This thread dedicated to LAUGHS...HAHAHA!!!

Let me start the ball rolling. The following post surely is a good laugh for the day.

EL defies gloom, launches condo <!--10 min-->
<!-- headline one : start --> <!-- headline one : end --> <!-- Author --> <!-- show image if available --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr></tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold">By Joyce Teo </td></tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="330">
</td> <td width="10"> </td> <td valign="bottom">
EL Development held a sneak preview to test the market a fortnight ago and then a soft launch last weekend, when it sold half of the 60 launched units. -- PHOTO: EL DEVELOPMENT

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--> A DEVELOPER is rolling out a rare condominium launch in Woodlands this weekend - optimistic that lower than planned prices will draw buyers despite the gloomy market conditions.

EL Development is launching 99-year leasehold condo 200-unit Rosewood Suites at $580 per sq ft (psf) on average.



The developer held a sneak preview to test the market a fortnight ago and then a soft launch last weekend, when it sold half of the 60 launched units.

Launches have been few and far between in recent months as most developers continue to hold off given volatile markets and poor sentiment.

'We tested the market ... and we were pleasantly surprised that the response was good so we are going ahead with the launch,' said Mr Lim Yew Soon, managing director of El Development, a unit of local builder Evan Lim & Co.



'If we had waited till next year, there will be a lot of competition. It's better to have a first-mover advantage.'



Rosewood Suites is a five-storey development with one- to four-bedroom apartments. It is in Rosewood Drive, next to the 99-year, 478-unit Casablanca condo and opposite Innova Junior College. The popular suburban mall Causeway Point and Woodlands MRT station are both within walking distance.

We laugh because it must be a JOKE.

This post is one of the best jokes in recent times. HAHAHA!!!


Nov 13, 2008
Govt won't bail out IR <!--10 min-->
Marina project stays with Las Vegas Sands, but questions still linger <!-- headline one : start --> <!-- headline one : end --> <!-- Author --> <!-- show image if available --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr></tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold">By Lim Wei Chean </td></tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="330">
</td> <td width="10"> </td> <td valign="bottom">
News of extra capital and the company's commitment to complete the Marina Bay project was welcomed as an 'important assurance' by Mr Iswaran. -- ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN
</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--> THE Government yesterday made clear it will not bail out the Marina Bay Sands resort should its cash-strapped parent, casino operator Las Vegas Sands, go bust. Putting an end to speculation about a Government-backed rescue, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran said yesterday: 'There was no request for a Government bailout for Marina Bay Sands and neither does the Government intend to do one.
'I think it has always been a commercial project and the solutions to the challenges posed by the current economic environment and financial market situation really lie in the commercial sector as well.'
Asked if there could be a role for a Government-linked company, he said these were commercial enterprises and would have to make their own decisions on whether an investment makes sense.
'It's not for the Government to tell them what to do,' he said.
On Tuesday, the casino operator said it had secured US$2.14 billion (S$3.22 billion) in capital-funding commitments.
Billionaire chief executive officer Sheldon Adelson declared the Singapore project the company's 'No. 1 priority', as it was suspending construction of projects in Macau and Las Vegas.
News of extra capital and the company's commitment to complete the Marina Bay project was welcomed as an 'important assurance' by Mr Iswaran, who spoke to reporters while attending an industry event.
But questions linger over the project's timeline and when the integrated resort (IR) will open.
Mr Bradley Stone, Las Vegas Sands' executive vice-president, said on Tuesday that the casino, two of the three hotel towers, most of the convention space and a portion of the retail mall will open by the end of next year.
Other facilities will open in early 2010. The original plan was to open the whole complex at the same time next year.
Ms Iswaran said Las Vegas Sands had asked to modify the timeline, but so far, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) 'has not agreed to any of these variations'.
The project details, including possible penalties for delays, are laid out in a development agreement signed by Sands and the STB.
The STB said on Tuesday that it had various options under the agreement, the ultimate being the right to 'step in and resume possession of the land, the IR and any other structure on the land, and deal with them as STB sees fit' should the project be wound up or if a receiver is appointed over its assets.
Asked about the possibility of imposing penalties for delays, Mr Iswaran said yesterday: 'I think we need to look at what actually are the specific proposals and requests before we make some decisions on that.'
Knight Frank's director of consultancy and research, Mr Nicholas Mak, said the clause allowing the Government to step in and take over the land and whatever is on it should the project fail is not unusual.
It allows the Government to prevent the project from stalling and becoming an eyesore in the prime Marina Bay district.
On the issue of the 10,000 jobs promised by the IR, Mr Iswaran said that while hiring may be delayed, there is no reason to believe the jobs would not materialise.
Sands has also given an assurance that the number of employees needed 'has not changed by one person'.
[email protected]

This post is a great cure for insomnia....YAWN....HAHAHA!!!

Layoffs a 'last resort'
Hiring freeze and staff redeployment among steps to ride out slump <!--10 min--> <!-- headline one : start --> <!-- headline one : end --> <!-- Author --> <!-- show image if available --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr></tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold">By Chua Hian Hou </td></tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="330">
</td> <td width="10"> </td> <td valign="bottom">
Ms Chua said SingTel has 'implemented a hiring freeze and we're looking at discretionary expense items, how they can be better managed'. -- PHOTO: BUSINESS TIMES
</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--> SINGTEL has started slashing costs, including slapping on a hiring freeze last month, to help it ride out the slump, but it said that layoffs will be a 'last resort'. Group chief executive Chua Sock Koong told a results briefing yesterday that the 'unprecedented' global financial crisis will have a 'negative impact on businesses', including the telco.
Ms Chua said SingTel has 'implemented a hiring freeze and we're looking at discretionary expense items, how they can be better managed'.
The region's largest telco will also examine other measures like redeploying staff to do other roles, not replacing staff who quit, and adjusting its variable bonus payout for employees.
While Ms Chua did not rule out retrenchments, she said they would be a 'last resort'. SingTel, which employs over 11,000 people here, declined to say when it last laid off Singapore staff.
Last month, it said it would cut 115 jobs from its Australian unit Optus, which employed 10,700 people. Optus imposed a hiring freeze in June.
Its second quarter results mirror the gloomy mood. Net profits for the three months to Sept 30 fell 12.1 per cent to $868 million, from $988 million last year.
The decline was primarily due to subsidies for sales of the Apple iPhone 3G handset and foreign currency fluctuations that resulted in lower income from investments like India's Bharti Airtel and Indonesia's Telkomsel.
Revenue was up 5.3 per cent to $3.89 billion.
Earnings per share was 5.45 cents, down from 6.21 cents this time last year, while net asset value a share was $1.28, down from $1.32 as at March 31.
Its dividend of 5.6 cents is unchanged from a year ago.
SingTel's chief executive for overseas operations, Mr Lim Chuan Poh, told the briefing that while the economic climate is challenging, the telco's strong financial position puts it in 'a good position to look at opportunities'.
The downturn has made key firms in China and Vietnam keener on selling stakes - and the buy-in prices will be lower to boot, said Mr Lim. He declined to say what stage discussions are at with these companies.
SingTel has a $1.1 billion war-chest and is confident it will have no problems raising additional funds if needed to fund such investments, said group chief financial officer Jeann Low.
Discussions are also under way with Taiwan's High Tech Computer Corp (HTC) and technology giant Google to bring the HTC G1 - often called the 'Google' phone - here, said its chief executive for Singapore, Mr Allen Lew.
Mr Lew declined to say when the device will be on the shelves or if it would be an exclusive deal like the one SingTel has with Apple.
SingTel is keen on smart phones like the iPhone and G1 because users generally consume more mobile data and so generate more profits. SingTel's iPhone users, for instance, generate 1.5 times the revenue of non-iPhone users.
Analysts gave yesterday's results a mixed reception.
CIMB's Kelvin Goh, who had an 'underperform' rating and $2.37 price target on the stock, said SingTel's performance was 'weak across the board'.
But Macquarie Research had an 'outperform' rating and $2.88 price target.
The firm's 'core Singapore/Optus business is undervalued', and there was 'safety in a strong balance sheet and 5 per cent cash-backed dividend yield', it said.
SingTel shares rose 3 cents to close at $2.38 yesterday.
[email protected]

English spelling test for Chinese" ser-bu-ser" helicopter.

How to spell "Immediate" ??

Helicopter : Er .... er .... " I idiot " ??

Ms Chua said: The decline was primarily due to subsidies for sales of the Apple iPhone 3G handset and foreign currency fluctuations that resulted in lower income from investments like India's Bharti Airtel and Indonesia's Telkomsel.

This is the JOKE!!!

English spelling test for Chinese" ser-bu-ser" helicopter.

How to spell " mandatory " ??

Helicopter : Er .... er .... " man go toilet" ??

CLASSIC

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4xrmNEp-Mo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k4xrmNEp-Mo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

English spelling test for Chinese" ser-bu-ser" helicopter.

How to spell " crucible " ??

Helicopter : Er .... er .... " char siew pau" ??

Asia Sentinel: Singapore's Temasek Stumbles Again

<HR style="COLOR: #989898; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #989898" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Written by Our Correspondent
Sunday, 16 November 2008

The island republic's premier sovereign wealth fund takes another massive writeoff

Although global markets have stabilized at least temporarily over the last couple of weeks, there is no sign of a letup for Temasek, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund that has already chalked up massive paper losses from its exposure to the world’s ailing banks.

Temasek looks likely to have lost its entire S$400m (US$270m) investment in ABC Learning Centres, the recently-collapsed Australian childcare provider, and there are growing concerns that the fund may have to help bail out the Marina Bay Sands casino project in Singapore as owner Las Vegas Sands creaks under a mountain of debt.

If last year, when Temasek built multi-billion dollar stakes in the once mighty Merrill Lynch and the UK banks Barclays and Standard Chartered, was a bad time to be putting money into the financial services sector, then now is not exactly the ideal moment to be pushed into a big investment in Singapore’s nascent casino industry.

Like other investors enticed by the dramatic gains on offer in a late-stage bull market, Temasek - which is run by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - appears to have had the canny knack of buying right at the top of the market and then watching its investments slide in value. Even as the first warning signs of serious problems in the banking sector appeared in the first half of last year, Temasek continued to pump money into the financial services industry, which now accounts for 40 percent of its S$185 billion (US$124 billion) portfolio.

This fondness for the financial services sector may stem in part from Temasek management’s closeness to the bulge-bracket investment banks. Despite the humbling of the one-time masters of the universe over the last year, Temasek has continued to recruit senior executives from Wall Street, bringing in Morgan Stanley investment banker Michael Dee in August and Rohit Sipahimalani, another Morgan Stanley banker, last month.

But the rapid demise of ABC Learning, which is Australia’s largest childcare provider, shows that Temasek’s poor investment decisions are not limited to the banking sector. Temasek bought into ABC in May last year at a punchy A$7.30 a share and the stock soon headed south as the outlook for the over-hyped operator deteriorated. The shares were suspended at 54 cents each in August but equity investors are likely to lose everything after ABC went into administration because of mounting financial problems.

If Temasek were to bail out Marina Bay Sands, it certainly would not be buying at the top of the market. But it would be an investment decision driven less by financial prudence and more by the need for the Singaporean government to ensure that its casino experiment doesn’t fail.

Nervous about the Singapore economy’s narrow reliance on shipping and financial services, the socially-conservative government took the controversial step of legalizing casinos in 2005, prompting an unprecedented public debate in the usually acquiescent city state.

Having staked its reputation on partnerships with the likes of Las Vegas Sands and Malaysia’s Genting (which won the licenses to operate the two casino resorts), the government is desperate not to let the experiment fail. So Las Vegas Sands’ indication last week that it will not be able to meet the requirements of some of its loans unless it cuts spending will have sent shockwaves running through the corridors of power in Singapore.

While Sheldon Adelson, the tycoon behind Las Vegas Sands, has personally confirmed his commitment to completing the Marina Bay Sands resort, analysts now believe it is increasingly likely that the government may have to step in at some stage, probably in the guise of Temasek or one of its linked companies. Adelson’s gaming empire is such bad shape that Sands has had to stop construction in Macau of its huge Cotai Strip development opposite its Venetian complex which is intended to house various 5-star hotels as well as a casino. The Macau government has said -- according to the Financial Times- that it won’t allow any casinos to close and will take them over if necessary. However it seems that commitment does not extend to helping out partly finished projects.

“If Las Vegas Sands cannot cough up its share of equity, the Singapore government is likely to step in,” said Donald Chua, an analyst at local stock broking firm CIMB-GK, in a research note. “A viable option would be a 49:51 joint venture between the Government and CapitaLand, with CapitaLand taking a controlling stake.”

Singapore-based brokerage UOB Kay Hian added that the syndicate of banks providing the S$5.4bn ($3.6bn) debt facility for the construction of Marina Bay Sands could seek a new investor, hinting that they could turn to 40pc-Temasek-owned CapitaLand, a property group that was involved in unsuccessful bids for both casino licenses.

CapitaLand has insisted that it has not held any talks with Las Vegas Sands but, at the same time, it said that it was “strategically watching the situation and studying opportunities related to distressed companies or assets.” And, despite Las Vegas Sands’ assurances, the Singapore Tourist Board stressed this week that it has a number of options should the project fail, including taking possession of the development site.

While Temasek or CapitaLand may be able to pick up a stake in the Marina Bay casino on the cheap, gambling is one strategic industry that the government did not want end up owning. The government originally opted for international gaming companies like Las Vegas Sands and Genting because it thought they had the experience and clout to build world-class casino resorts that would attract gamblers from around the globe. While the Marina Bay Sands is unlikely to be re-branded as the Temasek Casino, whatever happens, gaming analysts doubt whether a government-backed resort would have the same draw.

With the impact of the financial crisis only just starting to hit the global economy, there are likely to be more disappointments ahead for Temasek in the coming months. But Temasek is not required to disclose regular financial results, as it has been given the status of an exempt private company despite being owned by the Ministry of Finance. So the people of Singapore, whose money Temasek is ultimately controlling, will probably have to wait until summer, when the fund is expected to release its next annual review, to find out exactly how badly it has fared over the past year.

Temasek also leaped heavily into one of China's highest profile, and perhaps more vulnerable, property developers, Country Garden. When it went public in Hong Kong in April 2007, Country Garden was the second largest IPO in Hong Kong history, with Temasek joining local tycoons Lee Shau Kee and
Robert Kuok as key investors. According to the mainland financial magazine Caijing, a subsequent S$800 million convertible bond issue in Singapore in February this year was made on terms which suggest the company is very stretched and badly needs to keep its share price from falling. It is now little more than half its initial price and down 75 percent from its peak.

Australia, once seen as a safe if unexciting location for Singapore cash, has also attracted top of the market deals from Singapore Power. Already well-established in Australia, it paid heavily in cash for the eastern Australia assets of pipeline company Alinta but with values in decline they have been unable now to flip them into their 51 percent owned local subsidiary SP Ausnet leaving SP meanwhile saddled with huge borrowings.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

....................hahaha........................

2 town councils invested in $12 million troubled structured products
<HR style="COLOR: #989898; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #989898" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->TWO town councils - Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol - have about $12 million invested in troubled structured products.
These products include Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5, Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 and Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Notes Series 9 and 10.

Senior Minister of State (National Development and Education) Grace Fu gave this update in Parliament on Monday, in response to a question from Nominated MP Eunice Olsen.

Since Dec 1 last year, the amount that town councils can invest in non-government stocks, funds or securities has been capped at 35 per cent of the sinking fund.

Holland-Bukit Panjang invested about 6.7 per cent of its total funds available for investment in the structured products, and Pasir Ris-Punggol, about 2.6 per cent.

The sinking funds are used to pay for long-term or cyclical expenditure, such as replacing lifts, pumps and pipes, re-roofing, and repairing and redecorating blocks.

The funds are also used to pay for lift upgrading, so that residents pay a smaller percentage of the total lift upgrading cost.

The sinking fund is distinct from the operating fund, which is used for short term expenditures.

Ms Fu said town councils need to invest their funds prudently so that the accumulated funds are not eroded by inflation.

The investment guidelines - which her ministry has no plans to change - seek to achieve an optimal balance between reasonable returns and financial prudence, she added.

She noted that investments in stocks, funds or securities must be on the advice of a qualified person, such as an investment adviser holding a licence under the Securities and Futures Act, and an approved bank or a merchant bank approved as a financial institution under the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act.

The 16 town councils manage more than $1 billion in sinking funds.

HAHAHAHAHAHA......Went in with their eyes OPEN indeed.

Betcha, with that kind of price, I can get a house worth A$400k with 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, one large living room, a kitchen and a garage, which is all freehold over here.

NOW that is the biggest joke of the season: you can actually get freehold properties on freehold prices.

English spelling test for Chinese" ser-bu-ser" helicopter.

How to spell " delgado " ??

Helicopter : Er .... er .... " dew gow lei" ??

This must be a joke. So, we can laugh, right? HAHAHA!!!

<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Prataman signed away our reserves? WTF?</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">insens <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">7:05 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right>(1 of 3) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>2727.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>This was just brought to my attention.
It's such low key, that I never noticed it when I Read the article.
eh what the fuck? When Ong Teng Cheong wanted to PAPs to account for the reserves they said it would take 56 man years to calculate.
Now this fucking asshole rubberstamps it for Hojinx to spend?
Do you know what the implications of this means. To touch the Reserves means the CPF kitty is completely empty. How much has Hojinx lost. What is the current state of the CPF now? Where is our Money?
See here
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20081106/tap-090-no-need-draw-reserves-says-presi-231650b.html
"It marks the first time the elected president is exercising his custodial powers to approve a potential draw on reserves."
and here
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/285804.asp
"Speaking to the media for the first time on the issue, President S R Nathan said in response to a question that “in giving the guarantee to the bank, it has been mentioned that I have given my approval should a draw become necessary. "
See this interview with OTC
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-444.htm
It was this issue that caused the dispute between you and the government?
Yes. But I don't want to go into details and upset everybody. The thing is that the elected president is supposed to protect the reserves, but he was not told what these are until five years later. From the day the Constitution was amended in 1991 to provide for an elected president, he was supposed to fulfil that role. My predecessor, Wee Kim Wee, although he was not elected, was supposed to play that role during the last two years of his term. But he did not actively check. So, when I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me.
The holdup was for administrative reasons?
Either that or they did not think there was any urgency. You see, if you ask me to protect the reserves, then you've got to tell me what I'm supposed to protect. So I had to ask.
Why did they not want to tell you?
I do not know. Don't ask me, because I don't have the answer. I've been asking them. In fact, in 1996, exactly halfway through my term, I wrote prime minister Goh a letter. At that time, everybody was expecting a general election in December or January. After the election, a new government would be sworn in. When that happens, all the reserves, whether past or current, become past reserves and are locked up on the changeover date. As president, I have to safeguard them and they can only be drawn upon with my permission. So I said to Mr Goh It's already halfway through my term, but until today I still don't know all these figures about the reserves.
So the government had been stonewalling you, the president, for three years?
Yes. What happened actually was, as you know, in accounting, when you talk about reserves, it's either cash reserves or assets reserves. The cash side is straightforward investment, how many million dollars here and there, how much comes from the investment boards and so on. That was straightforward -- but still we had to ask for it. For the assets, like properties and so on, normally you say it's worth $30 million or $100 million or whatever. But they said it would take 56-man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. So I discussed this with the accountant-general and the auditor-general and we came to a compromise. The government would not need to give me the dollar-and-cents value, just give me a listing of all the properties that the government owns.
They agreed?
Well, yes, they agreed, but they said there's not the time for it. It took them a few months to produce the list. But even when they gave me the list, it was not complete.
It seems the Singapore government does not know its own assets?
Yes. It's complicated. It's never been done before. And for the assets of land, I can understand why. Every piece of land, even a stretch of road, is probably subdivided into many lots. There are 50,000 to 60,000 lots and every one has a number. If you want to value them all, it would take a long time. In the past, they have just locked everything up and assumed it is all there. But if I am to protect it, at least I want to know the list.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This post is worth its weight in gold NOT because it betrays the arrogance or the autocratic use of residents' money by TC management, BUT the total lack of transparency and the apathy of every resident of ALL the TCs. No one bothers how the conservancy fees are used, yet every resident just simply pays the fee, assuming that their money be be put to wise use by assumed competent and morally upright TC management. Residents are so meek and presumptious. Serves them right if the TC loses all their money. HAHAHA!!!


Gilbert: TC Losses? Nebermind, LET'S MOVE ON!
<HR style="COLOR: #989898; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #989898" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Certainly!

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Town Council losses: Let it not happen again </TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY HEART sank when I read about the possible loss of two town council's (Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol) conservancy fees incurred through their foray into the Lehman Brothers' minibonds.
The possible loss of a total sum of $12 million, a small percentage actually coming from the huge $2 billion conservancy fees collected over all these years, was not really what irked me.
Conservancy fees have been collected for many years by town councils, who use it to maintain and preserve our housing estates. My residence in Tampines is almost a perfect housing estate with a beautiful, lush garden park nearby, sheltered walkway and well-maintained surroundings. It is no wonder that the property prices in my area skyrocketed in the past year.
One of the town councils' duties is to maintain the estate and ensure that residents are able to return to a place that they can call home after a hard day's work. If there are excess fees collected, town councils can think of ways to further enhance the estate or even stop collecting fees for a few months, especially during this tough period. I know of some residents who have been retrenched recently who will welcome such a move as every cent count.
One wonders why town councils want to enhance the returns from fees collected by permitting as much as 35 per cent to go into risky investments. There is seriously no need to as the huge surplus accumulated when put into safer instruments such as fixed deposits or government bonds would generate not a small sum in return.
I advocate that the investment cap of 35 per cent for riskier instruments be reduced further to maybe no more than 5 per cent to ensure that town councils will not further expose the money to future risks.
Conservancy fees collected actually belong to the residents and not the Government. The town council is merely an agent appointed to utilise the money for the well being of the estate. A small percentage of the huge surplus money can also be used to help residents who may have difficulty paying the fees when they are jobless.
We have learnt our lessons now and let us not let it happened again. Gilbert Goh

Who have learnt their lesson? The Papayas? With none of them in sight to even say sorry? Or the coolier rice bowlers? Who will certainly return them to power with 99% mandate in 2009?
<!-- / message -->

masgnoeL said:

B]We have learnt our lessons now and let us not let it happened again.[/B][/COLOR] Gilbert Goh

Who have learnt their lesson? The Papayas? With none of them in sight to even say sorry? Or the coolier rice bowlers? Who will certainly return them to power with 99% mandate in 2009?
<!-- / message -->

Click to expand...

i think gilbert goh means he had learned his lesson and would never vote for pap again..

English spelling test for Chinese" ser-bu-ser" helicopter.

How to spell " candida " ??

Helicopter : Er .... er .... " kan ni na ??