Good to know that there was no money lost.
It was a pledge and no money changed hands b/c Suharto went belly up soon after
It was a pledge and no money changed hands b/c Suharto went belly up soon after
I am not familiar with regard to the specific laws governing referendums in Singapore. According to Wikipedia, referendums can be both binding and non-binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
From what I had written, I was obviously referring to the non-binding kind.
On keeping referendums for "big" issues, how big is big? To me, US$4 billion seems huge. Do we need the pledge to be like US$40 billion or maybe US$400 billion before it is "big" enough to need a referendum?
I am not familiar with regard to the specific laws governing referendums in Singapore. According to Wikipedia, referendums can be both binding and non-binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
From what I had written, I was obviously referring to a non-binding kind of referendum.
On keeping referendums for "big" issues, how big is big? To me, US$4 billion seems huge. Do we need the pledge to be like US$40 billion or maybe US$400 billion before it is "big" enough to need a referendum?
I think there is a fundamental problem here. We all think money in the kitty is our money. The PAP probably think it's actually theirs since it wouldn't be there without them. OK they cannot go so far as to put it in their pockets. But it can be used to further their interests. And since the PAP is Singapore (in their eyes) it is all one and the same. That's why they can lock up "past" reserves ...Lock up ? by whom ? for whom ? And then what ? Doesn't the hard and fast association between the reserves and the government of the day it imply a sense of possession?
My reply to you was in reference to Singapore's laws where:
1. A referendum can only be held under limited circumstances (you can look it up)
2. The result is binding
3. Not sure if a Singapore govt can call a non-binding referendum?
Good to know that there was no money lost.
Thanks to the wonders of Google I did. While non-binding referendums are currently extra-constitutional, there was some discussion about amending the Constitution to allow for non-binding referendums during the debate on whether to build the casinos. Fearing defeat (as usual), the PAP chickened out and proceeded to build the casinos without any referendum.
If you look at the Wiki link, you will find that there are many countries which have adopted non-binding referendums as part of their political process. Some of these can even be initiated by citizens provided that they can garner a sufficient level of support via pettition.
Such openness and transparency is of course only a pipe dream in Singapore where US$4 billion loan pledges fail to even make it to Parliament.
I think there is a fundamental problem here. We all think money in the kitty is our money. The PAP probably think it's actually theirs since it wouldn't be there without them. OK they cannot go so far as to put it in their pockets. But it can be used to further their interests. And since the PAP is Singapore (in their eyes) it is all one and the same. That's why they can lock up "past" reserves ...Lock up ? by whom ? for whom ? And then what ? Doesn't the hard and fast association between the reserves and the government of the day it imply a sense of possession?
While I am not a supporter of governing by referendum, I do support your right to a point of view.
So, a political party can champion your idea?
"Past reserves" includes money earned by Singapore during the PAP government prior to the elections. So even PAP cannot spend money Singapore made prior to 2011 without Tony's consent.
"Past reserves" includes money earned by Singapore during the PAP government prior to the elections. So even PAP cannot spend money Singapore made prior to 2011 without Tony's consent.
To "cheem" for any political party to be interested. Political parties here are only interested in one of the 4 areas:
1) FT issues
2) Housing issues
3) Transport issues
4) Healthcare issues
But you can try the SDP who seem to champion non-populist ideas
Trivia pop quiz question for you - When Nathan was President, how many times did he give approval for the PAP to use past reserves?
Once. So what is your point? Government spends NII and present reserves don't need his approval.
SDP has changed. With the exception of the pink issue, they have become remarkably mainstream.
WRONG ! Please try again. My point is the one LTK was making. The 2 keys turn in tandem. The PAP is free to spend past reserves as it deems fit.
Once. So what is your point? Government spends NII and present reserves don't need his approval.
Okay GMS, Let's try this again
1. The IMF writes off debt but it collects back more than it writes off in aggregate
2. The IMF doesn't face bankruptcy when writing off debt because it only lends money it can afford to lose ie. it's NOT a bank than borrows on the short end of the yield curve and lends on the long end.
3. Some one actually foots the bill for all this lending and writing off + operational expenses like Presidential suites at top hotels for the IMF Director etc.
4. That person (who pays) is the collective membership of the IMF who all make quota contributions (Singapore contributes too)
5. The G8 must be consulted on such a HUGE write off of multilateral debt (ie. IMF, World Bank etc...) because the G8 nations have VETO powers over all the decisions made by the IMF etc...
6. Yes, the G8 paid for the write off too because their quota contributions are the highest amongst the membership.