When the top people behave like gangsters and arrogant farts. Can't bame the running dogs and cronies to behave otherwise.
-
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.
Teo Ho Pin - Singaporeans are ingrates !
- Thread starter Dan Now
- Start date
When the top people behave like gangsters and arrogant farts. Can't bame the running dogs and cronies to behave otherwise.
Please lah, if Chiam and Low had made losses and the PAPs did not, we would hear no end from the PAPs as to how great they are at managing public finances.
This time that bloody PAP Teo tripped up, but instead of being humble he tries to play LKY and talk tough, I say to PAP Teo:oIo:
This time that bloody PAP Teo tripped up, but instead of being humble he tries to play LKY and talk tough, I say to PAP Teo:oIo:
If you can't understand the difference between investment and gambling, there is nothing more to talk about. Go back to the reCHEEme headquarters, oh sorry,the reCHEEme doesnt have a headquarters becaue the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan made the party bankrupt.
And insulting the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan is not the same as insulting forumers directly. Red card for you.
And insulting the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan is not the same as insulting forumers directly. Red card for you.
Look at how these PAPs try to dodge, slither and distract when they trip up, bloody pathetic
TOWN COUNCILS, SINKING FUNDS, LEHMAN BROTHERS & $12M
'You can blame them only with hindsight'
Financial expert, MPs say pointing finger at town councils not appropriate
By Lediati Tan
November 19, 2008
ONE word kept popping up after it was revealed in Parliament yesterday that two town councils had also invested in Lehman Brothers-linked structured products: Hindsight.
With hindsight, said Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the town councils should not have invested in the structured products.
But, he told The New Paper: 'You can't blame the town councils. If you look at the last seven years, every year the most sold product in terms of volume in Singapore was structured products. They were seen as capital guaranteed.'
'With hindsight,' said Madam Ho Geok Choo, West Coast GRC, 'whether the decision is correct or not, I think at that point, no one was any wiser to know that months later things were going to take a turn in this manner.'
They were reacting to news that two town councils - Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol - had sunk about $12 million into the structured products, including Lehman Minibonds and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3.
The figures were revealed by the Senior Minister of State (National Development and Education) Grace Fu in response to a question from Nominated MP Eunice Olsen.
Six other PAP-run town councils also have exposure to Lehman Brothers through their fund managers' investment portfolio.
These investments came to about $4 million and accounted for less than 1 per cent of each town council's funds available for investments, reported Channel NewsAsia.
The New Paper asked several MPs about what they thought of town councils investing surplus funds into structured products.
All of the MPs we spoke to did not think that it was appropriate to point the finger at the town councils and blame them for investing in such products. No one was aware of the risk at the point of investment.
'It's not just town councils, but individuals and corporations who have been hurt by this economic crisis,' reasoned Madam Ho.
And it's not whether town councils should have invested in such products, but how much, Madam Ho said.
Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol invested respectively 6.7 per cent and 2.6 per cent of their total funds for investment in the structured products.
This is well within the cap of 35 per cent of the sinking fund that each town councils can use to invest in non-government stocks, funds or securities.
She also emphasised the need 'to be a smart investor and diversify by not putting everything in one basket'.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP of Hong Kah GRC, agreed.
'For town councils, it's a bit difficult when it comes to the management of funds. There has to be balance of expectations in poor times and in good times.
'We just have to be prudent in how we manage funds. The question to put to town councils is about total returns.'
He emphasised the need to look at total returns to see whether the loss has been offset by other investments.
He also told The New Paper: 'We have to be realistic. It's easier to say things with hindsight, but it's not so straightforward.'
Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong said: 'It's easy to second-guess town councils' decision, but I think a better question to ask is whether other institutional investors have bought into these products.
'I would hesitate to second-guess the town councils' decisions.'
But Mr Siew reasoned: 'Of 14 town councils, only two have invested in Lehman-linked structured products - that is not to say that the other town councils did not invest in structured products.
'Now that the issue has come out - and $12 million being pretty substantial - the onus is on town councils to come out and be completely transparent.'
When the news broke late last month that some town councils had purchased Lehman Brothers-linked products, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, told Channel NewsAsia: 'There's definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils' sinking funds will be wiped out.
'All the supporting PAP town councils' sinking funds are in safe hands.'
He is also the coordinating chairman of the 14PAP town councils.
Low-risk better?
Should town councils, then, have stuck to investing in low-risk products such as fixed deposits and bonds?
For instance, opposition town council Potong Pasir invested $3m out of its $6m worth of sinking funds on Government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in fixed deposit.
Said Mr Leong: 'Clearly the problem here was that (the two PAP town councils) were trying to lower their risk by investing because these were seen as low risk products.'
Focus less on risk reduction, he said, and more on risk diversification.
'When more and more people think that a product is low risk, the bubble situation may arise where a low risk product might explode in your face and become a high risk product.'
He added that in the last seven years, questions have been raised in the media about structured products.
Town councils should disclose what investments products they are holding, he added, so that they can be alerted should there be problems with what they bought.
TOWN COUNCILS, SINKING FUNDS, LEHMAN BROTHERS & $12M
'You can blame them only with hindsight'
Financial expert, MPs say pointing finger at town councils not appropriate
By Lediati Tan
November 19, 2008
ONE word kept popping up after it was revealed in Parliament yesterday that two town councils had also invested in Lehman Brothers-linked structured products: Hindsight.
With hindsight, said Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the town councils should not have invested in the structured products.
But, he told The New Paper: 'You can't blame the town councils. If you look at the last seven years, every year the most sold product in terms of volume in Singapore was structured products. They were seen as capital guaranteed.'
'With hindsight,' said Madam Ho Geok Choo, West Coast GRC, 'whether the decision is correct or not, I think at that point, no one was any wiser to know that months later things were going to take a turn in this manner.'
They were reacting to news that two town councils - Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol - had sunk about $12 million into the structured products, including Lehman Minibonds and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3.
The figures were revealed by the Senior Minister of State (National Development and Education) Grace Fu in response to a question from Nominated MP Eunice Olsen.
Six other PAP-run town councils also have exposure to Lehman Brothers through their fund managers' investment portfolio.
These investments came to about $4 million and accounted for less than 1 per cent of each town council's funds available for investments, reported Channel NewsAsia.
The New Paper asked several MPs about what they thought of town councils investing surplus funds into structured products.
All of the MPs we spoke to did not think that it was appropriate to point the finger at the town councils and blame them for investing in such products. No one was aware of the risk at the point of investment.
'It's not just town councils, but individuals and corporations who have been hurt by this economic crisis,' reasoned Madam Ho.
And it's not whether town councils should have invested in such products, but how much, Madam Ho said.
Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol invested respectively 6.7 per cent and 2.6 per cent of their total funds for investment in the structured products.
This is well within the cap of 35 per cent of the sinking fund that each town councils can use to invest in non-government stocks, funds or securities.
She also emphasised the need 'to be a smart investor and diversify by not putting everything in one basket'.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP of Hong Kah GRC, agreed.
'For town councils, it's a bit difficult when it comes to the management of funds. There has to be balance of expectations in poor times and in good times.
'We just have to be prudent in how we manage funds. The question to put to town councils is about total returns.'
He emphasised the need to look at total returns to see whether the loss has been offset by other investments.
He also told The New Paper: 'We have to be realistic. It's easier to say things with hindsight, but it's not so straightforward.'
Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong said: 'It's easy to second-guess town councils' decision, but I think a better question to ask is whether other institutional investors have bought into these products.
'I would hesitate to second-guess the town councils' decisions.'
But Mr Siew reasoned: 'Of 14 town councils, only two have invested in Lehman-linked structured products - that is not to say that the other town councils did not invest in structured products.
'Now that the issue has come out - and $12 million being pretty substantial - the onus is on town councils to come out and be completely transparent.'
When the news broke late last month that some town councils had purchased Lehman Brothers-linked products, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, told Channel NewsAsia: 'There's definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils' sinking funds will be wiped out.
'All the supporting PAP town councils' sinking funds are in safe hands.'
He is also the coordinating chairman of the 14PAP town councils.
Low-risk better?
Should town councils, then, have stuck to investing in low-risk products such as fixed deposits and bonds?
For instance, opposition town council Potong Pasir invested $3m out of its $6m worth of sinking funds on Government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in fixed deposit.
Said Mr Leong: 'Clearly the problem here was that (the two PAP town councils) were trying to lower their risk by investing because these were seen as low risk products.'
Focus less on risk reduction, he said, and more on risk diversification.
'When more and more people think that a product is low risk, the bubble situation may arise where a low risk product might explode in your face and become a high risk product.'
He added that in the last seven years, questions have been raised in the media about structured products.
Town councils should disclose what investments products they are holding, he added, so that they can be alerted should there be problems with what they bought.
TC have grown the funds by $24 mio in 6 years? Where's the proof?
Who gives him the DA to invest for TCs?
How is he qualified to invest? Does he has a team of fund managers to help him?
Why are TCs holding on to so much cash? Who decides how much funds to be collected from residents and how much cash they should hold at any one time? If they are holding on to so much funds, are they collecting too much from the residents and isn't prone to misappropriation/misuse?
Who gives him the DA to invest for TCs?
How is he qualified to invest? Does he has a team of fund managers to help him?
Why are TCs holding on to so much cash? Who decides how much funds to be collected from residents and how much cash they should hold at any one time? If they are holding on to so much funds, are they collecting too much from the residents and isn't prone to misappropriation/misuse?
CCB, 5mil gain - 8 mil loss the difference is 13mil!!!
Dr Teo Ho Pin is an idiot and can't even do a simple math!!! NNNBCCB!!! The resident don't have to fork out more money because there are already billions of surpluses in the TC
. Then we should thank NKF for taking our donations to generate interest? We pay and pay, they gamble and gamble.Don't turn back and say it is our fault!
FUCK YOU PAP!!! :oIo:
Read properly. With investment, THP earned $24 million minus $8 million equals $16 million. If not, he would have earned $5 million minus $0 equals $5 milllion.
The biggest idiot is the MONGREL who bit his masters' hnds LOUDHAILER chee soon juan accompanied by the other idiots of his reCHEEme.
The biggest idiot is the MONGREL who bit his masters' hnds LOUDHAILER chee soon juan accompanied by the other idiots of his reCHEEme.
CCB, 5mil gain - 8 mil loss the difference is 13mil!!!
NNNBCCB!!! The resident don't have to fork out more money because there are already billions of surpluses in the TC
Don't turn back and say it is our fault!
FUCK YOU PAP!!! :oIo:
Since when has running a TC requires secrecy in investment? It is not like they are a business entity existing solely to make profit for their survival.
"According to Dr Teo, it was because Town Councils cannot reveal their investment strategies and, anyway, Town Councils abide by the proper financial reporting system."
Who is shithead trying to kid?
$8m invested n he thinks that punters/traders will take a position against him?
Sounds familiar doesn't he to a particular organization called Temasick?
Pray, tell the residents what strategy are the TCs adopting? And since they are adopting proper financial reporting, tell us more about the other paper losses which I think they have plenty more since they can also invest in equities.
Who is shithead trying to kid?
$8m invested n he thinks that punters/traders will take a position against him?
Sounds familiar doesn't he to a particular organization called Temasick?
Pray, tell the residents what strategy are the TCs adopting? And since they are adopting proper financial reporting, tell us more about the other paper losses which I think they have plenty more since they can also invest in equities.
Dear ALBINO Son-of-a-bastard CAS888
Answer these teasers lah.
Is the TC fees for gambling purposes? yes/no
Surpluses can be in any form as long as the investment is secured. yes/no
Dr teo is a mangy dog yes/no
Cas888 is a bastard recarnation of clinton888, lincoln888 yes/no
Answer these teasers lah.
Is the TC fees for gambling purposes? yes/no
Surpluses can be in any form as long as the investment is secured. yes/no
Dr teo is a mangy dog yes/no
Cas888 is a bastard recarnation of clinton888, lincoln888 yes/no
I am reposting a reply from me to another bro in another thread.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Porfirio Rubirosa
TOWN COUNCILS, SINKING FUNDS, LEHMAN BROTHERS & $12M
'You can blame them only with hindsight'
Financial expert, MPs say pointing finger at town councils not appropriate
By Lediati Tan
November 19, 2008
ONE word kept popping up after it was revealed in Parliament yesterday that two town councils had also invested in Lehman Brothers-linked structured products: Hindsight.
With hindsight, said Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the town councils should not have invested in the structured products.
But, he told The New Paper: 'You can't blame the town councils. If you look at the last seven years, every year the most sold product in terms of volume in Singapore was structured products. They were seen as capital guaranteed.'
'With hindsight,' said Madam Ho Geok Choo, West Coast GRC, 'whether the decision is correct or not, I think at that point, no one was any wiser to know that months later things were going to take a turn in this manner.'
They were reacting to news that two town councils - Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol - had sunk about $12 million into the structured products, including Lehman Minibonds and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3.
The figures were revealed by the Senior Minister of State (National Development and Education) Grace Fu in response to a question from Nominated MP Eunice Olsen.
Six other PAP-run town councils also have exposure to Lehman Brothers through their fund managers' investment portfolio.
These investments came to about $4 million and accounted for less than 1 per cent of each town council's funds available for investments, reported Channel NewsAsia.
The New Paper asked several MPs about what they thought of town councils investing surplus funds into structured products.
All of the MPs we spoke to did not think that it was appropriate to point the finger at the town councils and blame them for investing in such products. No one was aware of the risk at the point of investment.
'It's not just town councils, but individuals and corporations who have been hurt by this economic crisis,' reasoned Madam Ho.
And it's not whether town councils should have invested in such products, but how much, Madam Ho said.
Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol invested respectively 6.7 per cent and 2.6 per cent of their total funds for investment in the structured products.
This is well within the cap of 35 per cent of the sinking fund that each town councils can use to invest in non-government stocks, funds or securities.
She also emphasised the need 'to be a smart investor and diversify by not putting everything in one basket'.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP of Hong Kah GRC, agreed.
'For town councils, it's a bit difficult when it comes to the management of funds. There has to be balance of expectations in poor times and in good times.
'We just have to be prudent in how we manage funds. The question to put to town councils is about total returns.'
He emphasised the need to look at total returns to see whether the loss has been offset by other investments.
He also told The New Paper: 'We have to be realistic. It's easier to say things with hindsight, but it's not so straightforward.'
Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong said: 'It's easy to second-guess town councils' decision, but I think a better question to ask is whether other institutional investors have bought into these products.
'I would hesitate to second-guess the town councils' decisions.'
But Mr Siew reasoned: 'Of 14 town councils, only two have invested in Lehman-linked structured products - that is not to say that the other town councils did not invest in structured products.
'Now that the issue has come out - and $12 million being pretty substantial - the onus is on town councils to come out and be completely transparent.'
When the news broke late last month that some town councils had purchased Lehman Brothers-linked products, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, told Channel NewsAsia: 'There's definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils' sinking funds will be wiped out.
'All the supporting PAP town councils' sinking funds are in safe hands.'
He is also the coordinating chairman of the 14PAP town councils.
Low-risk better?
Should town councils, then, have stuck to investing in low-risk products such as fixed deposits and bonds?
For instance, opposition town council Potong Pasir invested $3m out of its $6m worth of sinking funds on Government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in fixed deposit.
Said Mr Leong: 'Clearly the problem here was that (the two PAP town councils) were trying to lower their risk by investing because these were seen as low risk products.'
Focus less on risk reduction, he said, and more on risk diversification.
'When more and more people think that a product is low risk, the bubble situation may arise where a low risk product might explode in your face and become a high risk product.'
He added that in the last seven years, questions have been raised in the media about structured products.
Town councils should disclose what investments products they are holding, he added, so that they can be alerted should there be problems with what they bought.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yada yada yada crap from our State Media to divert attention again and blame Singaporeans for expecting too much for our Million Dollar MiniStars.
Who were the ones who are always selling the PAP MPs as Demi Gods who are infallible ?
THE CITIZENS WANTS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY CANNOT AR ?
The CITIZENS WANTS THE ACCOUNTS TO BE PUBLISH AND BE AUDITED CANNOT AR ?
THE CITIZENS DEMANDS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF THIRD GRADE INVESTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO CANNOT AR ?
THE CITIZENS QUESTIONS THE RATIONALITY FOR TOWN COUNCIL TO HAVE SINKING FUNDS CANNOT AR ?
So all the blames are now FOCUS on Singaporeans who is now categorically assasinated by the State Media and potrayed again as ingrates and whinning citizens who only knows how to point blame.
Who have ALWAYS BEEN POINTING BLAME AT SINGAPOREANS IN THE FIRST PLACE ?
Going by the numerous cock ups from the Mas Selamat escape, the bungling losses suffered by Temasek and numerous other tresspass like the NKF and Renci episode, the truth clearly points to the fact that our mighty Pappies are truly incompetent and can ONLY BLAME SINGAPOREANS FROM DEMANDING RESULTS From them.
If they cannnot deliver, won't deliver and are always blaming Singaporeans and can only burden the people with tax and price hikes, then it is obvious that the PAPies are whinners in the first degree.
Surely, the obvious conclusion that we can derive is that our MPs are undeserving of their pay.
Time to demand that the PAP MPs volunteer a cut of their own salary to match their lack of talent and stewardship.
Teo Ho Pin should be the first to volunteer that he takes a pay cut.
Dan
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Porfirio Rubirosa
TOWN COUNCILS, SINKING FUNDS, LEHMAN BROTHERS & $12M
'You can blame them only with hindsight'
Financial expert, MPs say pointing finger at town councils not appropriate
By Lediati Tan
November 19, 2008
ONE word kept popping up after it was revealed in Parliament yesterday that two town councils had also invested in Lehman Brothers-linked structured products: Hindsight.
With hindsight, said Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the town councils should not have invested in the structured products.
But, he told The New Paper: 'You can't blame the town councils. If you look at the last seven years, every year the most sold product in terms of volume in Singapore was structured products. They were seen as capital guaranteed.'
'With hindsight,' said Madam Ho Geok Choo, West Coast GRC, 'whether the decision is correct or not, I think at that point, no one was any wiser to know that months later things were going to take a turn in this manner.'
They were reacting to news that two town councils - Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol - had sunk about $12 million into the structured products, including Lehman Minibonds and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3.
The figures were revealed by the Senior Minister of State (National Development and Education) Grace Fu in response to a question from Nominated MP Eunice Olsen.
Six other PAP-run town councils also have exposure to Lehman Brothers through their fund managers' investment portfolio.
These investments came to about $4 million and accounted for less than 1 per cent of each town council's funds available for investments, reported Channel NewsAsia.
The New Paper asked several MPs about what they thought of town councils investing surplus funds into structured products.
All of the MPs we spoke to did not think that it was appropriate to point the finger at the town councils and blame them for investing in such products. No one was aware of the risk at the point of investment.
'It's not just town councils, but individuals and corporations who have been hurt by this economic crisis,' reasoned Madam Ho.
And it's not whether town councils should have invested in such products, but how much, Madam Ho said.
Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol invested respectively 6.7 per cent and 2.6 per cent of their total funds for investment in the structured products.
This is well within the cap of 35 per cent of the sinking fund that each town councils can use to invest in non-government stocks, funds or securities.
She also emphasised the need 'to be a smart investor and diversify by not putting everything in one basket'.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP of Hong Kah GRC, agreed.
'For town councils, it's a bit difficult when it comes to the management of funds. There has to be balance of expectations in poor times and in good times.
'We just have to be prudent in how we manage funds. The question to put to town councils is about total returns.'
He emphasised the need to look at total returns to see whether the loss has been offset by other investments.
He also told The New Paper: 'We have to be realistic. It's easier to say things with hindsight, but it's not so straightforward.'
Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong said: 'It's easy to second-guess town councils' decision, but I think a better question to ask is whether other institutional investors have bought into these products.
'I would hesitate to second-guess the town councils' decisions.'
But Mr Siew reasoned: 'Of 14 town councils, only two have invested in Lehman-linked structured products - that is not to say that the other town councils did not invest in structured products.
'Now that the issue has come out - and $12 million being pretty substantial - the onus is on town councils to come out and be completely transparent.'
When the news broke late last month that some town councils had purchased Lehman Brothers-linked products, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, told Channel NewsAsia: 'There's definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils' sinking funds will be wiped out.
'All the supporting PAP town councils' sinking funds are in safe hands.'
He is also the coordinating chairman of the 14PAP town councils.
Low-risk better?
Should town councils, then, have stuck to investing in low-risk products such as fixed deposits and bonds?
For instance, opposition town council Potong Pasir invested $3m out of its $6m worth of sinking funds on Government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in fixed deposit.
Said Mr Leong: 'Clearly the problem here was that (the two PAP town councils) were trying to lower their risk by investing because these were seen as low risk products.'
Focus less on risk reduction, he said, and more on risk diversification.
'When more and more people think that a product is low risk, the bubble situation may arise where a low risk product might explode in your face and become a high risk product.'
He added that in the last seven years, questions have been raised in the media about structured products.
Town councils should disclose what investments products they are holding, he added, so that they can be alerted should there be problems with what they bought.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yada yada yada crap from our State Media to divert attention again and blame Singaporeans for expecting too much for our Million Dollar MiniStars.
Who were the ones who are always selling the PAP MPs as Demi Gods who are infallible ?
THE CITIZENS WANTS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY CANNOT AR ?
The CITIZENS WANTS THE ACCOUNTS TO BE PUBLISH AND BE AUDITED CANNOT AR ?
THE CITIZENS DEMANDS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF THIRD GRADE INVESTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO CANNOT AR ?
THE CITIZENS QUESTIONS THE RATIONALITY FOR TOWN COUNCIL TO HAVE SINKING FUNDS CANNOT AR ?
So all the blames are now FOCUS on Singaporeans who is now categorically assasinated by the State Media and potrayed again as ingrates and whinning citizens who only knows how to point blame.
Who have ALWAYS BEEN POINTING BLAME AT SINGAPOREANS IN THE FIRST PLACE ?
Going by the numerous cock ups from the Mas Selamat escape, the bungling losses suffered by Temasek and numerous other tresspass like the NKF and Renci episode, the truth clearly points to the fact that our mighty Pappies are truly incompetent and can ONLY BLAME SINGAPOREANS FROM DEMANDING RESULTS From them.
If they cannnot deliver, won't deliver and are always blaming Singaporeans and can only burden the people with tax and price hikes, then it is obvious that the PAPies are whinners in the first degree.
Surely, the obvious conclusion that we can derive is that our MPs are undeserving of their pay.
Time to demand that the PAP MPs volunteer a cut of their own salary to match their lack of talent and stewardship.
Teo Ho Pin should be the first to volunteer that he takes a pay cut.
Dan
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Heehee the secrecy part is who handled the investment!
For all we know they pass it to TH to handle it. 
Okay time to have a good laugh.
Check out this article.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=640 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="3%"></TD><TD>
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This story was printed from TODAYonline [/FONT]</TD></TR><TR><TD width="3%"> </TD><TD height=1>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2> </TD></TR><TR><TD width="3%"> </TD><TD>No monopoly on success [SIZE=+0]
SM Goh: It’s not Asian or Western model that counts butaccountability and meritocracy </B>
Wednesday • November 12, 2008
WHEN the Asian Financial crisis struck in 1997, Western analysts were quick to predict the end of days for the “Asian model”, where the state plays a key role in the economy.
But as the world today continues to reel from the financial crisis that started in the United States, the assumed superiority of Western economic and political liberalism is being questioned.
To Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, the key lesson of history is that no single type of political system has a monopoly on success.
Instead, Mr Goh argued that “sustained growth is possible under different kinds of political systems” if they have four broad attributes: Accountability and transparency; governments must have the capacity for long-term planning and execution; social justice and harmony; and a culture of identifying talent for public service.
When it comes to accountability and transparency, it is important “to put in place the right supervisory and regulatory mechanisms to keep the other elements of the government and the economy in check”, Mr Goh told his audience at the Asia Society Hong Kong Centre’s annual dinner yesterday.
Governments, he added, must be able to adopt policies that “can withstand populist pressures”. “Government policies should not be crafted for immediate gains but should instead be formulated for the long-term public good, even if such policies are unpopular in the short-term,” he said.
Then, there is a need for governments “to provide every citizen with an equal opportunity to compete and succeed”.
But, he noted that in nations which are not homogenous, “too often, winning elections means appealing to the majority group, thus further fracturing the fault lines of race, language or religion. The minority groups inevitably feel marginalised as a result.”
In these countries, their leaders “will have to rise above such divisions to unite people and forge an inclusive society where no one is left behind”.
Apart from good leadership, a country also needs to have “a culture of identifying and grooming talent for the public service”.
“A meritocratic system of administration ... provides a competitive environment for the brightest brains to join and work in the government”.
Mr Goh noted that in a liberal democratic system, “politics is adversarial”, where not only politicians but public servants too “are subjected to constant and unwarranted public and media harassment”. Even some East Asia countries have been affected by this syndrome of late.
“This does not augur well for the future of these countries because many good people are discouraged from coming forward to serve in political office.”
Ultimately, Mr Goh said, most people are interested in results rather than “political philosophies or the mechanics of governance”.
“Political systems that endure are those that consistently deliver jobs and a better quality of life in a stable and secure environment,” Mr Goh said.
Earlier in the day, Mr Goh met with Secretary for Development Mrs Carrie Lam at the Hong Kong Development Bureau, where he received a briefing on the territory’s development plans. He and Mrs Goh were later hosted to lunch by an old friend, :Mr Tung Chee-hwa, vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. [/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2> </TD></TR><TR><TD width="3%"> </TD><TD align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.[/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Check out this article.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=640 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="3%"></TD><TD>
SM Goh: It’s not Asian or Western model that counts butaccountability and meritocracy </B>
Wednesday • November 12, 2008
WHEN the Asian Financial crisis struck in 1997, Western analysts were quick to predict the end of days for the “Asian model”, where the state plays a key role in the economy.
But as the world today continues to reel from the financial crisis that started in the United States, the assumed superiority of Western economic and political liberalism is being questioned.
To Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, the key lesson of history is that no single type of political system has a monopoly on success.
Instead, Mr Goh argued that “sustained growth is possible under different kinds of political systems” if they have four broad attributes: Accountability and transparency; governments must have the capacity for long-term planning and execution; social justice and harmony; and a culture of identifying talent for public service.
When it comes to accountability and transparency, it is important “to put in place the right supervisory and regulatory mechanisms to keep the other elements of the government and the economy in check”, Mr Goh told his audience at the Asia Society Hong Kong Centre’s annual dinner yesterday.
Governments, he added, must be able to adopt policies that “can withstand populist pressures”. “Government policies should not be crafted for immediate gains but should instead be formulated for the long-term public good, even if such policies are unpopular in the short-term,” he said.
Then, there is a need for governments “to provide every citizen with an equal opportunity to compete and succeed”.
But, he noted that in nations which are not homogenous, “too often, winning elections means appealing to the majority group, thus further fracturing the fault lines of race, language or religion. The minority groups inevitably feel marginalised as a result.”
In these countries, their leaders “will have to rise above such divisions to unite people and forge an inclusive society where no one is left behind”.
Apart from good leadership, a country also needs to have “a culture of identifying and grooming talent for the public service”.
“A meritocratic system of administration ... provides a competitive environment for the brightest brains to join and work in the government”.
Mr Goh noted that in a liberal democratic system, “politics is adversarial”, where not only politicians but public servants too “are subjected to constant and unwarranted public and media harassment”. Even some East Asia countries have been affected by this syndrome of late.
“This does not augur well for the future of these countries because many good people are discouraged from coming forward to serve in political office.”
Ultimately, Mr Goh said, most people are interested in results rather than “political philosophies or the mechanics of governance”.
“Political systems that endure are those that consistently deliver jobs and a better quality of life in a stable and secure environment,” Mr Goh said.
Earlier in the day, Mr Goh met with Secretary for Development Mrs Carrie Lam at the Hong Kong Development Bureau, where he received a briefing on the territory’s development plans. He and Mrs Goh were later hosted to lunch by an old friend, :Mr Tung Chee-hwa, vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. [/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2> </TD></TR><TR><TD width="3%"> </TD><TD align=middle>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.[/FONT]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Concur - they are the S*team!
Swiss Standards of Living? we don't even have a Swiss Standard of Government to begin with
2 issues:
1. granted, u lose some and u win some. such products were wilfully guaranteed and taken for granted that lehman's words would hold true. cannot blame banks for selling them (unless it is mis-selling or misrepresentation). honest mistake. apologise for it. KNNBCCB!!! CB mouth golden ah, fucking dogs??? cannot apologise ah??? cannot say sorry ah??? just say "sorry, we thought they were safe cos they have good credit ratings. but it was not to be. but our other investments made money, so on the whole, we have covered the losses (which u claimed!!!) with other investments which did good" and show the accounts. oh, can the bloody cass please answer why on bloody earth do town councils have the authority to invest funds given to them to improve the fucking neighbourhood???!!! who advises them and who have the expertise to make sure they r doing the right thing???
2. do the opposition wards have the same amount of sinking fund given to them???
1. granted, u lose some and u win some. such products were wilfully guaranteed and taken for granted that lehman's words would hold true. cannot blame banks for selling them (unless it is mis-selling or misrepresentation). honest mistake. apologise for it. KNNBCCB!!! CB mouth golden ah, fucking dogs??? cannot apologise ah??? cannot say sorry ah??? just say "sorry, we thought they were safe cos they have good credit ratings. but it was not to be. but our other investments made money, so on the whole, we have covered the losses (which u claimed!!!) with other investments which did good" and show the accounts. oh, can the bloody cass please answer why on bloody earth do town councils have the authority to invest funds given to them to improve the fucking neighbourhood???!!! who advises them and who have the expertise to make sure they r doing the right thing???
2. do the opposition wards have the same amount of sinking fund given to them???
Similar threads
