By Raju Gopalakrishnan, Reuters
SINGAPORE - Along a sun-splashed cobblestone street in central Singapore, coatless bankers with loosened ties quaff imported beers in a neighbourhood of gaily painted shophouses called Duxton Hill.
The scene is almost European. And for long-time residents of this Southeast Asian city-state at the crossroads of some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, a bit bemusing. Just a couple of years ago late-night revellers used to tumble out of ill-lit pubs and grimy, illicit brothels on Duxton Hill.
The transformation is a microcosm of the reinventions Singapore has undergone to keep an island with almost no resources and roughly the size of New York City competitive in a neighbourhood of fast-growing emerging markets.
Boutique funds, advisory firms and brokerages are putting down roots in a revamped Duxton Hill, where opium and gambling dens run by Chinese triad gangs flourished last century.
Singapore has attracted hundreds of such firms in the past decade, lured by its light-touch registration requirements and relatively benign regulatory climate, even as Switzerland, the world’s leading wealth manager, gets tougher on bank secrecy.
“Our vision of this place is the Singapore version of London’s West End,” said Ed Peter, 47, a Swiss-born fund manager who has been buying up shophouses in Duxton Hill.
The neighbourhood, in truth, bears little resemblance to London’s theatre district, but it’s also a far cry from its shady past.
“It’s going upmarket. It’s cool. It’s funky,” said Peter, speaking effusively at his office in a three-storey building which housed an Elvis impersonator bar just two years ago. “You’ve got half the financial community here.”
Next door, the raunchy Aristocats pub closed shop a few months ago, providing space for Daun Consulting, a private equity adviser, to expand from its upper-level offices.
Peter, Deutsche Bank’s head of asset management for Asia Pacific, Middle East and Africa before setting up his own firm in Singapore, manages about $650 million .
The squeaky clean city of 5.1 million, nicknamed the “nanny state” for its propensity for micromanagement, is fast emerging as one of the world’s hottest destinations for wealth — and the wealthy, who now have casinos and theme parks for play, and seaside mansions and penthouses to stay.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore at end-2009 — the most in Asia and up about 40 percent from a year ago.
The Boston Consulting Group estimates private banks alone in Singapore manage about $500 billion in assets. The numbers are dwarfed by the estimated $2 trillion in private wealth managed in Switzerland, but the growth in Singapore is startling, wealth managers say.
“In the last 10-12 years I’ve seen Singapore really take a leadership role in changing the landscape of the wealth management industry,” says Deepak Sharma, chairman of Citi Private Bank.
“The regulatory environment in Singapore is one of the finest. It has one of the best standards in the world, but at the same time, it is consultative. It engages the industry.”
GO EAST YOUNG MAN
The big players, including Swiss giants UBS AG and Credit Suisse who have a global stranglehold on private wealth management, are among those looking East. UBS, usually chary about its plans, says it will hire 400 new staffers in the Asia-Pacific region in the next few years.
Credit Suisse said net new assets from clients in Asia climbed to 11.5 billion Swiss francs in 2009 from 8.4 billion in 2008. In the first six months of this year, net new assets came in at 7.1 billion Swiss francs.
Morgan Stanley plans to double its Asia headcount in wealth management over the next three years, largely focussing on the top end of the market.
JPMorgan Chase & Co plans to triple its private banking assets in Asia over the next five years and plans to increase its headcount in the region by 40 percent over the current 400, a company spokesman in New York said this week.
“I believe Singapore will be the true private banking hub,” said Massimo Hilber, managing partner at private Swiss bank Marcuard who, like Peter, has an office on Duxton Hill. “All the big players are here, and the smaller players like us. You have to be here.”
Why Singapore?
First, assets held by Asia-Pacific’s high net worth individuals – people owning more than $1 million excluding home, collectibles and durables – surged 31 percent in 2009 to $9.7 trillion, overtaking Europe, according to CapGemini/Merrill Lynch.
Second, high net-worth individuals seeking high-return investments are turning to emerging markets. Accordingly, portfolios of such individuals included 22 percent in Asia-Pacific investments in 2009, up from 19 percent in 2008, and will soon overtake Europe, the CapGemini study says.
Many of these changes are focussed on Singapore, which is at the crossroads of new wealth being created in China, India and Indonesia, some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Singapore, which has the world’s highest concentration of millionaires, is poised to grow its own economy 13-15 percent this year, possibly the fastest rate in the world.
Hong Kong is Asia’s other big financial centre, but tends to focus on investment banking and deal-making in China rather than in the management of private wealth, bankers say.
“Hong Kong probably makes great business sense from an investment banker perspective, but I don’t think it has invested as much in itself in creating a place for families to live,” says Nick Pollard, Asia chief executive of private banker RBS Coutts.
“What Singapore has done very well is that it has almost created a whole infrastructure, not just a place to work, but also a place to live, a place to educate your children, a place to have great fun.”
FINE CITY
Stuffy. Staid. A “fine city” where every minor transgression attracts a fine. Where the sale of chewing gum is banned, and caning is prescribed for offences such as vandalism.
That was, and in some cases still is, Singapore.
But about five years ago, the government launched a concerted effort to change the image. Two casinos sprang up this year at a cost of about $11 billion in a city where gambling had been banned. It’s the only country in the world where the Formula One Grand Prix is held at night.
Singapore impeccably conducted its third F1 race on September 26, with Fernando Alonso winning on a balmy tropical night, driving his Ferrari through 61 laps around the city’s business district.
Top music acts including Mariah Carey, Sean Kingston, Chris Daughtry and Adam Lambert performed at different areas around the circuit. Some of the jet-setting crowd partied after the race at a newly opened rooftop bar at the $5.3 billion Marina Bay Sands casino resort, built by Las Vegas Sands on reclaimed land around the mouth of the Singapore River.
Sentosa island, just offshore Singapore, is being redeveloped as a home for the seriously wealthy, with golf clubs, a sailing marina and sea-facing bungalows priced at $20 million and more. Genting Singapore’s Resorts World casino and Universal Studios theme park opened in February, raking in S$503.5 million in the first three months.
“Rebranding Singapore as a global city and tourism hub fits in very well with its natural advantage, which is its strategic location in the centre of Southeast Asia and good transportation links,” said Kit Wei Zheng, a Citigroup economist.
The aim is simple. Make the city more attractive for high-end foreign talent and wealth. Turn tourism into a money spinner. Focus on services as manufacturing shifts to lower-cost countries in the region. And make it easy for foreigners to work.
It is the latest incarnation of a city that emerged from British colonial rule in the 1960s as a gritty port town. Founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his People’s Action Party — dressed in trademark white shirts and pants — set out to scrub the city clean of corruption in all its manifestations.
By the 1970s, the port had become one of the world’s busiest and was soon complemented by the opening of top-ranked Changi international airport.
By the 1980s, Singapore was a regional manufacturing hub, particularly for electronics. Then it reinvented itself as a financial hub, and by the 1990s was one of the world’s leading centres for foreign exchange trading. A decade ago, the PAP patriarchs began building an education and bio-tech hub.
NUMBER 10
The common denominator for each Singapore incarnation has been to make it easy to do business. Be the fastest shipper, the most proficient manufacturer, the state with the least red tape.
For the Singapore financial industry, that comes from what they call “Number 10″. That’s 10 Shenton Way, not Downing Street but the address represents an institution similarly powerful — the headquarters of MAS, the central bank.
“The regulatory environment is fair as opposed to arbitrary, random and difficult,” says Peter, the fund manager. “The rule of law is incredibly important. This is probably the best-managed country on the planet. It’s managed in a pro-active business-friendly way.”
Funds with less than 30 institutional investors can set up shop without a licence from MAS. While MAS is set to introduce tighter rules next year, Singapore remains one of the easiest jurisdictions for funds to begin operations.
But as regulation is tightened in Europe and the United States following the 2008 financial crisis, and Switzerland responds to concerns about its bank secrecy laws, Singapore, too, has come under the spotlight.
In November, Singapore was taken off the OECD “grey list” of nations not implementing international disclosure standards, but has yet to sign a tax treaty with the United States.
“The business model for private bankers is going to change — they can no longer tell customers just to put their money in Singapore and they will make sure no one ever knows about it,” said Edmund Leow, principal at law firm Baker & McKenzie, Wong & Leow.
“Instead, bankers are already marketing themselves as providing the best advice on how to legitimately minimize the amount of money their customers have to pay in tax.
“This is a global trend. I think Singapore is doing what most other countries are doing and shouldn’t be disadvantaged compared with other wealth management centres.”
RISKS OF REINVENTIONS
Singapore’s seismic reinventions were possible because the government nipped any political opposition in the bud and voters who have seen their per capita incomes grow seven-fold over the years were not inclined to grumble much.
But as Singapore undergoes its latest manifestation as a “global city”, with an ever-mounting proportion of foreign residents crowding the roads and competing for space and jobs, the government is having to soothe escalating criticism from the “heartland”, the sprawl of government housing blocks in the interior of the island where much of the citizenry lives.
Take, for example, Pipit Road, where a public housing compound is set amid factories and warehouses. People there live in tiny one-room apartments and are among the least well-off in Singapore.
Elderly residents shuffle along through corridors to the open area at the ground level, many with vacant stares.
“Look at my life. Do you think I have the time?”, said Seet Siew Buay, a 49-year-old woman when asked if she had seen the casino resorts or heard of the F1 race. “I have to look after them,” she said pointing to a 26-year-old son with learning and speech disabilities and an unemployed common-law husband.
They subsist on the S$300 given to the son each month in welfare, and Wong’s savings from his days as a carpenter. Singapore households earn an average income of S$7,440 a month, according to government statistics, but the bottom 20 percent earn only S$1,274.
There is some anger in the Pipit Road housing block at what is seen as the headlong rush to attract foreign investment and wealth.
“The bloody government will get the money,” said a middle-aged man, who called himself Jack. “We will get nothing. But somehow we still vote for them.”
Having a super-rich pool of foreigners in the city poses the risk of accentuating social tensions. Already, housing prices are rising faster than in the rest of the region. Porsches, Jaguars and Ferraris flash by in the streets. The number of international schools in the city catering mostly to foreigners has risen five-fold in the last decade or so.
The number of overseas workers — mostly for menial and blue collar jobs — has also risen rapidly to around 1.8 million, a figure that also includes foreigners who have become permanent residents. That means one in three people in Singapore is a foreigner, one of the highest such proportions in the world outside the Middle East.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed those rising concerns in his August 9 National Day speech saying that without an inflow of workers to make up for “the shortage of workers and the “shortfall of babies in our population”, the economy and society would stagnate.
“I understand Singaporeans’ concerns about taking in so many foreign workers and immigrants. Some of us wonder: Will it change the ethos of our society? Will it mean more competition for us at work, or for our children in schools? Will the new arrivals strike roots here? Can they adjust to us, and we to them? These are valid concerns which we must address.”
One way to ensure some trickle-down effect from Singapore’s rapid growth is on public spending.
The government plans to spend $44 billion alone in the next decade on extending the commuter rail network to cope with a population projected to grow another 25 percent in the next few years following a 25 percent increase the past decade.
“There is a certain degree of discontent, but it is not brewing over and spilling out into unrest,” said Gerald Giam, an executive councilor of the opposition Workers’ Party. “It is something we need to keep a watch on.”
ST. JACK
Over at Duxton Hill, it’s getting to evening and executives are winding their way home, some hailing a cab, one or two clambering onto bicycles.
It’s still a ribald place around the edges. Some of the old bars still operate. In a few corners, one can almost imagine Jack Flowers, the protagonist of Paul Theroux’s novel “St. Jack” about Singapore in the 1960s, rifling his deck of porno cards in a seedy shophouse doorway and asking a tourist: “Can I get you anything? Anything at all you need?”
For Peter, the fund manager, Singapore has what he needs.
“This place works,” he says, strolling down the cobbled street on Duxton Hill. “Take a look at the airport. In how many countries in the world do you find your luggage on the carousel when you come out? In Geneva, you wait 25 minutes. In the US of A, you worry, will your bags show up?”
Peter, who worked in private banking in Europe and Hong Kong before setting up in Singapore in 2005, is also involved in a chain of wine shops in Singapore, and vineyards in Australia.
On Singapore’s social tensions, he becomes reflective and says: “It’s a new risk that’s worth watching. Is it a big risk? No.” Then reverting to his natural ebullience, he says: “This place has the potential to be Monaco and Luxembourg, and Geneva or even London.”
Friday, October 1, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Corruption and the importance of financial matters
“How could fraud go undetected in a statutory board over a two-year period?”
That’s the common question asked by Yahoo! Fit-To-Post (FTP) users regarding the two senior Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officers who were charged with committing S$11.8 million fraud.
Koh Seah Wee, 40, a deputy director at SLA’s Technology and Infrastructure Department, is facing 249 fraud charges.
Christopher Lim Chai Meng, 37, a manager in the same department, is suspected to have conspired with Koh to cheat SLA.
The pair allegedly rendered false invoices for bogus maintenance contracts in transactions between January 2008 and March 2010, worth S$11.8 million.
Over 130 comments have been left behind by FTP users with the best-rated one by Esther, who wrote, “Yet another case to prove high pay does not guarantee corruption-free leadership.”
Another FTP user Youlahthan also questioned the level of audits and checks in government departments.
“Our government department has so many checks in place and yet such things happened. What’s going on? Have we become too complacent, as to let our guards down? Or have our “elite” become greedy to begin with?” he said.
Lily32sg agreed: “SLA should have a team of audit personnel’s and they are responsible for such failures. The authorities should also check if the entities/vendors that the contracts have been outsourced to have any investments connected to these 2 fellows.”
Another user KRK27 said, “You mean to say SLA auditors just did not notice S$11.8million amiss somewhere? They just go through the bills and invoices and not the physical worksites for inspection.”
News reports say Koh awarded maintenance contracts to various companies and was responsible of approving payments ranging from S$25,000 to S$60,000 without any work being done to fulfil the contracts.
According to The Straits Times, Koh used his “earnings” to buy his wife Yeing Nyok Sea a S$1.6 million Lamborghini and his mum-in-law, Kok A Mui, a $300,000 Mercedes Benz coupe.
He also invested in property at Axis@Siglap along East Coast Terrace, and well as purchased various unit trusts.
The SLA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law. Its mission is to optimise land resources for the economic and social development of the country, ensuring the best use of State land and buildings.
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the SLA and the Ministry of Law said cash and assets worth about $10 million have been located and secured so far.
The two officers were said to have conspired with each other and the business entities involved to enable them to circumvent the checks and balances in the processes.
The Law Ministry set up an independent review panel following the matter in June to look into how the irregularities could have taken place.
The Panel was also asked to recommend improvements to SLA’s systems and processes, some of which have already been implemented.
Disciplinary investigations have also been ordered into the actions of two other officers, whose oversight might have allowed the fraud to go undetected.
That’s the common question asked by Yahoo! Fit-To-Post (FTP) users regarding the two senior Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officers who were charged with committing S$11.8 million fraud.
Koh Seah Wee, 40, a deputy director at SLA’s Technology and Infrastructure Department, is facing 249 fraud charges.
Christopher Lim Chai Meng, 37, a manager in the same department, is suspected to have conspired with Koh to cheat SLA.
The pair allegedly rendered false invoices for bogus maintenance contracts in transactions between January 2008 and March 2010, worth S$11.8 million.
Over 130 comments have been left behind by FTP users with the best-rated one by Esther, who wrote, “Yet another case to prove high pay does not guarantee corruption-free leadership.”
Another FTP user Youlahthan also questioned the level of audits and checks in government departments.
“Our government department has so many checks in place and yet such things happened. What’s going on? Have we become too complacent, as to let our guards down? Or have our “elite” become greedy to begin with?” he said.
Lily32sg agreed: “SLA should have a team of audit personnel’s and they are responsible for such failures. The authorities should also check if the entities/vendors that the contracts have been outsourced to have any investments connected to these 2 fellows.”
Another user KRK27 said, “You mean to say SLA auditors just did not notice S$11.8million amiss somewhere? They just go through the bills and invoices and not the physical worksites for inspection.”
News reports say Koh awarded maintenance contracts to various companies and was responsible of approving payments ranging from S$25,000 to S$60,000 without any work being done to fulfil the contracts.
According to The Straits Times, Koh used his “earnings” to buy his wife Yeing Nyok Sea a S$1.6 million Lamborghini and his mum-in-law, Kok A Mui, a $300,000 Mercedes Benz coupe.
He also invested in property at Axis@Siglap along East Coast Terrace, and well as purchased various unit trusts.
The SLA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law. Its mission is to optimise land resources for the economic and social development of the country, ensuring the best use of State land and buildings.
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the SLA and the Ministry of Law said cash and assets worth about $10 million have been located and secured so far.
The two officers were said to have conspired with each other and the business entities involved to enable them to circumvent the checks and balances in the processes.
The Law Ministry set up an independent review panel following the matter in June to look into how the irregularities could have taken place.
The Panel was also asked to recommend improvements to SLA’s systems and processes, some of which have already been implemented.
Disciplinary investigations have also been ordered into the actions of two other officers, whose oversight might have allowed the fraud to go undetected.
Prosperity in Asia - Strong Econ Fundamentals to avoid freeloaders
The government is making it harder for foreign investors who want to become Singapore Permanent Residents — even if they happen to be wealthy multi-millionaires.
In a bid to better manage the pace of the growth of immigrants, the government has introduced a new set of guidelines under its Global Investor Programme (GIP), which targets wealthy foreign businessmen to set up shop in Singapore.
With effect from this Friday, foreign entrepreneurs applying for the GIP need to have an annual company turnover of $30 million, an increase from the $10 million required under the previous ruling.
Another significant change is the amount that foreign investors need to invest in Singapore.
Currently, GIP applicants must invest a minimum amount of $1 million. But from January next year, the amount will be raised to $2.5 million.
Under the previous rules, those investing at least $2 million can utilize up to half the amount on an owner-occupied private home. That option will no longer be available.
The new guidelines will also exclude the main candidate’s parents and parents-in-law from his or her GIP application for PR status.
The GIP is offered by Contact Singapore, an alliance of the Economic Development Board and the Manpower Ministry. It was started in 2004 to ease the way for foreign entrepeneurs and businessmen to set up and run their business here.
According to The Straits Times, a spokesman for Contact Singapore would not reveal the number of investors who have become PRs through this method.
Although some of those changes will be effective from January next year, all applications are subjected to the new requirements as the average processing time for an application is eight months.
The tougher rules come at a time when the government is tightening the influx of PRs and foreigners into the country.
Those applying for PR and citizenship face more stringent criteria such as a higher income bar and residential requirements to ensure that they can contribute to Singapore economically and also integrate well into society.
And these measures seem to have taken effect.
In 2009, 59,500 foreigners were granted PR status as compared to 79,200 in the year 2008.
The GIP is similar to other government schemes which aim to attract the wealthy by offering PR status. They include the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Financial Investor Scheme, which targets foreigners with a minimum of $20 million in net personal assets.
Other countries such as New Zealand and Australia also offer such schemes.
Still, there is a concern that the new measure would drive away investors.
Mr Leong Wai Ho, senior regional economist at Barclays Capital, told the same paper that the changes would not deter investors from applying for the scheme as most “definitely will have more than that amount to invest”.
However, he noted that “removing the property option might be detrimental for the property market outlook in the near term, but it removes speculative measures”.
Political observer, Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University said that the changes show that the government is addressing the concerns of Singaporeans, especially those who feel that PR status is given away easily.
He said, “In a way, it is raising the bar, and so that helps enhance the talent pool here.”
In a bid to better manage the pace of the growth of immigrants, the government has introduced a new set of guidelines under its Global Investor Programme (GIP), which targets wealthy foreign businessmen to set up shop in Singapore.
With effect from this Friday, foreign entrepreneurs applying for the GIP need to have an annual company turnover of $30 million, an increase from the $10 million required under the previous ruling.
Another significant change is the amount that foreign investors need to invest in Singapore.
Currently, GIP applicants must invest a minimum amount of $1 million. But from January next year, the amount will be raised to $2.5 million.
Under the previous rules, those investing at least $2 million can utilize up to half the amount on an owner-occupied private home. That option will no longer be available.
The new guidelines will also exclude the main candidate’s parents and parents-in-law from his or her GIP application for PR status.
The GIP is offered by Contact Singapore, an alliance of the Economic Development Board and the Manpower Ministry. It was started in 2004 to ease the way for foreign entrepeneurs and businessmen to set up and run their business here.
According to The Straits Times, a spokesman for Contact Singapore would not reveal the number of investors who have become PRs through this method.
Although some of those changes will be effective from January next year, all applications are subjected to the new requirements as the average processing time for an application is eight months.
The tougher rules come at a time when the government is tightening the influx of PRs and foreigners into the country.
Those applying for PR and citizenship face more stringent criteria such as a higher income bar and residential requirements to ensure that they can contribute to Singapore economically and also integrate well into society.
And these measures seem to have taken effect.
In 2009, 59,500 foreigners were granted PR status as compared to 79,200 in the year 2008.
The GIP is similar to other government schemes which aim to attract the wealthy by offering PR status. They include the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Financial Investor Scheme, which targets foreigners with a minimum of $20 million in net personal assets.
Other countries such as New Zealand and Australia also offer such schemes.
Still, there is a concern that the new measure would drive away investors.
Mr Leong Wai Ho, senior regional economist at Barclays Capital, told the same paper that the changes would not deter investors from applying for the scheme as most “definitely will have more than that amount to invest”.
However, he noted that “removing the property option might be detrimental for the property market outlook in the near term, but it removes speculative measures”.
Political observer, Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University said that the changes show that the government is addressing the concerns of Singaporeans, especially those who feel that PR status is given away easily.
He said, “In a way, it is raising the bar, and so that helps enhance the talent pool here.”
Prosperity in Asia
SINGAPORE, Sept 28, 2010 (AFP) – The ranks of Asia-Pacific millionaires are likely to continue growing faster than those from developed countries as regional economies led by China and India power ahead, a report said Tuesday.
The study on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) -- defined as anyone with investable assets of at least one million US dollars -- was issued by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consultancy firm Capgemini.
"Moving forward, China and India will lead the way in the region with economic expansion and HNWI growth likely to keep outpacing more developed economies," the Asia-Pacific Wealth Report said.
It cited figures first released in a global study in June that showed the region's millionaires numbered three million in 2009, up 25.8 percent from the previous year and surpassing that of Europe for the first time.
Also last year, Asia-Pacific millionaires' collective wealth totalled nearly 10 trillion US dollars, which was worth more than the combined riches of their European counterparts for the first time, it said.
"The region holds much promise and is a strategic focus for every wealth management firm with global aspirations," said Wilson So, regional wealth management head at Merrill Lynch.
Australia, China and Japan accounted for 76.1 percent of the region's millionaires and 70 percent of its wealth last year, the report said.
The number of millionaires in Hong Kong rose 104.4 percent in 2009 year on year, the fastest growth in the world.
Their combined wealth also soared 108.9 percent, the biggest jump globally, the report said.
"Wealth accumulation in Hong Kong resumed last year, as its economy and assets benefited from rising investments from China," So said.
In India, the millionaire population and collective wealth rose 51 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in 2009, the report said.
Japan was the single largest HNWI market in the Asia-Pacific last year, accounting for 54.6 percent of the millionaire population and 40.3 percent of the wealth, but the growth was slower compared to other Asian markets.
China remained the second-largest HNWI base in the region, and fourth-largest in the world, with 477,000 millionaires.
"The Asia-Pacific proved to be the most resilient region in the economic crisis," said Bertrand Lavayssière, managing director for global financial services at Capgemini.
"The region's aggregate growth is likely to outpace the world economy in 2010 and 2011, as domestic demand and intra-regional trade help to offset any ongoing weakness in exports to advanced economies."
The study on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) -- defined as anyone with investable assets of at least one million US dollars -- was issued by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consultancy firm Capgemini.
"Moving forward, China and India will lead the way in the region with economic expansion and HNWI growth likely to keep outpacing more developed economies," the Asia-Pacific Wealth Report said.
It cited figures first released in a global study in June that showed the region's millionaires numbered three million in 2009, up 25.8 percent from the previous year and surpassing that of Europe for the first time.
Also last year, Asia-Pacific millionaires' collective wealth totalled nearly 10 trillion US dollars, which was worth more than the combined riches of their European counterparts for the first time, it said.
"The region holds much promise and is a strategic focus for every wealth management firm with global aspirations," said Wilson So, regional wealth management head at Merrill Lynch.
Australia, China and Japan accounted for 76.1 percent of the region's millionaires and 70 percent of its wealth last year, the report said.
The number of millionaires in Hong Kong rose 104.4 percent in 2009 year on year, the fastest growth in the world.
Their combined wealth also soared 108.9 percent, the biggest jump globally, the report said.
"Wealth accumulation in Hong Kong resumed last year, as its economy and assets benefited from rising investments from China," So said.
In India, the millionaire population and collective wealth rose 51 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in 2009, the report said.
Japan was the single largest HNWI market in the Asia-Pacific last year, accounting for 54.6 percent of the millionaire population and 40.3 percent of the wealth, but the growth was slower compared to other Asian markets.
China remained the second-largest HNWI base in the region, and fourth-largest in the world, with 477,000 millionaires.
"The Asia-Pacific proved to be the most resilient region in the economic crisis," said Bertrand Lavayssière, managing director for global financial services at Capgemini.
"The region's aggregate growth is likely to outpace the world economy in 2010 and 2011, as domestic demand and intra-regional trade help to offset any ongoing weakness in exports to advanced economies."
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Slain terror suspect had plan to attack Singapore
Slain terror suspect had plan to attack Singapore
AP Wednesday, July 28, 2010
*
JAKARTA, Indonesia – A slain Indonesian terrorism suspect and associates planned to attack Singapore and a map with one of the city-state's subway stations marked in red was found on his body after he was shot dead, police said Wednesday.
Ahmad Maulana's plot came to light during the interrogation of Abdullah Sunata, Indonesia's most-wanted terror suspect arrested last month in Central Java, said Col. Peter Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism unit.
Golose did not identify a specific target, but said a map of Singapore with a major subway station marked with a red circle and arrow was discovered in a backpack on Maulana's body.
Maulana, who is said to have received training in the southern Philippines, was fatally shot during a police raid in the capital Jakarta in May. He was accused of involvement in a jihadist training camp in Indonesia's Aceh province.
"Maulana has associates in Malaysia and also in Singapore," Golose told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day de-radicalization workshop attended by officials and non-governmental organizations from Singapore and Saudi Arabia. "We are investigating what they have planned ... because Maulana's network still exists."
Maulana's associates are affiliated with the Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, Golose said.
Indonesia has battled Islamist militants with links to Jemaah Islamiyah since 2002, when extremists bombed a nightclub district on Bali island, killing 202 people, mostly foreign tourists.
Authorities previously said Sunata's new network, uncovered in February, had plans to launch a Mumbai-style terrorist assault and kill President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and other high-profile targets during August Independence Day celebrations.
AP Wednesday, July 28, 2010
*
JAKARTA, Indonesia – A slain Indonesian terrorism suspect and associates planned to attack Singapore and a map with one of the city-state's subway stations marked in red was found on his body after he was shot dead, police said Wednesday.
Ahmad Maulana's plot came to light during the interrogation of Abdullah Sunata, Indonesia's most-wanted terror suspect arrested last month in Central Java, said Col. Peter Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism unit.
Golose did not identify a specific target, but said a map of Singapore with a major subway station marked with a red circle and arrow was discovered in a backpack on Maulana's body.
Maulana, who is said to have received training in the southern Philippines, was fatally shot during a police raid in the capital Jakarta in May. He was accused of involvement in a jihadist training camp in Indonesia's Aceh province.
"Maulana has associates in Malaysia and also in Singapore," Golose told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day de-radicalization workshop attended by officials and non-governmental organizations from Singapore and Saudi Arabia. "We are investigating what they have planned ... because Maulana's network still exists."
Maulana's associates are affiliated with the Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, Golose said.
Indonesia has battled Islamist militants with links to Jemaah Islamiyah since 2002, when extremists bombed a nightclub district on Bali island, killing 202 people, mostly foreign tourists.
Authorities previously said Sunata's new network, uncovered in February, had plans to launch a Mumbai-style terrorist assault and kill President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and other high-profile targets during August Independence Day celebrations.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
America's Immigration Success Story Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
America's Immigration Success Story
Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
Debates about American immigration policy focus on how we should control our borders and what we should do about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working throughout the country. But the debate really reflects Americans' deep fears about the long-term integration of the more than 30 million immigrants who have arrived on our shores since we liberalized our immigration laws in 1965.
Some worry about whether English is endangered as our national language. Others claim that poor immigrants tax our welfare and health care systems. Some question whether immigrants will become loyal and patriotic Americans. All focus on what will happen in the future--about what will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's newcomers.
On that subject, comparing these newcomers with Europe's second-generation immigrants shows that America is doing a lot that is right. The riots in French cities, the home-grown second-generation terrorists in Britain and the dismal employment and education statistics for the second generation in Germany all contrast sharply with the latest research on the successful integration of the second generation in the U.S.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
In the New York Second Generation Study we surveyed a large group of second-generation young adults in New York City whose parents had come from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Russia. We found impressive educational and occupational mobility. While most of the immigrant parents had low-level "immigrant jobs," their adult children all resembled other New Yorkers their age much more than they resembled their parents. And they all had high school and college graduation rates higher than native New Yorkers of the same racial backgrounds.
Dominicans had higher educational outcomes than Puerto Ricans, West Indians did better than native blacks and the Chinese surpassed every other group in the city, including native whites. In national studies these patterns of social mobility hold for a wide variety of groups. And despite the urgent fears of many Americans about the place of English as our national language, all the research shows rapid language assimilation--the second generation is overwhelmingly fluent in English and the third generation speaks only English.
An emerging consensus in the research on the second generation reaches an optimistic conclusion on both social and economic integration. This is good news for all of us, since one out of every five children under the age of 18 today is a child of an immigrant
Why is the second generation doing so much better in the U.S. than in Europe? It is not because we have better official integration policies. In fact the U.S. does not have a government program of integration and multiculturalism, as many other nations do. Our success is because of several distinct American advantages.
First, our birthright citizenship laws mean that the children of immigrants who are born in America are automatically citizens, fully accepted with all the same rights and responsibilities as the native born. In many European countries there are people whose parents or even grandparents were the original immigrants, who may never have visited the country their ancestors came from, but who are still considered "foreigners."
Second, unlike many European countries our educational system is more flexible, less rigidly tracked, and allows more "second chances" for the children of immigrants to succeed academically even if they start school with English language deficits or other disadvantages owing to their parents immigrant status.
Third, our work laws and economy encourage legal immigrants to enter the labor market and begin economic integration immediately. Many European countries have barriers to employment for immigrants, which make them dependent on the welfare state and engender much native-born resentment against immigrants and their children.
Finally, our civil rights laws and practices, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation, while designed to redress injustices suffered by African-Americans, are benefiting many children of immigrants who are black or Hispanic and thus qualify for inclusion in diversity initiatives in universities and corporate workplaces.
On the whole, America is reaping the benefits of our immigrant-friendly economic and civic structure. But while Western Europe has a lot to learn from the U.S. on the subject of immigration there is one area in which the U.S. would do well to learn a lesson from across the Atlantic.
Many of the inclusive practices and policies outlined above do not apply to undocumented immigrants and their children who live among us, work in our fields and factories and struggle to raise their families in the shadows of illegality. The estrangement evident among the European second generation who do not feel fully included in their own societies could characterize the children of undocumented immigrants, especially those who were born abroad and face severely blocked chances for higher education and employment.
To make matters worse, misguided congressmen have routinely introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on our soil--a change that has heretofore correctly been rejected by lawmakers. One only has to look to Germany or Switzerland to see that denying birthright citizenship does not cause immigrants or their children to return to their country of origin, but it does cause anger, disengagement and long-term resentment.
America needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants and their children are not leaving anytime soon. Including these immigrants and their children as equals in our economy and our society will have long-run positive benefits for them and ultimately for all of us.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
Mary C. Waters is M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University and the co-editor of The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007.
Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
Debates about American immigration policy focus on how we should control our borders and what we should do about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working throughout the country. But the debate really reflects Americans' deep fears about the long-term integration of the more than 30 million immigrants who have arrived on our shores since we liberalized our immigration laws in 1965.
Some worry about whether English is endangered as our national language. Others claim that poor immigrants tax our welfare and health care systems. Some question whether immigrants will become loyal and patriotic Americans. All focus on what will happen in the future--about what will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's newcomers.
On that subject, comparing these newcomers with Europe's second-generation immigrants shows that America is doing a lot that is right. The riots in French cities, the home-grown second-generation terrorists in Britain and the dismal employment and education statistics for the second generation in Germany all contrast sharply with the latest research on the successful integration of the second generation in the U.S.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
In the New York Second Generation Study we surveyed a large group of second-generation young adults in New York City whose parents had come from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Russia. We found impressive educational and occupational mobility. While most of the immigrant parents had low-level "immigrant jobs," their adult children all resembled other New Yorkers their age much more than they resembled their parents. And they all had high school and college graduation rates higher than native New Yorkers of the same racial backgrounds.
Dominicans had higher educational outcomes than Puerto Ricans, West Indians did better than native blacks and the Chinese surpassed every other group in the city, including native whites. In national studies these patterns of social mobility hold for a wide variety of groups. And despite the urgent fears of many Americans about the place of English as our national language, all the research shows rapid language assimilation--the second generation is overwhelmingly fluent in English and the third generation speaks only English.
An emerging consensus in the research on the second generation reaches an optimistic conclusion on both social and economic integration. This is good news for all of us, since one out of every five children under the age of 18 today is a child of an immigrant
Why is the second generation doing so much better in the U.S. than in Europe? It is not because we have better official integration policies. In fact the U.S. does not have a government program of integration and multiculturalism, as many other nations do. Our success is because of several distinct American advantages.
First, our birthright citizenship laws mean that the children of immigrants who are born in America are automatically citizens, fully accepted with all the same rights and responsibilities as the native born. In many European countries there are people whose parents or even grandparents were the original immigrants, who may never have visited the country their ancestors came from, but who are still considered "foreigners."
Second, unlike many European countries our educational system is more flexible, less rigidly tracked, and allows more "second chances" for the children of immigrants to succeed academically even if they start school with English language deficits or other disadvantages owing to their parents immigrant status.
Third, our work laws and economy encourage legal immigrants to enter the labor market and begin economic integration immediately. Many European countries have barriers to employment for immigrants, which make them dependent on the welfare state and engender much native-born resentment against immigrants and their children.
Finally, our civil rights laws and practices, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation, while designed to redress injustices suffered by African-Americans, are benefiting many children of immigrants who are black or Hispanic and thus qualify for inclusion in diversity initiatives in universities and corporate workplaces.
On the whole, America is reaping the benefits of our immigrant-friendly economic and civic structure. But while Western Europe has a lot to learn from the U.S. on the subject of immigration there is one area in which the U.S. would do well to learn a lesson from across the Atlantic.
Many of the inclusive practices and policies outlined above do not apply to undocumented immigrants and their children who live among us, work in our fields and factories and struggle to raise their families in the shadows of illegality. The estrangement evident among the European second generation who do not feel fully included in their own societies could characterize the children of undocumented immigrants, especially those who were born abroad and face severely blocked chances for higher education and employment.
To make matters worse, misguided congressmen have routinely introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on our soil--a change that has heretofore correctly been rejected by lawmakers. One only has to look to Germany or Switzerland to see that denying birthright citizenship does not cause immigrants or their children to return to their country of origin, but it does cause anger, disengagement and long-term resentment.
America needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants and their children are not leaving anytime soon. Including these immigrants and their children as equals in our economy and our society will have long-run positive benefits for them and ultimately for all of us.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
Mary C. Waters is M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University and the co-editor of The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, April 8Send IM Story Print
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
SINGAPORE: It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder — his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50—year—old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full—time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".
While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father’s lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically—competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father’s costly legal battles, he recently told Loh Chee Kong that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.
’I’ve got nothing to hide’
Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?
My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father’s legacy is not really an issue any more because I’m seen as my own man.
When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how’s it going?" People do come up and approach me now.
You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?
I’m ready for any scrutiny — I’ve got nothing to hide. Obviously, it’s an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we’ve been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.
One of the things I’m concerned about is that we don’t put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.
You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?
Let’s get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn’t get a job here.
I had a "double first" (first—class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 — which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament — I wanted to return to Singapore.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.
Anyway, I’m not here to whine. I’ve succeeded in London. I’ve built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.
People find me approachable, proactive, capable — even though some people say I speak with an English accent.
’The party was in a bad state’
It’s been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?
When I was elected as secretary—general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...
But since then, the responses I’ve gotten have been much more than I expected. We’ve definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you’ve got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.
With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?
We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house—to—house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low—income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven’t been elections there for 20 years.
We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament — that we need to move towards a two—party system.
Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?
There’s a conflict of interest in the Government’s role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We’ve said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low—cost housing.
I don’t think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.
If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full—time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?
I’m already a full—time politician and I’ll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party’s objective should be to get to be the government and that’s what I’ll be working for.
The PAP may be against the two—party system but it’s inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one—party system is not corruption — at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt — but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".
’We are fairly united’
What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?
You can’t force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That’s the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) — it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.
We don’t all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.
If you team up with the SDA’s Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn’t you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?
Mr Chiam is much—loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.
Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government — which is something the Reform Party has also said.
I can’t comment on our election strategy. It’s completely shocking that we haven’t seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.
What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?
I hope that I’ll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics — I hope that doesn’t sound too arrogant — and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear.
The writer is a freelance correspondent.
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
SINGAPORE: It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder — his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50—year—old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full—time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".
While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father’s lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically—competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father’s costly legal battles, he recently told Loh Chee Kong that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.
’I’ve got nothing to hide’
Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?
My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father’s legacy is not really an issue any more because I’m seen as my own man.
When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how’s it going?" People do come up and approach me now.
You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?
I’m ready for any scrutiny — I’ve got nothing to hide. Obviously, it’s an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we’ve been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.
One of the things I’m concerned about is that we don’t put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.
You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?
Let’s get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn’t get a job here.
I had a "double first" (first—class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 — which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament — I wanted to return to Singapore.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.
Anyway, I’m not here to whine. I’ve succeeded in London. I’ve built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.
People find me approachable, proactive, capable — even though some people say I speak with an English accent.
’The party was in a bad state’
It’s been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?
When I was elected as secretary—general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...
But since then, the responses I’ve gotten have been much more than I expected. We’ve definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you’ve got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.
With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?
We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house—to—house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low—income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven’t been elections there for 20 years.
We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament — that we need to move towards a two—party system.
Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?
There’s a conflict of interest in the Government’s role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We’ve said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low—cost housing.
I don’t think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.
If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full—time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?
I’m already a full—time politician and I’ll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party’s objective should be to get to be the government and that’s what I’ll be working for.
The PAP may be against the two—party system but it’s inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one—party system is not corruption — at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt — but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".
’We are fairly united’
What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?
You can’t force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That’s the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) — it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.
We don’t all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.
If you team up with the SDA’s Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn’t you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?
Mr Chiam is much—loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.
Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government — which is something the Reform Party has also said.
I can’t comment on our election strategy. It’s completely shocking that we haven’t seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.
What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?
I hope that I’ll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics — I hope that doesn’t sound too arrogant — and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear.
The writer is a freelance correspondent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)