Latest Posts By pharoah88
- Supreme
About pharoah88
|
|
| 11-Sep-2010 19:58 |
User Research/Opinions
/
^ Productivity ^ [Effecacy Efficiency Economy]
 Go to Message
|
||||
 x 0
 x 0
|
Where 80,000 foreign workers INtake could go SINGAPORE But in a bouyant economy, the foreign workers could also be getting more options now, including jobs in frontline services. Singaporeans have raised their expectations and are holding out for plum positions in view of the strong economic growth this year, some recruiters told MediaCorp. SpringField Consulting senior recruitment manager Esther Ho told MediaCorp: “Singaporeans believe we’re doing very well, and it’s an employees’ market. So they’r willing to wait.” The firm has many positions available but locals are not inclined to take up entry-level jobs, she said. This includes frontline positions such as receptionists or customer service officers. The firm sees many foreigners applying instead. However, she pointed out, foreigners may not get the job as many companies “are not willing to consider hiring them due to quota and employment pass issues”. Last month, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during his National Day Rally speech that 80,000 foreign workers would enter Singapore’s workforce this year, a downward revision of the 100,000 he estimated in July. Most recruiters who spoke to MediaCorp said that foreign workers will continue to work predominantly in the manufacturing and construction industry, where the quotas are more relaxed. 1S staffing services manger Frankie Ng noted there are more construction projects now, while Manpower Staffing Services Singapore country manager Peter Haglund said the hospitality, service and construction industries continue to face a shortage of Singaporean workers. There is also demand for skilled foreign talent in the IT, telecommunications and logistics industries, said Adecco Southeast Asia’s regional director Lynne Ng. Said Mr Haglund: “Generally, the gaps or positions that are needed to be filled by foreign workers are jobs that require manual labour such as in the services and construction industries.” Still, Mr Ng wonderd if the 80,000 expected inflow had accounted for foreign workers leaving Singapore. “When the IR projects are completed you’ll have a very big group of workers stranded,” he said. “So many will be sent back unless they can find alternatives in Singapore.” When asked where the 80,000 workers were neededof Manpower spokesperson said it “takes into consideration the global and regional economic outlook, as well as Singapore’s 2010 economic growth projection and labour market conditions, to give a broad estimate of the possible growth of the foreign workforce this year”. , a Ministry — The 80,000 foreign workers expected to enter Singapore’s workforce this year will continue to take on jobs locals shun, such as in construction and shipping, according to employment agencies.Alicia Wong |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:38 |
User Research/Opinions
/
^ Productivity ^ [Effecacy Efficiency Economy]
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Whither the S’pore Spirit? Tang Li When my girlfriend told me she was thinking of taking her three year-old out of childcare because he was hitting people, my first reaction was:www.openlaw.com, a gathering of small law firms who have decided to pool their resources. “Don’t! If he’s acting like a playground bully, the other kids will find a way of sorting him out — he’s going to run into someone who hits back.” Her reply was an emphatic “no”. I love her little boy dearly and I am troubled by his behaviour. However, I am even more troubled by the fact that none of the other children have hit back. The only way to put a bully in his place is to stand up to him and, much as I don’t want to advocate violence on the playground, I am troubled by this because it seems to me that our children have lost that instinct to stand up for themselves. This instinct to stand up for oneself is part of the Singapore Spirit that the Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally Speech on Aug 29. When we were ejected from the Malaysian Federation, we were a tiny defenceless island and a tempting target for potential bullies. The government led by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew decided we should show the world that we were no pushovers. Today, Singapore is a thriving economic hub with enough military muscle to make potential aggressors think twice about taking us on. We are a nation that has done so much by sticking up for ourselves, yet we have children who do not have the instinct to defend themselves. This past year, I’ve read about parents calling in the police to investigate a scuffle on the rugby pitch, and calls for an investigation into university orientation practices when three students got a few scratches. Have we reached the stage that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee once warned us against — asking the Government to “provide soul and to think for us”? Singapore has been blessed with decent leadership. However, we have to realise that we are now living in a more complicated world where the Government cannot provide all the answers. As such, we need to encourage people who stand up for themselves. Small enterprises need to cooperate to take on larger ones, like in the case of Being open to such experimentation allows us to get better solutions to tomorrow’s problems. The Singapore Spirit built our society and will build it for the future. It’s time we let it flow again. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:36 |
User Research/Opinions
/
<*> Free And Free <*><*><*> Pay And Pay <*>
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Whither the S’pore Spirit? Tang Li When my girlfriend told me she was thinking of taking her three year-old out of childcare because he was hitting people, my first reaction was:www.openlaw.com, a gathering of small law firms who have decided to pool their resources. “Don’t! If he’s acting like a playground bully, the other kids will find a way of sorting him out — he’s going to run into someone who hits back.” Her reply was an emphatic “no”. I love her little boy dearly and I am troubled by his behaviour. However, I am even more troubled by the fact that none of the other children have hit back. The only way to put a bully in his place is to stand up to him and, much as I don’t want to advocate violence on the playground, I am troubled by this because it seems to me that our children have lost that instinct to stand up for themselves. This instinct to stand up for oneself is part of the Singapore Spirit that the Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally Speech on Aug 29. When we were ejected from the Malaysian Federation, we were a tiny defenceless island and a tempting target for potential bullies. The government led by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew decided we should show the world that we were no pushovers. Today, Singapore is a thriving economic hub with enough military muscle to make potential aggressors think twice about taking us on. We are a nation that has done so much by sticking up for ourselves, yet we have children who do not have the instinct to defend themselves. This past year, I’ve read about parents calling in the police to investigate a scuffle on the rugby pitch, and calls for an investigation into university orientation practices when three students got a few scratches. Have we reached the stage that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee once warned us against — asking the Government to “provide soul and to think for us”? Singapore has been blessed with decent leadership. However, we have to realise that we are now living in a more complicated world where the Government cannot provide all the answers. As such, we need to encourage people who stand up for themselves. Small enterprises need to cooperate to take on larger ones, like in the case of Being open to such experimentation allows us to get better solutions to tomorrow’s problems. The Singapore Spirit built our society and will build it for the future. It’s time we let it flow again. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:34 |
User Research/Opinions
/
&&&&&&&& PROFITS & PHILANTHROPHY &&&&&&&&
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Whither the S’pore Spirit? Tang Li When my girlfriend told me she was thinking of taking her three year-old out of childcare because he was hitting people, my first reaction was:www.openlaw.com, a gathering of small law firms who have decided to pool their resources. “Don’t! If he’s acting like a playground bully, the other kids will find a way of sorting him out — he’s going to run into someone who hits back.” Her reply was an emphatic “no”. I love her little boy dearly and I am troubled by his behaviour. However, I am even more troubled by the fact that none of the other children have hit back. The only way to put a bully in his place is to stand up to him and, much as I don’t want to advocate violence on the playground, I am troubled by this because it seems to me that our children have lost that instinct to stand up for themselves. This instinct to stand up for oneself is part of the Singapore Spirit that the Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally Speech on Aug 29. When we were ejected from the Malaysian Federation, we were a tiny defenceless island and a tempting target for potential bullies. The government led by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew decided we should show the world that we were no pushovers. Today, Singapore is a thriving economic hub with enough military muscle to make potential aggressors think twice about taking us on. We are a nation that has done so much by sticking up for ourselves, yet we have children who do not have the instinct to defend themselves. This past year, I’ve read about parents calling in the police to investigate a scuffle on the rugby pitch, and calls for an investigation into university orientation practices when three students got a few scratches. Have we reached the stage that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee once warned us against — asking the Government to “provide soul and to think for us”? Singapore has been blessed with decent leadership. However, we have to realise that we are now living in a more complicated world where the Government cannot provide all the answers. As such, we need to encourage people who stand up for themselves. Small enterprises need to cooperate to take on larger ones, like in the case of Being open to such experimentation allows us to get better solutions to tomorrow’s problems. The Singapore Spirit built our society and will build it for the future. It’s time we let it flow again. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:16 |
Others
/
TRADE FREELY & LiVE LONGER
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
kIngmaker Is ObjectIve makes Other kIng gOdactOr Is sUbjectIve acts Ownself gOd |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:06 |
Others
/
TRADE FREELY & LiVE LONGER
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
kItchen gOd |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 19:04 |
User Research/Opinions
/
<*> Free And Free <*><*><*> Pay And Pay <*>
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Raise levy, nOt stOp FREE buses
Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature.
For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets.
Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations?
So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services?
It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs.
The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service.
It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough.
Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not.
Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion?
But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing?
Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city.
The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.
This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive.
The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go.
Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service?
If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space.
The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:58 |
User Research/Opinions
/
&&&&&&&& PROFITS & PHILANTHROPHY &&&&&&&&
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Raise levy, nOt stOp FREE buses
Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature.
For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets.
Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations?
So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services?
It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs.
The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service.
It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough.
Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not.
Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion?
But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing?
Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city.
The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.
This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive.
The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go.
Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service?
If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space.
The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:56 |
User Research/Opinions
/
~~~~ CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ~~~~
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Raise levy, nOt stOp FREE buses
Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature.
For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets.
Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations?
So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services?
It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs.
The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service.
It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough.
Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not.
Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion?
But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing?
Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city.
The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.
This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive.
The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go.
Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service?
If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space.
The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:54 |
Genting Sing
/
GenSp starts to move up again
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
H E A R D : TRI-PARTITE DECISION ? ? ? ? BEST SOLUTION ? ? ? ? LOGICAL OPEN FAIR JUST TRANSPARENT ? ? ? ?
|
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:51 |
Genting Sing
/
GenSp starts to move up again
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Raise levy, nOt stOp free buses Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature. For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets. Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations? So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services? It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs. The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service. It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough. Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not. Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion? But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing? Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city. The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services.
This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive. The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go. Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service? If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space. The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway.
|
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:49 |
User Research/Opinions
/
^ Productivity ^ [Effecacy Efficiency Economy]
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Raise levy, nOt stOp free buses Why deprive non-gambling patrons? Letter from Quek Soo Beng ONE of the Government’s rationales for granting licences to the two gaming operators was that they would build integrated resorts where the majority of amenities and services would be non-gaming in nature. For example, Resorts World Sentosa has the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets. Aren’t the IRs multiple-service destinations? So why the hang-up about Singaporeans enjoying the free shuttle bus services? It was reported that the majority of bus passengers surveyed were heading not to the casinos but the other amenities within, and even without, the IRs. The shuttle bus is an excellent customer service. It seems illogical to contend that the prospect of saving a couple of dollars in bus fare would induce a significant number of people to patronise the casinos considering that a hefty $100 entry fee is still payable. If more gamblers do use the bus service, the pertinent question then is whether the entry levy is high enough. Gamblers intent on getting to the casino will do so, free shuttle bus or not. Why then deprive the non-gambling majority of the transport privileges just because some think it is politically correct to “appease” public opinion? But who exactly is the prohibition of shuttle bus services appeasing? Surely not the IR customers or people enjoying the free rides to and from the city. The authorities should not interfere with FREE enterprise efforts to enhance customer service. It is good news if more shopping malls, cinemas, clubs and restaurants start to provide similar complimentary services. This wOn’t stOp gamblers Letter from Raymund Koh Joo Guan I REFER to “RWS withdraws heartland shuttle buses” (Sept 10). There are those who claim the free shuttle service will lure gamblers to the gaming tables. How naive. The fact that Singaporeans are already paying $100 for a return trip to Genting Highlands is an example of how far gamblers will go. Do the authorities think that gamblers will not go to the casinos without the shuttle service? If I were one, I would just take a taxi there. There would be no need to wait for the bus or to look for parking space. The free shuttle not only brings business to the integrated resorts, it also caters to poorer families [SMRT bus fare UNaffOrdable] and reduces congestion at the Sentosa Gateway. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:37 |
User Research/Opinions
/
^ Productivity ^ [Effecacy Efficiency Economy]
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
Regulatory council for educational the-rapists needed as well Letter from Dr Noel Chia Kok Hwee Passing the Bill will give the proposed Allied Health Professions Council as a regulatory body the mandatory power to oversee therapists’ conduct and practice, discipline errant therapists, maintain a register of qualified therapists, and accredit training programmes and providers. Such a proposal is long overdue. While the council will focus on physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech-language therapists first, other allied health professionals such as dental therapists, radiotherapists, podiatrists and clinical psychologists should also be included later. However, we must not forget also the need to consider a similar Bill for the allied education professionals such as educational therapists, special needs therapists, special education teachers and allied educators. This is more so for educational therapists who also happen to fall in between allied health and allied education professions. Educational therapy offers individuals with learning and behavioural challenges a wide range of intensive, individualised interventions designed to remediate or cope with learning and behavioural difficulties. It also demystifies learning and behavioural problems and raises clients’ awareness of their strengths so they can use those strengths to best advantage to overcome or compensate for areas of weakness. Educational therapists create and implement an intervention programme that utilises information from a variety of sources including the client’s social-cultural, emotional, psycho-educational and neuro-psychological context. There are more and more people in the allied education field calling themselves educational therapists and claiming to be able to provide learning and behaviour support services to individuals with such special needs. However, many of them are either not properly trained or poorly equipped to provide quality professional services. In the United States, educational therapists are highly trained and qualified professionals registered with the Association of Educational Therapists. This professional body sets stringent criteria to ensure its members have undergone thorough postgraduate and/or specialised professional training to meet the practice standard and conduct. We need a similar professional body or, better still, an Allied Education Professional Council like the one that has been proposed for allied health professionals by the Health Ministry. WITH reference to the report “Errant therapists may not be a pain any more” (Sept 9), the Health Ministry and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan should be applauded for the effort to push for the Allied Health Professions Bill to be approved by Parliament. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:28 |
All-S Equities Prop
/
[][][]PROPERTY[][][] City Dev+ CapitaLand+ KepLand
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
The great Carrefour bunfight When a dozen customers are jostling at the till trying to buy the same packet of cornflakes it probably means the price is too low. Supermarket chain’s South-east Asian sell-off defies growth potential
When a dozen companies are scrambling to buy the supermarket, it probably means someone is selling an asset they ought to be holding onto. This is the message from an extraordinary corporate bunfight going on in Southeast Asia, where Carrefour, the world’s second-biggest retailer, has attracted a field of significantly more than 10 bidders for the sale of 61 supermarkets in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. The bidding frenzy raises a number of questions, not least why Mr Lars Olofsson, Carrefour’s relatively new chief executive, is so keen to bale out of a region in which the company invested US$150 million only three years ago. Mr Olofsson has said little, hinting only that he wants to concentrate on markets where Carrefour is either the market leader or a strong contender to become so. That would include China, where the group is a leading foreign presence, but not South-east Asia. Yet Carrefour is woefully under-represented in the world’s fastest growing region, with only 7.8 per cent of consolidated net sales in Asia compared with 79 per cent in Europe. The Asian proportion will decline further with the sale of the South-east Asian stores, which account for 15 per cent of regional sales. This seems an odd way to improve the company’s growth prospects — a point that Mr Olofsson recognised when he coupled the announcement of disappointing first half results with enthusiastic talk of opening stores in Russia and India. It is hard to see the logic of simultaneously pulling out of one part of Asia and starting from scratch in another, except as a way of defusing pressure for better short-term results from big shareholders such as Mr Bernard Arnault, chairman of LVMH, and Mr Thomas Barrack, chairman of Colony Capital, the private equity group in the United States. To that extent, the strategy might work. But Mr Olofsson’s critics might be less impressed if they considered the scale of the opportunity that Carrefour is handing to someone else. Like most of Asia excluding Japan, South-east Asia has returned to blistering economic growth after a short downturn. Thailand has reported year-on-year growth in gross domestic product of 9.1 per cent for the second quarter, following 8.9 per cent in Malaysia and 17.9 per cent in Singapore. The Asian Development Bank is forecasting 8.1 per cent for emerging east Asia as a whole this year and 7.2 per cent next year. The International Monetary Fund is projecting GDP growth in the advanced economies of only 2.6 per cent this year and 2.4 per cent the following year. But it is not just the background environment that contrasts so sharply with Carrefour’s European base. Beneath the headline figures, Asia’s renewed growth is being driven by two fundamental changes that point to above average prospects for retailers. The first is that the recovery largely reflects a big rise in domestic consumption, marking a significant departure from the traditional export-driven model. This shows up strongly in retail sales, currently rising at about 15 per cent year on year — double the pre-crisis rate, according to HSBC’s Asian Real Retail Index. The signs are everywhere — from the iPhone4 selling like hot cakes in Hanoi to the glossy television ads featuring Taiwanese supermodel Lin Chi-Ling that are helping Mercedes-Benz break sales records in China. Asia is already the biggest and the fastest growing market for products such as mobile communications devices and personal computers. But the long-term outlook is even more enticing. The United Nations is forecasting that 140,000 people a day — that’s right, a day — will flock to Asia’s cities over the next 40 years, creating large-scale retail demand in addition to the effects of rising incomes. Significantly, many of the bidders for Carrefour’s assets are Asian companies — supermarket operators such as Singapore’s Dairy Farm and private equity firms such as Malaysia’s Navis Capital — which are experiencing the consumption boom first hand. The big exception is Tesco, the world’s third-largest retailer by sales and the market leader in Thailand, which has clearly seen an opportunity to entrench its position. In the very short term, the bidding scramble is good for Carrefour. Its hopes for a price tag of US$800 million to US$1 billion, initially regarded as optimistic by European analysts, now look achievable. But the sale might come to be seen as a big strategic mistake. Carrefour will release a relatively small sum for investment elsewhere. Another company — probably Tesco — will lay the foundations for decades of profitable growth. Tesco says it is keen not to overpay. Carrefour can hardly ask enough. (c) 2010 The Financial Times Limited |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:23 |
User Research/Opinions
/
%%%% WORLD ECONOMIC SUMMIT %%%%
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
The great Carrefour bunfight Supermarket chain’s South-east Asian sell-off defies growth potential
When a dozen companies are scrambling to buy the supermarket, it probably means someone is selling an asset they ought to be holding onto. This is the message from an extraordinary corporate bunfight going on in Southeast Asia, where Carrefour, the world’s second-biggest retailer, has attracted a field of significantly more than 10 bidders for the sale of 61 supermarkets in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. The bidding frenzy raises a number of questions, not least why Mr Lars Olofsson, Carrefour’s relatively new chief executive, is so keen to bale out of a region in which the company invested US$150 million only three years ago. Mr Olofsson has said little, hinting only that he wants to concentrate on markets where Carrefour is either the market leader or a strong contender to become so. That would include China, where the group is a leading foreign presence, but not South-east Asia. Yet Carrefour is woefully under-represented in the world’s fastest growing region, with only 7.8 per cent of consolidated net sales in Asia compared with 79 per cent in Europe. The Asian proportion will decline further with the sale of the South-east Asian stores, which account for 15 per cent of regional sales. This seems an odd way to improve the company’s growth prospects — a point that Mr Olofsson recognised when he coupled the announcement of disappointing first half results with enthusiastic talk of opening stores in Russia and India. It is hard to see the logic of simultaneously pulling out of one part of Asia and starting from scratch in another, except as a way of defusing pressure for better short-term results from big shareholders such as Mr Bernard Arnault, chairman of LVMH, and Mr Thomas Barrack, chairman of Colony Capital, the private equity group in the United States. To that extent, the strategy might work. But Mr Olofsson’s critics might be less impressed if they considered the scale of the opportunity that Carrefour is handing to someone else. Like most of Asia excluding Japan, South-east Asia has returned to blistering economic growth after a short downturn. Thailand has reported year-on-year growth in gross domestic product of 9.1 per cent for the second quarter, following 8.9 per cent in Malaysia and 17.9 per cent in Singapore. The Asian Development Bank is forecasting 8.1 per cent for emerging east Asia as a whole this year and 7.2 per cent next year. The International Monetary Fund is projecting GDP growth in the advanced economies of only 2.6 per cent this year and 2.4 per cent the following year. But it is not just the background environment that contrasts so sharply with Carrefour’s European base. Beneath the headline figures, Asia’s renewed growth is being driven by two fundamental changes that point to above average prospects for retailers. The first is that the recovery largely reflects a big rise in domestic consumption, marking a significant departure from the traditional export-driven model. This shows up strongly in retail sales, currently rising at about 15 per cent year on year — double the pre-crisis rate, according to HSBC’s Asian Real Retail Index. The signs are everywhere — from the iPhone4 selling like hot cakes in Hanoi to the glossy television ads featuring Taiwanese supermodel Lin Chi-Ling that are helping Mercedes-Benz break sales records in China. Asia is already the biggest and the fastest growing market for products such as mobile communications devices and personal computers. But the long-term outlook is even more enticing. The United Nations is forecasting that 140,000 people a day — that’s right, a day — will flock to Asia’s cities over the next 40 years, creating large-scale retail demand in addition to the effects of rising incomes. Significantly, many of the bidders for Carrefour’s assets are Asian companies — supermarket operators such as Singapore’s Dairy Farm and private equity firms such as Malaysia’s Navis Capital — which are experiencing the consumption boom first hand. The big exception is Tesco, the world’s third-largest retailer by sales and the market leader in Thailand, which has clearly seen an opportunity to entrench its position. In the very short term, the bidding scramble is good for Carrefour. Its hopes for a price tag of US$800 million to US$1 billion, initially regarded as optimistic by European analysts, now look achievable. But the sale might come to be seen as a big strategic mistake. Carrefour will release a relatively small sum for investment elsewhere. Another company — probably Tesco — will lay the foundations for decades of profitable growth. Tesco says it is keen not to overpay. Carrefour can hardly ask enough. When a dozen customers are jostling at the till trying to buy the same packet of cornflakes it probably means the price is too low.(c) 2010 The Financial Times Limited KeviN Brown |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 18:10 |
User Research/Opinions
/
%%%% WORLD ECONOMIC SUMMIT %%%%
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
China’s trade surplus falls to $27b Dollar-yuan central parity rate hits record low
BEIJING
The People’s Bank of China set the dollar yuan central parity rate at a record low of 6.8 on Friday, causing the yuan to hit a one month high against the greenback. Some observers said Beijing could be responding to both international pressure over the yuan’s exchange rate and concerns about inflationary pressure at home.
The move came as China unexpectedly booked a drop in its monthly trade surplus for last month to US$20 billion ($27 billion).
Imports jumped a larger-than-expected 35-per-cent on-year to US$119.27 billion — suggesting the slowdown in the Chinese economy is not as severe as some had feared — while export growth came in at 34 per cent on-year to total US$139.3 billion.
Analysts had predicted China’s trade surplus would widen to around US$30 billion last month, which would have been the highest since January last year; but it instead fell from US$28.7 billion in July.
The smaller trade surplus in official data released on Friday was seen as helping to strengthen Beijing’s resistance against international pressures for greater appreciation of its currency.
The figures also came as United States showed America’s trade deficit with China fell in July — which could erode arguments by US lawmakers that Beijing’s yuan exchange rate policy is giving Chinese exporters an unfair trade advantage.
But some analysts said that the narrowing trade surplus are not likely to ease Washington’s frustration over the slow pace of yuan appreciation. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner next week will face questions from a key US House committee on possible new steps to press China over its currency policy.
Stocks across Asia were mixed on news of the data, which dampened positive sentiment built up by positive US job data and an upward revision of Japan’s growth. In Shanghai, the benchmark index was down 0.63 per cent at midday.
China, meanwhile, is bringing forward the release of more data — including the consumer price index and industrial output — from Monday to Saturday. Observers are speculating the central bank could be preparing to raise interest rates before the financial markets open on Monday.
Royal Bank of Canada senior strategist Brian Jackson said the data “showed impressive resilience” despite sluggish growth in the US and financial woes in Europe. “This suggests that the slowdown in Chinese growth ... has not been caused by external factors but, instead, has been made in Beijing,” he said, referring to government efforts to curb property prices and bank lending.
Meanwhile, China’s “white paper” on the nation’s human resources, released on Friday, suggests that around 22 per cent of China’s one-billion strong labour force is without jobs. Only 780 million labourers are employed, the government said.
“China is facing huge employment pressures at present and for the foreseeable future,” Mr Yi Chengji, spokesman for the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, told reporters. “As China’s urbanisation quickens, employment pressures from the many surplus rural labourers are getting bigger and bigger.” |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 17:59 |
SGX
/
SGX
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
SME lender is Japan’s first bank failure in 7 years TOKYO The Financial Services Agency (FSA) has told the bank it cannot do any business for at least three days and must make efforts to protect existing depositors, the agency said in a statement. Japanese media said the FSA is likely to let the bank go under and will only refund depositors a maximum of ¥10 million ($160,000). This would be the first time that a cap on deposit insurance had been used in Japan, since it was acted in 2002 after a slew of banks went bankrupt with the bursting of the economic bubble in the 1990s. The bank specialises in providing banking services for small and medium sized businesses. It may report a negative net worth of ¥150 billion, the Banking shares were mixed in Tokyo trade on Friday; the benchmark Nikkei Index was up 1.90 per cent. Also on Friday, Japan approved a US$11 billion ($15 billion) stimulus package aimed at helping the export driven economy tackle deflation and the impact of a surging yen. The previously announced plan, approved by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, includes initiatives aimed at boosting consumption and creating employment for graduates. It is also intended to provide investment in green industries and offer support for small business. The fresh stimulus package of ¥915 billion will be financed by reserve funds and is expected to lift the country’s gross domestic product by about 0.3 per cent, creating around 200,000 jobs. The plan also specifies a strong yen as “a problem that cannot be unaddressed”, stating that the government “will take determined action, including intervention, when needed”. Revised data on Friday showed that Japan’s gross domestic product grew by an annualised 1.5 per cent in the April-June quarter, well above an initial estimate of 0.4 per cent. — The private Incubator Bank of Japan (IBJ) was reported on Friday to have been ordered to halt operations and will file for bankruptcy yesterday, in what would be Japan’s first bank failure in seven years, officials said.Nikkei Business Daily reported.AFP
|
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 17:58 |
Others
/
GIC and Temasek
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
SME lender is Japan’s first bank failure in 7 years TOKYO The Financial Services Agency (FSA) has told the bank it cannot do any business for at least three days and must make efforts to protect existing depositors, the agency said in a statement. Japanese media said the FSA is likely to let the bank go under and will only refund depositors a maximum of ¥10 million ($160,000). This would be the first time that a cap on deposit insurance had been used in Japan, since it was acted in 2002 after a slew of banks went bankrupt with the bursting of the economic bubble in the 1990s. The bank specialises in providing banking services for small and medium sized businesses. It may report a negative net worth of ¥150 billion, the Banking shares were mixed in Tokyo trade on Friday; the benchmark Nikkei Index was up 1.90 per cent. Also on Friday, Japan approved a US$11 billion ($15 billion) stimulus package aimed at helping the export driven economy tackle deflation and the impact of a surging yen. The previously announced plan, approved by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, includes initiatives aimed at boosting consumption and creating employment for graduates. It is also intended to provide investment in green industries and offer support for small business. The fresh stimulus package of ¥915 billion will be financed by reserve funds and is expected to lift the country’s gross domestic product by about 0.3 per cent, creating around 200,000 jobs. The plan also specifies a strong yen as “a problem that cannot be unaddressed”, stating that the government “will take determined action, including intervention, when needed”. Revised data on Friday showed that Japan’s gross domestic product grew by an annualised 1.5 per cent in the April-June quarter, well above an initial estimate of 0.4 per cent. — The private Incubator Bank of Japan (IBJ) was reported on Friday to have been ordered to halt operations and will file for bankruptcy yesterday, in what would be Japan’s first bank failure in seven years, officials said.Nikkei Business Daily reported.AFP
|
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 17:55 |
All-S Equities Fin
/
SINGAPORE BANKS - UOB + OCBC + DBS
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
SME lender is Japan’s first bank failure in 7 years
TOKYO
The Financial Services Agency (FSA) has told the bank it cannot do any business for at least three days and must make efforts to protect existing depositors, the agency said in a statement.
Japanese media said the FSA is likely to let the bank go under and will only refund depositors a maximum of ¥10 million ($160,000). This would be the first time that a cap on deposit insurance had been used in Japan, since it was acted in 2002 after a slew of banks went bankrupt with the bursting of the economic bubble in the 1990s.
The bank specialises in providing banking services for small and medium sized businesses. It may report a negative net worth of ¥150 billion, the
Banking shares were mixed in Tokyo trade on Friday; the benchmark Nikkei Index was up 1.90 per cent.
Also on Friday, Japan approved a US$11 billion ($15 billion) stimulus package aimed at helping the export driven economy tackle deflation and the impact of a surging yen.
The previously announced plan, approved by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, includes initiatives aimed at boosting consumption and creating employment for graduates. It is also intended to provide investment in green industries and offer support for small business.
The fresh stimulus package of ¥915 billion will be financed by reserve funds and is expected to lift the country’s gross domestic product by about 0.3 per cent, creating around 200,000 jobs.
The plan also specifies a strong yen as “a problem that cannot be unaddressed”, stating that the government “will take determined action, including intervention, when needed”.
Revised data on Friday showed that Japan’s gross domestic product grew by an annualised 1.5 per cent in the April-June quarter, well above an initial estimate of 0.4 per cent. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| 11-Sep-2010 17:54 |
All-S Equities Prop
/
[][][]PROPERTY[][][] City Dev+ CapitaLand+ KepLand
Go to Message
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0
|
SME lender is Japan’s first bank failure in 7 years
TOKYO
The Financial Services Agency (FSA) has told the bank it cannot do any business for at least three days and must make efforts to protect existing depositors, the agency said in a statement.
Japanese media said the FSA is likely to let the bank go under and will only refund depositors a maximum of ¥10 million ($160,000). This would be the first time that a cap on deposit insurance had been used in Japan, since it was acted in 2002 after a slew of banks went bankrupt with the bursting of the economic bubble in the 1990s.
The bank specialises in providing banking services for small and medium sized businesses. It may report a negative net worth of ¥150 billion, the
Banking shares were mixed in Tokyo trade on Friday; the benchmark Nikkei Index was up 1.90 per cent.
Also on Friday, Japan approved a US$11 billion ($15 billion) stimulus package aimed at helping the export driven economy tackle deflation and the impact of a surging yen.
The previously announced plan, approved by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, includes initiatives aimed at boosting consumption and creating employment for graduates. It is also intended to provide investment in green industries and offer support for small business.
The fresh stimulus package of ¥915 billion will be financed by reserve funds and is expected to lift the country’s gross domestic product by about 0.3 per cent, creating around 200,000 jobs.
The plan also specifies a strong yen as “a problem that cannot be unaddressed”, stating that the government “will take determined action, including intervention, when needed”.
Revised data on Friday showed that Japan’s gross domestic product grew by an annualised 1.5 per cent in the April-June quarter, well above an initial estimate of 0.4 per cent. |
||||
| Good Post Bad Post | |||||
| First < Newer 6881-6900 of 13894 Older> Last |