What is KJ's problem?

[steffychun]

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr12146.htm

Singapore is NOT the only country to make a COMMITTMENT (not a guaranteed loan) to the IMF. Singapore's loan is the smallest compared to the debt ridden UK. In the UK, no parliamentary debate has been performed over the country's IMF pledge which is far larger than SG's. Is KJ some superpower non-elected legislator to ask about parliamentary approval?

 

[myfoot123]

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr12146.htm

Singapore is NOT the only country to make a COMMITTMENT (not a guaranteed loan) to the IMF. Singapore's loan is the smallest compared to the debt ridden UK. In the UK, no parliamentary debate has been performed over the country's IMF pledge which is far larger than SG's. Is KJ some superpower non-elected legislator to ask about parliamentary approval?

Technically, the loan to IMF is considered not approved without due process. KJ's intention is good and clear, that the money don't belong to the LEE family. He created news of worthy discussion that how Singaporeans must defend our money from being exploited by PAP at its whims and fancies. If loan can be given to IMF with ease and without due process of approval, how many more similaries can be funded to MIW's invididual bank accounts without Singaporeans knowledge? KJ's news is Singapore news, he keeps msm on its toe and force his concern into the public that msm dare not report. I am sure when people read KJ's news thru ST or msm, people began to question why PAP so-like-that.

 

[steffychun]

Technically, the loan to IMF is considered not approved without due process. KJ's intention is good and clear, that the money don't belong to the LEE family. He created news of worthy discussion that how Singaporeans must defend our money from being exploited by PAP at its whims and fancies. If loan can be given to IMF with ease and without due process of approval, how many more similaries can be funded to MIW's invididual bank accounts without Singaporeans knowledge? KJ's news is Singapore news, he keeps msm on its toe and force his concern into the public that msm dare not report. I am sure when people read KJ's news thru ST or msm, people began to question why PAP so-like-that.

It's not a loan, it is a committment. Read the IMF press release. And as I said, no other proper democracies' parliamentarians or non-parliamentarians are complain to their governments which have pledged 2, 3, 4, 5 more times more than Singapore! Look at the list! Most of those who also committed are debt ridden countries! And Westminister style models! Do you see the UK government asking parliamentary approval for every single agreement?

 

[Time2Evacuate]

He is barking up the wrong tree lor. That is his problem....

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

You cannot just suka suka make any commitment to loan without seeking the proper authority. In this case, it is obvious that MAS didn't seek approval from both parliament and President before it made such commitment.

Imagine if MAS has made such commitment but in the end, parliament or President didn't agree to make the loan when the loan is demanded by IMF, what will happen? It will affect Singapore's international image and credibility.

MAS didn't deny this. Please read MAS' reply to this issue. Its reply is crap. It claims that the Constitution only limits the government from raising loans, not giving loans. This is really crap. If the government don't even follow the law and Constitution, there can be no Rule of Law at all.

Goh Meng Seng

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr12146.htm

Singapore is NOT the only country to make a COMMITTMENT (not a guaranteed loan) to the IMF. Singapore's loan is the smallest compared to the debt ridden UK. In the UK, no parliamentary debate has been performed over the country's IMF pledge which is far larger than SG's. Is KJ some superpower non-elected legislator to ask about parliamentary approval?

 

[ray_of_hope]

I fail to see the issue. This is simply a loan, not a grant or gift. If the loan is actually drawn upon then S'pore stands to earn significant interest.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well, let's look at this issue in perspective. If there is really a rogue govt and it started to give loans to some fishy institutions owned by the families of the politicians, there will not be any checks and balances applied. The money can just be squandered off.

Goh Meng Seng

I fail to see the issue. This is simply a loan, not a grant or gift. If the loan is actually drawn upon then S'pore stands to earn significant interest.

 

[steffychun]

You cannot just suka suka make any commitment to loan without seeking the proper authority. In this case, it is obvious that MAS didn't seek approval from both parliament and President before it made such commitment.

Imagine if MAS has made such commitment but in the end, parliament or President didn't agree to make the loan when the loan is demanded by IMF, what will happen? It will affect Singapore's international image and credibility.

MAS didn't deny this. Please read MAS' reply to this issue. Its reply is crap. It claims that the Constitution only limits the government from raising loans, not giving loans. This is really crap. If the government don't even follow the law and Constitution, there can be no Rule of Law at all.

Goh Meng Seng

Ahem, can you ask George Osborne and the other finance ministers of the other countries why they never seeked parliamentary approval from their parliaments (some have more than 1 house) before pledging more than Singapore's contribution?

 

[steffychun]

I fail to see the issue. This is simply a loan, not a grant or gift. If the loan is actually drawn upon then S'pore stands to earn significant interest.

Good analysis. Loans and Grants--something KJ doesnt know about

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Different countries have different laws and constitutions. PAP has amended the Constitution to be so, so be it. But apparently, they are not following it.

Contrary to what MAS has claimed, loan to IMF could be much more riskier than loaning to a country or company. This is basically because IMF cannot print money, neither does it have any huge assets or production capabilities to back up its borrowing. Some claim that IMF member countries will back up these loans... that is not true at all. If in any circumstances that IMF cannot retrieve its loans to its clients and unable to pay its debtors, no other countries would be willing to lend IMF money again... because those richer countries are most likely to be its creditors and it would be silly for them to lend IMF to pay themselves back.

IMF is basically an empty shell, unlike a country which has land as its assets as well as its production capabilities. Would you make loans to any companies that is only an empty shell without any production capacity?

It would mean that if you have pledged to make loans to IMF, you must be prepared to write off the debts as well.

Goh Meng Seng

Ahem, can you ask George Osborne and the other finance ministers of the other countries why they never seeked parliamentary approval from their parliaments (some have more than 1 house) before pledging more than Singapore's contribution?

 

[steffychun]

Different countries have different laws and constitutions. PAP has amended the Constitution to be so, so be it. But apparently, they are not following it.

Contrary to what MAS has claimed, loan to IMF could be much more riskier than loaning to a country or company. This is basically because IMF cannot print money, neither does it have any huge assets or production capabilities to back up its borrowing. Some claim that IMF member countries will back up these loans... that is not true at all. If in any circumstances that IMF cannot retrieve its loans to its clients and unable to pay its debtors, no other countries would be willing to lend IMF money again... because those richer countries are most likely to be its creditors and it would be silly for them to lend IMF to pay themselves back.

IMF is basically an empty shell, unlike a country which has land as its assets as well as its production capabilities. Would you make loans to any companies that is only an empty shell without any production capacity?

It would mean that if you have pledged to make loans to IMF, you must be prepared to write off the debts as well.

Goh Meng Seng

I think you read the constitution differently. All Westminster governments are allowed to pursue agreements and non-parliamentary approval is the norm. The more appropriate issue is what the IMF is doing with its increased funding.

You should go back to your economic textbooks of IMF abilities and needs of funds.

 

[po2wq]

What is KJ's problem? ...

1 k missing? ... :o :p

 

[steffychun]

Read

the loans will be activated only when the IMF's existing resources fall below a critical level, and a request is made by the IMF. Any such loan to the IMF will be part of a country's Official Foreign Reserves (OFR), as the IMF is obliged to immediately repay the loan in the event that a country has a balance of payments need. The MAS loan will therefore remain in the OFR and not lead to a reduction in the reserves. Neither will any money come out of the Government Budget.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It is NOT the NORM for Westminster Govt to pursue agreement without parliamentary approval. Some agreement is exempted but not all.

Most major decisions have to go through parliamentary approval, especially when it involves great amount of taxpayers' monies.

Text book or no text book, IMF is the MOST RISKY institution and it is NOT suitable for investment purpose. Would you invest or make loans to a bank which keeps making loans to companies which are near bankruptcy?


Goh Meng Seng

I think you read the constitution differently. All Westminster governments are allowed to pursue agreements and non-parliamentary approval is the norm. The more appropriate issue is what the IMF is doing with its increased funding.

You should go back to your economic textbooks of IMF abilities and needs of funds.

 

[myfoot123]

I think you read the constitution differently. All Westminster governments are allowed to pursue agreements and non-parliamentary approval is the norm. The more appropriate issue is what the IMF is doing with its increased funding.

You should go back to your economic textbooks of IMF abilities and needs of funds.

Whether it is a loan, funding, committment or gestures involving huge amount of our tax monies, no one should single-handedly approved it. Othewise why need to have president, why need to have parliament meant for such debate. Apparently, the pledge to IMF was slipped under the table in the name of trust. Don't forget LKY trust no one and he doesn't believe in such. To him trust is an aspiration otherwise why ONLY HIS FAMI-LEE members held so tightly to Temasek, GIC where the bulk of Singaporeans money was held. His PM son is an insult to uphold the "conflict-of-interest" ideology making ball-less Singaporeans the laughing stock of the world.

 

[londontrader]

You cannot just suka suka make any commitment to loan without seeking the proper authority. In this case, it is obvious that MAS didn't seek approval from both parliament and President before it made such commitment

Actually, they can suka suka make loans anytime they want because the Constitution is quite clear on this matter. KJ needs to consult an expert in constitutional law in order to correct his mistaken position that the govt has acted ultra vires (beyond it's authority) in this matter.

We don't need anymore opposition politicians who repeatedly bark up the wrong tree. KJ needs to start asking the right questions ie. WHY is the govt allowed to suka suka make loans anyway they want AND maybe a CHANGE to the Constitution is required. Also, people should focus on why our dear Elected President has chosen to be silent when he is entitled (clearly stated in the Constitution) to speak on this matter.

When you ask the right questions, it makes it doubly difficult for the PAP to try and evade the point with references to "reddendo singula singulis" etc....

 

[londontrader]

Well, let's look at this issue in perspective. If there is really a rogue govt and it started to give loans to some fishy institutions owned by the families of the politicians, there will not be any checks and balances applied. The money can just be squandered off.

Lending (aka investing) money to (in) fishy institutions (linked to families of politicians) without parliamentary approval? Hey, I thought the PAP has been doing that all along, usually through the guise of Temasek, GIC or other govt linked entitities.

 

[londontrader]

I think you read the constitution differently. All Westminster governments are allowed to pursue agreements and non-parliamentary approval is the norm. The more appropriate issue is what the IMF is doing with its increased funding.

You should go back to your economic textbooks of IMF abilities and needs of funds.

Dear Steffy,

You need to take your own advice and hit the books again. Westminster govts DO routinely need to seek parliamentary approval before entering major agreements that involve lots of $$$$$. A case in point is the UK's IMF pledge involving a much larger sum than Singapore's.

 

[myfoot123]

This is Singapore problems, pap is thief!

 

[londontrader]

no parliamentary debate has been performed over the country's IMF pledge which is far larger than SG's

Dear Steffy,

Wrong again
Time to hit the books and see why you're wrong