Tag: PAP

  • Singapore Inc Faces $12 Billion Debt Scramble

    Singapore Inc Faces $12 Billion Debt Scramble

    Singapore companies, highly exposed to slowing global trade and a lackluster commodity market, face a financing scramble in 2017, as more than US$12 billion of their bonds falls due and banks grow wary of lending to the resources sector.

    That could trigger more blood-letting in a market that has already seen some high-profile corporate defaults, such as oil services firm Swiber Holdings (SWBR.SI), which hit the skids in July and went into judicial management this month.

    It has also seen an increase in the number of bond issuers trying to renegotiate the terms of their credit to stay afloat, a disturbing signal in a market skewed to retail buyers and smaller issues subject to light scrutiny.

    Corporate leverage has risen to increasingly risky levels, according to credit analysts and investors, while banks are becoming more circumspect about extending financing as the quality of their loan books causes concern.

    Between now and the end of 2017, according to Reuters data, US$12.4 billion of bonds falls due, but corporate balance sheets in the city state are looking strained.

    A Reuters study of 228 non-financial companies’ half-year earnings shows that 74 had net debt more than five times their core profit, a level that usually prompts concern among credit analysts, and more than a third of that group were at least twice that level.

    “We had not seen Singapore dollar corporate defaults since 2009, but suddenly we see a pick-up in defaults in 2015-2016. This is a warning sign about a refinancing confidence crisis across many sectors, not just commodity-related ones,” said Raymond Chia, Head of Credit Research for Asia ex-Japan at Schroders Investment Management.

    LIGHT SCRUTINY

    The structure of Singapore’s capital markets has left them particularly vulnerable as global trade cools and Chinese growth slows. Commodities have been a mainstay after a frothy 2013 and 2014, and private banking has loomed large, fuelling smaller bond deals. In 2014, private banks accounted for almost half of investments into Singapore dollar corporate debt, a central bank report said last year.

    Their participation has helped encourage smaller issues that are not assessed by credit rating agencies and yet are targeted at private wealth investors, analysts say.

    “Their bond issues are also mostly unrated, so the layer of scrutiny provided by rating agencies is missing. Many of these deals were mispriced: they priced like investment grade even though they had high-yield profiles,” said Harsh Agarwal, Head of Asia Credit Research at Deutsche Bank.

    That is now changing – at considerable cost for firms. Property firm Oxley Holdings, whose short-term debt dwarfs its cash balance, according to its latest accounts, saw yields on its bonds due 2019 SGOXHL1119= jump 220 basis points to 7.5 percent in the past quarter.

    And banks, under pressure to increase provisions for bad loans, are pulling back from indebted sectors like real estate, commodities and oil and gas, which dominate Singapore’s outstanding S$53 billion ($38 billion) of local currency corporate bonds.

    Non-performing loans have risen at all Singapore’s three banks in the latest quarterly results, reflecting a decline in loan quality across sectors.

    “In the absence of further bank support, refinancing this debt may prove difficult, potentially leading to more defaults over the next year,” said Devinda Paranathanthri at UBS Wealth Management, which estimates S$18 billion of local currency denominated bonds are coming due over the next 18 months. Over a quarter are from sectors facing structural headwinds.

    The latest sign of strain has been an increase in borrowers asking bondholders to cut them some slack. Ezra Holdings (EZRA.SI), Rickmers Maritime (RIMT.SI), Otto Marine OTTO.SI and Marco Polo Marine (MAPM.SI) are just some of the companies that sought bondholder consent this year to loosen the conditions, or covenants, attached to their loans.

    “It will continue to be busy, but the question is whether loosening covenants will be adequate to give these companies the lifeline that they need,” said Kevin Wong, Singapore-based partner with law firm Linklaters.

    “There is a risk these consent solicitations may lead to full-blown debt restructurings.”

    ($1 = 1.3943 Singapore dollars)

     

    Source: Reuters

  • Abdilar Zamzuri: Speaking English Is A Must For Service Staff

    Abdilar Zamzuri: Speaking English Is A Must For Service Staff

    At the payment counter…

    Me: Do you have a gift wrapping service?

    Cashier stares blankly at me

    Me: Do you have a gift wrapping service? (gestures wrapping an item)

    Cashier looks lost: Master or Nets?

    Me: Nets. Wrap present, where? Can speak English?

    Cashier: Huh.. No.

    Me turns to another staff: Do you have a gift wrapping service?

    Other Staff: Level 2, Customer Service Counter.

    I understand that we have a lot of foreigners working here but really, I don’t think I’m the only one who’s faced such a problem.

    Frontline officers need to be adequately trained to he prepared to handle simple queries. After all, they are the face of the company, not the management.

    It is incidents such as this that leaves a bad taste and a bad impression. A happy and joyous occasion can easily and quickly change to be one that is quite the opposite.

     

    Source: Abdilar Zamzuri

  • Chee Soon Juan: Results Show That Lee Hsien Loong Failed As PM

    Chee Soon Juan: Results Show That Lee Hsien Loong Failed As PM

    Public memory is short.

    That’s what the PAP is counting on to get through the economic difficulties that we’re rapidly sinking into. But forgetting the past is what will surely prolong our troubles.

    Our only hope of recovery is to remember the PAP’s past promises and figure out how and why it has failed to deliver on them.

    To do this, we have to go back to 2003 when Mr Lee Hsien Loong, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, was given the task of heading the Economic Review Committee (ERC). We had just come out of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the dot.com-bubble burst in 2001.

    To assist him in the task, Mr Lee convened seven sub-committees and consulted more than 1,000 individuals to produce a roadmap to transform Singapore – within a 15-year time-frame – into a diversified economy “willing to take risks to create fresh businesses and blaze new paths to success”.

    By the end of the endeavour, he waxed poetic, “Singapore will have graduated into a knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy. We will be a trend-setting city-state, a creative and entrepreneurial society.”

    Now that the 15 years is nearly up, it is pertinent to ask what has been achieved. Apparently not much, according to Mr Lee himself. As he confessed this week: “We are feeling the pains of restructuring, but not yet seeing the dividends of our hard work.”

    (Actually, “we” are not feeling anything – Mr Lee continues to draw his princely salary regardless of how he performs whereas workers are facing retrenchments and wage cuts.)

    But no matter, Mr Lee insists that he is “pursuing all the right strategies” and is “confident that given time these strategies will work”.

    If these “right strategies” have produced little of consequence after 15 years – the economy, still addicted to cheap foreign labour, is anything but innovation-driven; productivity continues to be a drag on growth; our workers are the unhappiest lot in this part of the world and have been for years; income inequality remains one of the highest in the developed world; and the economy is anything but diverse (we rank 5th on the Crony-Capitalism Index) – should reason then not tell us that maybe it is time to consider ditching them and implement genuine reforms?

    The painful truth is that the outlook for this country has never been bleaker and, the PM’s blandishments notwithstanding, things will get worse under the PAP’s autocratic but directionless leadership. Many analysts have, in fact, expressed the fear that the current downturn will be protracted.

    But it wasn’t that Mr Lee did not know of the seriousness of the problems that our country faced. He acknowledged in the 2003 ERC report that the economy needed “major, fundamental changes, in strategies as well as mindsets”. To do this, he promised that “restructuring will speed up”.

    But time has proven the emptiness of that promise.

    For one thing, the PAP, through the Temasek Holdings of which PM Lee’s wife is CEO, still has its tentacles in every sector of the local economy. The massive political-corporate nexus has created a non-transparent, unaccountable and kiasi corporate bureaucracy that is anathema to a culture at one with creativity and risk-taking.

    Second, if Mr Lee’s call for a knowledge-based economy is real, then why is he hanging on to the decrepit practice of controlling the mass media?

    Third, if the intention is to “change mindsets”, then why are our workers still forbidden from independently organising themselves and our people prohibited from freely gathering and speaking up? Mindsets, if it needs to be said at all, cannot be changed by fiat.

    After a decade-and-a-half of the PAP’s experiment, the results are in and it is plain that Mr Lee’s attempt at economic restructuring has failed. The reasons are not hard to evince.

    The question that Singaporeans must ask is: How much more of Mr Lee’s “restructuring pains” must we endure before we are willing to change?

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    The Court of Three Judges has decided that lawyer M Ravi who was ordered to stop practising in Feb 2015 should be prohibited from applying for a practicing certificate for a period of 2 years. In its judgment released today (27 Oct), the Court said that this was necessary to safeguard the interests of the public and to uphold public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

    Mr Ravi’s case was brought before the Court of Three Judges after he pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal last year. The tribunal, in its report released in December 2015 said that a prima facie case had been established against Mr Ravi since he had “pleaded guilty to the four charges and his mental condition as per the evidence of Dr (Tommy) Tan (a psychiatrist) does not exculpate him for his various acts of misconduct but are mitigating factors only”.

    Mr Ravi had earlier pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct, which include creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on 10 Feb 2015 and another charge of making inappropriate statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. He was also found guilty of  making false allegations against two lawyers in Feb 2015.

    The tribunal referred Mr Ravi’s case to the Court of Three Judges as it had no power to penalise a non-practising lawyer.

    On 6 Sep, Mr Ravi’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam sought an overall fine of $10,000 ($2,500 per offence) and pleaded for the Court to take his client’s mental illness into account.

    The Law Society’s lawyer, Mr Sean La’Brooy, did not object to a fine. He however, in arguing that Mr Ravi’s condition should not “exonerate” him, sought a higher quantum of at least $5,000 for one of the offences.

    The three judges that heard the case — CJ Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang – described Mr Ravi’s conduct as “reprehensible” and “disturbing”.

    CJ Menon had then asked: “(Are we) not going to hold a solicitor to the standards expected of him? … The whole thing may have been avoided if (Mr Ravi) had taken the doctor’s advice … Should we say because he has a medical condition, we punish him differently?”

    The Court had other sentencing options besides prohibiting Mr Ravi from practicing. Among these options are to censure him, to order him to pay a penalty of not more than $20,000, or to strike his name off the roll of lawyers.

    In delivering the verdict today, CJ Menon said that the Court was presented with a situation where Mr Ravi has a mental condition which has in the past caused him to act in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer. He said that there is a possibility that this may happen again in the future.

    “In this circumstances, we consider that anything short of prohibiting the respondent for a substantial period of time from applying for a practicing certificate would be inadequate,” the verdict read.

    Commenting on the verdict Mr Ravi said the following in his Facebook:

    “The Court of Appeal handed out a judgement today prohibiting me from practising law for a period of two years. I have already been out of practice for more than 18 months. My doctor had certified me fit to practice since December last year.The Law Society had approved my application for Practising Certificate in August 2016. However the Attorney General objected to my Practising Certificate. During the hearing before the Court of Appeal the Law Society had agreed that a fine is an appropriate penalty in line with the recommendation made by the Disciplinary Tribunal below.

    I accept that I did not behave appropriately when I was unwell. However, the Court of Appeal’s Judgment is acutely disproportionate in view of the Disciplinary Tribunals recommendation of a fine. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment means I am put (out) of Practice of Law for close to 4 years.

    However in as much I am devastated, this will not deter me from continuing my work in the field of international human rights and constitutional law and contribute to society where I can. To this extent, I will continue my work by assisting the firm of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP in my current role as a Head of Knowledge Management and Strategic Alliance Division.”

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Racism Only Exists When It Is Not Spoken By Them

    Walid J. Abdullah: Racism Only Exists When It Is Not Spoken By Them

    It’s funny how some people are so bent on using anecdotes -parliamentarians especially love to talk about their personal experiences – to display the truly multi-racial nature of Singapore, and to prove racism doesn’t exist.

    ‘My son didn’t want to bring a ham sandwich to school to respect his Muslim friends; see, there is no racism!’

    ‘I saw an Indian man calling an ambulance for a Chinese lady, and a Malay dude was the medic. Singaporean multiracialism ftw!’

    ‘I got into the lift and saw a Malay man, and i smiled and had a conversation with him. Only in Singapore do you get this.’ (somehow, speaking in a polite manner to other humans is uniquely Singaporean, and shows racism is absent!)

    —-

    But when these people come across other anecdotes that actually work against their ‘all is hunky dory’ theory, they will find all sorts of excuses to dismiss them.

    ‘Oh, our MP wasn’t being offensive. She just proposed the fence because it was practical. She gets along well with Indian workers, you know. Her suggestion is nothing like Trump’s.’

    ‘Oh, the portrayal of a hijabi as parking attendant in the children’s book is actually a good thing and does not reinforce stereotypes. Exposes children to the hijab. Good job author!’

    ‘The blackface incident was just something light-hearted. Please don’t be so sensitive. We must learn to laugh at ourselves.’

    ‘Yeah he said Malay and Indian workers cannot speak English properly. But that’s not what he really meant. We must look at the context.’

    And, the get-out-of-jail card for when one cannot perform intellectual gymnastics and is forced to admit that an incident is racist:

    ‘Yes, this was racist. But racism exists everywhere else. So be thankful for what you have here.’

    —-

    Yeah, continue telling yourselves that racism doesn’t exist. Continue glorifying your own experiences as the norm, and continue dismissing others’ encounters with racism as anomalies.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

deneme bonusu