Her husband was so scared! She intended to cut off his private part, if she did not get enough sex ....
Sunday, December 21, 2008
women wants Sex 3 times a night
Wow! can't really believe this, but it was reported on this Wan Pao newspaper on 20 Dec 2008.
Her husband was so scared! She intended to cut off his private part, if she did not get enough sex ....
Her husband was so scared! She intended to cut off his private part, if she did not get enough sex ....
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Tragic, says SM Goh
The Straits Times
Nov 29, 2008
Tragic, says SM Goh
'I WAS told yesterday morning that Mr S. Puhaindran, my good friend and grassroots leader's daughter-in-law was caught in The Oberoi Hotel as a hostage.
I've been following events through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and on the news, but unfortunately we couldn't know very much about what was happening.
I could see things were getting a bit dangerous for anyone who was caught in the hotel and, unfortunately, what we feared came true.
The news was that the daughter-in-law, that is Michael's wife, was not going to come back.
When I learnt that, I came right away to see Mr Puhaindran. He and his wife were, of course, in a state of shock. And the extended family was there...
The son (Michael) was married last year. They just celebrated their first anniversary. I was there at the wedding so I too was quite shocked...
I'm very sad and grieved... it's something very tragic that has happened.'
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who visited his long-time Marine Parade grassroots leader S. Puhaindran, whose son Michael was in Mumbai yesterday and identified the body of his wife, Ms Lo Hwei Yen. Mr Puhaindran and other family members were too distraught to speak to reporters at their Marine Crescent flat, which drew a stream of visitors, including Mr Goh and MP for Marine Parade GRC Fatimah Lateef
Nov 29, 2008
Tragic, says SM Goh
'I WAS told yesterday morning that Mr S. Puhaindran, my good friend and grassroots leader's daughter-in-law was caught in The Oberoi Hotel as a hostage.
I've been following events through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and on the news, but unfortunately we couldn't know very much about what was happening.
I could see things were getting a bit dangerous for anyone who was caught in the hotel and, unfortunately, what we feared came true.
The news was that the daughter-in-law, that is Michael's wife, was not going to come back.
When I learnt that, I came right away to see Mr Puhaindran. He and his wife were, of course, in a state of shock. And the extended family was there...
The son (Michael) was married last year. They just celebrated their first anniversary. I was there at the wedding so I too was quite shocked...
I'm very sad and grieved... it's something very tragic that has happened.'
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who visited his long-time Marine Parade grassroots leader S. Puhaindran, whose son Michael was in Mumbai yesterday and identified the body of his wife, Ms Lo Hwei Yen. Mr Puhaindran and other family members were too distraught to speak to reporters at their Marine Crescent flat, which drew a stream of visitors, including Mr Goh and MP for Marine Parade GRC Fatimah Lateef
S'poreans share in the grief
Nov 29, 2008
Mumbai terror attacks
Mumbai terror attacks
S'poreans share in the grief
Acting PM expresses Government's sadness at the death of hostage
ACTING Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said last night that all Singaporeans shared in the grief of the family of lawyer Lo Hwei Yen, 28, who was killed in Mumbai.
In a statement expressing the Singapore Government's sadness at her death in the terror attacks in the Indian city, he said: 'The loss of any life to terrorism is sad, but the loss of a fellow Singaporean is a pain more keenly and more closely felt by every Singaporean.
'I know that all Singaporeans feel deeply for the family, and our hearts go out to them in their time of sorrow and grief.'
He said that Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) officials have been with the victim's family in Singapore, and on the ground in Mumbai, since they first learnt that Ms Lo had been taken hostage.
The ministry issued a statement saying it was deeply saddened by the death of Ms Lo, a lawyer married to Mr Michael Puhaindran.
MFA said its officials in Mumbai confirmed only at 9.35pm Singapore time yesterday that she was among the dead.
'A positive identification was made by the husband, accompanied by our High Commissioner,' it said.
'We would like to convey our sincere condolences to the family of Ms Lo Hwei Yen. This is a tragedy for all Singaporeans.
'We have been in touch with her father-in-law and one of her aunts to convey this tragic news. Our officials in Mumbai are currently with her husband and another aunt.'
It said that the ministry and officials of the Singapore mission in Mumbai would assist the family.
'We wish this tragedy had not occurred,' it said. 'MFA is currently assisting the family and will ensure the safe return of the body once the Indian authorities release the body.'
Extending sympathies to the families of other hostages killed in Mumbai, the ministry said: 'Singapore strongly condemns the Mumbai terrorist acts and reiterates its commitment to work closely with the international community in combating terrorism.'
In his statement, Professor Jayakumar also said the tragedy served as a reminder to Singaporeans that 'terrorism is a threat that spares no one, nowhere'.
'This tragic event underscores the imperative for all of us to be constantly vigilant and the need for the international community to band together to combat this threat,' he said.
Mr Pasuni Maulan, the chairman of the Tentera Di-Raja Mosque, also expressed sympathy to the family of Ms Lo and condemned the attacks in Mumbai.
'I am very sorry to hear about the death of Ms Lo and my heart goes out to her family,' he said last night.
'All Singaporeans, regardless of race and background, feel the pain of this senseless act of violence.
'The law of the jungle adopted by the extremists must be condemned by all mankind.'
my fellow singaporean killed by terrorist
The Straits Times
29 Nov 2008
By Teh Joo Lin & Carolyn Quek
First terror victim from Republic; body found on Oberoi's 19th floor
29 Nov 2008
By Teh Joo Lin & Carolyn Quek
First terror victim from Republic; body found on Oberoi's 19th floor
THE Mumbai terror attacks claimed a Singaporean victim when lawyer Lo Hwei Yen, 28, was confirmed among the dead last night.
She is the first Singaporean to die in a terrorist attack.
The tragic task of identifying her body fell to her husband, Mr Michael Puhaindran, who had flown to Mumbai on Thursday night.
The couple held their wedding in Bali only in June last year.
Mr Puhaindran, 37, last heard from his wife through two phone calls she made to him on Thursday after being taken hostage at The Oberoi Trident Hotel.
She had gone to Mumbai on Wednesday to attend a business seminar and it was meant to be only a one-night trip.
Last night, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the worst had happened.
Her body, found on the 19th floor of the hotel, was identified at 9.35pm Singapore time by Mr Puhaindran, accompanied by the High Commissioner and an aunt.
She was among 24 Oberoi hotel hostages found dead yesterday.
Acting Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said in a statement last night that he and his Cabinet colleagues were painfully saddened, and added that all Singaporeans shared the family's grief.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong also expressed sadness, saying that he had attended the couple's wedding last year.
Ms Lo's father-in-law, Mr Stanley Puhaindran, has been a long-time grassroots leader in Mr Goh's Marine Parade constituency. SM Goh visited the family last night.
Over at the home of Ms Lo's parents in Lower Delta, her younger sisters Hwei Shan, 25, and Hwei Rong, 23, had been waiting anxiously all day for news.
Ms Lo was the eldest of the three children of a businessman and housewife. Her father has been away on business but was returning home, the family said.
A law graduate of the National University of Singapore, Ms Lo worked with Stephenson Harwood, a foreign law firm based here.
She called her husband twice from Mumbai on Thursday, Hwei Shan told The Straits Times.
In the first call at 2am on Thursday, she said that she had heard gunfire and the hotel staff had told her to move to another level.
In her second call, at about 6am, she said that she had been taken hostage.
Foreign Affairs Ministry official Jai S. Sohan confirmed last night that Ms Lo had passed her husband a message from her captors.
An Indian news channel had reported that the terrorists had held the woman at gunpoint and ordered her to tell the Singapore Government to tell the Mumbai authorities to refrain from acting against them, or she would lose her life.
Mr Sohan said the ministry conveyed the message to the Indian authorities at a very senior level.
'We ask for your understanding as we could not confirm this earlier as the situation at that time was fluid and fast-evolving. It was also not appropriate at that time for us to do so for operational reasons,' he added.
Ms Lo's husband left for Mumbai on Thursday evening, accompanied by an aunt and ministry officials.
Family members in Singapore kept monitoring the news closely hoping for any hint that she might be safe.
But they began to fear the worst at about 5pm yesterday, when her husband got word that her wallet and handbag had been found.
He and his aunt were with Singapore diplomats keeping vigil near the Oberoi when news came that more bodies had been found inside.
They were led inside to identify the body and came out looking shaken.
Mr Puhaindran and Foreign Ministry officials broke the tragic news to the family here at 10pm, just before the ministry held a press conference that was broadcast live on television.
'She was bubbly, cheerful and very protective of us as the older sister,' said Hwei Shan.
joolin@sph.com.sg
carolynq@sph.com.sg
Additional reporting by Kor Kian Beng
THE ATTACKERS
Who they are, how they did it
PRIME
THE HOSTAGES
Armed with knives, cleavers
PRIME
THE HEROES
Hotel staff kept guests safe
PRIME
Thursday, November 27, 2008
NTUC need more teeth
The effectiveness of NTUC was being tested in period of finanical crisis. Many people will think that NTUC is only good for its discount at various NTUC Fairprice.
give NTUC teeth
The recent layoffs by DBS may make NTUC look like it is wielding little power
Monday • November 24, 2008
CONRAD RAJ
editor-at-large conrad@mediacorp.com.sg
SACKING staff is never an easy thing for most companies to do, but DBS Bank appears to have made it even more difficult for itself.
It was recently chided publicly by Labour Chief Lim Swee Say for not consulting its union on recent layoffs of some 900 staff in Singapore and Hong Kong. There was neither “prior consultation” with the DBS Staff Union, nor “exploration with the union on other cost-reduction alternatives”, Mr Lim — Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and a cabinet minister — had said.
Yes, the shock retrenchments may have weakened trust between worker and management — a point commonly raised by recent discussions.
But far more damaging to the national labour movement is how some may read DBS’ action as a reflection of NTUC wielding little power when it comes to dealing with management.
Rightly or wrongly, some feel that employers here have the upper hand in hiring and firing, and that the union is nothing more than an operator of, and a discount card provider to, its supermarkets.
Mr Lim must have felt as much, because all that work in rebuilding the image of the NTUC over the last few years must have taken a battering by the bank’s decision to ignore its union.“It is regrettable,” he had said. “Trust takes a long time to build but a short time to destroy.”
In the first place, layoffs should not be the first resort. Last week, Mr Lim had noted that companies should be cutting costs to save jobs rather than cutting jobs to save costs.
But the labour movement is also realistic enough to recognise that retrenchment cannot be avoided in all circumstances. “At times it is better to let go some workers so that the remaining workers can survive and keep their jobs, rather than the business fails and all workers lose their jobs,” Mr Lim had said.
DBS, the country’s premier financial institution, had pointed out it had to restructure and streamline its operations to position itself for the future.
It added that the move to axe staff was not a “rash, cost-cutting initiative of the first resort”, but arrived at after discussion and deliberation over temporary measures, including a tiered pay-cut across the company.
Still, the Singapore bank has yet to explain why it failed to consult the staff union.
As Mr Lim noted, retrenchment appeared to be the first resort for DBS, as seen from the ground: “Ground reaction is critical and highly negative”.
It is therefore refreshing to see the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reviewing its guidelines for employers on how to handle surplus manpower.
Among the measures to be taken: Employers will now have to inform MOM before sending out the pink slips, so that the Workforce Development Agency can try to find alternative employment for the affected workers.
It is also noteworthy that the proposed new guidelines will include more details about flexible wage systems and a shorter work week or temporary layoff schemes that companies can adopt to reduce costs.
Companies are encouraged to work with their unions in bringing down costs before resorting to layoffs or, if the axe cannot be avoided, to conduct the retrenchment exercise in a more responsible manner.
The new guidelines, said Acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong, should send a clear message to employers on the need to leverage on the tripartite framework between the Government, employers and workers.
The NTUC needs to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to.
To be able to lead the labour movement and assure the success of the tripartite framework, the NTUC needs some real teeth to deal with errantemployers. Its member unions must also be accorded the respect and given more authority in their negotiations with employers.
Otherwise, what is to prevent the perpetuation of the view that NTUC is a toothless organisation, offering nothing more than club and discount facilities?
give NTUC teeth
The recent layoffs by DBS may make NTUC look like it is wielding little power
Monday • November 24, 2008
CONRAD RAJ
editor-at-large conrad@mediacorp.com.sg
SACKING staff is never an easy thing for most companies to do, but DBS Bank appears to have made it even more difficult for itself.
It was recently chided publicly by Labour Chief Lim Swee Say for not consulting its union on recent layoffs of some 900 staff in Singapore and Hong Kong. There was neither “prior consultation” with the DBS Staff Union, nor “exploration with the union on other cost-reduction alternatives”, Mr Lim — Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and a cabinet minister — had said.
Yes, the shock retrenchments may have weakened trust between worker and management — a point commonly raised by recent discussions.
But far more damaging to the national labour movement is how some may read DBS’ action as a reflection of NTUC wielding little power when it comes to dealing with management.
Rightly or wrongly, some feel that employers here have the upper hand in hiring and firing, and that the union is nothing more than an operator of, and a discount card provider to, its supermarkets.
Mr Lim must have felt as much, because all that work in rebuilding the image of the NTUC over the last few years must have taken a battering by the bank’s decision to ignore its union.“It is regrettable,” he had said. “Trust takes a long time to build but a short time to destroy.”
In the first place, layoffs should not be the first resort. Last week, Mr Lim had noted that companies should be cutting costs to save jobs rather than cutting jobs to save costs.
But the labour movement is also realistic enough to recognise that retrenchment cannot be avoided in all circumstances. “At times it is better to let go some workers so that the remaining workers can survive and keep their jobs, rather than the business fails and all workers lose their jobs,” Mr Lim had said.
DBS, the country’s premier financial institution, had pointed out it had to restructure and streamline its operations to position itself for the future.
It added that the move to axe staff was not a “rash, cost-cutting initiative of the first resort”, but arrived at after discussion and deliberation over temporary measures, including a tiered pay-cut across the company.
Still, the Singapore bank has yet to explain why it failed to consult the staff union.
As Mr Lim noted, retrenchment appeared to be the first resort for DBS, as seen from the ground: “Ground reaction is critical and highly negative”.
It is therefore refreshing to see the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reviewing its guidelines for employers on how to handle surplus manpower.
Among the measures to be taken: Employers will now have to inform MOM before sending out the pink slips, so that the Workforce Development Agency can try to find alternative employment for the affected workers.
It is also noteworthy that the proposed new guidelines will include more details about flexible wage systems and a shorter work week or temporary layoff schemes that companies can adopt to reduce costs.
Companies are encouraged to work with their unions in bringing down costs before resorting to layoffs or, if the axe cannot be avoided, to conduct the retrenchment exercise in a more responsible manner.
The new guidelines, said Acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong, should send a clear message to employers on the need to leverage on the tripartite framework between the Government, employers and workers.
The NTUC needs to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to.
To be able to lead the labour movement and assure the success of the tripartite framework, the NTUC needs some real teeth to deal with errantemployers. Its member unions must also be accorded the respect and given more authority in their negotiations with employers.
Otherwise, what is to prevent the perpetuation of the view that NTUC is a toothless organisation, offering nothing more than club and discount facilities?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Retrenchment In Singapore 2008
The Straits Times
Nov 20, 2008
RETRENCHMENT IN SINGAPORE
Only as a last resort
GENERAL retrenchment is a top concern in Singapore in a deepening economic recession as we now have. Our Ministry of Manpower has also come out with timely guidelines for retrenchment procedures.
The labour market is not a fish or vegetable market. Nor is it a stock market. We are dealing with human beings and also their dependent families.
In Singapore, thus, we have developed a tradition of retrenching workers as a last, and not first, resort.
When retrenchment takes place, the employees will be unemployed and there are no unemployment benefits in Singapore. The burden of taking care of the unemployed will be passed on to the community. Our Government, using past experience as a guide, will come in to share the problem and the unemployment burden with taxpayers' money. The timing of the retrenchment is particularly important. When it is done during a recessionary environment, the fear and anxiety factor multiplies. An important retrenchment exercise may lead to other similar exercises in other companies.
In Singapore, the practice in handling general retrenchment in a deflationary downturn appears to me as follows:
First, consideration for the removal of the monthly variable component of the employees across the board, from the CEO downwards.
Second, to remove a part of, or even completely, the end-of-the-year variable bonus, across the board from the CEO down as well.
Third, if the general recessionary situation is serious enough, the Government will step in to help in various ways depending on the situation.
Fourth, we still have the unique mechanism of last resort. With the support of our trade unions and our workers, the Government can and will cut the employers' Central Provident Fund contribution rates. This is an action of last, last resort. This is tripartism in Singapore.
Singapore has opted for a flexible wage policy instead of a flexible unemployment policy; a communitarian approach rather than the general firing of workers at a first-sign-of-trouble strategy.
Employers should thus not lose heart. Singaporeans will go through this very difficult period and emerge together with the ultimate smile of success. Does anyone still wonder why the World Economic Forum consistently ranks Singapore's industrial relations system as the best in the world?
The just-published Economic Freedom of the World 2008 Annual Report not only states that Singapore has the world's second highest level of economic freedom among 141 countries surveyed, but also uses this important variable to explain the very high per capita income and the excellent quality of life in this country. I am one of many citizens here who are concerned about global retrenchments and their adverse impact on Singapore's retrenchment.
Professor Lim Chong Yah
Albert Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics
Nanyang Technological University
FORUM NOTE: Prof Lim is the founding chairman of the National Wages Council in 1972 and served until 2001. The council advises the Government on wage policies and issues wage guidelines.
Nov 20, 2008
RETRENCHMENT IN SINGAPORE
Only as a last resort
GENERAL retrenchment is a top concern in Singapore in a deepening economic recession as we now have. Our Ministry of Manpower has also come out with timely guidelines for retrenchment procedures.
The labour market is not a fish or vegetable market. Nor is it a stock market. We are dealing with human beings and also their dependent families.
In Singapore, thus, we have developed a tradition of retrenching workers as a last, and not first, resort.
When retrenchment takes place, the employees will be unemployed and there are no unemployment benefits in Singapore. The burden of taking care of the unemployed will be passed on to the community. Our Government, using past experience as a guide, will come in to share the problem and the unemployment burden with taxpayers' money. The timing of the retrenchment is particularly important. When it is done during a recessionary environment, the fear and anxiety factor multiplies. An important retrenchment exercise may lead to other similar exercises in other companies.
In Singapore, the practice in handling general retrenchment in a deflationary downturn appears to me as follows:
First, consideration for the removal of the monthly variable component of the employees across the board, from the CEO downwards.
Second, to remove a part of, or even completely, the end-of-the-year variable bonus, across the board from the CEO down as well.
Third, if the general recessionary situation is serious enough, the Government will step in to help in various ways depending on the situation.
Fourth, we still have the unique mechanism of last resort. With the support of our trade unions and our workers, the Government can and will cut the employers' Central Provident Fund contribution rates. This is an action of last, last resort. This is tripartism in Singapore.
Singapore has opted for a flexible wage policy instead of a flexible unemployment policy; a communitarian approach rather than the general firing of workers at a first-sign-of-trouble strategy.
Employers should thus not lose heart. Singaporeans will go through this very difficult period and emerge together with the ultimate smile of success. Does anyone still wonder why the World Economic Forum consistently ranks Singapore's industrial relations system as the best in the world?
The just-published Economic Freedom of the World 2008 Annual Report not only states that Singapore has the world's second highest level of economic freedom among 141 countries surveyed, but also uses this important variable to explain the very high per capita income and the excellent quality of life in this country. I am one of many citizens here who are concerned about global retrenchments and their adverse impact on Singapore's retrenchment.
Professor Lim Chong Yah
Albert Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics
Nanyang Technological University
FORUM NOTE: Prof Lim is the founding chairman of the National Wages Council in 1972 and served until 2001. The council advises the Government on wage policies and issues wage guidelines.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Alan Greenspan Fail
I am angry with this man, be wiser and admit your mistake. Don't wait to be guilled to one corner and finally admitted that you are partially wrong.
Wise people see the outcome and accept it, Greenspan still think he was right for 40 years. Yes! I agree that he is right for 40 years only. How about the outcome now?
The Straits Times
Oct 25, 2008
I was 'partially' wrong
Greenspan, grilled by lawmakers, says: My view of the free market was flawed
WASHINGTON: As head of the world's most powerful central bank, Mr Alan Greenspan has testified before the US Congress dozens of times over almost two decades.
At every hearing, lawmakers solicited the economic wisdom of 'the Oracle'. Markets jumped up or down depending on what 'the Maestro' said.
But not on Thursday.
This time, instead of praise, lawmakers heaped blame on the 82-year-old former chairman of the US Federal Reserve for the current crisis and asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.
Grim-faced, Mr Greenspan could offer only a limited defence. Almost three years after stepping down as the Fed chairman, a humbled Mr Greenspan admitted he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
In his trademark gravelly monotone, he acknowledged he was in a state of 'shocked disbelief' at the breakdown of credit markets that triggered what he called 'a once-in-a-century credit tsunami'.
His appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was his first in such a public forum since the crisis began and provided a dramatic bookend for the demise of the economic boom and the unmaking of his reputation.
Mr Greenspan's critics have complained that, starting in 2001, he kept interest rates too low to help bolster the US economy after the bursting of the dot.com bubble and the terrorist attacks of Sept11 that year. That easy credit, they say, fuelled a runaway housing boom.
They also allege his free-market ideology kept him from using the Fed's authority to regulate adjustable-rate mortgages and complex financial derivatives - regulation that could have helped prevent the current crisis.
Under tough questioning from committee chairman Henry Waxman and other Democrats, Mr Greenspan conceded he was wrong in assuming free-market forces would prevent the crisis.
The hearing was the third in a series Mr Waxman is holding to identify the causes of the financial crisis. Mr Greenspan knew he was in for a tough day. And Mr Waxman hit him at the start.
For too long, the prevailing attitude in Washington has been that the market always knows best,' Mr Waxman said. 'The Federal Reserve had the authority to stop the irresponsible lending practices that fuelled the sub-prime mortgage market. But its longtime chairman, Alan Greenspan, rejected pleas that he intervene.'
Mr Waxman, noting the former Fed chairman had been one of the nation's leading voices for deregulation, displayed past statements in which Mr Greenspan had argued that government regulators were no better than markets at imposing discipline.
'Were you wrong?' he asked.
'Partially,' Mr Greenspan reluctantly answered, before trying to parse his concession as thinly as possible. 'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.'
He said his mistake was thinking that financial institutions would act in their own self-interest to avoid the kind of risky lending that could bankrupt them.
'I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,' he said.
He said he had been shocked by the failure of banking officials to protect their shareholders from their bad loan decisions. 'A critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down. I still do not fully understand why it happened.'
'You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,' Mr Waxman pointed out. 'Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?'
'Yes, I've found a flaw,' said Mr Greenspan. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact.'
'In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,' Mr Waxman said.
'Absolutely, precisely,' replied Mr Greenspan, who stepped down in 2006 after more than 18 years as Fed chief. 'That's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence it was working exceptionally well.'
Mr Greenspan said that he had publicly warned about the 'under-pricing of risk' in 2005 but that he had never expected the crisis that began to sweep the entire financial system last year.
'This crisis has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined. It has morphed from one gripped by liquidity restraints to one in which fears of insolvency are now paramount.
'Given the financial damage to date, I cannot see how we can avoid a significant rise in layoffs and unemployment.'
Near the end of the four-hour grilling, which he shared with former Treasury secretary John Snow and Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox, Mr Greenspan suffered a final indignity.
The man dubbed 'the Maestro' for orchestrating fiscal policy during 18 years as Fed chief found himself likened to one of the great goats of baseball.
'I feel like I'm looking out there at three Bill Buckners,' said Representative John Yarmuth, referring to the Boston Red Sox first baseman who botched an easy grounder in the 1986 World Series. 'All of you let the ball go through your legs.'
NEW YORK TIMES, LOS ANGELES TIMES, REUTERS
Wise people see the outcome and accept it, Greenspan still think he was right for 40 years. Yes! I agree that he is right for 40 years only. How about the outcome now?
The Straits Times
Oct 25, 2008
I was 'partially' wrong
Greenspan, grilled by lawmakers, says: My view of the free market was flawed
WASHINGTON: As head of the world's most powerful central bank, Mr Alan Greenspan has testified before the US Congress dozens of times over almost two decades.
At every hearing, lawmakers solicited the economic wisdom of 'the Oracle'. Markets jumped up or down depending on what 'the Maestro' said.
But not on Thursday.
This time, instead of praise, lawmakers heaped blame on the 82-year-old former chairman of the US Federal Reserve for the current crisis and asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.
Grim-faced, Mr Greenspan could offer only a limited defence. Almost three years after stepping down as the Fed chairman, a humbled Mr Greenspan admitted he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
In his trademark gravelly monotone, he acknowledged he was in a state of 'shocked disbelief' at the breakdown of credit markets that triggered what he called 'a once-in-a-century credit tsunami'.
His appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was his first in such a public forum since the crisis began and provided a dramatic bookend for the demise of the economic boom and the unmaking of his reputation.
Mr Greenspan's critics have complained that, starting in 2001, he kept interest rates too low to help bolster the US economy after the bursting of the dot.com bubble and the terrorist attacks of Sept11 that year. That easy credit, they say, fuelled a runaway housing boom.
They also allege his free-market ideology kept him from using the Fed's authority to regulate adjustable-rate mortgages and complex financial derivatives - regulation that could have helped prevent the current crisis.
Under tough questioning from committee chairman Henry Waxman and other Democrats, Mr Greenspan conceded he was wrong in assuming free-market forces would prevent the crisis.
The hearing was the third in a series Mr Waxman is holding to identify the causes of the financial crisis. Mr Greenspan knew he was in for a tough day. And Mr Waxman hit him at the start.
For too long, the prevailing attitude in Washington has been that the market always knows best,' Mr Waxman said. 'The Federal Reserve had the authority to stop the irresponsible lending practices that fuelled the sub-prime mortgage market. But its longtime chairman, Alan Greenspan, rejected pleas that he intervene.'
Mr Waxman, noting the former Fed chairman had been one of the nation's leading voices for deregulation, displayed past statements in which Mr Greenspan had argued that government regulators were no better than markets at imposing discipline.
'Were you wrong?' he asked.
'Partially,' Mr Greenspan reluctantly answered, before trying to parse his concession as thinly as possible. 'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.'
He said his mistake was thinking that financial institutions would act in their own self-interest to avoid the kind of risky lending that could bankrupt them.
'I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,' he said.
He said he had been shocked by the failure of banking officials to protect their shareholders from their bad loan decisions. 'A critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down. I still do not fully understand why it happened.'
'You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,' Mr Waxman pointed out. 'Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?'
'Yes, I've found a flaw,' said Mr Greenspan. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact.'
'In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,' Mr Waxman said.
'Absolutely, precisely,' replied Mr Greenspan, who stepped down in 2006 after more than 18 years as Fed chief. 'That's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence it was working exceptionally well.'
Mr Greenspan said that he had publicly warned about the 'under-pricing of risk' in 2005 but that he had never expected the crisis that began to sweep the entire financial system last year.
'This crisis has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined. It has morphed from one gripped by liquidity restraints to one in which fears of insolvency are now paramount.
'Given the financial damage to date, I cannot see how we can avoid a significant rise in layoffs and unemployment.'
Near the end of the four-hour grilling, which he shared with former Treasury secretary John Snow and Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox, Mr Greenspan suffered a final indignity.
The man dubbed 'the Maestro' for orchestrating fiscal policy during 18 years as Fed chief found himself likened to one of the great goats of baseball.
'I feel like I'm looking out there at three Bill Buckners,' said Representative John Yarmuth, referring to the Boston Red Sox first baseman who botched an easy grounder in the 1986 World Series. 'All of you let the ball go through your legs.'
NEW YORK TIMES, LOS ANGELES TIMES, REUTERS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)