Eldon-Online

News, And Other Snooping Around ... At Any Cost?

One of my favourite phrases on the subject of integrity, particularly when confronted with those apparently "grey areas" common in Asia where, what constitutes Western morals and practice is merely seen as a "pay as you go" system, is "there is no right way to do the wrong thing!" Not sure where I stole it from in the first place, but I think a friend got it from a Toby Keith country song called "Ain't No Right Way".  

When I started to think about this piece, I also stumbled across another appropriate phrase - this time from a highly respected journalist (now yet another oxymoron) called Ed Murrow who said "We cannot make good news out of bad practice". Quite! Pity the Murdoch's didn't see that one!

I think enough has been said by just about everyone on the subject of the Murdoch family and all their associates, and this is one that is likely to run and run. Mind you, other tabloids might keep the pressure up, just to try and hope that no one looks too carefully at their own practices. I think there may be a few skeletons in a few cupboards. So, no more from me on that issue, but you know what? Around the time these particular bits of nasty news were hitting the fan, I had occasion to look into a related subject.

And I got an unpleasant surprise.

A friend had remarked that their young teenage son's mobile phone had been left at home one evening, and it was buzzing away merrily in his absence. Closer inspection revealed that the buzzing was related to a live ongoing exchange of messages between a couple of other children - without the intervention of their own son. Still with me? So, how was their son picking up the messages? Spyware? Or had he merely been involved in the earlier exchange and not logged off. In this particular case, I never discovered. Parents didn't want to reveal to their son that they had been snooping on his mobile, and the matter rests - unexplained.

But as my curiosity had been piqued, I went off to see how easy it would be for an amateur to spy on someone else; not a highly trained expert employed by the media.

I found the opening lines of an advertisement that read "Do you suspect your child or employee is abusing their SMS"? It goes on "If you're worried that your children or employees are using smartphones inappropriately, then ********** *** is just for you. SMS (text messaging) has become a popular way for people to communicate. Are your kids involved with texting dangers? What are they secretly texting about? Are they visiting porn sites on the phone? You have the right to know" (The asterisks cover the name of the company - they can do their own advertising!)

For a mere USD130 - say HK$1000, you can spy on your kids, your spouse, your domestic helper, your employees...

And from another company, a top of the range spy kit coming in at USD350 promises "...One of the real cool features of ********, is the ability to track the location of the target phone. Using this feature, you'll know the EXACT location of the cell phone in real time."

And if you are the target - you have no idea that it is there.

In George Orwell's book 1984, one of the features is the pervasive surveillance undertaken by the State. No place to hide, most of the time. So, it seems, although we have taken a little longer to get there, we are entering an era where if you want private information you do not any more have to employ the services of a slightly seedy looking private eye with an old raincoat, a battered camera, and an ability to hide round corners. You just bug the phone. At a fraction of the cost.

And if this is available to the public, Governments must have had it a long time ago. And it is a technology that is going to become less, not more, expensive.

So, before you pack your suitcase for that naughty little liaison somewhere you shouldn't be, just check your mobile phone! Big Brother - or someone even MORE formidable - might just be watching.

 

An Own Goal For Singapore?

I recall a former Chairman of mine saying to me once “You know, every time I praise someone, the next thing I know is they've done something silly”. In this case actually it was me he was telling off - and yes, I deserved it! Fresh from the glow of having been commended for successfully completing a particularly complex piece of work, I let a stupid thing happen right under my nose a week later.

Not that I can imagine Singapore “basking” in the positive report I gave them two weeks ago - why should they care - (and okay, I was probably prodding Hong Kong as much as praising Singapore) but did they honestly think their declaration made last week, that Temasek was going to sell stakes in two Chinese banks and an Indonesian one, was going to go unnoticed? This was all an act of re-balancing their portfolio, they said. Hmm; really?

There is a growing body of opinion that says Chinese bank loans are actually not in as good a shape as they would like us to believe. And you can imagine why. The funds made available by the banks under the stimulus package of the last three years found their way largely into the rural areas and, it seems, local government pockets. (By the way, I am not suggesting here that the funds have gone into individual pockets; that, of course, remains to be seen!). Anyway, neither set of borrowers - rural communities/local governments - have a strong repayment record. So, while official statistics suggest that non-performing loans as a percentage of total loans has declined - which would happen naturally as new loans were granted, the records show that the absolute value of non- performing loans has also reduced. Well, when you think about it that's not unusual either, as they would naturally reduce as loan recoveries were made (maybe partly from the new money), plus some natural repayments. And the new loans have not yet been classified as bad.

On the surface then - all is well. But if the general opinions are correct, is the Singapore "“re-balancing” not just an attempt to get their money out of harms way before the nasty stuff hits the fan?

Ah no, they say. This is a general re-balancing, and just to prove it we are selling our stake in Bank Danamon in Indonesia. It is not just China. Okay, true, but I imagine that Bank Danamon could be an attractive purchase for someone wanting a foothold in Indonesia. The Singapore stake is a controlling one, which adds to the attraction. Thus two birds with one stone - get out of some potentially difficult investments in China if the NPLs get really bad, and get a decent return from the sale of an investment in a bank in Indonesia.

But here's a devious thought. The last I heard Singapore was very keen to become, like Hong Kong, a Renminbi clearing centre. It would enhance their standing as a Global Financial Centre and continue the perception that they are moving forwards while Hong Kong stagnates. But if you were China, and you thought someone was displaying a lack of confidence for the future of your country by selling stakes in your banks, would you give them what they wanted elsewhere? A bit too much like having your cake and eating it too!

I will need a lot more convincing that this sale of financial interests is genuinely how it is portrayed, and not just a ploy to get rid of some potentially damaging investments. If the real reason is the latter, then be brave and open about it - others might benefit from your wisdom? If, on the other hand it is a genuine re-balancing of the portfolio, then one message you are sending is a lack of confidence in the banking sector in certain countries - because you can always re-balance by acquiring additional, and different, assets. Either way, I am not sure that RMB clearing centres will be a feature of Singapore's product offering in the immediate future.

One For The Road

"Responsible Drinking? Now that's an Oxymoron" (Aaron Howard).

A conclusion, it would seem, arrived at recently by that wonderful college of serial nutcases, the Royal College of Psychiatrists who have determined that people who have successfully navigated life to the age of 65 are now miraculously incapable of deciding whether or not to have an alcoholic drink and need to be closely monitored.

Frankly, I have met only a few psychiatrists (well, qualified ones) in my life and as a result I have generally formed a rather "distrustful" opinion of them. One was absolutely an alcoholic and I did worry about his patients, and another was barking mad - at least away from his professional life, which was perhaps a release! Now, however, the Royal College has said Britain suffers from a generation of "Invisible Addicts" - (booze and drugs, it seems), and that once people hit 65 years of age they should be subject to routine alcohol and drug tests. 

Their recommendations suggest that men (and sorry ladies, you get less) should consume no more than one and half units of alcohol a day. Given that a standard large glass of wine is two units of alcohol, that means if enforced in Hong Kong the revenue of certain exclusive Clubs with a slightly older members profile would go downhill very rapidly!! I suspect too, that so would some of the members!

And I accused Hong Kong of being a "nanny state" when they assumed that people here were incapable of reading ingredients on food labels, and introduced a whole series of rules that has removed certain well known foods - sold freely in developed countries whose inhabitants can presumably read better than we can - from our shelves. But I digress.

But why am I so exercised about the UK pronouncement? I am not, after all, a large consumer of alcohol at the best of times and can equally happily take it or leave it. No - it is the "age" thing. As a man of a certain age, I have a particular interest in pronouncements that suggest I, (and others of my vintage), am incapable of making up my own mind. Of course, there are people less fortunate than us who probably do need looking after at an earlier age, but do we need to make "testing" a catch all?

I would be less vigorous in my defence of certain age-related issues if, for example, there was a suggestion that people at the age of 75 or over were required (as I believe they are in certain countries - even earlier), to pass a basic driving test on a regular basis - rather than merely certifying that they can still see objects 10 metres ahead (is that with, or without, one and a half units of alcohol?). But that sort of issue, to me, is more common sense.

But don't get me wrong. Of course there are reasons that lead people to drink more when they are bored and if retirement, for some, means sitting in a chair day in and day out in front of a television they might indeed resort to drink. And they might require to be watched - but then I assume the results of the regular testing would be advisory only and would not lead to a judge's "banning order" so that Mr Smith is "hereby sentenced to a court order banning him from the consumption of alcohol". What's the point?

That aside, it seems to me that there are some opportunities here. First of all, keep people active for longer as some countries are trying to do, by raising the retirement age. Encourage healthy exercise for the older generation. Yes, there are some communities that do that - but not all of them make it attractive. Can't it be done?

And perhaps there is a market for the development of drinks that are non-alcoholic and taste good to adults. Don't you think that advertisers glamourise alcohol? Nice bottles, good labeling, advertising, whereas soft drinks are often ordinary, with a boring lack of variety, either very sweet or diet (nothing much in between), aimed at a non-alcohol drinking age group, rather than a discerning older group? Have you tasted raw carrot juice? It doesn't even look nice. (Innocent Drinks excepted perhaps - if you like that sort of thing).

Investment proposals in a sealed brown envelope please!

Message for the Royal College of Psychiatrists? Not all 65 year old people are incapable (yet!) of making up their own mind, and as I head off for lunch with my non-drinking elderly Mother who actually gave up alcohol - one gin and tonic a day - of her own volition at the age of 88, I will enjoy a glass of wine (a large one - two units) - just out of spite!