-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
The Teo Ho Pin Riddle. Come in and contribute your answers ! Thanks.
- Thread starter Dan Now
- Start date
During one of the general election campaigns (cannot remember exactly when but think it was the time when Francis Seow was contesting Eunos GRC), ruling party had posed a question to the electorate whether they could entrust their hard earned money to the town council to be run by the opposition candidates should they win the election?
Arising from the latest revelation about $16m fiasco, who should be asking the question now..?
Arising from the latest revelation about $16m fiasco, who should be asking the question now..?
Last edited:
Quoting an article posted by makapa.
For your reading.
Cheers.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Nov 19, 2008
FROM THE GALLERY
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>When in the line of fire, listen to the ground
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WHEN it comes to bread-and-butter issues affecting wallets and balance sheets, Members of Parliament showed in the last two days that they are not out of touch with the man-in-the-street.
Burning questions relating to how key Singapore investments and ordinary investors alike have been hit by the financial crisis percolated from Internet and coffee shop talk to the parliamentary chamber.
In response, the Government gave answers and pledges on future courses of action, such as in relation to the integrated resorts and investigations into allegations of mis-selling of complex financial products.
Very significantly, Parliament was told how much certain town councils run by the ruling party have sunk into toxic investments, one of the most interesting pieces of news to come out of the two-day sitting.
The problem is, some ministers and parliamentary secretaries sound as though they are delivering stakeholders' reports when they speak. When shot follow-up questions by MPs, some are unable to reply convincingly.
When an office-holder comes across as cold and technocratic, this could be alienating to ordinary Singaporeans who may have already taken a beating on the stock market and shudder at the thought of losing more money through poor investments by their local town council.
Senior Minister of State Grace Fu of the Ministry of National Development (MND), for one, was expressionless and sounded stern when facing Nominated MP Eunice Olsen's question on Monday on whether her ministry would further cap the proportion of town council investments allowed in non-government securities and bonds.
She reiterated the Government's long-held principle of 'devolving' local management to town councils, including the management of their finances.
'It is neither practical nor desirable for MND to be overly prescriptive' about the councils' investment decisions, Ms Fu said, adding that residents should themselves ask their town councils if they were aware of the risks involved in those questionable investments.
Her reply left more doubts. Should it still be business as usual for the ministry, without so much as a nod to greater scrutiny of town councils' financial statements after this $16 million exposure to toxic products? Sometimes, more needs to be said, rather than less.
To be sure, Ms Fu is extremely new to the business of handling questions in Parliament. Given this qualifier, she is actually faring very well indeed.
Younger ministers need more time to fully internalise a policy line such that they can communicate it under the most trying circumstances, confidently and with a human face.
Her colleague in the ministry, Parliamentary Secretary Mohamad Maliki Osman, had a similar struggle yesterday when confronted with another hot- button topic: the limited supply of subsidised rental flats, which the Government wants to reserve for the very needy.
The subject came up during a debate on how to help the 420,000 low-income households who have trouble meeting their monthly mortgage payments on Housing Board loans.
Three MPs told him that more residents have been coming to them with difficulties in this regard, and quizzed him on alternatives other than home ownership for such households.
'Most of the cases, they cannot afford to even downgrade (to a smaller flat). Where do you want them to go,' challenged an impassioned Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC). She appealed for more rental flats and different levels of subsidies.
An earnest-looking Dr Maliki had no real answer to this, apart from reassuring her that the HDB is trying its best to help such families on a case-by-case basis.
Then it was back to the Government's oft-stated aversion to giving out too many subsidies.
'At what point do we actually stop (giving subsidies) and say, 'That's it, I think you have benefited and let's find other solutions for you',' he said.
Older hands such as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam fared better in the line of fire, coming across as more flexible and compassionate while conveying a clear bottom line.
He was asked: Should there be an independent panel to evaluate investors' complaints, rather than have them assessed by the financial institutions themselves?
Mr Tharman's response was a simple one: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires that the process be overseen by independent persons approved by MAS, and this is sufficient to ensure impartiality.
While stressing that the best way forward was to let the rule of law take effect rather than putting political pressure on MAS and the banks, he also said that 'if you ask me where my sympathies are... our sympathies are with the investors', a good number of whom have lost their retirement savings.
Make no mistake about this, he said, 'MAS is not cloistered in...a very formidable building', it is 'listening to feedback all the time'.
Those words, in themselves, are a good reminder for the nation's legislature - to be sensitive to voices from the ground. [email protected]<!-- / message -->
For your reading.
Cheers.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Nov 19, 2008
FROM THE GALLERY
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>When in the line of fire, listen to the ground
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WHEN it comes to bread-and-butter issues affecting wallets and balance sheets, Members of Parliament showed in the last two days that they are not out of touch with the man-in-the-street.
Burning questions relating to how key Singapore investments and ordinary investors alike have been hit by the financial crisis percolated from Internet and coffee shop talk to the parliamentary chamber.
In response, the Government gave answers and pledges on future courses of action, such as in relation to the integrated resorts and investigations into allegations of mis-selling of complex financial products.
Very significantly, Parliament was told how much certain town councils run by the ruling party have sunk into toxic investments, one of the most interesting pieces of news to come out of the two-day sitting.
The problem is, some ministers and parliamentary secretaries sound as though they are delivering stakeholders' reports when they speak. When shot follow-up questions by MPs, some are unable to reply convincingly.
When an office-holder comes across as cold and technocratic, this could be alienating to ordinary Singaporeans who may have already taken a beating on the stock market and shudder at the thought of losing more money through poor investments by their local town council.
Senior Minister of State Grace Fu of the Ministry of National Development (MND), for one, was expressionless and sounded stern when facing Nominated MP Eunice Olsen's question on Monday on whether her ministry would further cap the proportion of town council investments allowed in non-government securities and bonds.
She reiterated the Government's long-held principle of 'devolving' local management to town councils, including the management of their finances.
'It is neither practical nor desirable for MND to be overly prescriptive' about the councils' investment decisions, Ms Fu said, adding that residents should themselves ask their town councils if they were aware of the risks involved in those questionable investments.
Her reply left more doubts. Should it still be business as usual for the ministry, without so much as a nod to greater scrutiny of town councils' financial statements after this $16 million exposure to toxic products? Sometimes, more needs to be said, rather than less.
To be sure, Ms Fu is extremely new to the business of handling questions in Parliament. Given this qualifier, she is actually faring very well indeed.
Younger ministers need more time to fully internalise a policy line such that they can communicate it under the most trying circumstances, confidently and with a human face.
Her colleague in the ministry, Parliamentary Secretary Mohamad Maliki Osman, had a similar struggle yesterday when confronted with another hot- button topic: the limited supply of subsidised rental flats, which the Government wants to reserve for the very needy.
The subject came up during a debate on how to help the 420,000 low-income households who have trouble meeting their monthly mortgage payments on Housing Board loans.
Three MPs told him that more residents have been coming to them with difficulties in this regard, and quizzed him on alternatives other than home ownership for such households.
'Most of the cases, they cannot afford to even downgrade (to a smaller flat). Where do you want them to go,' challenged an impassioned Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC). She appealed for more rental flats and different levels of subsidies.
An earnest-looking Dr Maliki had no real answer to this, apart from reassuring her that the HDB is trying its best to help such families on a case-by-case basis.
Then it was back to the Government's oft-stated aversion to giving out too many subsidies.
'At what point do we actually stop (giving subsidies) and say, 'That's it, I think you have benefited and let's find other solutions for you',' he said.
Older hands such as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam fared better in the line of fire, coming across as more flexible and compassionate while conveying a clear bottom line.
He was asked: Should there be an independent panel to evaluate investors' complaints, rather than have them assessed by the financial institutions themselves?
Mr Tharman's response was a simple one: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires that the process be overseen by independent persons approved by MAS, and this is sufficient to ensure impartiality.
While stressing that the best way forward was to let the rule of law take effect rather than putting political pressure on MAS and the banks, he also said that 'if you ask me where my sympathies are... our sympathies are with the investors', a good number of whom have lost their retirement savings.
Make no mistake about this, he said, 'MAS is not cloistered in...a very formidable building', it is 'listening to feedback all the time'.
Those words, in themselves, are a good reminder for the nation's legislature - to be sensitive to voices from the ground. [email protected]<!-- / message -->
Dear friends,
Thanks for all the response.
The above article came in handy and timely.
The last 2 paragraph might throw some light to what I am hinting at.
Now imagine that you are in parliament. What would you ask face to face to the MPs about the issues surrouding the town council funds ?
Any guesses ?
Cheers.
Dan
Thanks for all the response.
The above article came in handy and timely.
The last 2 paragraph might throw some light to what I am hinting at.
Now imagine that you are in parliament. What would you ask face to face to the MPs about the issues surrouding the town council funds ?
Any guesses ?
Cheers.
Dan
Why are they collecting $60+ a month from me while their FT only sweep or wash corridor once a week?
I pay the carpark FT $30 a month and he wash my car everyday...
We should privatise TC and then can have competitive prices... else all go into SINKING fund. Maybe this will give our telco ideas, that they shud increase the prices so that they can have a SINKING fund to maintain the broadcasting stations etc...
wtf
I pay the carpark FT $30 a month and he wash my car everyday...
We should privatise TC and then can have competitive prices... else all go into SINKING fund. Maybe this will give our telco ideas, that they shud increase the prices so that they can have a SINKING fund to maintain the broadcasting stations etc...
wtf
for me, as a common HDB dweller, I did not think so much the principles of investments.
For me its simple.
if the town council has money to invest - that means they are collecting too much by way of conservancy charges, car park charges and what nots. So, if they are having surpluses (to extent that they can invest) - they should not collect so much conservancy charges or stop collecting for a period of time.
What is the purpose of having so much surplus for? for emergency? What emergency? If Singapore have foreign reserves for emergency, I can understand but why the fuck must town council have so much reserve?
Secondly, even if you need to have reserve, its not for investment - at the minimum, it shld be kept as deposit at 0% risk. The town council job is to maintain the HDB estates under their purview and not make returns on investments.
There should be a limit on the amount town council can hold - eg: 20% buffer. When this level is reached. No conservancy charges is to be levied. In times like this, residents will be grateful because seriously, I question why TC has so much money for fuck,
For me its simple.
if the town council has money to invest - that means they are collecting too much by way of conservancy charges, car park charges and what nots. So, if they are having surpluses (to extent that they can invest) - they should not collect so much conservancy charges or stop collecting for a period of time.
What is the purpose of having so much surplus for? for emergency? What emergency? If Singapore have foreign reserves for emergency, I can understand but why the fuck must town council have so much reserve?
Secondly, even if you need to have reserve, its not for investment - at the minimum, it shld be kept as deposit at 0% risk. The town council job is to maintain the HDB estates under their purview and not make returns on investments.
There should be a limit on the amount town council can hold - eg: 20% buffer. When this level is reached. No conservancy charges is to be levied. In times like this, residents will be grateful because seriously, I question why TC has so much money for fuck,
Mr MP sir, I would like to enquire if you have eaten and are you a virgin?
Hahaha ! :P
That will take the house down wouldn't it ?
You are pretty right, our parliament is a waste of time.
It is long been speculated that questions fielded in parliament have been given before hand to those MPs that were queried. That is why so many times, MPs replying to them are able to read from their script in reply.
What a cock and bull show the whole process is.
Dan
Absolutely!!!! Im wondering can the Town Council bastards, esp the mangy dog Dr Teo, give a detailed breakdown on how the TC fees collected,are being spent. I mean, how can a TC have so much surpluses? Are they overcharging the residents in the 1st place?
Dear friends,
Allow me some liberty in fielding some questions for your consideration.
Now clearly, our fellow writer here, Rainnix, and another writer here in another thread, MentalMortis have hit the nail on the head.
Its all about the process of RECOVERY of the funds that was lost.
Most importantly it goes down right to the issue of accountability of the ministers involve.
It is high irony that Dr. Teo Ho Pin, who was once the CASE president ( Consumer Association of Singapore ) did not take MAS to task in regards to the compensation issues of the investment that was lost by the Town council to press Mr Tharman to act against those banks that sold the Town council the minibonds.
One BOGGLES at the prospect that is Dr. Teo Ho Pin would just simply allow the bad investment to be written off just like that ? What are his course of action to SECURE AT LEAST SOME COMPENSATION for the residents of those town council that have lost money ?
In the WHOLE parliamentary debate that went on, NONE of the MPs brought up this issue. In the whole press coverage so far, none of the reporters sees it fit to raise the issue. This is absolutely pathetic to the core.
Instead, Dr Teo have the cheek to remind Singaporeans that they should be thankful for the bungles he have made.
The dangers of his careless and arrogant attitude towards the 16 million dollar loss just goes to show how flippant and pathetic the way our leaders treat the collective assets of ALL Singaporeans.
The Town Council sinking funds are NOT the private investment of the PAP.
Even if one cent is lost, due to the faulty mechanism of its investment strategies etc, it should be taken seriously. Those are the hallmarks standards of a system that is robust and accountable. But no. Dr. Teo wouldn't have it. He would prefer to blame Singaporeans for being complaining and that we are all ingrates.
The next question would be, since those losses have been incurred, what have Dr. Teo done so far to try to recover those losses ? Have he written to the banks ? IF NOT, WHY HASN'T HE DONE SO ?
Why are our BANKS given so much leeway ? Shouldn't Dr. Teo press the MAS now to investigate the banks involve for the reply on the status of those losses ?
Is any compensation avaliable ?
So Dr. Teo owes us some answers.
Sure, we want to thank him for his efforts, but first tell us what has he done so far to try to recoup some of the losses.
Dan
Allow me some liberty in fielding some questions for your consideration.
Now clearly, our fellow writer here, Rainnix, and another writer here in another thread, MentalMortis have hit the nail on the head.
Its all about the process of RECOVERY of the funds that was lost.
Most importantly it goes down right to the issue of accountability of the ministers involve.
It is high irony that Dr. Teo Ho Pin, who was once the CASE president ( Consumer Association of Singapore ) did not take MAS to task in regards to the compensation issues of the investment that was lost by the Town council to press Mr Tharman to act against those banks that sold the Town council the minibonds.
One BOGGLES at the prospect that is Dr. Teo Ho Pin would just simply allow the bad investment to be written off just like that ? What are his course of action to SECURE AT LEAST SOME COMPENSATION for the residents of those town council that have lost money ?
In the WHOLE parliamentary debate that went on, NONE of the MPs brought up this issue. In the whole press coverage so far, none of the reporters sees it fit to raise the issue. This is absolutely pathetic to the core.
Instead, Dr Teo have the cheek to remind Singaporeans that they should be thankful for the bungles he have made.
The dangers of his careless and arrogant attitude towards the 16 million dollar loss just goes to show how flippant and pathetic the way our leaders treat the collective assets of ALL Singaporeans.
The Town Council sinking funds are NOT the private investment of the PAP.
Even if one cent is lost, due to the faulty mechanism of its investment strategies etc, it should be taken seriously. Those are the hallmarks standards of a system that is robust and accountable. But no. Dr. Teo wouldn't have it. He would prefer to blame Singaporeans for being complaining and that we are all ingrates.
The next question would be, since those losses have been incurred, what have Dr. Teo done so far to try to recover those losses ? Have he written to the banks ? IF NOT, WHY HASN'T HE DONE SO ?
Why are our BANKS given so much leeway ? Shouldn't Dr. Teo press the MAS now to investigate the banks involve for the reply on the status of those losses ?
Is any compensation avaliable ?
So Dr. Teo owes us some answers.
Sure, we want to thank him for his efforts, but first tell us what has he done so far to try to recoup some of the losses.
Dan
Similar threads
