WHO IS BEHIND TRUMP?

As a little kid back in the days when PAP was battling socialists and communists in Singapore, I could see how enemies of democracy camouflaged themselves as libertarians and accuse the other side of wanting to destroy democracy. Today, we see the same agitprop playbook of the liberal left and Democrats in US employed against conservatives and Republicans. Any social or political activist, or fund raising group which has ‘Democracy’ in its name, is almost usually pushing anything but democracy.

If elected in 2024, Trump will be a dictator and he will jail all his political opponents. A small group of people decided that will be the talking point and all leftist mouthpieces take to the airwaves with coordinated headlines and speeches. If you were Rachel Maddox of MSNBC drawing US$28m a year, you would be incentivised to poison the well for Trump. As would the denizens slithering in the pits of leftist media. It surprised no one when Hillary Clinton joined the fray. All seemed to not realise they had 4 years of Trump and no one was jailed. Least of all Hillary whom Trump refused to carry through a campaign promise to prosecute when he was in the White House because, as he said later, “it wouldn’t be the right thing to do (prosecuting a political opponent).”

The lawfare currently going on in the US against Trump leaves no doubt who is the dictator and who are being persecuted. The collusion between Biden’s White House, federal law enforcement agencies, and state prosecutors, are slowly becoming clear. Information shared from FOIA suits and unsealing of motion documents by non-partisan constitutional judges have shown state prosecutors visit the White House on many occasions. There is no question who is pulling the strings on the high profile cases against Trump. The transfer of Democrat activist Matthew Colangelo from DOJ to New York confirms the weaponisation of an agency of law. Colangelo was obviously tasked as the hatchet man to get Trump in the classified documents case, unless a move from the third highest ranking official in DOJ office to a public prosecutor in a Manhattan District Attorney’s office is somehow a promotion.

Those following the progress of the cases against Trump may be excused if they seem to see some sort of Marian intercession going on. Events seem to transpire for the accusers to be shown guilty of the very same acts they accuse Trump of.

In Fulton County election 2020 fraud case, Georgia DA Fani Willis charged Trump et al with conspiracy to defraud the election under the RICO Act. This is for racketeering, which is legislation against mob-related crimes. Apart for the argument before SCOTUS on presidential immunity, the defence’s case rests on the argument it is well within a president’s responsibility to call for investigation into an election if he felt the integrity of the vote is questionable.

The case is in jeopardy. Willis herself has been proven to lie in court, conspired to defraud the state by engaging the services of her lover Nathan Wade at a higher rate as special prosecutor (Wade is a lawyer specialising in divorce cases), and corruptly benefiting from the arrangement. She has been subpoenaed separately by Congress and State Senate to attend their investigation into her conduct. Presiding Judge Scott McAfee decided the pair in breach of judiciary standards of conduct serious enough to warrant removal from the case. However, it is strange he found it serious enough to remove Wade but not Willis. McAfee once worked for Willis, and the judge is a donor to the DA. Unfortunately for Willis, she now faces an appellate court hearing brought by the defendants for her dismissal from the case. 

The Stormy Daniel case in Manhattan is unique in its non-specification of charges. DA Alvin Bragg said it is not necessary for him to specify the charge. The prosecution’s case is Trump falsified accounts by recording ‘hush money’ payment to Stormy Daniels as ‘legal fees’. This is not a criminal act, but it becomes a felony if the act was performed in furtherance of another act. Bragg said Trump falsified the accounts so his 2016 presidential campaign will not be impaired. It thus becomes a felony. The case is allowed to proceed despite the fact Trump has nothing to do with accounting entries and the payment was made in 2018 so it's difficult to see how it influenced 2016 election.

There is a great tabloid story here of whether Trump had sex with a porn star. But it’s all anecdotal and has nothing to do with the case before the court. The judge allowed Daniels two days in the witness box giving lurid details of her liaison with Trump which has nothing to do with the case but prosecution-coached (Daniels admitted) tactic to humiliate the defendant. I restrict my comment here to the point of the accuser being revealed as the one committing the very acts the defendant is accused of.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is a porn star and film producer. She once sued Trump for defamation where she was represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer now dis-barred and serving time for fraud against clients. Recently, Avenatti made a revelation from his prison cell. He said a film producer approached him to participate in a film on Daniels’ story. From his queries he learnt from the producer that Daniels will be involved and her share of income from the film will be paid via a round-robbin mechanism. Her purpose was to falsify her accounts to avoid payment of legal cost of US$500,000 in two failed suits against Trump. The producer also mentioned that earnings from her memoir “Full Disclosure” was also handled this way. The book of course featured her one-night tryst with Trump. We do not know the veracity of this revelation, particularly as Avenatti was later found guilty of defrauding Daniels in the negotiation for the publication of her book. If true, then Daniels is just as guilty for falsifying her accounts in order to cheat Trump. This is exactly the felony DA Bragg is trying to convict the ex-president.

In the classified documents case, Trump is lucky he relocated his residence to Florida. In New York city, with progressive judges and liberal juries, he would have no chance for a fair trial and proper discovery because motion documents including witness interview transcripts, would be heavily redacted. With a constitutional Judge Aileen Cannon presiding, the sloppy prosecution has no special treatment from the bench and cannot get away with shenanigans. Judge Canon unsealed motion documents and boy oh boy, what do un-redacted materials reveal. The prosecution colluded with Biden’s White House, tampered with evidence, inserted false evidence, and stole Trump’s personal effects (amongst other things, Trump claimed FBI took his will).

Recall this photo that Biden’s FBI ‘leaked’ to Biden’s media. From the very first day the photo was first made public, conspiracy sites like Gateway Pundit and Alex Jones’ Infowars analysed it and were quick to point out it was an arranged setup just for the optics. It was meant to fool the public that Trump has so much classified documents they were lying all over the floor. FBI placed the documents on the floor for the photoshoot and those marked ‘SECRET’ were not classified documents but place holders. ‘Conspiracy theorists’ have now been proven correct yet again.

Documents in the boxes were not in the same sequence as the computerised inventory list. Prosecution admitted the documents have been juggled in the boxes. This is tantamount to tampering with evidence. The sequence in the boxes is important because it is proof the documents have not been handled since they were delivered from the White House.

FBI inserted one ballot of classified documents they brought from Presidential Archive Library into evidence. Fabricating evidence is criminal malfeasance. Perhaps DOJ, FBI and leftist prosecutors have become emboldened with the way they successfully ran roughshod over judicial processes tolerated by partisan liberal judges when they go after defendants who were conservatives, MAGA or Trump supporters and associates.

In the January 6 incident, all those Trump supporters who entered the Capitol should at most be charged with trespassing which is a misdemeanor. The Democrats have been longing for an event of white supremacist violence to pin the fascist label on Trump. Unable to establish insurgency, DOJ framed charges that can inflict the most severe sentence on defendants. The purpose is to create the ethos of white supremacist danger to democracy in US. Most defendants were charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 1512, a very serious offence.

18 US Code § 1512(c)(2) states:

“Whoever corruptly or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Under the dual justice system of US today, progressive judges set murderers free and Trump supporters receive 10-15 years in prison for trespassing and disrupting Congress in session.

What will the same dual justice system now do to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors if the same 18 U.S. Code § 1512 is applied?

18 US Code § 1512(c)(1) states:

“Whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The prosecution is guilty of the same crimes they charged those they accuse. When Trump called for Jack Smith to be arrested and jailed for evidence tampering and falsification, the 45th President has the law behind him.

Unsealed motion documents show Biden gave the green light for FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-lago residence for the classified documents. Well, well, what do we all subsequently know. Biden himself carted away a ton of classified documents when he was Obama’s VP. The difference between Trump and Biden is wide. As president, Trump has a right to take documents from the White House after leaving office and has the right to declassify documents, which he did. Biden has no such right as VP. While Trump kept documents under secured storage (the security was actually vetted by FBI much earlier), Biden kept classified documents in his garage and in an office shared with a CCP-owned company. Special Counsel Robert Hur headed an investigation into Biden’s case. He minced no words to conclude Biden “stole” the documents. While they put Trump on trial, no Democrat or DOJ is going to do anything with Biden for committing the same crimes they accused the ex-president.

By June 2023, Mike Pence, Trump’s VP, and GOP nomination challenger for 2024, distanced himself from his ex-boss when he said: “Having read the indictment, these are very serious allegations. And I can’t defend what is alleged.” Well, well, what do we know. Pence himself has also been found to have “stolen” some classified documents just like Biden.

The over-valuation of assets case in New York brought by DA Letitia James against Trump is one for the books. Trump was found guilty of falsely inflating the value of his asset Mar-a-Lago. By declaring higher valuation, Trump was then able to obtain larger loans. It was a fraud case for which there were no victims, where a prosecution witness, a banker from Deutsche Bank, said they were not defrauded, they had every single dollar of loans repaid with interest, and that they were happy to do more business with their client. It was a case where every businessman ever interviewed said the prosecution has no idea how financing of real estate works.

Rabid Trump-hating partisan Judge Arthur Engoron plucked a figure out of thin air and said Mar-a-Lago was worth US$18m. Trump has always insisted it is more than a hundred million dollars. All leftist media has always refuted Trump’s claim including Trump-hating CNN which only last December ran a report on fact checking Trump’s valuation claims as false. Well, well, what do we know. CNN now says Mar-a-Lago is worth US$240m.

In NY courts, conservatives and least of all, Trump, has no chance of a fair trial. He lost and was fined US$450m. Only Alex Jones has received a higher fine under the Biden admin. Jones was fined US$1b in the Sandy Hooks defamation law suit. There are rules against excessive fines to prevent Judiciary excesses. Everyone knows both cases were politically driven and the fines were meant to financially cripple and bring the two enemies of Democrats to their knees.

Democrat DA James ran for office on a platform of going after Trump with no specific crimes in mind. One is reminded of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's secret police chief, who said “Show me the man and I'll find you the crime”.

The New York Post on 17 Mar 2024 carried a most interesting article: “An Irish society, an unpaid loan and the hypocrisy of Letitia James” This is the interesting story in brief.

The American Irish Historical Society is a private club which owns a grand old mansion at 991 Fifth Avenue across Central Park, NY City. A certain Cahill Family has been running the club house like their own heirloom. Mismanagement brought it to insolvency. They turned to a board director James Doyle, for a personal loan of US$3m and represented to him the mansion was valued US$80m with air rights (can build taller). The loan was structured like a mortgage loan with monthly installment payments. When the society defaulted on scheduled payments, Doyle called in the loan. He soon found out the mansion had no air rights and was valued about US$20m.

In stepped DA James who claimed she received a petition against the sale and that disposal of assets by NGOs requires the approval of her office. She was in awe of the clubhouse and encouraged members to save it. The loan was restructured. When the society again defaulted, Doyle commenced legal proceedings. DA James did all she could to frustrate the sale of the building.

One wonders at the enthusiasm of James to block the sales of the clubhouse. Why is a black DA so interested in the private affairs of an Irish community? Doyle has made an FOIA request for all communication between James, the society and the Cahills. Is there a can of worms somewhere?

Meanwhile it is very clear. Here is a case of falsification of asset values to secure a loan that is exactly the same as the one Trump is charged with. In Mar-a-Lago case, DA James takes the side against borrower Trump for falsifying asset values. In the Irish clubhouse she takes the borrower society’s side for falsifying asset values. If inflating asset values for a loan application is a crime as James claims, then she is aiding and abetting a crime by taking the side of the Irish society.

One must not forget the difference between Trump’s and the Irish society’s case. In Trump’s case, the asset is worth much higher than what the court says and Deusche Bank were paid back every single dollar. In the Irish society case, the asset is worth much lower and lender Doyle is still owed US$3m.

These four lawfare cases mentioned are clearly political prosecution of Trump. The timing and the massive fine suggest judicial partisanship attempt to cripple his 2024 campaigns. In other words, election interference. It’s a wonder how all the cases have boomeranged to show the accusers guilty of exactly the same crimes they accused Trump of. Certainly many are led to ask who is behind Trump?

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.

HOW GOVERNMENTS PRINT MONEY

The video is Jared Bernstein, an economic adviser to Joe Biden, struggling to explain why the U.S. government chooses to borrow money when it can just print more. It shows both the difficulty of understanding what exactly is government money printing and the incompetency of Biden admin’s appointees which explains the mess the country is in, such as a Supreme court justice who cannot define a woman.

Money itself is like a commodity and it has a price which bows to Keynesian doctrine of supply and demand. The price of a currency is of course its exchange rate in relation to other currencies. All things being equal, an increase in supply of a currency is inflationary because it stimulates spending and foreign goods become more expensive as its exchange rate depreciates.

Governments have the power to create money into existence and this opens the door to irresponsible fiscal management. Many are critical of money printing by governments, but most folks generally do not actually understand how this is done.

There are two types of money – paper money (currency notes) and digital money. The credit balances in depositors’ accounts with banks are digital money. When you deposit cash into your bank account, you convert paper money into digital money. The printing of physical currency notes and digital money are of course entirely different matters.

Central banks physically print currency notes all the time to constantly keep a ready stock to replace damaged notes and to meet exigencies. Theoretically speaking, increasing the supply of currency notes can lead to inflation. Many experts, from academia and industry, point to same examples where excessive paper money printing has driven countries into banana republics – Weimar Republic (Germany) in 1920s, Hungary 1946, Yugoslavia 1970s, Zimbabwe 2000s, and present day Venezuela.

But they have all got it wrong with the chicken and egg situation. It was systemic corruption which feeds into economic mismanagement that led to massive hyperinflation. As the value of currency shrinks, more currency needs to be printed and in higher and higher denominations. Germany had its 100 million mark notes, Hungary had 100 quintillion pengő, Yugoslavia had trillion dinar, Zimbabwe had 100 trillion dollar notes, and Venezuela has million bolivar notes.

In today’s world, a country’s money supply is predominantly in the form of digital money. Currency notes make up only a fraction of money supply. The discussion of impact of money printing basically refers to digital money.

As mentioned earlier, digital money is reflected in depositors’ bank credit balances. Central banks are governments’ banker. Thus if a central bank simply adds some credit to the government account out of nowhere, ie no transaction related, it creates money for the government. Every central bank charter obviously specifically bars this. Thus in reality, it is a fallacy to say government prints money to spend.

Note the US is unique in that it has no central bank. The Federal Bank System (Fed) comprises of 12 reserve banks which are privately owned by various member banks. The Fed is the government’s banker, but it is not a government agency. Although the government has certain interests and rights, the rights are not proprietary.

Central banks and Fed are tasked with managing the sale and purchase of government securities and monetary policies which are matters concerning quantitative money supply and general price level, or inflation, and by extension, employment. Central banks manage monetary policies of the government whilst the Fed executes the monetary policies of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) which is a committee of the Fed member banks whose policies are made in the interest of the US.

Since governments do not print money to spend, where do the funds for deficit spending come from. Here we are not talking about various government agencies which in some jurisdictions are allowed to take on loans directly. We are referring to governments funding budget spendings in excess of revenue. This is done by issuing government securities (bonds). When investors buy these securities in the primary market, buyers remit proceeds to the credit of government accounts with central banks. By this manner, governments borrow to fund budget shortfalls. There is no money creation.

Singapore is unique in the world. It practices a balanced budget and never borrows for spending.

Well then, where is all this talk about about governments creating money to spend? 

Central banks manage liquidity in the market. When money is tight, there is an upward pressure on interest rates and exchange rates. Central banks pump money into the market, ie., central banks may loosen liquidity to stimulate spending which spurs economic activities and employment. This is done in open market operations where central banks purchase securities. Central banks pay for such purchases by simply crediting the seller banks’ Reserve Accounts. Thus central banks acquire assets with money they do not have. They simply create money out of nowhere by making a credit entry in seller banks’ Reserve Accounts. So now the banks have newly created money that can be used in the market. This is an exercise called QE for quantitative easing. Thus money creation via QE has nothing to do with government spending or borrowing.

Some take the macro or bird’s eye view that governments borrow to spend, which then central banks buy back through QE by simply creating money, is tantamount to governments creating money to spend. This notion is not correct as fiscal policies and monetary policies are entirely different affairs. Fiscal policies are managed by Treasury ministries who raise debt to fund budget deficits. Monetary policies are handled by central banks who perform QE to calibrate market liquidity and interest rates.

Thus a situation is created where central banks hold an asset and the governments hold a liability. It is a case of left hand owing to the right hand. In the case of US, the status is different since the Fed is not a part of government. In this scenario, governments do not fear the amount of debts they owe. They simply net off on maturity of the securities. However, doing so will reflect debit balances in governments accounts in central banks’ books. There is no literature on some creative accounting to resolve this. In practice this accounting conundrum does not seem to have presented itself as these securities have been rolled over with more and more new issues paying off maturing ones. Government debts keep pushing the ceiling.

On the other hand, the central banks have a liability for the securities they purchased as well as a valuation risk. When central banks simply credit seller banks Reserve Accounts for securities purchased, they have a liability for the money created. This liability is backed by the asset securities. On a going concern basis, central banks have no worry with the liability because as the money is circulated in the market, all that happens is just debit and credit entries in banks’ Reserve Accounts as money moves from one bank to another.

Most of these securities are government bonds which have no credit risks. Some jurisdictions have seen QE extend to central banks building balance sheet with equities. Bank of Japan is one example. In which case, credit risks exist. In the case of government bonds, market risks exists. With rising interest rates, bond prices tumble. Central banks' capital takes a beating from rising interest rates. With massive balance sheet build up from QE and rising interest rates, the Fed is now actually in negative capital mode if they recognise valuation losses, which they don’t.

There is another way that central banks create money out of nowhere. This happens during financial or economic crisis such as in 2008 and Covid pandemic. Huge sums of money are needed for bailing out businesses in financial distress or for financial aid packages. Central banks initiate bail out programmes, or governments push financial aid packages. For example, Fed had its Tarp, MAS has other various named programmes. These are basically loan facilities. When drawn down, central banks simply record the loan, and post a credit to the Reserve Accounts of the relevant banks. In this manner, unlimited sums of money can be created.

One more way central banks can create money, although indirectly. This is through fractional banking. Banks make money work for them. They take customers’ deposit and loan them out. The full deposit amount cannot be lent out. Banks must keep a certain balance in their Reserve Account in order to maintain liquidity to meet customers’ needs. How much to retain depends on the Reserve Ratio. Suppose the ratio is 10%, if a customer deposits $100 with Bank A, it can lend out $90. This $90 is deposited with Bank B which can lend out $81. This multiplier effect work its way through the market. Theoretically, a newly created $100 and a Reserve Ratio of 10% will end up with $1,000 increase in money supply. Central banks can increase money creation by fractional banking simply by reducing the Reserve Ratio.

Another way central banks create money is in its open market operations in the FX market. Central banks monetary policies are either based on tweaking interest rates or managing its exchange rates. Singapore is an exchange rate regime. Spot rates are volatile throughout the day. Most exchange rate regimes allow the rates to move within a certain band. When the rate is hitting the upper limits, central banks sell their currency to bring rates down. To settle, central banks simply credit the Reserve Accounts of the buying banks. Thus new money is created. Market intervention works both ways. Central banks buy their currency when the lower band is tested which is a reduction of money supply as seller banks Reserve Accounts are debited. Thus money creation can be netted off as negative or positive. A persistent pressure on the upper band means central banks are selling most of the time leading to more new money created. Since FX market intervention is to manage the exchange rate and not liquidity, this money created is nullified by a sterilisation process. This is done by central banks issuing Treasury Bills to mop up the liquidity caused by the new money created.

Governments rollover maturing bonds with new ones and add fresh borrowings. As a result, government borrowings have snowballed. The US national debt is now $35T. Is there no end to kicking the can down the road? This can continue as long as there is demand by investors for the $ bonds. That demand will disappear when the $ looses its role as world reserve currency. BRICS is working on developing an alternate currency to reduce dependency on $ in international trade. It is easier said than done. However, their success will mean the downfall of the powerful USD. All the offshore $ will come home to roost and the massive debt of $35T will need to be paid off as bonds mature, for they no longer can be rolled over as the market for $ bonds disappear. But the massive debt will not bankrupt the US. Any country with monetary sovereignty can always pay off debts in its own currency. The Fed can always credit bond holders' banks' Reserve Accounts. Simply create money $ to pay off debt. But the massive $35T created will drive the $ exchange rate to the ground and bring hyperinflation and deterioration to standard of living. It will impoverish Americans.

This explainer on money creation shows why even though the governments can print money, they still have to borrow. It also shows the fallacy of massive printing of paper money leads to high inflation, but rather, the reverse is true. Hyperinflation leads to massive paper money printing.

The generally held belief is massive money creation leads to high inflation. The past decade or so have seen central banks all over the world build up massive balance sheet in QE exercises, pursued on the belief that liquidity and cheap money stimulates the economy. Strangely, the massive QE have not resulted in massive increase in money supply and high inflation. This seems like one more fallacy but it's for another day.

Addendum:

To make this primer complete, there is one more way central banks create money, but it is a special situation that has no inflationary impact as the money will not be used.

Central banks arrange standby currency swap facilities with each other to provide liquidity for foreign currencies in the event of financial crisis. A swap deal is where one currency is exchanged for another at market rate (spot deal) and reversed at a future date at an agreed rate (forward deal).

For example say MAS has a USD/SGD swap facility with Fed. During a financial crisis where USD became difficult to source, MAS can provide liquidity to the market by availing the swap facility. MAS will buy USD from Fed against SGD say for 6 months. MAS pays for the USD by crediting Fed's account in SGD. Massive sum of SGD may be created this way but it has no effect on inflation because the Fed is never going to use those SGD. The Fed's SGD deposit will be reversed 6 months later when the forward deal matures.

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.

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) (This is in detail. If you already know the story, skip it.) 

(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.