Crumbling of Singapore?

[ckmpd]

Can you please start a separate thread for all your news clippings. It's messing up this thread which should stick to debating the issue of whether or not Singapore is crumbling or thriving.

Your soundbites taken out of context contribute little to the debate but are taking up server resources.

Are you doing what you preached?

Your soundbites dont contribute much to the debate too.

Look at your post #1618 (previously #1731) and post #1619 (previously #1732). They are taking up server resources too. So why did you post them?

Until you do what you said, dont tell others to do what you said.

 

[ckmpd]

For good house-keeping practice, I agree with your suggestion. But aren't u also doing the same by repeatedly posting articles on GDP growth, number of millionaires, number of luxury cars owned etc all of which are meaningless to the ordinary folks' standard of living which is what this debate is all about, and hence don't serve a single purpose in this thread either.

I agree with you. Leongsam is the biggest culprit, repeatedly posting irrelevant articles. and he has the cheek to request that I dont it. now he realises how irritating it was to be irrelevant!! I was giving him his own medicine.

Let's see whether he improves

 

[ckmpd]

Can you please start a separate thread for all your news clippings. It's messing up this thread which should stick to debating the issue of whether or not Singapore is crumbling or thriving.

Your soundbites taken out of context contribute little to the debate but are taking up server resources.

Trying to confuse forummers? Deleting some postings and changing their post numbers? Isnt your post #1618 totally irrelevant?

I can see that you have no answer to my points but chose to delete and confuse...hahahahaha.

 

[Leongsam]

Trying to confuse forummers? Deleting some postings and changing their post numbers? Isnt your post #1618 totally irrelevant?

I can see that you have no answer to my points but chose to delete and confuse...hahahahaha.

I haven't deleted any posts. I created a thread just for your soundbites and moved all your posts there and turned it into a sticky. The post count has therefore changed as a result.

Post 1618 was added to illustrate the fact that a minimum wage doesn't solve problems. I posted the complete article and you're welcome to do so in order to support an opinion that you have posted. However, please don't add all these short clippings as they don't form part of any discussion or debate.

 

[ckmpd]

I haven't deleted any posts. I created a thread just for your soundbites and moved all your posts there and turned it into a sticky. The post count has therefore changed as a result.

Post 1618 was added to illustrate the fact that a minimum wage doesn't solve problems. I posted the complete article and you're welcome to do so in order to support an opinion that you have posted. However, please don't add all these short clippings as they don't form part of any discussion or debate.

all the news clippings were from various forummers to show that SG is Crumbling. Why shd they be moved from this thread?? Once moved from this thread, by themselves they dont mean much. They are more relevant than your post 1618

 

[Leongsam]

all the news clippings were from various forummers to show that SG is Crumbling. Why shd they be moved from this thread?? Once moved from this thread, by themselves they dont mean much. They are more relevant than your post 1618

I know your intention but there are simply too many. It drowned the thread and made it very difficult to keep track of the contributions of those who actually take the time to compose a message to express their views. Such posts should be given priority as the contents take time and effort and thought.

 

[ckmpd]

I know your intention but there are simply too many. It drowned the thread and made it very difficult to keep track of the contributions of those who actually take the time to compose a message to express their views. Such posts should be given priority as the contents take time and effort and thought.

If they are relevant, why are you so concerned that they drowned the thread? They were from many forummers and they lend credibility to the arguments that SG is Crumbling.

this is an Alfresco forum and we shd allow free speech by all except those who deceive or lie.

many people have voiced out their opinions and many of these are valid...why shd you move them? just because you are afraid that the voices will drown yours??

 

[ckmpd]

Post 1618 was added to illustrate the fact that a minimum wage doesn't solve problems. I posted the complete article and you're welcome to do so in order to support an opinion that you have posted. However, please don't add all these short clippings as they don't form part of any discussion or debate.

You argued that Post 1618 is relevant.

Do you think the below post is relevant to show that SG is Crumbling?

"
The Mess that is Singapore: Part I Explaining the Debt

Posted on May 9, 2012


Ever since my paper on Temasek and Singapore was covered in Mostly Economics writing a plea for “clarifications from Temasek and SG govt”, I have begun receiving emails and postings to either explain or defend something further. Today, I will focus on the questions pertaining to the debt side.

The basic question numerous posters and email have raised is whether public Singaporean debt is actually attributable to state owned enterprises or the social security fund known as the Central Provident Fund? There is a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter. Think of a company like GE. If GE Capital goes out and borrows money, there is still an increase in the total debt of GE the parent company. So whether it is the Central Provident Fund or the state owned enterprises, at the end of the day there is still a rapid increase in the total debt of Singapore.

The longer more detailed answer is even more unpalatable. While there is most definitely a significant portion of Singaporean public debt issued by the Central Provident Fund but guaranteed by Singapore, the important part is not who holds the debt, but rather what happened to the money that was borrowed. If the Singapore state issues debt, whether it is to a foreigner, a private citizen, or the Central Provident Fund, Singapore now has more funds that they must either spend or invest. That inflow from issuing debt does not just disappear.

Since 1990, the Singaporean government has realized cash flow from increasing borrowing of $250 Billion SGD. To add on to this, the Singaporean government has enjoyed public surpluses of $262 Billion SGD. Think about that for one minute: free cash flow into government coffers between additional borrowing and surpluses averaging more than 16% of GDP between 1991 and 2010. Since 1991 alone, without factoring in revenue from interest, accumulated cash flow from additional borrowing and government surpluses has totaled $512 Billion SGD.

To give you two numbers to help you wrap your head around that number, that is equal to 155% of 2011 Singaporean GDP or roughly equal to the combined assets of Temasek the the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (The GIC does not publish assets under management but most estimates have it in the $250-300 billion USD range). The $500 billion dollar question then is: where did all this money go? In other words, how does the total increase in debt and the total government surpluses equal the estimated amount of assets under management? (It is also important to remember that this data only goes back to 1990, not the 1974 since Temasek inception).

Now let’s turn to where the money has gone. Here is a graph of the hypothetical growth of assets under management by government linked entities such as Temasek or the CPF....

If these free cash flows averaged annual growth of only 1%, assets would still amount to more than Temasek and the GIC combined. If annual growth was the GIC average of 7%, Singapore would still be sitting on more than $1 trillion SGD rather than the current estimate of around $500 billion. A 10% rate of return would leave Singapore with $1.4 trillion SGD. If public surpluses and borrowing were invested and returned even a balanced portfolio average, the current assets managed by public bodies in Singapore would truly be staggering.

As was noted in the original paper, this implies one of two things: 1) the returns are fictitious and there has been a lot of money lost OR 2) there are enormous unreported holdings controlled by Singaporean public entities. You simply cannot explain $500 billion SGD in surpluses and increased indebtedness without asking where that money has gone. As of right now, there is no record of public Singaporean assets to match what we would expect to find. Show me additional assets that should be there. Temasek and GIC don’t have them. Where is the missing money? If it wasn’t spent, and there is no public record of that, then it should be a financial asset under public Singaporean control
As a last point, if these surpluses and additional borrowing even matched the rate the CPF pays out to Singaporean citizens of 4% would equal approximately $750 billion SGD. This is 50% more than the estimated holdings of Temasek and the GIC. Unless someone can find hundreds of billions of unreported Singaporean public assets, we should assume this money has gone to money heaven.

Next time, I will describe exactly how the Central Provident Fund plays in to all this and why Singaporean should be worried…..very very worried.

 

[ckmpd]

Post 1618 was added to illustrate the fact that a minimum wage doesn't solve problems. I posted the complete article and you're welcome to do so in order to support an opinion that you have posted. However, please don't add all these short clippings as they don't form part of any discussion or debate.

Is the below article as valid as your Post 1618?

"
The Mess that is Singapore: Part II Explaining the Role of the CPF

Posted on May 10, 2012


In our last post, I gave a short and a long answer to questions about the importance of who owns the debt. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter who the government of Singapore owes money to, it still owes money to them. Some readers and posters said that if the Central Provident Fund (Singaporean social security) owns the debt issued by the Singaporean government, then it doesn’t really matter. Let’s examine that question in greater detail.

The CPF collects mandatory contributions from Singaporean citizens and pays a statutory rate of return to its account holders currently ranging from 2.5% to 4% depending on the type of account. The contributions are intended to be used for old age income support and health care among other basic services. The CPF holds $185 billion SGD of investment assets under management but also $185 in liabilities in the form of member accounts with a net surplus $1.9 billion. In other words, there is only a small amount of net assets under management at the CPF.

According to CPF financial statements, 95% of CPF investment assets are “special issues of Singapore Government securities”. In other words, the CPF is the primary purchaser of the debt issued by the government of Singapore.

The CPF is then part of a large circle that takes money from the citizens pays them interest and lends it to the government Singapore matching the interests rates between the two rather closely. This leads to three important and inescapable conclusions.

1. The CPF has minimal net assets under management and cannot really add to our search for missing assets. In other words, the CPF cannot add to our understanding of where we might find large amounts of net public assets.

2. Singaporean citizens have provided enormous free cash flow to the Singaporean government in the form of structural budget surpluses and large amounts of lending. As I said in the last post, from 1991 to 2010 alone the sum of budget surpluses and net lending totaled $512 billion SGD.

3. All roads still lead to the Singaporean government. The enormous volume of free cash flow in the form of budget surpluses and increased borrowing flowed through Singaporean government finances and was under their management.

Returning to the question I posed in the previous post, if the Singaporean government enjoyed free cash flow from budget surpluses and borrowing totaling $512 billion SGD between 1991 and 2002, where did the money go?

To be clear there is no public record of expenditures by the Singaporean government to account for the $512 billion SGD in free cash flow since 1991. Nor is there as public record of assets held by Temasek, GIC, or other public body in large enough amount to account for such a large discrepancy. Remember if this $512 billion earned the 7% GIC claims to have earned there should be more than $1 trillion in assets.

The reason the CPF matters and should concern Singaporeans is simple. The government of Singapore is borrowing money from its citizens through the CPF payed 2.5-4% and investing that money in other assets through GIC and Temasek hoping to earn a higher return. Publicly, GIC and Temasek claimed to have earned 7% and 17% since inception meaning they are earning a comfortable spread above the 2.5-4% they must pay for those funds. If Temasek and GIC earn less than the 2.5-4% they pay to the CPF, the government must essentially subsidize the losses to keep the CPF whole.

According to the data published by Temasek and the best estimates of GIC, they hold around $500 billion SGD essentially matching the $512 billion SGD in budget surpluses and increased borrowing or a total return of about 0%. This leads to two frightening conclusions.

1. While estimated GIC and Temasek assets essentially produce a 0% nominal return, when factoring in inflation, this produces real investment losses of about 35%!!

2. The government of Singapore has essentially been subsidizing GIC and Temasek losses by paying their implied obligations to the CPF even though the they have not earned a rate of return sufficient to cover the cost of debt capital. In other words, the government of Singapore is subsidizing GIC and Temasek losses to the amount of the rate of return earned by GIC or Temasek minus the 4% it pays to CPF account holders. Financial losses attributable to GIC and Temasek but covered by the government of Singapore, significantly increase the risk of CPF deposits.

There are two final points worth mentioning. First, we continue to search for enormous amounts of missing assets. For instance, it has been suggested that GIC and Temasek have not produced accurate accounts that would reconcile the difference. Given that there is a minimum of $500 billion SGD in missing assets, I am very skeptical that this is simply due to sloppy accounting. However, the fundamental point is to focus on locating in public records the missing assets. There needs to be a bare minimum of $500 billion SGD in unreported assets to begin to bridge the gap between what exists and what should exist.

Second, due to the length of this post, I only covered the CPF today and could not cover the Monetary Authority of Singapore and its foreign reserves. In the next post on Monday, I will analyze the MAS. Needless to say, it doesn’t in anyway change the analysis.
This entry was posted in Government Investment Corporation of Singapore, Singapore, Temasek Holdings, Uncategorized and tagged Government Investment Corporation of Singapore, Singapore, Temasek by christop. Bookmark the permalink.

Or are you so drowned that you need to move it to another thread?

 

[ckmpd]

I haven't deleted any posts. I created a thread just for your soundbites and moved all your posts there and turned it into a sticky. The post count has therefore changed as a result.

Post 1618 was added to illustrate the fact that a minimum wage doesn't solve problems. I posted the complete article and you're welcome to do so in order to support an opinion that you have posted. However, please don't add all these short clippings as they don't form part of any discussion or debate.

If you want to quote whole articles, then you must be prepared that others will do the same too...whether you think they are right or not because you first did so.

Dont behave like the pap...they believe only they have the say...others who say what they do not wish to hear, the pap will censor.

Now you understand why many Singaporeans hate the pap

 

[ckmpd]

I haven't deleted any posts. I created a thread just for your soundbites and moved all your posts there and turned it into a sticky. The post count has therefore changed as a result.

.

You deleted my posts of forummers postings which are relevant from this thread.

Moving them to another thread make them lose their impact

 

[Leongsam]

If you want to quote whole articles, then you must be prepared that others will do the same too...whether you think they are right or not because you first did so.

Dont behave like the pap...they believe only they have the say...others who say what they do not wish to hear, the pap will censor.

Now you understand why many Singaporeans hate the pap

I'm not censoring anything. I'm merely doing housekeeping. I've even given you a sticky thread so that it stays at the top of the section to ensure that your clippings are not buried in some insignificant corner. If anything, their impact is increased as the thread will always be visible.

I like organising the forum my way and I've been very tolerant in explaining my actions but at the end of the day, I can't please everyone.

 

[ckmpd]

I'm not censoring anything. I'm merely doing housekeeping. I've even given you a sticky thread so that it stays at the top of the section to ensure that your clippings are not buried in some insignificant corner. If anything, their impact is increased as the thread will always be visible.

Removing an opinion/comment that supports the thread or rebuke your comment is not censoring?

moving it out of the thread makes it legless and senseless

 

[ckmpd]

I like organising the forum my way and I've been very tolerant in explaining my actions but at the end of the day, I can't please everyone.

tolerant? dont overpraise yourself! you are a very crude and intolerant person.

more likely you were cornered and as the clipping debunks your point? so the next best thing you can come out with is to remove the post out of the thread!

call it by any name...but removing comments you dont like is censoring

 

[Leongsam]

call it by any name...but removing comments you dont like is censoring

I don't dislike your comments at all. All viewpoints are welcome but your copy and paste efforts aren't in response to any particular post. All you're doing is to keep adding short paras taken from other articles and messages which aren't part of the interactive process which defines a thread.

Those who are responding to the posts of others don't want to have to scroll through scores of your short paragraphs posted from elsewhere in order to find their own posts and the posts they were responding to. Quotes such as yours have a place in the forum but in a separate thread just like the one I created for myself for articles that prove that Singapore is tops.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

 

[ckmpd]

I don't dislike your comments at all. All viewpoints are welcome but your copy and paste efforts aren't in response to any particular post. All you're doing is to keep adding short paras taken from other articles and messages which aren't part of the interactive process which defines a thread.

Those who are responding to the posts of others don't want to have to scroll through scores of your short paragraphs posted from elsewhere in order to find their own posts and the posts they were responding to. Quotes such as yours have a place in the forum but in a separate thread just like the one I created for myself for articles that prove that Singapore is tops.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

They were not my comments. They were others' comments which I deemed as relevant to the thread that SG is Crumbling. I got no value to add to their comments and I just highlighted and posted them to show how others felt abt Singapore!

 

[ckmpd]

I don't dislike your comments at all. All viewpoints are welcome but your copy and paste efforts aren't in response to any particular post. All you're doing is to keep adding short paras taken from other articles and messages which aren't part of the interactive process which defines a thread.

Those who are responding to the posts of others don't want to have to scroll through scores of your short paragraphs posted from elsewhere in order to find their own posts and the posts they were responding to. Quotes such as yours have a place in the forum but in a separate thread just like the one I created for myself for articles that prove that Singapore is tops.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

If all viewpoints are welcome, why do you see the need to remove them from the thread? If you think they are not relevant, why dont just leave them there and let my postings implicate my credibility?

 

[ckmpd]

They were not my comments. They were others' comments which I deemed as relevant to the thread that SG is Crumbling. I got no value to add to their comments and I just highlighted and posted them to show how others felt abt Singapore!

shouldnt you remove only offensive, racial or religious postings?

were my postings offensive, racial? or were they removed because they make no sense to you?

 

[ckmpd]

but your copy and paste efforts aren't in response to any particular post. All you're doing is to keep adding short paras taken from other articles and messages which aren't part of the interactive process which defines a thread.

I cut and paste others' comments from another forum because I agree with them and gave credit to the writer. It's a start point for other forummers to follow-up with me if they wish to and I will continue from there. Is that wrong?

 

[Leongsam]

If all viewpoints are welcome, why do you see the need to remove them from the thread? If you think they are not relevant, why dont just leave them there and let my postings implicate my credibility?

There are certain sections that I try to keep as neat and as tidy as possible so I decided that your copy and paste efforts were messing up a good thread because they did not contribute to the cut and thrust of the debate regarding the issue of "crumbling Singapore".

When schools are institutions hold debating contests, there is a format that needs to be followed and time checks to make sure that no one party hogs the limelight. You can't just interject whenever you feel like it.

All I'm doing is trying to maintain the exchange of opinions for and against the motion so that the momentum can be maintained as far as possible. Just a couple of days ago, I decided that I wanted to contribute a rebuttal but when I tried to find the post that I wanted to rebut, I had a hell of a time wading through at least 30 of your clippings in order to find it.

Debates need to have contributions from both sides of the fence in order to make for interesting reading. By trying to monopolise the thread with your anti PAP rants, you're effectively shutting down the thread because those who want to post opposing views are effectively drowned out.

Thanks for your understanding.