<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffee Shop Talk - One Lesson from the Town Councils </TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kakowis <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">Nov-22 9:54 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 1) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>14039.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>
I read on saturday a straits times report that:
For Potong Pasir Town Council, they kept their funds in fixed deposits and singapore government bonds. This is a good strategy and i feel that Potong Pasir Town Council should give themselves a pat in the back. Although government bonds are not without risk, yet the Singapore Government is a net saver and besides we are living in Singapore. The Singapore Government bonds are definitely unlike the US Government bonds. Therefore this is a safe strategy that safeguards the assets of the residents.
Hougang Town Council kept 40% of their sinking funds with a fund manager (???) which earned them an average return of 6% over the last 3 years. Opposition MP Low Thia Kiang do not want to comment on the composition of the funds.
First: the PAP Town Councils and now the Hougang Town Council uses “Fund Managers”. Why not use the word “Financial Advisors”?
Second: LTK emphasized that they earned 6% on average over the last 3 years. This is likely to mean a not so good return this year. Which means previous years are better. Which means an extra variable needs to be disclosed - the degree of volatility;
Third: average 6% return is definitely not of low-risk, especially as it averages over the current period where many make negative returns.
What is definite about this investment issue is that both PAP and one Opposition MP do not want to divulge the way they managed the funds. They seemed to regard it as ’secret’.
Many times a number of people have expressed their concerns over how our GIC investments really do. And these people blame the PAP for keeping secret what should be made public.
And today, we see an Opposition MP preferring to keep secret about his own Town Council’s investments.
Therefore the issue is not about PAP or Opposition MPs. Given enough power, they will behave the same.
The lesson we can learn from this is that there must arise a process that keeps both the PAP and Opposition MPs honest and transparent.
By right, that should come from the Government which make it compulsory for both PAP and Opposition Town Councils to publish the exact nature of investments and hence risk to the citizens.
By truth, it must come from competing parties. Parties that will watch each other.
A two-party system will ensure more honesty and transparency.
In contrast, high salaries are more likely to ensure silence and compliance - for both ruling party and opposition MPs.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I read on saturday a straits times report that:
For Potong Pasir Town Council, they kept their funds in fixed deposits and singapore government bonds. This is a good strategy and i feel that Potong Pasir Town Council should give themselves a pat in the back. Although government bonds are not without risk, yet the Singapore Government is a net saver and besides we are living in Singapore. The Singapore Government bonds are definitely unlike the US Government bonds. Therefore this is a safe strategy that safeguards the assets of the residents.
Hougang Town Council kept 40% of their sinking funds with a fund manager (???) which earned them an average return of 6% over the last 3 years. Opposition MP Low Thia Kiang do not want to comment on the composition of the funds.
First: the PAP Town Councils and now the Hougang Town Council uses “Fund Managers”. Why not use the word “Financial Advisors”?
Second: LTK emphasized that they earned 6% on average over the last 3 years. This is likely to mean a not so good return this year. Which means previous years are better. Which means an extra variable needs to be disclosed - the degree of volatility;
Third: average 6% return is definitely not of low-risk, especially as it averages over the current period where many make negative returns.
What is definite about this investment issue is that both PAP and one Opposition MP do not want to divulge the way they managed the funds. They seemed to regard it as ’secret’.
Many times a number of people have expressed their concerns over how our GIC investments really do. And these people blame the PAP for keeping secret what should be made public.
And today, we see an Opposition MP preferring to keep secret about his own Town Council’s investments.
Therefore the issue is not about PAP or Opposition MPs. Given enough power, they will behave the same.
The lesson we can learn from this is that there must arise a process that keeps both the PAP and Opposition MPs honest and transparent.
By right, that should come from the Government which make it compulsory for both PAP and Opposition Town Councils to publish the exact nature of investments and hence risk to the citizens.
By truth, it must come from competing parties. Parties that will watch each other.
A two-party system will ensure more honesty and transparency.
In contrast, high salaries are more likely to ensure silence and compliance - for both ruling party and opposition MPs.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
