The politics thread :)

[LeMans2011]

Losing majority is the only way to wake the bureaucrats up. Imagine the kind of crime situation in MY yet the BN guys thinks all is fine.

 

[LeMans2011]

I am amused at the kind of wild allegations flying around though. About BN flying 200000 foreigners in to vote for them. I am not surprised it happens, but 200000 in a space of a few days is logistically impossible.

 

[FHBH12]

Your investment in JB is safe.

Johor's Mentri Besar says Iskandar caters to all
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20130426-418545.html
By Chuah Bee Kim
New Straits Times
Friday, Apr 26, 2013

JOHOR BARU - Johor Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman yesterday said people cannot hope for the opposition to continue with the development of Iskandar Malaysia if they come to power.

Ghani, who is the outgoing menteri besar, also assured the people that development brought by the BN government was meant to be enjoyed by everyone regardless of race.

"The opposition is trying to paint a picture that they can carry out better development than BN and accused us of discriminating against one ethnic group in favour of another.

"This is not true, as we can see that the Iskandar Malaysia development caters to everyone," he said at a get-together with about 1,000 voters at the Skudai multi-purpose hall here on Wednesday night.

The BN Gelang Patah parliamentary candidate was accompanied by his wife, Prof Datin Paduka Dr Jamilah Ariffin, to the function, which was organised by the Skudai Indian Ladies Welfare Development Association.

Ghani said everyone will have fair employment opportunities in Iskandar Malaysia as the thriving development there would create a market for a wide range of skills.

He was commenting on reports on opposition's claims that if it were to win in the general election, it would continue with the development of Iskandar Malaysia and do even better.

Opposition leaders on the ceramah circuit in Gelang Patah had also alleged that only those from certain races were benefitting from the current Iskandar Malaysia development.

"Contrary to these allegations, the local community is very happy with the growing township of Iskandar Malaysia.

"We have followed all the guidelines and everything has been done in accordance with the law as we develop the area of Iskandar Malaysia which includes Gelang Patah."

Present were Skudai state candidate Liang Ah Chy and MCA Gelang Patah division chairman Jason Teoh.

 

[ginfreely]

This sounds like Greece.

Not sound like USA meh haha..Greece different leh, their rich people evade tax so the country govt become poor, they must get rich to pay lah, not like in some country the tax burden goes to the middle income with little deductions and even the poor has to pay GST for medical and food..

 

[ginfreely]

Don't you think this is a worrying sign for such a small country (or city)?

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/774/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/

Wow SG has 4 times more govt debt than Indonesia govt, PAP owe money to who?

 

[ginfreely]

....Even Michelle Yeoh was branded a traitor...

A govt that sells out the country to foreigners is called traitor. People who side with foreigners for their own benefit is called traitor. A person who chose to support traitor is called traitor, other than that just choosing a party cannot be called traitor haha...

 

[Funds Transfer]

Wow SG has 4 times more govt debt than Indonesia govt, PAP owe money to who?

The people.

GIC/Temasek/Treasury of SG borrows from CPF.
CPF issues the bonds.

On paper, Singapore looks like debt free because of the absence of external loans. But the debt is borne by the people.

So if one day, GIC/Temasek/Treasury goes bankrupt, we are goners too!

 

[Funds Transfer]

I am amused at the kind of wild allegations flying around though. About BN flying 200000 foreigners in to vote for them. I am not surprised it happens, but 200000 in a space of a few days is logistically impossible.

Malaysia boleh.

MAS and Air Asia combine forces.

 

[ginfreely]

The people.

GIC/Temasek/Treasury of SG borrows from CPF.
CPF issues the bonds.

On paper, Singapore looks like debt free because of the absence of external loans. But the debt is borne by the people.

So if one day, GIC/Temasek/Treasury goes bankrupt, we are goners too!

Oh dear, why then they keep saying the money they invest and lost is not from reserve i.e not people's money? Actually, the money there or not there no difference - people cannot see cannot touch cannot use - gone or not no difference. Perhaps it is good, maybe only a crash can solve this country's social and overcrowding problems. All the foreign trash will disappear, only real talents who don't cause social problems will remain. People who are forced out of own country and not for alternative lifestyle can finally have the peace at home country.

 

[sgtsk]

As the country heads for its 13th general election on Sunday, pollster Merdeka Centre’s latest poll has found BN chief Najib Abdul Razak’s approval rating sliding down a further three percent from its last poll.

The survey carried out among voters in peninsular Malaysia between April 28 to May 2 also placed Pakatan Rakyat ahead of BN in terms of the favoured party to form the government.

Najib's popularity has taken a slight dip from 64 percent when the last poll was conducted in March, to 61 percent now just days before the country heads to polls.

Merdeka Centre said that the figure reflects the slide in the "feel good" factor that was previously generated by the large-scale distribution of Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) and also other forms of cash handouts.

Concerns over the economy topped the list of issues that voters wanted to hear being discussed, at 25 percent.

Marginal seats will decide winner

Based on the survey results, Merdeka Center said that the emerging victor in the election will be determined by which side manages to snag a larger pie from the 46 marginal parliamentary seats across the country - all of which fall within a 3 percent vote-shift margin.

Thirty-four of the marginal seats are located in peninsular Malaysia while six each are in Sabah and Sarawak.

Apart from the marginal seats, the centre predicts that BN will win an estimated 81 parliamentary seats while Pakatan will win an estimated 89.

The survey was carried out among 1,600 registered voters via telephone interviews, with 59 percent of respondents being Malay, 32 percent Chinese and 9 percent Indians.

 

[summervale]

It is obvious the people money they used it to:-

-invest (and lost), fat pay, etc (the list goes on)..

Worst part were to financial FT to study and work here to pollute this "Sinkieland" and in turn called us "Xenophobia"?

Oh dear, why then they keep saying the money they invest and lost is not from reserve i.e not people's money? Actually, the money there or not there no difference - people cannot see cannot touch cannot use - gone or not no difference. Perhaps it is good, maybe only a crash can solve this country's social and overcrowding problems. All the foreign trash will disappear, only real talents who don't cause social problems will remain. People who are forced out of own country and not for alternative lifestyle can finally have the peace at home country.

 

[xixxix]

While some of us may not directly benefit from government policies, it is important not to spread wrong ideas about what a government is doing. Singapore's debt is different from many other countries as the "debt" is backed by current assets rather than future earnings. The whole CPF model is like a conservative bank that generates enough interests to pay the depositors i.e. the citizens. There are strict rules on how GIC allocate the savings within cpf.

The government may have not done everything right. However, we should acknowledge at least the prudent fiscal and monetary policies. We are possibly the only country without natural resources and who do not rely on land sale that has a AAA ratings of public debt. Why can we afford Malaysia properties now? Honestly, a stable monetary and fiscal policy is part of the reason.

 

[Funds Transfer]

While some of us may not directly benefit from government policies, it is important not to spread wrong ideas about what a government is doing. Singapore's debt is different from many other countries as the "debt" is backed by current assets rather than future earnings. The whole CPF model is like a conservative bank that generates enough interests to pay the depositors i.e. the citizens. There are strict rules on how GIC allocate the savings within cpf.

I have no problems with debt. More of how the debt is employed. Suffice to say, there were some bad decisions. The Government was not forthcoming and transparent about it. Read more about Christopher Balding's article. I agree that some of the things he said may be controversial but worth a deeper thought.

The government may have not done everything right. However, we should acknowledge at least the prudent fiscal and monetary policies. We are possibly the only country without natural resources and who do not rely on land sale that has a AAA ratings of public debt. Why can we afford Malaysia properties now? Honestly, a stable monetary and fiscal policy is part of the reason.

Let's not use the common excuse that we do not have natural resources. Having a deep sea harbour and a strategic location should be seen as one. Agree that hard work goes with it to make it even better.

Remember, there were a lot of countries who were AAA but not now. Something did not go right. I am not saying that Singapore is like them but we cannot assume what is in the past, will be the future. Performance and good governance too.

 

[LeMans2011]

Singapore's debt is different from many other countries as the "debt" is backed by current assets rather than future earnings

Can you explain??

 

[xixxix]

I have no problems with debt. More of how the debt is employed. Suffice to say, there were some bad decisions. The Government was not forthcoming and transparent about it. Read more about Christopher Balding's article. I agree that some of the things he said may be controversial but worth a deeper thought.


Let's not use the common excuse that we do not have natural resources. Having a deep sea harbour and a strategic location should be seen as one. Agree that hard work goes with it to make it even better.

Remember, there were a lot of countries who were AAA but not now. Something did not go right. I am not saying that Singapore is like them but we cannot assume what is in the past, will be the future. Performance and good governance too.

My sense is that sg system is more about winning the war than losing a battle. There were some mistakes in investment especially during the financial crisis but not enough to collapse the whole system built over the years. I will agree more transparency is good. Do you know that every term of government can only use taxation and fees collected during their term of office? Do you know that civil, public services and projects are funded by taxation, dividends from GICs and other fees? CPF is not touched. That is one thing that needs to be cleared.

All I am saying is that prudence is what leads Singapore to be financially sound country that need not rely on future earnings to fund current programme. Surely this reliance on cpf to support citizens prepare for retirement and housing needs is not sufficient especially for self employed and the poor. The big problem right now I sense is that many middle income also feels that we can't afford things that our parents would be able to... The government must address this and they have the financial power to do something.

 

[xixxix]

Many governments issue debt which they pay using future income such as taxes. In other words, they do not have the money now. In other words, they are highly leveraged. Singapore is different. We issue debt that is backed by current assets. In other words, we are not reliant on future taxes to pay off our public debt. In other words, very safe for any investors to buy our debt.

So why is our debt 4 times higher than GDP? One explanation is that our public savings is much bigger than our annual GDP. Much of the debt is to CPF actually. The government "borrows" and then "put the money" back.

 

[wuqi256]

My sense is that sg system is more about winning the war than losing a battle. There were some mistakes in investment especially during the financial crisis but not enough to collapse the whole system built over the years. I will agree more transparency is good. Do you know that every term of government can only use taxation and fees collected during their term of office? Do you know that civil, public services and projects are funded by taxation, dividends from GICs and other fees? CPF is not touched. That is one thing that needs to be cleared.

Can you help to elaborate how you know for sure CPF is not touched?
No one knows how much is actually in there. Some folks have already pointed out that the numbers do not add up.

http://temasekdisclosed.blogspot.com/2012/05/curious-case-of-cpf.html

Citing a very old article back then from 2007:

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My+...+And+Savings/Story/A1Story20070924-26743.html

Mr Low zoomed in on an issue that has surfaced tangentially in this and previous debates: What does the Government do with Singaporeans' CPF monies?

The standard reply to this question is that the CPF Board invests CPF funds in deposits and Singapore government bonds, and earns modest risk-free interest.

This means the CPF Board lends the money to the Singapore Government for 2.5 per cent a year. This will be raised to 3.5 per cent from next year for some part of the funds.

This raises the next question: So what does the Singapore Government do with the billions it borrows from the CPF Board?

Some people think the Government hands over part or all of the CPF funds to the investment agencies Government Investment Corporation (GIC) or Temasek Holdings.

Some academics think so too. A 2002 publication by K.J. Ngiam and L. Loh, Developing A Viable Corporate Bond Market: The Singapore Experience, says: "Most of the proceeds from such (CPF-purchased) bonds are probably channelled to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation for investment in foreign assets."

Both GIC and Temasek have managed healthy returns: GIC with 9.5 per cent a year in US dollar terms and Temasek with 18 per cent total shareholder returns a year for the last 30 years.

The gap between the return on what the Singapore Government gets for its investments and what Singaporeans get from their retirement savings has fuelled speculation that the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investment.

Mr Low asked yesterday: "Does GIC use money derived from CPF to invest?"

From his seat in the front bench, Dr Ng said: "The answer is no."

Later, when he rose to respond to other MPs, Dr Ng added:

"The relationship is not so simple. Let me give an example. You put money in a bank and you agree that you put it there and you get 2 per cent. The bank publishes a report and says of all its earnings, it earned 8 per cent. You go to the bank and say, "Iwant 8 per cent". It doesn't work."

As Dr Ng made clear, the Government bears the risk of the investment in the same way a bank bears the risk of investing members' deposits.

Rather than view the CPF Board as "lending" the money to the Government, Dr Ng said that, in fact, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has "taken our liabilities", meaning that MOF bears the risk of losing the money if investments fail.

"What MOF does with its money is MOF's consideration but the Government takes over the liabilities of the CPF Board which promises a risk-free rate to members. And that is how it works.

"The market test is, if anybody else thinks he can take on that liability, please line up. But no one will take on that liability because they can't deliver."

For Mr Low, Dr Ng's reply was ambiguous, and so he went on to say: "I'm not sure now whether the GIC does use money derived from CPF to invest, given the latest answer by the minister.

"If that is the case...does the Government short-change Singaporeans by giving CPF members 3.5 per cent of the interest rate while the GIC makes 9 per cent (and) pockets the balance of 5.5 per cent?"

So, was the CPF providing a cheap source of funds for GIC, asked Mr Low.

Dr Ng's terse reply: "If it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for that money. There are none."

His answer, in essence, says that the Government is taking on a risk no commercial institution wants to bear.

While this may be true, it does not address the question of whether the Government's spread on investment (the difference between borrowing cost and its rate of return) is at CPF members' expense.

Even People's Action Party MPs link CPF returns to the returns of GIC and Temasek.

MP Sin Boon Ann noted yesterday that "CPF balances are indirectly invested by Government through the GIC and other channels in external and real assets".

Has the time come to "wean the Government off cheap funds", he asked.

MP Ong Kian Min said that the CPF Board lends CPF funds to the Government, which in turn invests the money. He pressed for the Government to 'share' a portion of its investment gains with CPF members.

Last year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew stated that the returns of GIC and the CPF are not linked, but are two separate matters.

However, there remains confusion about whether CPF funds are used for GIC investments. Nor is it clear what use CPF funds are put to.

But one point to bear in mind is that any monies are 'fungible': that is, interchangeable, and thus hard to compartmentalise.

If the Ministry of Finance borrows $10 billion from the CPF Board, puts it into an account for, say, building infrastructure, and then hands over $10 billion from Budget surpluses to the GIC for investment, it can say with perfect justification that CPF monies are not used for GIC investments.

But no matter what account you earmark it for, people will say that CPF funds form part of the pool of money at the Government's disposal.

And if the Government gets high returns for its investment while CPF members don't, the sentiment will persist that the Government's spread is at people's expense.

More sophisticated Singaporeans understand that high returns come with high risk. The Government bears the risk of investing the funds and so earns higher returns. But it is not all upside - the returns can also be low and possibly negative too. But this does not stop Singaporeans from wanting a share of the higher returns.

Singaporeans understandably want to know what use their retirement funds are put to.

Maybe this is not even the right question to ask, since it is hard to compartmentalise what funds are used for.

But the cloud of confusion will continue until the Government gives clear replies on this question.

 

[LeMans2011]

I hope it is ok to post some video links here. Malaysian politics is really colorful. Though heavily accented, some of the speakers have superb command of chinese throwing in poems and rhymes. Here is one:
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=135407296633833" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[LeMans2011]

Many governments issue debt which they pay using future income such as taxes. In other words, they do not have the money now. In other words, they are highly leveraged. Singapore is different. We issue debt that is backed by current assets. In other words, we are not reliant on future taxes to pay off our public debt. In other words, very safe for any investors to buy our debt.

So why is our debt 4 times higher than GDP? One explanation is that our public savings is much bigger than our annual GDP. Much of the debt is to CPF actually. The government "borrows" and then "put the money" back.

The debt is backed by current assets, fine. But how do you know the value of the current assets are intact?
In layman terms, the govt borrowed CPF monies, used these monies for investment. So yes, the credit side is a debt, the debit side are where the money are being poured into, eg. Suzhou, Citibank shares, etc. GIC does not borrow CPF monies just to keep them in cash, they use them to make investments. If the investments become severely impaired, GIC might not have enough assets to pay back the debt owed to CPF.

Agree?

 

[xixxix]

Can you help to elaborate how you know for sure CPF is not touched?
No one knows how much is actually in there. Some folks have already pointed out that the numbers do not add up.

http://temasekdisclosed.blogspot.com/2012/05/curious-case-of-cpf.html

Citing a very old article back then from 2007:

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My+...+And+Savings/Story/A1Story20070924-26743.html

Mr Low zoomed in on an issue that has surfaced tangentially in this and previous debates: What does the Government do with Singaporeans' CPF monies?

The standard reply to this question is that the CPF Board invests CPF funds in deposits and Singapore government bonds, and earns modest risk-free interest.

This means the CPF Board lends the money to the Singapore Government for 2.5 per cent a year. This will be raised to 3.5 per cent from next year for some part of the funds.

This raises the next question: So what does the Singapore Government do with the billions it borrows from the CPF Board?

Some people think the Government hands over part or all of the CPF funds to the investment agencies Government Investment Corporation (GIC) or Temasek Holdings.

Some academics think so too. A 2002 publication by K.J. Ngiam and L. Loh, Developing A Viable Corporate Bond Market: The Singapore Experience, says: "Most of the proceeds from such (CPF-purchased) bonds are probably channelled to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation for investment in foreign assets."

Both GIC and Temasek have managed healthy returns: GIC with 9.5 per cent a year in US dollar terms and Temasek with 18 per cent total shareholder returns a year for the last 30 years.

The gap between the return on what the Singapore Government gets for its investments and what Singaporeans get from their retirement savings has fuelled speculation that the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investment.

Mr Low asked yesterday: "Does GIC use money derived from CPF to invest?"

From his seat in the front bench, Dr Ng said: "The answer is no."

Later, when he rose to respond to other MPs, Dr Ng added:

"The relationship is not so simple. Let me give an example. You put money in a bank and you agree that you put it there and you get 2 per cent. The bank publishes a report and says of all its earnings, it earned 8 per cent. You go to the bank and say, "Iwant 8 per cent". It doesn't work."

As Dr Ng made clear, the Government bears the risk of the investment in the same way a bank bears the risk of investing members' deposits.

Rather than view the CPF Board as "lending" the money to the Government, Dr Ng said that, in fact, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has "taken our liabilities", meaning that MOF bears the risk of losing the money if investments fail.

"What MOF does with its money is MOF's consideration but the Government takes over the liabilities of the CPF Board which promises a risk-free rate to members. And that is how it works.

"The market test is, if anybody else thinks he can take on that liability, please line up. But no one will take on that liability because they can't deliver."

For Mr Low, Dr Ng's reply was ambiguous, and so he went on to say: "I'm not sure now whether the GIC does use money derived from CPF to invest, given the latest answer by the minister.

"If that is the case...does the Government short-change Singaporeans by giving CPF members 3.5 per cent of the interest rate while the GIC makes 9 per cent (and) pockets the balance of 5.5 per cent?"

So, was the CPF providing a cheap source of funds for GIC, asked Mr Low.

Dr Ng's terse reply: "If it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for that money. There are none."

His answer, in essence, says that the Government is taking on a risk no commercial institution wants to bear.

While this may be true, it does not address the question of whether the Government's spread on investment (the difference between borrowing cost and its rate of return) is at CPF members' expense.

Even People's Action Party MPs link CPF returns to the returns of GIC and Temasek.

MP Sin Boon Ann noted yesterday that "CPF balances are indirectly invested by Government through the GIC and other channels in external and real assets".

Has the time come to "wean the Government off cheap funds", he asked.

MP Ong Kian Min said that the CPF Board lends CPF funds to the Government, which in turn invests the money. He pressed for the Government to 'share' a portion of its investment gains with CPF members.

Last year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew stated that the returns of GIC and the CPF are not linked, but are two separate matters.

However, there remains confusion about whether CPF funds are used for GIC investments. Nor is it clear what use CPF funds are put to.

But one point to bear in mind is that any monies are 'fungible': that is, interchangeable, and thus hard to compartmentalise.

If the Ministry of Finance borrows $10 billion from the CPF Board, puts it into an account for, say, building infrastructure, and then hands over $10 billion from Budget surpluses to the GIC for investment, it can say with perfect justification that CPF monies are not used for GIC investments.

But no matter what account you earmark it for, people will say that CPF funds form part of the pool of money at the Government's disposal.

And if the Government gets high returns for its investment while CPF members don't, the sentiment will persist that the Government's spread is at people's expense.

More sophisticated Singaporeans understand that high returns come with high risk. The Government bears the risk of investing the funds and so earns higher returns. But it is not all upside - the returns can also be low and possibly negative too. But this does not stop Singaporeans from wanting a share of the higher returns.

Singaporeans understandably want to know what use their retirement funds are put to.

Maybe this is not even the right question to ask, since it is hard to compartmentalise what funds are used for.

But the cloud of confusion will continue until the Government gives clear replies on this question.

Yup. When we get at the details, it gets difficult to explain and connect the dots. But it also means that there is a level of transparency in the accounting of cpf funds for people to question. I guess in the end the question is do we believe that we would not get back our monies in cpf? Do we think that the government should abolish cpf so that they do not have this "opportunity" for perceived creative accounting? Then what system should be in place to help the citizens and how do the government finance it?