AIG chief slashes salary to U$1

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy agreed to slash his annual salary to $1 as part of a series of voluntary pay restrictions by top executives tied to a massive $150 billion government bailout.

AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) will also forgo bonuses this year and eliminate pay increases through 2009 for the firm's top executives.

Liddy will get paid $1 per year for 2008 and 2009, with his compensation consisting entirely of equity payments. While he will not receive bonuses during those years, he will be eligible in 2010 for "extraordinary performance." He will also be ineligible for severance payments.

"This action by the senior management team demonstrates not only that we understand our obligation to taxpayers and shareholders, but also that we are committed to the future success of this organization," said Liddy in a statement.

In addition to Liddy, Paula Reynolds, whom AIG hired as chief restructuring officer in October, will receive no salary or bonuses in 2008. From 2009 onward, any compensation above her base pay will be tied to the progress of AIG's restructuring.

"It is only fair that top executives, who benefit the most when firms do well, should also bear the burden of the difficult economic consequences their firms now face," said New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in response to a letter from Liddy informing him of the pay cuts.

Cuomo had voiced concern about AIG's expenditures in October after it was reported that the company had spent $440,000 on a weekend meeting at a resort. Subsequently, AIG immediately cancelled 160 events, worth an estimated $8 million.

Government help: AIG has been in full-blown cost-cutting mode since October, as it has been receiving billions in government loans.

AIG's total government bailout grew to $152.5 billion this month.

"If anything, [the pay cuts are] largely symbolic," said Bill Bergman, senior equities analyst with investment research firm Morningstar.

He said AIG's problems have been mostly internal, partially stemming from a series of failed investments, according to Bergman.

Earlier this month, the government reworked AIG's original tough bailout terms, which were meant to deter those that could bail themselves out.

As AIG started having trouble repaying the bridge loan, the government agreed to new terms, including reducing the original $85 billion bridge loan to $60 billion and cutting the interest rate. (Full story)

First Published: November 25, 2008: 11:58 AM ET

I WANT AN A5 Audi .. *droolllllll*

OMG!!!!! i just saw the newest addition to the already amazing line up of Audi's and like a Macdonald's Ad... " Im LOVING IT!!" its freaking sexyyyyy!!!...
But like all the dream cars that i want to have, the price of this one is reachable but not within the next 4 years hahahha..gawd! it cost like over 200 grand? Daayyyyam..think im really gonna have to start my " Save my audi fund" campaign...donations anyone? *grinz* ...

Pls donate generously..hahahhhah

Lim Swee Say mum on expected pay hike for ministers

By Eugene Yeo, Senior writer

If one just take a glance at the misleading Straits Times headlines today “Pay cut for civil service ?” without reading the entire article, one may have the impression that the entire civil service including our rich ministers are taking the moral lead of cutting their pay packages during this difficult time.

It was reported in the article that “A significant part of the annual pay for a senior civil servant or minister takes the form of a GDP Bonus, which is linked to growth in the gross domestic product”.

From my limited understanding, there is a difference between one’s monthly pay and end year bonus.

The civil service may receive less bonus, but their monthly pay is still unaffected. Both Mr Tharman and Mr Lim Swee Say have kept mum when asked directly if the ministers and senior civil servants will take a pay cut.

This is what they say:

Mr Tharman: “We’re not here to grandstand”

Mr Lim Swee Say: “From the labour movement, I think we will not be surprised (if) the public sector sees a wage cut because with the GDP declining, that must factor into the flexible component of wages.”

Now are we any wiser after listening to what our brilliant ministers have to say ?

What is so difficult of clarifying clearly if they are going to reduce their monthly pay packages which is expected to be raised from the current 77 per cent of a salary benchmark to 88 per cent. The benchmark is set at two-thirds of the median pay of the top eight earners in each of six sectors.

The pay hike was implemented in the year 2006 when our economy is booming. Since Singapore is now in recession, shouldn’t the ministers’ salary be re-adjusted to the pre-2006 level ?

For example, if a minister is receiving S$150,000 monthly now, it should be reduced to S$100,000 or less to save costs for the government. I am sure our ministers can still survive with a monthly salary of S$100,000.

Since the civil service salaries are now pegged to the private sector as a benchmark, then they should follow the latter’s example to reduce the pay and even retrench under-performing civil servants and ministers.

In short, the PAP ministers cannot have their cake and eat it. If they expect us to pay them salaries which commensurate with the private sector, then they should adopt standard practices of the private sector during times of economic downturn.

Why do we need 4 ministers in the Prime Minister’s office ? Can’t our highest paid Prime Minister in the world govern the country on his own ?

DISILLUSIONED - Letter from DBS employee

November 08, 2008 Saturday, 07:08 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a staff of DBS and i am really disappointed with DBS for resorting to such a measure. This company reeks of hypocrisy. Just look at the marketing slogan they have spent so much money on to portray happy staff showing the "can-do" spirit helping communities around. Just look at the advertisements they spent so much money on, placing on ads on buses showing smiling employees. They sure know how to spent so much money on marketing that their employees are happy and how much DBS bank values them by recognising them.

Firstly, before such a drastic measure is taken, i feel that DBS should at least use some other measure first, such as reducing pay from the top brass, before cutting off employees who might earn only S$2000-4000 a month. A typical managing director or SVP should be earning about S$400,000- 700,000 a year, excluding bonuses. Reducing by half of such a high salary to S$200,000-350,000 is ok, don’t you think so and this would have saved 8-29 normal employees jobs just from a cut of 1 managing director pay. Frankly, a big part of the responsibility of steering a ship safely should lie in the hands of the so called captains. Let's see if DBS bank will do the right thing.

Secondly, a 13% drop in net earnings is bad but if placed in perspective by comparing with foreign banks or companies it is still ok. Just a 13% drop and they are retrenching 6% of their staff. Look at for example Citigroup. They are facing much more than 90% drop in net earnings and they have axed only like 10-30% of their global workforce. This just reeks of total job instability for working with DBS bank, a local bank that is supposed to be relatively conservative in their activities and supposed to be a bank close to the hearts of Singaporeans.

Thirdly, its common knowledge that foreign banks pay more than DBS bank or local banks. Something like up to 2 times a salary for someone doing the similar job. By paying an employee less during boom times, shouldn't there be more job stability during recessionary time during bad times?

I am truly disappointed with DBS bank. They have made gaffes after gaffes. First with Fixed Deposit boxes, cheques being cleared wrongly, mini bonds and now axing staff without thinking of the possible alternative measures first.

Please do the right thing DBS. Or at least, stop being hypocritical by portraying happy smiling staff and save the marketing expenses.

DISILLUSIONED

DBS Chief Executive Richard Stanley speaks during a news conference in Singapore, Friday, November 7, 2008.

DBS Group, Southeast Asia's biggest bank, will cut 900 staff from Singapore and Hong Kong or six percent of its workforce by the end of this month to reduce costs, its CEO Richard Stanley said on Friday.

DBS earlier on Friday posted a below-expectation 38 percent drop in quarterly profit.

Citigroup and JPMorgan Still at Risk, Says Analyst

Now that Citigroup has announced massive costs cuts and been bailed out by taxpayers, the worst is over, right?

Nope!!!

Citigroup is still hugely exposed to weakening consumer debt, and its loans are going bad at the highest rate in the industry. Thanks to an accounting-rule change, Citi will also be forced to put another U$150 billion of "off-balance sheet" debt back on its balance sheet which will put it in an even more precarious position. Citi will end up needing another cash infusion from the government, Whalen says, and this will dilute existing shareholders.

Nor is Citigroup the only huge bank for which the future is bleak,JPMorgan is next in line. And before the financial crisis is through, taxpayers will have to bail out JPM again, too. ( Note: Whalen has no position in Citi or JPMorgan. )

DBS retrenchment: The unkindest cut of all

DBS Bank’s retrenchment bombshell has its after-effects beyond its timing, suddenness and audacity. It goes to the core of Singapore’s jealously-guarded and famously-touted gold standard of labour relations. That gold standard, pieced together by sheer force, determination and economic carrots, is now under a grim spotlight.

The trade union movement and its leader, Mr Lim Swee Say, need to look itself in the mirror and ask a number of difficult questions:

How is it that the DBS staff union knew of the decision to lay off about 500 workers only three days before the employees and the public knew about it?

Why did the management not discuss with the staff union other cost-cutting measures before wielding the axe?


More fundamentally, what happened to the friendship and partnership that unions like the DBS staff union were supposed to build up with the management?

Instead of doing some introspection, Mr Lim went on the offensive on Friday. He accused the DBS bosses of not consulting the staff union, questioned why they did not think of flexible wages and work arrangements before going for the unkindest cut of all and warned of losing the trust of Singaporeans.

Brave words, spoken like a militant trade leader would.

If any, the one salutary effect it will have is on those companies that are planning similar moves. With the country in recession and with the outlook looking worse before it can get better, Mr Lim is facing his biggest challenge as secretary general of the National Trades Union Congress. His top priority must be to keep layoffs to a minimum.

DBS’ pre-emptive strike, without consulting its trade union partners, has thrown that ambition out of whack. The timing was also horrible. It came just a day after he made page one headlines when he announced a fund that employers can draw from to send workers not fully occupied for training, primarily for the aim of saving jobs. DBS’ retrenchment also cuts close to the bone because Mr Lim is the advisor to the DBS staff union branch.

To make matters worse, DBS Bank is not an ordinary bank. Neither is it an ordinary employer. Its roots are in Singapore, it is seen as government-linked and its actions are taken as a bell-weather of things to come.

If DBS can do it, why can’t we? You might understand if there are bosses out there thinking like this.

And for NTUC and Mr Lim, this episode throws open a rare trait of Singapore’s labour union movement to scrutiny: Its ability to maintain industrial harmony because of its closeness to management and government. The DBS action will make many wonder: What went wrong?

It could be that DBS had to see itself not just as a Singapore-only bank. It operates in 16 countries and is responsible for 15,000 workers. With a vast international network and its advertising tagline saying “Living, Breathing Asia”, it can’t be seen to axe only workers in overseas branches. So equal misery must have become the mantra.

Still the suddenness and haste with which the cuts were administered and Mr Lim’s sharp reactions have given the labour movement and the political leadership much to think about

Navel gazing is not such a bad thing, especially in a crisis.

HE REALLY DIGS HIS HAND-BUILT CAR

Tuesday, 4-November-2008

Man digs under house to remove home-made Lamborghini
Ken Imhoff began building the sports car after falling in love with it during the movie Cannonball Run.

He built his own version in the basement of his home in Wisconsin, USA, over a period of 10 years.

However, when he finished assembling it, he was confronted with the problem of how to get the car out.

Since there was no garage door through which to drive the vehicle,

he was forced to hire an excavator to gouge out a slope in his garden

and then dig down into the foundations of his house.

The car was then hooked up to the excavator and pulled out.

Despite the amount of effort involved, Mr Imhoff said that it was all worth it.

SM GOH CHOK TONG ASKS SINGAPOREANS TO SPEND MORE

Excerpts from SM Goh’s speech :



“If all of us go into a power save mode, then the economy will really go into a recession! This is what economists called the Paradox of Thrift.”



Our take: WOW, when Singapore’s economy grow, the credit goes to the PAP which prompty raise their salaries. When Singapore goes into recession, the fault lies with Singaporeans for not spending enough ! Remember how the blame for Mas Selamat’s escape is conveniently shifted to Singaporeans - because we are too complacent !



“Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the Government will take care of all security matters” ( MM Lee Kuan Yew on Mas Selamat’s escape, 5 April 2008, Straits Times )



“If you have sufficient savings and can afford to spend, you should continue to spend on life’s little pleasures.”



Our take: Previously, the PAP has been exhorting us to cut down on our spending all the while and now SM Goh asks us to spend. Or have he forgotten what his colleage Lim Hng Kiang said in November last year:



“First, the CPI measures average changes in prices across all households. Whether there is an increase in the cost of living for a particular household depends on that household’s spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI” ( Lim Hng Kiang urging Singaporeans to switch to ‘cheaper’ products to cope with rising cost of living, 14 November 2007, Straits Times )



“Take your family to the movies, shop, dine out at restaurants and hawker centres, go for your regular foot massage, indulge yourself at a spa, take a taxi, donate to charity and so on. This way, we keep the economy going. In fact, I would say when times are a little slow, you could get the best bargain.”



Our take: SM Goh must be kidding. Only his wife, who earns more than a peanut a year is able to indulge in such luxuries, not ordinary folks like us who are struggling to pay for our utility bills, transport fares and three basic meals for the day. Can we get a better bargain now by shipping out our expensive ministers and replacing them with cheaper foreign talents ?



“You’re getting a bargain for the ministers you get… I worked half as much and earn(ed) five times more when I was in the private sector.” ( Minister of Manpower Dr Ng Eng Hen, 9 September 2003, CAN )



However we still don’t understand why SM Goh is so worried about our economy going into recession which will lead to the massive retrenchment he so crave for:

“Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchment, then I worry.” ( Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, 2006, Straits Times )

OBAMA'S VICTORY ACCEPTANCE-SPEECH

YES WE CAN !

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
Chicago, Illinois


The Presidential race was called for Barack Obama at 11p.m. on the East Coast, 8p.m. on the West. An hour later he was on stage at Grant Park in Chicago, speaking to the tens of thousands of supporters gathered there.



Transcript of Obama's speech is below. Listen or watch video-clip for the fuller impact. I had a bit of goose pimples listening to BBC's broadcast of this all-encompassing and wizardry "rallying call" at lunchtime. Civil rights leader Rev Jesse Jackson stood there with pride. Oprah Winfrey was reportedly moved to tears. The better candidate prevailed and it's African-American Camelot, indeed! Let's hope this candle will burn for the entire 4-year term.




If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama.. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.



Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Obama Wins eletoral votes 338 to McCain's 141 ..Obama is the new prez!!

Barack Obama swept to victory as the nation's first black president Tuesday night in an electoral college landslide that overcame racial barriers as old as America itself. "Change has come," he told a jubilant hometown Chicago crowd estimated at nearly a quarter-million people.

The son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, the Democratic senator from Illinois sealed his historic triumph by defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in a string of wins in hard-fought battleground states — Ohio, Florida, Iowa and more. He captured Virginia and Indiana, too, the first candidate of his party in 44 years to win either.

Obama's election capped a meteoric rise — from mere state senator to president-elect in four years.

Spontaneous celebrations erupted from Atlanta to New York and Philadelphia as word of Obama's victory spread. A big crowd filled Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

In his first speech as victor, to an enormous throng at Grant Park in Chicago, Obama catalogued the challenges ahead. "The greatest of a lifetime," he said, "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."

He added, "There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."

McCain called his former rival to concede defeat — and the end of his own 10-year quest for the White House. "The American people have spoken, and spoken clearly," McCain told disappointed supporters in Arizona.

President Bush added his congratulations from the White House, where his tenure runs out on Jan. 20. "May God bless whoever wins tonight," he had told dinner guests earlier.

Obama, in his speech, invoked the words of Lincoln, recalled Martin Luther King Jr., and seemed to echo John F. Kennedy.

"So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder," he said.

He and his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, will take their oaths of office as president and vice president on Jan. 20, 2009. McCain remains in the Senate.

Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, returns to Alaska as governor after a tumultuous debut on the national stage.

He will move into the Oval Office as leader of a country that is almost certainly in recession, and fighting two long wars, one in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan.

The popular vote was close — 51.7 percent to 47 percent with 84 percent of all U.S. precincts tallied — but not the count in the Electoral College, where it mattered most.

There, Obama's audacious decision to contest McCain in states that hadn't gone Democratic in years paid rich dividends.

Shortly after 2 a.m. the East, The Associated Press count showed Obama with 349 electoral votes, well over the 270 needed for victory. McCain had 144 after winning states that comprised the normal Republican base, including Texas and most of the South.

Interviews with voters suggested that almost six in 10 women were backing Obama nationwide, while men leaned his way by a narrow margin. Just over half of whites supported McCain, giving him a slim advantage in a group that Bush carried overwhelmingly in 2004.

The results of the AP survey were based on a preliminary partial sample of nearly 10,000 voters in Election Day polls and in telephone interviews over the past week for early voters. Obama has said his first order of presidential business will be to tackle the economy. He has also pledged to withdraw most U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.

In Washington, the Democratic leaders of Congress celebrated.

"It is not a mandate for a party or ideology but a mandate for change," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California: "Tonight the American people have called for a new direction. They have called for change in America."

Democrats also acclaimed Senate successes by former Gov. Mark Warner in Virginia, Rep. Tom Udall in New Mexico and Rep. Mark Udall in Colorado. All won seats left open by Republican retirements.

In New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen defeated Republican Sen. John Sununu in a rematch of their 2002 race, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole fell to Democrat Kay Hagan in North Carolina.

Biden won a new term in Delaware, a seat he will resign before he is sworn in as vice president.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, survived a scare in Kentucky, and in Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss hoped to avoid a December runoff.

The Democrats piled up gains in the House, as well.

They defeated seven Republican incumbents, including 22-year veteran Chris Shays in Connecticut, and picked up nine more seats where GOP lawmakers had retired.

At least three Democrats lost their seats, including Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney, turned out of office after admitting to two extramarital affairs while serving his first term in Florida. In Louisiana, Democratic Rep. Don Cazayoux lost the seat he had won in a special election six months ago.

The resurgent Democrats also elected a governor in one of the nation's traditional bellwether states when Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon won his race.

An estimated 187 million voters were registered, and in an indication of interest in the battle for the White House, 40 million or so had already voted as Election Day dawned.

Obama sought election as one of the youngest presidents, and one of the least experienced in national political affairs.

That wasn't what set the Illinois senator apart, though — neither from his rivals nor from the other men who had served as president since the nation's founding more than two centuries ago. A black man, he confronted a previously unbreakable barrier as he campaigned on twin themes of change and hope in uncertain times.

McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, a generation older than his rival at 72, was making his second try for the White House, following his defeat in the battle for the GOP nomination in 2000.

A conservative, he stressed his maverick's streak. And although a Republican, he did what he could to separate himself from an unpopular president.

For the most part, the two presidential candidates and their running mates, Biden and Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, spent weeks campaigning in states that went for Bush four years ago.

McCain and Obama each won contested nominations — the Democrat outdistancing former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton — and promptly set out to claim the mantle of change.

Obama won California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

McCain had Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

He also won at least four of Nebraska's five electoral votes, with the other one in doubt.

Shocked by the harsh realities

Shocked by the harsh realities

The man in the street finds it hard to understand why electricity charges have gone up when the price of oil - to which the gas for generating power is tied - has come down.



DAZED by months of paying more for almost everything except fresh air, Singaporeans found themselves hit again — by a big increase in electricity bills.



From Oct 1 they had to pay a mind-boggling 21.89% higher power tariffs despite the collapse in the oil price, the second increase this year; in January, the rates went up by 6%.



The latest series are bound to exert inflationary pressures on the economy, which is declining along with the stock and property markets. Singaporeans are girding up for real hardship ahead.



The increase has badly affected middle-class Singaporeans, who are baffled by it. It couldn’t have come at a worse time. Yesterday, the city state entered a recession, after six years of growth.



A pall of gloom has descended. Over the past few days, panic had gripped the market here in line with world bourses as investors dumped shares in panic.



Property is also in decline. As a result, much of the personal wealth that has taken Singaporeans years to accumulate has evaporated.



And they now find themselves with a power headache, leading people to ask: “Why a 22% increase when oil is 33% cheaper?”



For sure, it was not to alleviate losses to the state. Last year, the Temasek-owned electricity company, Singapore Power, made profits in excess of S$1bil (RM2.4bil).



To critics, it is an example of Singapore Inc sticking to the principle of state-linked enterprise striving to make maximum profits, even in a downturn.



Three government-owned power companies produce 90% of electricity here. Recently the government sold off two of them to Chinese and Japanese firms for a total of S$8bil (RM19.1bil).



Some 80% of power is produced by natural gas. The gas, imported from Indonesia, is priced under contract according to the oil market. Since the oil price has fallen from US$147 a barrel to US$88 (RM515 to RM308) in recent months, Singaporeans had expected a drop in electricity costs.



The jump appears even more unseemly vis-a-vis Hong Kong, its long-time rival frequently held up for comparison.



On Oct 1, the same day as Singapore’s increase, Hong Kong reduced its electricity costs by 3%. Even then, people there complained it fell far short of market realities.



So why the increase in Singapore? Was it a mistake by bureaucrats?



The government says there’s a perfectly good reason for the disparity. In Singapore, the tariffs are calculated from oil prices in the preceding three months. Oil was more expensive then.



Singaporeans appear baffled with the explanation, asking if Hong Kong can make its market work better, why can’t we?



Four months earlier, many Singaporeans had complained about mysterious overcharging in their electricity bills.

The electric company said it had received — and investigated — 1,093 complaints in April that the bills jumped for no apparent reason, some by 60%-113%.



The controversies followed from a strategy to privatise electricity.



Temasek Holdings recently sold off two companies — Tuas Power (in March) and Senoko Power (in September) to the Chinese and a Japanese-led consortium for about S$8bil. The third, PowerSeraya, will follow suit next year.



Irritated Singaporeans do not regard electricity as just another market product to buy and sell, but as a public service. “It is unwise for an elected government to price it for too much profit,” said a stock broker.



He queried whether the price rise was linked to the sale of the plants. “Obviously, the higher the electricity charges, the higher they can fetch on the world market,” he observed.



Admitting the ‘rather high’ charges were unsettling people, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam promised to introduce measures in next year’s Budget to help ease the impact.



At the same time another state-controlled company, Singtel, has raised fixed-line telephone rates by S$10 (RM24) from Jan 1. Annual residential and business rates will be S$110 (RM262) and S$160 (RM380), respectively.



The technical recession — particularly the repercussion of state profits in times of crisis — will likely increase political pressure on the government.



Some observers believe that if the fallout were to result in severe hardship, it could impact the election due in two or three years’ time.



Much depends on how much the bulk of the heartland voters are affected by recession and inflation.



The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has won credit for Singapore’s rapid progress in the past 40 years, which turned Singapore into an advanced global city.



But when things go wrong, it will take a proportionately larger blame.



Lately, there have been calls for the government to draw on state reserves to provide relief to stricken — especially unemployed — Singaporeans, instead of investing them in Western banks with questionable returns.



In the past, such appeals had been rejected with the explanation that reserves were meant for a rainy day. The debate now is: Have the heavy rains started?



The power price rise has revisited the matter of state corporatism in times of crisis.



The Singapore government is both a provider of public services as well as — at least indirectly — a major seller of these services for the state’s coffers.



In happy times, it evokes little complaint since in contributes to substantial asset accumulation; the profits go back to Singaporeans collectively.



But in times of hardship, this role of provider-cum-seller of public services becomes hard to balance. How far should profit in state-controlled firms be allowed in times of trouble?



So far, there is no sign that any change is forthcoming, at least not until the level of public suffering hits an unbearable level.