab countries it's  "jam’iyas", in India they call it "chit funds", and in China it's 'Hui' 回. Basically, a small group of say 10, come together and each contributes say $100 monthly to a pool for 10 months. Each month someone will take the pool money of $1,000. Variations are in the way they access the funds, either by fixed interest rate, or bidded for example. This is trust-based scheme and helps people save money and access lump sums for various needs. It exists in urban and rural areas for people with no access to traditional financial services.

There were traditional "tontines" in Singapore back then. Then in the 70s, they got corporatised and we had Gemini Chit Fund, Stallion Chit Fund, and others. It started out as good ideas, but easy money attracted by high interest earnings, gullible investors, and lack of regulatory oversight led to mismanagement and scams and eventual collapse. 

Leaving the financial scam of chit funds out, the analogy I try to draw is Income can remain in their "tontine" state and still serve their members. Or they evolve and outgrow their traditional small market. There is a philosophy of growth culture. All corporations must grow or they die. At least they must grow up to their maturity phase. To this extent, Income has still a long way to go.

The S$2.2b offer from Allianz for a majority 51% stake values Income shares at $40.58 per share which is 37.3% premium over net asset value per share of $29.55 as of December 31, 2023. I leave it to more qualified financial analysts to opine whether the company is unlocking good value for its members. I can only say this seems to be strangely off the standard operating procedures of Singapore Inc to build corporations and then IPO to boost the local stock exchange. Particularly when the local moribund bourse could do with some excitement given the privatisation of Great Eastern Life. Take the modus operandi of Comfortdelgro - monopolise taxi operator service, corporatise it, IPO, then go out and conquer the world. In light of this, one can be forgiven to wonder if there is something amiss.

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.

SINGAPORE'S ECONOMIC STANDING - WHERE STATISTICS DO NOT JIVE WITH REALITY

To dogmatic believers of science and data, and with National Day round the corner, this must be the chart of charts to warm hearts in a world of economic uncertainties. It is a chest-thumping chart for Singaporeans.

This chart plots three economic metrics into one visual snapshot. -  the Government Expenditure, the Gross Domestic Product, (represented in the GE-GDP Ratio), and the Per Capita Income. Government Expenditure is the budgeted fiscal spending. The GDP is the aggregate value of all goods and services produced in the country during the year by residents, whether locals or foreigners.  Per capita income is the aggregate income of all residents (including foreigners) earned in Singapore (includes foreign income if repatriated to Singapore) divided by total population (includes foreigners residing here).

This chart is from Worlddata.info which, for unknown reasons, does not include Singapore. I plotted the exaggerated Red Dot for Singapore onto the chart based on 2022 data of 19.5% for GE-GDP Ratio and Per Capita of US$84,800.

The size of the circles is relative to the countries' population base. Singapore's red dot is exaggerated.

If the chart were to be cut into 4 equal parts, the best place for a country to be would be the South-East quadrant, and that's where Singapore is.  The worst location is the North-West quadrant.

A higher ratio of GE-GDP is an indication of a big government state. There is no hard and fast rule as to what is the optimum ratio. It would seem that developed countries generally have a higher ratio. OECD countries average about 45%-50%, US about 35%-40%. I think this high ratio for developed countries is due to the fact they have better credit ratings and more access to public debt to finance more government spending and run perpetual budget deficits. The high public debt status of these countries bear witness to this suggestion. Scandinavian countries and Japan also tend to the higher ratio due to heavy social spending by the governments. As can be seen, Ukraine is right at the top as the country is at war. Russia is on the right shoulder of China, that big dot to the right of middle. So the war has not eaten significantly into Russia's GDP.

Keynesian economists view big government spending distorts a country's macro-economics.  Big government spending is usually an interventionist policy to stimulate short term consumption and nudge the economy during times of economic constriction. Singapore politics are relatively tame affairs so most folks are unaware of the economic impact of an election. In countries like US and Philippines, during an election year, spendings by political parties can cause significant spikes in the GDP.  A clear illustration of huge discretionary spending distorting the economic numbers. The chart is based on 2022 data so there is some inherent distortion due to government fiscal stimulus during the pandemic.

Economists have no consensus on a specific "healthy" ratio of GE-GDP. Common wisdom suggests that fiscal spending should be balanced with revenue, be efficient, and sustainable. A country's unique economic context, policy objectives, and institutional capacity more likely are the factors that determine the ratio. Nevertheless, the ratio is an indication of a country's comparative label of big governance. The lower the ratio the more it indicates the level of free market of the country's economy.

Surprisingly, Singapore's 19.5% GE-GDP Ratio is amongst the lowest. This seems to be at odds with all indications that Singapore has all the characteristics of a statist state, which means big government. A possible reason could be Singapore scores extremely low compared to other countries in terms of social spending. There have been some warnings this ratio will rise over the next 5 to 10 years due to projected increase in health cost in an ageing population. However, this projected increase is due to demographic shifts, so it is an issue of aggregate costs, not the level of social spending

Positions on the extreme right of the chart is an indication of high standards of living. Singapore has a per capita of US$84,800 which is a very good standard of living being in the class with countries like US, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Singapore's per capita grew by an incredible 268% from US$23,000 in 2003 to US$84,800 in 2022. Did our standard of living grew that much in 20 years? This is where statistics lie. Per capita is a rough average number which is easily influenced by a few outlier billionaires taking up residency in the country. This outlier impact is extremely pronounced in the case of Singapore with a low population base. Two billionaires taking up residence in China would hardly make a dent in Chinese per capital figure, but for Singapore, the impact will be very significant. Singapore's pro-business policy to attract high net worth families have worked extremely well. A great pull factor is the Lion City is now a well-established business hub for foreign companies, together with UAE and Hong Kong. The push factor in the last 15 years is the cultural chaos and break down of law and order in Western countries have seen the mobile high net worth families emigrating and Singapore has been a beneficiary recipient country.  The high per capita statistics is not representative of the standard of living for the ordinary Singaporeans.

Back in 1984, then Minister of Trade & Industry, Goh Chok Tong envisaged Singapore will strive to achieve Swiss standard of living by 1999. Generally, the metric of reference for standard of living is per capita income (adjusted for cost of living). In 1984, Swiss per capita was US$17,000. Goh almost hit the bulls eye in nominal terms as Singapore's per capita reached US$18,000 in 1993. From 2003 to 2022 Singapore's per capita increased by 268% compared to the Swiss increase of 90% for same period. 

Standard of living would by right cover other qualitative factors. The Mercer Quality of Living Survey is a good index to guage comparatively. This survey is however, on the basis of cities, not country. In the Mercer report for 2023 on 241 cities, Switzerland had 4 cities in the top 14 ranking with Zurich at the 2nd spot. Singapore was ranked 28th. This Mercer report cannot justify Goh's goal because firstly, the metrics are entirely different, and secondly, this survey's maiden year was 1994.

On the surface, the chart shows Singapore to be in an extremely good position economically. For HDB heartlanders, the statistics do not seem to pan out in their circumstances. Perhaps there are some Austrian economists here that can make sense of  all this. Is there any Ludwig von Mises or Fredrich Hayek around?

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.

PARIS OLYMPICS DID NOT MOCK LAST SUPPER, BUT WHAT THEY DID WAS ACTUALLY WORSE

Olympics, Paris, Opening ceremony (2024)

The Olympics opening ceremony at Paris had an enactment which seemed to most people was an apparent mockery of The Last Supper, a scene of great sacred esteem to Christians. The organisers have apologised and explained the scene was actually a play on 'Feast of the Gods', a celebration in a manner how ancient Greeks did during their Olympiads. No matter the explanation, Christians were outraged at the imagery that left no doubt as to intent. So too many non-Christians must have been incensed at what a Pride Parade of gays and drag queens has to do with the Olympics. 

Across Europe, there were many peaceful demonstrations by Christians angered at this indignation. Over social media, I see many comments by non-religious persons poking what they viewed as un-intellectual Christians' inability to appreciate art. Rather than adding more coal to fire, I thought it a wondrous occasion to show clearly to the world how Christians reacted. See here a picture of thousands gathered in Paris for prayer and to keep vigil. There were no hysterical violent protests all over the Christian world, the kind we see all the time in another religion. There is no Charlie Hebdo type retaliation. The difference in values is outstanding. To all Christians, be proud of this value. It is this value that dark forces in Paris try to undermine.

For those who do not understand what the organisers meant when they refer to the "Feast of the Gods", this is a painting by Giovanni Bellini in 1514 (Titian added the background after Bellini died). It is a gathering of Roman pagan gods in festive mood in a verdant setting. The more prominent gods are Jupiter (Zeus), Neptune (Poseidon), Mercury (Herme), Venus (Aphrodite) and Apollo. Of special mention are Bacchus (Dionysus) and Faunus (Pan).  This was a painting during the Renaissance, a time of great interest in humanist ideals and a revival of Greco-Roman antiquity. Thus the subject matter of Roman (Greek) pagan gods. Note that this painting bears no resemblance to the Last Supper and Bacchus (Dionysus) is not prominently displayed.

"Feast Of The Gods" by Giovanni Bellini and Titian (1514)

More than a hundred years after Bellini, Jan Harmensz van Bijlert painted his version of "Feast of the Gods". The subject matter remains the same Greco-Roman pagan gods. The genre of painting of the 17th century is no longer Renaissance, but Baroque. Amongst the distinctive features of Baroque style is the use of light to create a focal point and subjects in dynamic poses as to depict a scene of movement and energy.

"Feast Of The Gods" by Jan Harmensz van Bijlert (17th century)

In Bijlert's painting, there is now a banquet table and Bacchus (Dionysus) is in the foreground. Bacchus, God of Wine, is always holding grapes in his hand. This painting has a fair resemblance to the Olympics enactment. Let's take Olympics Chairperson Anne Chamber at her words that this was what they were trying to depict.- ancient Greco-Roman pagan gods celebrating before their Olympiad Games. However, in this regards, there were a few technical errors.

The painting is of Roman pagan gods, although derived from Greek equivalents. The Olympiads were held in honour of Zeus, the uno numero of the Grecian pantheon of gods, but he is not present in the "Feast". Dionysus is usually depicted in purple, green or gold, never in blue. As to why he was painted blue, I explain later. Although Dionysus was shown in his accoutrements of leaves and flowers and fruits which are in line with his association with nature, but missing are the thyrsus and the grapes he is always seen with. After all, he is the God of Wine. Lastly, Dionysus often has a crown of ivy and thorns. Those flowers on that silly blue man's head aren't the blooms of ivy. Some say the skit alluded to paedophilia as seen in the child at the table with those drag queens. That kid represents Cupid (Eros), the god of desire, erotic love and romance.

With the pride parade a centre piece of the act, it is too bad Hermaphroditus is not at the "Feast". He is the son of Herme and Aphrodite. As a very handsome young boy, the nymph Salmacis fell in love with him. Her love was rejected and she asked for help of the gods that she be forever with him. The gods fused the bodies of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus into one BFF. Thus Hermaphroditus is depicted as a female with male genitalia and is considered the God of Androgyny. In current days, his pronouns would be He/She. In the crazy cultural ethos of our times in Western society, the woke crowd should cancel the Olympics organiser for failure to invite Hermaphroditus to the feast.

Barbara Butch is that XXL drag queen sitting right in the middle of the table. No, she was not representing Jesus. She was Apollo in the "Feast" painting. Apollo is the god of many domains, the Sun is one of them. Thus Barbara Butch has that funny dome with spike on her head depicting the rays of the sun. It was Barbara who posted on X this montage of the "Feast" banquet and the Last Supper table with the caption "New Gay Testament". She has since taken down that post. There is no doubt she was making a mockery of the Last Supper. The same need not necessarily be so for the organiser as the evidence shows. It is a question of intent and since we cannot get into their minds, we should leave it at that.

Ever the contrarian, and as a Catholic, I posit the enactment at the Olympics ceremony is not about the Last Supper, however unfortunate the imagery may be. Let's simmer down. Even if it were a mockery, I say let our love prevail.

However, I call upon Christians and non-Christians with common sense alike, to rage into the night at this event, but for an entirely differently reason.

At this juncture, here's my take on why Dionysus was painted in blue. It is all about ribaldry or blue comedy. Dionysus was painted blue for people who could not see the blue comedy. Ribaldry are skits or sketches that are absolutely bawdy, indelicate, indecent, sexually explicit. The openly perverse display is often meant to conceal a purpose of breaking conventional values of the time. Proponents do it as taboo-breakers and hence their subject matter is always controversial. It is in fact subversive. The Pride Month movers, of course work against the conservatism of Christianity, a bastion of values diametrically opposed to their ideals of hedonistic individualism.

Ever since the Enlightment, there has been a battle of minds for centuries to this day. Some calls it Dogma vs Reason, to some it's Theos (God) vs anti-theologists (atheists or agnostics), and to others a spiritual war between the divine and Satan, of good vs evil. A bunch of people including the Pride Monthers, try to persuade minds to abandon faith. They do so by insults, not by the logic of their ways. The concept of God, or at least in the Judeo-Christian way, sets a unity of standards of morality to strive for. New atheists contend the pursuit of God is full of dogma crab and should be replaced by cool-headed empiricism. The idea seems that if we get rid of dogma, everybody will become scientists. When minds are empty of faith, according to leading psychologist Jordan Petersen, two things replace it. The pursuit of God will be replaced either by pursuit of power, or pursuit of untrammeled hedonism. Those who have been out house-hunting may have heard of some old folks' advice. Avoid houses which have been left unoccupied too long. Chances are some spirits may have moved in. What Petersen said has already manifested in the Western world. It makes for a deeper and stimulating blog, but here, I shall relate only to the "Feast".

With freedom from the oppressive moral standards of God, gratification of the flesh is no longer restrained by conscience. It is amoral, so have a good time. Those that seek the pleasure of the flesh has an acceptable God in Dionysus. He is the Greek god of wine, fertility, ritual madness, religious ecstasy, and theatre. You want a no-holds barred perverted party, the MC to call upon is Dionysus. His is a party of intoxification and sexual perversion. Dionysus' retinue is a collection of satyrs and maenads. Satyrs are nature spirits often depicted naked, with bestial face, a tail, feet of horses, and prancing around with an exaggerated erect phallus. They are rapists of forest nymphs and mortal women. A satyr is seen in the second "Feast" portrait, prancing in the foreground. Maenads are female followers of Dionysus. The word in Greek means “to rave, to be mad; to rage, to be angry”. Maenads mean the one with raving madness. If you have seen those folks suffering from TDS (Trump Delusion Syndrome), you get the idea of raving madness.

In ancient times, Dionysian cults grew in Greece, and in Rome, cults of Bacchus proliferated. Bacchanalia was the ancient festival of Bacchus. Their rites to worship the God of Wine involved loud music, maniacal dancing, whirling, screaming, inciting one another to greater heights of ecstacy. All the frenzied dancing and intoxification was to reach a height of delirium where they believe they can communicate with their divine idol. I am thinking those ancient folks did not know about LSD, (lysergic acid diethylamide) the psychedelic drug also known as "acid" or "Lucy". The "Woodstock" generation had an easier way to achieve the Nirvana by popping LSD. Dionysus cultists had to twist, jump, gyrate and scream for hours.

The secretive nature of the rites, which could lead to political conspiracies and moral corruption, criminal behavior, including violence and sexual misconduct during the rites, fueled the concerns of Romans who banned the cults in 186 AD. The Catholic Church too deemed it demonic and in 691 AD the Quinisext Council held in Constantinople, banned several pre-Christian and pagan practices, including those related to transvestism during Dionysian wine-making rituals.

Those who have been attentive and observed the developing cultural chaos in Western countries in the last two decades, should have a sense the ancient gods are back. The rise of progressive liberalism in the Western world has pushed back the boundaries of Judeo-Christian values. As church attendance falls, wokeism raises its ugly head. The Dionysus cults are back and they have been trying to normalise the amoral culture for years and in so many ways and places. In Western countries dominated by socialist leftist leadership, mostly in the guise of parties under a "Democrat" banner, governments allow icons of conservatism and Christianity to fall and chaos and confusion to normalise.

For all their hatred of dogma and their professing for Baconian mindset, Western cults are deep into symbolism. This is why the "Feast" event at Paris Olympics has a much darker purpose. The "Feast" is not an accidental choice, but a calibrated move in their bigger scheme of things. Recall the 2012 London Olympics opening ceremony and we wondered what was that giant Black Death and those hospital beds all about. Ten years later it's all understood. Olympic opening ceremonies have traditionally been for host country to showcase to the world what they want millions of viewers all over the world to know about them. The Beijing Olympics we saw Chinese technological prowess. The Moscow Olympics we saw history of Russia. What in the world is hospital beds and pagan gods at a sumptious feast all about? Put this together with the Gottard Tunnel opening ceremony in Switzerland 2016 and their bizzare displays of pagan idolism and sexual innuendos, then the pattern is obvious. They are trying to normalise a new amoral Godless culture.

So very often with movements, there are always levels of understanding. For example there are three degrees of Freemasonry, the Apprenticeship level members will all tell you it is a harmless gathering of well-to-do folks pursuing some social work. Top echelon leadership hints of secretive dark objectives. Likewise in this anti-God movement. The mass who are into this are the "useful idiots". The Pride Monthers", the "Pronouncers", the pedophiles, the drag queens, etc they are all in the hedonist joyride in defiance of moralists. Psychologist Jordan Petersen describes this lot being taken over with untrammeled hedonism in search of pleasures of the flesh.

Those at the top, the global elites, WEF alumnus, those that get invited to the Bohemian Grove, belong to what Petersen said are people who pursue power. They understand things at the intellectual level.  Dionysus is a unique and multifaceted deity who represents both the joy and the potential chaos inherent in life. The ecstasy and madness of Dionysus is simply the embodiment of the concept of divine ecstasy and the breakdown of conventional boundaries and order. For a new order to rise, the existing order must collapse. In the Judeo-Christian world, all these mad power grabbers understand Christianity stands in the way. Intellectuals like Karl Marx and those sold on his ideology of socialism knew Christianity is their enemy number one.

The "Feast" enactment at the Olympics is a statement by the organisers of their abandonment of, a defiant clenched fist against, Christian values, a shot across the bow of what is to come. For this reason, all who stand for decency and a sense of moral righteousness, must rage against.

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.