What is KJ's problem?

[aurvandil]

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

 

[cass888]

There are only two provisions for a referendum in Singapore - merger with another country and amending the powers of the President. Even the 2nd one is not even in force yet.

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?

 

[Satyr]

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?

 

[londontrader]

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?

Okay, technically speaking, in the UK Parliament is sovereign so a govt with Parliament's support can ignore the results of a referendum. This is not usually the case because it's tantamount to political suicide to ignore the will of the people.

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? Not sure even if the govt can call such an opinion seeking exercise a "referendum"? Lawyers out there can clarify.

As for my idea of a BIG issue
How about sovereignty?
Membership of a common currency bloc etc
Note that the UK has only had 11 (I think) referendums till date
and never one about an IMF pledge (they make a total commitment of 40 billion)
so why does S'pore need one

 

[londontrader]

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?

Well, people get the govt they voted for!

 

[aurvandil]

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 for a vote.

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?

 

[londontrader]

Good to know that there was no money lost.

BUT not good to know that the same mechanism (that allowed the pledge) still exists

 

[londontrader]

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.

That settles the issue, no referendum abt the IMF pledge

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.

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?

 

[cass888]

"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.

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?

 

[aurvandil]

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

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?

 

[londontrader]

"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.

Correct!
But let's remember that Tony is a temp worker (expensive one)
I'm sure Tony will have some serious personal issue that requires an early resignation, should he ever get too troublesome.

 

[aurvandil]

Trivia pop quiz question for you - When Nathan was President, how many times did he give approval for the PAP to use past reserves?

"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.

 

[londontrader]

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

Actually it's too cheem for most Singaporeans (as politicians are guided by what the masses want)
But you can try the SDP who seem to champion non-populist ideas

 

[aurvandil]

SDP has changed. With the exception of the pink issue, they have become remarkably mainstream.

But you can try the SDP who seem to champion non-populist ideas

 

[cass888]

Once. So what is your point? Government spends NII and present reserves don't need his approval.

Trivia pop quiz question for you - When Nathan was President, how many times did he give approval for the PAP to use past reserves?

 

[aurvandil]

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.

 

[londontrader]

SDP has changed. With the exception of the pink issue, they have become remarkably mainstream.

Been thinking of what has been written so far
I would have liked a referendum on the casino issue
It is a fundamental shift for Singapore

 

[londontrader]

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.

Yes Indeed
Sad isn't it

 

[aurvandil]

During his time in office, President Nathan approved use of the reserves 27 times for SERS, land acquisition and other projects.

http://www.straitstimes.com/The-Big-Story/The-Big-Story-1/Story/STIStory_699638.html

Once. So what is your point? Government spends NII and present reserves don't need his approval.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Londontrader,

I stand with Aurvandil. You don't need to have IMF to bankrupt for us to lose money. You may say IMF will not loan more than what it has in hands but that doesn't stop it from the need of writing off bad debts. And in this case, if these loans to the PIIGS are going to be written off or just getting hair cut, who will foot the bill? IMF's own kitty won't be enough to cover that loss else they won't be asking for loans from Singapore and other countries!

Thus, ultimately, when the time comes when there is a need to write off part or even whole of PIIGS loans, who will they turn to for additional funds? China? Fat hope! US? It can't even hardly save itself from trouble. The only option is to ask those who have contributed the funds to write off their loans to IMF as well.

Nobody knows how much IMF's gold reserves is worth exactly, only based on what IMF said it is. Even with that, I don't think that is enough to cover the whole PIIGS funding because we are just at the beginning of the PIIGS crisis.

These are the inherent risks we are talking about, apart from the superficial optimism given by PAP govt and MAS. I still stand by what I say, unless we are ready to write off the whole of $4B loan to IMF, else we will have to relook our positions for IMF right now. This is not an ordinary crisis of individual country at distress but the WHOLE of EU PIIGS!

And let's us be clear about this: we are not totally against contributing to IMF funds for this special extraordinary situation, however, we must not be blinded by such complacency of blind faith on promises and superficial look of "risk safe" of IMF without taking into consideration the extraordinary conditions we are facing in EU and US. I have to stress again, this is no single incident of saving just an individual country. But this is about a potentially big crisis ever, after the 1997 Asian Financial crisis. The magnitude of this present crisis is even bigger than the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis!

Goh Meng Seng

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.