Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
Why is it PA again ??? Didn’t last time PA also kenna red card from AGO ???
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-lim-swee-say/
Grassroots leaders’ good intentions the root cause of financial lapses: Lim Swee Say
Published on 2015-08-18 by Andrew Loh
Auditor General’s Report
Grassroots leaders involved in financial irregularities were only trying to help, said the deputy chairman of the People’s Association (PA), Lim Swee Say, in Parliament on Monday.
“We can fault (grassroots volunteers) for their non-compliance of financial procedures, but please do not doubt them in their passion and commitment in always doing their best for the community,” Mr Lim said.
He was responding to questions from Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP), Png Eng Huat, and Non-constituency MP, Lina Chiam, on the findings by the Auditor General in its report which was released in July.
The AGO had found numerous incidents of non-compliance with financial rules among the ministries and statutory boards it audited.
Among the most notable were those involving Nparks, which had awarded contracts valued at more than S$20 million without calling for open tenders; and the PA, where the AGO had conducted test-checks on about 115 grassroots organisations (GROs) under the PA umbrella.
OC, July 2015
Out of the GROs test-checked by the AGO, 30 per cent were found to have financial or accounting irregularities.
Nonetheless, Mr Lim said, “I can say with confidence there is no irregularity at the system level.”
Instead, he said the root cause of these lapses were the “good intentions” of the grassroots leaders.
Mr Lim explained this by raising various examples of how grassroots leaders were “actually doing their best to serve the interests of the residents and meet the urgent needs of the community.”
Mr Lim, who is also the Minister of Manpower, related how grassroots leaders had gone “all around Singapore” to look for face masks when the haze hit the island in 2013.
This was after a community hospital had appealed to the GROs for air purifiers for patients who were being housed in the hospital’s non-airconditioned wards.
When they found a “small store which had limited stock”, the grassroots leaders decided to purchase the masks without first calling for three tenders, which is what is required by the rules.
“Madam Speaker, is this a case of non-compliance of financial procedures and rules? The answer is yes,” Mr Lim said. “Is this a case of grassroots leaders and volunteers compromising the interests of the community? The answer is certainly no.”
As for the chairman of the Admiralty Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) who was found to have been involved in the award of a contract worth $32,000 to a company in which he was also a senior management executive, and also for writing and approving reimbursements cheques to himself worth $114,000, Mr Lim said, without identifying the chairman, Mr Tonic Oh:
“Although there was no evidence of dishonesty, the CCC chairman has taken personal responsibility for these lapses and resigned from his position.”
Mr Lim disclosed that the improprieties involving Mr Oh included money for a funeral wake which a needy family required immediately.
“There was no supporting documents for the claim but the amount given was witnessed by a few volunteers,” the Straits Times reported Mr Lim as having told the House.
Two other claims had receipts to justify the reimbursement, but out of another four claims by Mr Oh, only one had supporting documents.
Also, 13 tenancy contracts amounting to $3.67 million were awarded by the GROs without competition.
Despite their “good intentions”, Mr Lim said, this went against financial rules, which required them to obtain approvals, which the GROs involved did not.
Turning to the AGO report itself, Mr Lim said the last time the PA received an “adverse opinion” rating from its auditors was in 2012.
Previously, the PA’s own auditors had given it “adverse opinion” for at least 10 years prior to 2012, before the GROs’ accounts were included in the PA’s financial statements.
Since consolidation of the accounts of all the 1,800 GROs under the PA in 2013, the PA’s financial statements have received “clean opinions” in FY 2013 and FY2014, Mr Lim said.
He said, however, that the PA “cannot completely eradicate human error when it comes to financial governance.”
Mr Lim added that since the AGO report, the PA has set up a “Grassroots Finance Review Committee” to review its financial and procurement rules for grassroots organisations.
Mr Lim noted that the committee – made up of three grassroots leaders from the PA – “consists of members with standing and expertise.”
However, Mrs Chiam, who filed an Adjournment Motion on the AGO report, said an independent committee should be appointed to look into the matter instead.
She said “the litany of financial lapses committed by the [PA]” has raised many issues, among them were:
First, that it has been more than a decade since PA’s Grassroots Organisations (“GROs”) have been audited. This was because the PA has not produced the financial statements of the GROs for audit, and has only done so in the financial year 2013/2014.
She calls for these financial statements to be disclosed, and for them to be audited.
Second, the pervasiveness of such poor financial practices across the 1,800 GROs since the AGO had only test-checked a mere 6.5% of the GROs.
Third, that an independent review committee should be established instead of the Grassroots Finance Review Committee, chaired by three grassroots leaders, that was set up in the aftermath of the AGO report.
The chairman of the PA, Lee Hsien Loong, did not speak on the issue in Parliament on Monday.
http://theindependent.sg/netizen-all...or-membership/
Netizen alleges that PAP MPs drive luxury cars and play golf at Yishun country club without paying for membership
By Jewel Stolarchuk - July 19, 20184776
Facebook user Liew has alleged that he frequently sees a group of ruling party parliamentarians playing golf at the Orchid Country Club in Yishun, even though he believes these politicians are not members of the club.
Liew further shared a video of several luxury cars, such as a McLaren and a Bentley that cost millions, parked at the club’s carpark and alleged that the vehicles are driven by People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs. Liew alleged that the white Bentley captured in the video belongs to a Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP and claimed:
“Every Wednesday morning a bunch of PAP MP will play golf at Orchid country club. I am a paying member there and I am very sure they are not member. I am wondering is this perks make known to the public? Is it in line with what they so call clean wages.
“I have taken a Video in the car park. They are all driving luxury car like Mclaren, Bentley that cost more than 1 m. Singapore now has no more civil servant, but only civil boss, that’s why they are driving bigger cars and living in bigger houses than us. We voted them to control us, sound very stupid hoh. The white Bentley SKK 418 R is own by Bishan MP”
https://www.facebook.com/donald.liew...6528811779686/
Liew’s video has garnered over 12.000 views and more than 300 shares since he published it on his Facebook wall earlier today.
Meanwhile, another netizen alleged that ruling party politicians frequently asked him for free upgrades to first class, when he was apparently working with Singapore Airlines.
The netizen, Facebook user David Lam Kiap Tan, further claimed that when he began working with teleservices operator M1, PAP MPs would seek “free exchanges for new phones”:
While several netizens responding to Liew’s claims have responded by urging others to vote these MPs out at the next General Election, several others have expressed doubts at the veracity of Liew’s allegations and have opined that this may just be “fake news”.
One such netizen, Facebook user Terence Tan, pointed out that even if the MPs are not members of the country club, they may have been signed in by their friends who are members:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
Why is it PA again ??? Didn’t last time PA also kenna red card from AGO ???
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-lim-swee-say/
Grassroots leaders’ good intentions the root cause of financial lapses: Lim Swee Say
Published on 2015-08-18 by Andrew Loh
Auditor General’s Report
Grassroots leaders involved in financial irregularities were only trying to help, said the deputy chairman of the People’s Association (PA), Lim Swee Say, in Parliament on Monday.
“We can fault (grassroots volunteers) for their non-compliance of financial procedures, but please do not doubt them in their passion and commitment in always doing their best for the community,” Mr Lim said.
He was responding to questions from Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP), Png Eng Huat, and Non-constituency MP, Lina Chiam, on the findings by the Auditor General in its report which was released in July.
The AGO had found numerous incidents of non-compliance with financial rules among the ministries and statutory boards it audited.
Among the most notable were those involving Nparks, which had awarded contracts valued at more than S$20 million without calling for open tenders; and the PA, where the AGO had conducted test-checks on about 115 grassroots organisations (GROs) under the PA umbrella.
OC, July 2015
Out of the GROs test-checked by the AGO, 30 per cent were found to have financial or accounting irregularities.
Nonetheless, Mr Lim said, “I can say with confidence there is no irregularity at the system level.”
Instead, he said the root cause of these lapses were the “good intentions” of the grassroots leaders.
Mr Lim explained this by raising various examples of how grassroots leaders were “actually doing their best to serve the interests of the residents and meet the urgent needs of the community.”
Mr Lim, who is also the Minister of Manpower, related how grassroots leaders had gone “all around Singapore” to look for face masks when the haze hit the island in 2013.
This was after a community hospital had appealed to the GROs for air purifiers for patients who were being housed in the hospital’s non-airconditioned wards.
When they found a “small store which had limited stock”, the grassroots leaders decided to purchase the masks without first calling for three tenders, which is what is required by the rules.
“Madam Speaker, is this a case of non-compliance of financial procedures and rules? The answer is yes,” Mr Lim said. “Is this a case of grassroots leaders and volunteers compromising the interests of the community? The answer is certainly no.”
As for the chairman of the Admiralty Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) who was found to have been involved in the award of a contract worth $32,000 to a company in which he was also a senior management executive, and also for writing and approving reimbursements cheques to himself worth $114,000, Mr Lim said, without identifying the chairman, Mr Tonic Oh:
“Although there was no evidence of dishonesty, the CCC chairman has taken personal responsibility for these lapses and resigned from his position.”
Mr Lim disclosed that the improprieties involving Mr Oh included money for a funeral wake which a needy family required immediately.
“There was no supporting documents for the claim but the amount given was witnessed by a few volunteers,” the Straits Times reported Mr Lim as having told the House.
Two other claims had receipts to justify the reimbursement, but out of another four claims by Mr Oh, only one had supporting documents.
Also, 13 tenancy contracts amounting to $3.67 million were awarded by the GROs without competition.
Despite their “good intentions”, Mr Lim said, this went against financial rules, which required them to obtain approvals, which the GROs involved did not.
Turning to the AGO report itself, Mr Lim said the last time the PA received an “adverse opinion” rating from its auditors was in 2012.
Previously, the PA’s own auditors had given it “adverse opinion” for at least 10 years prior to 2012, before the GROs’ accounts were included in the PA’s financial statements.
Since consolidation of the accounts of all the 1,800 GROs under the PA in 2013, the PA’s financial statements have received “clean opinions” in FY 2013 and FY2014, Mr Lim said.
He said, however, that the PA “cannot completely eradicate human error when it comes to financial governance.”
Mr Lim added that since the AGO report, the PA has set up a “Grassroots Finance Review Committee” to review its financial and procurement rules for grassroots organisations.
Mr Lim noted that the committee – made up of three grassroots leaders from the PA – “consists of members with standing and expertise.”
However, Mrs Chiam, who filed an Adjournment Motion on the AGO report, said an independent committee should be appointed to look into the matter instead.
She said “the litany of financial lapses committed by the [PA]” has raised many issues, among them were:
First, that it has been more than a decade since PA’s Grassroots Organisations (“GROs”) have been audited. This was because the PA has not produced the financial statements of the GROs for audit, and has only done so in the financial year 2013/2014.
She calls for these financial statements to be disclosed, and for them to be audited.
Second, the pervasiveness of such poor financial practices across the 1,800 GROs since the AGO had only test-checked a mere 6.5% of the GROs.
Third, that an independent review committee should be established instead of the Grassroots Finance Review Committee, chaired by three grassroots leaders, that was set up in the aftermath of the AGO report.
The chairman of the PA, Lee Hsien Loong, did not speak on the issue in Parliament on Monday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mushr00mhead
Pay them 7-figure salary to jo-bo-lan not enough to make you speechless?
All their time charged to you as taxpayers money. You pay for NTUC, Grassroots, Civil Service, GLCs but they use it to control you, Singapore and Singaporeans.
Does not make sense right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoesephToh
I also would like to know how come the PAP government charge Singaporeans such a high price of water when only the Malaysians are paying 3 sen only ? Someone only say because of high cost production need to increase price . Really??? Than can you please explain to us what is the high cost to your voters ?
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-at-least-672/
Vivian says M’sia benefitted from buying treated water at 21% of cost but why SG consumers charged at least 672%?
Published on 2018-07-09 by Correspondent
In Parliament today (9 Jul), Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said he expects Malaysia to fully honour the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement, including the price of water, signed between Singapore and Malaysia.
“The 1962 Water Agreement was guaranteed by both Singapore and Malaysia in the 1965 Separation Agreement, which in turn was registered with the United Nations,” he said.
Tying the 1962 Water Agreement to the 1965 Separation Agreement signed between both countries, Minister Balakrishnan added, “Any breach of the 1962 Water Agreement would call into question the Separation Agreement, which is the basis for Singapore’s very existence as an independent sovereign state.”
Water has been in the spotlight in recent weeks after Dr Mahathir said in an interview with Bloomberg last month that the 1962 water supply deal with Singapore was “too costly” for Malaysia and that he wanted to talk to Singapore about it.
“We will sit down and talk with them, like civilized people,” Dr Mahathir told Bloomberg.
The water agreement allows Singapore to draw up to 250 million gallons of raw water from Johor daily at three sen (1.01 Singapore cents) per 1,000 gallons.
Vivian: Malaysia benefited from water pricing arrangement
In Parliament, Minister Balakrishnan noted that Singapore has already stated its position on the water issue comprehensively.
“The core issue is ’not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon’,” he said. “Neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the terms of this agreement between our two countries.”
He also added that Malaysia has previously acknowledged that they themselves have benefited from the pricing arrangement under the deal.
Johor currently buys treated water from Singapore at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons, as provided for under the 1962 Water Agreement. This is a fraction of the cost to Singapore of treating the water, he further noted.
“Hence, in 2002, then-PM Dr Mahathir said that Malaysia did not ask for a review when it was due as Malaysia knew that any revision would also affect the price of treated water sold by Singapore to Malaysia.”
According to a MFA media release on its website, it costs Singapore RM2.40 to treat every 1,000 gallons of water. By selling the treated water to Malaysia at 50 sen or 21% of cost, Singapore is providing a subsidy of RM1.90 per 1,000 gallons to Malaysia. Everyday, Singapore is providing a water subsidy of RM70,000 to Malaysia, it said.
Singaporean households charged at least 672% more for treated water from PUB
Meanwhile, Singapore’s water prices were raised earlier this month (1 Jul). The new water tariff which Singapore households now have to pay is:
S$1.21 per cubic meter, for consumption below 40 cubic meter per month
S$1.42 per cubic meter, for consumption exceeding 40 cubic meter per month
This does not include the Water Conservation Tax or the Waterborne Fee. If both are included, the total water price would be:
S$2.74 per cubic meter, for consumption below 40 cubic meter per month
S$3.69 per cubic meter, for consumption exceeding 40 cubic meter per month
Since MFA said that it costs Singapore RM2.40 or S$0.81 to treat every 1,000 gallons (4.55 cubic meter) of water, that means it costs Singapore S$0.178 to treat every cubic meter of water. Including the cost of buying water from Malaysia at 3 sen per 1000 gallons or S$0.0022 per cubic meter, the total cost to Singapore for 1 cubic meter of treated water would be $0.178+$0.0022 or S$0.18.
To summarize, PUB buys water from Malaysia at S$0.0022 per cubic meter and spends another S$0.178 per cubic meter to treat it, giving a total cost of S$0.18 per cubic meter. It then in turn, sells to Singaporean households at S$1.21 per cubic meter (using the above $1.21 rate and excluding Water Conservation Tax and the Waterborne Fee). This translate to at least 672% more Singaporean households have to pay for the treated water from PUB. And if we use the S$2.74 rate which is inclusive of taxes, Singaporean households end up paying 1,522% more.
So, can PUB give Singaporeans a breakdown how consumers are being charged 672% more after buying water at 3 sen from Malaysia and treating it at RM2.40 per 1,000 gallons?
Furthermore, can PUB also explain the S$1.1 billion profits it gained in the last 7 years, as noted by financial blogger Leong Sze Hian?
Editor’s note - It would help a lot to explain to the citizens on the cost to treat water via the Newater or desalination process. However, PUB chooses to lump everything together and justify the increase of water by simply referring to the investments made by the government on water treatment. Based on past figures, it seems that the government will eventually be profiting from the sale of utilities even though the upfront investment is high
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mushr00mhead
Pay them 7-figure salary to jo-bo-lan not enough to make you speechless?
All their time charged to you as taxpayers money. You pay for NTUC, Grassroots, Civil Service, GLCs but they use it to control you, Singapore and Singaporeans.
Does not make sense right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoesephToh
I also would like to know how come the PAP government charge Singaporeans such a high price of water when only the Malaysians are paying 3 sen only ? Someone only say because of high cost production need to increase price . Really??? Than can you please explain to us what is the high cost to your voters ?
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-at-least-672/
Vivian says M’sia benefitted from buying treated water at 21% of cost but why SG consumers charged at least 672%?
Published on 2018-07-09 by Correspondent
In Parliament today (9 Jul), Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said he expects Malaysia to fully honour the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement, including the price of water, signed between Singapore and Malaysia.
“The 1962 Water Agreement was guaranteed by both Singapore and Malaysia in the 1965 Separation Agreement, which in turn was registered with the United Nations,” he said.
Tying the 1962 Water Agreement to the 1965 Separation Agreement signed between both countries, Minister Balakrishnan added, “Any breach of the 1962 Water Agreement would call into question the Separation Agreement, which is the basis for Singapore’s very existence as an independent sovereign state.”
Water has been in the spotlight in recent weeks after Dr Mahathir said in an interview with Bloomberg last month that the 1962 water supply deal with Singapore was “too costly” for Malaysia and that he wanted to talk to Singapore about it.
“We will sit down and talk with them, like civilized people,” Dr Mahathir told Bloomberg.
The water agreement allows Singapore to draw up to 250 million gallons of raw water from Johor daily at three sen (1.01 Singapore cents) per 1,000 gallons.
Vivian: Malaysia benefited from water pricing arrangement
In Parliament, Minister Balakrishnan noted that Singapore has already stated its position on the water issue comprehensively.
“The core issue is ’not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon’,” he said. “Neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the terms of this agreement between our two countries.”
He also added that Malaysia has previously acknowledged that they themselves have benefited from the pricing arrangement under the deal.
Johor currently buys treated water from Singapore at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons, as provided for under the 1962 Water Agreement. This is a fraction of the cost to Singapore of treating the water, he further noted.
“Hence, in 2002, then-PM Dr Mahathir said that Malaysia did not ask for a review when it was due as Malaysia knew that any revision would also affect the price of treated water sold by Singapore to Malaysia.”
According to a MFA media release on its website, it costs Singapore RM2.40 to treat every 1,000 gallons of water. By selling the treated water to Malaysia at 50 sen or 21% of cost, Singapore is providing a subsidy of RM1.90 per 1,000 gallons to Malaysia. Everyday, Singapore is providing a water subsidy of RM70,000 to Malaysia, it said.
Singaporean households charged at least 672% more for treated water from PUB
Meanwhile, Singapore’s water prices were raised earlier this month (1 Jul). The new water tariff which Singapore households now have to pay is:
S$1.21 per cubic meter, for consumption below 40 cubic meter per month
S$1.42 per cubic meter, for consumption exceeding 40 cubic meter per month
This does not include the Water Conservation Tax or the Waterborne Fee. If both are included, the total water price would be:
S$2.74 per cubic meter, for consumption below 40 cubic meter per month
S$3.69 per cubic meter, for consumption exceeding 40 cubic meter per month
Since MFA said that it costs Singapore RM2.40 or S$0.81 to treat every 1,000 gallons (4.55 cubic meter) of water, that means it costs Singapore S$0.178 to treat every cubic meter of water. Including the cost of buying water from Malaysia at 3 sen per 1000 gallons or S$0.0022 per cubic meter, the total cost to Singapore for 1 cubic meter of treated water would be $0.178+$0.0022 or S$0.18.
To summarize, PUB buys water from Malaysia at S$0.0022 per cubic meter and spends another S$0.178 per cubic meter to treat it, giving a total cost of S$0.18 per cubic meter. It then in turn, sells to Singaporean households at S$1.21 per cubic meter (using the above $1.21 rate and excluding Water Conservation Tax and the Waterborne Fee). This translate to at least 672% more Singaporean households have to pay for the treated water from PUB. And if we use the S$2.74 rate which is inclusive of taxes, Singaporean households end up paying 1,522% more.
So, can PUB give Singaporeans a breakdown how consumers are being charged 672% more after buying water at 3 sen from Malaysia and treating it at RM2.40 per 1,000 gallons?
Furthermore, can PUB also explain the S$1.1 billion profits it gained in the last 7 years, as noted by financial blogger Leong Sze Hian?
Editor’s note - It would help a lot to explain to the citizens on the cost to treat water via the Newater or desalination process. However, PUB chooses to lump everything together and justify the increase of water by simply referring to the investments made by the government on water treatment. Based on past figures, it seems that the government will eventually be profiting from the sale of utilities even though the upfront investment is high
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
It is already long gone . Why do you think every year they make it harder for us to withdraw our CPF ???
http://theindependent.sg/temasek-say...ts-questioned/
Temasek says it does not manage CPF savings, gets questioned
By Andrew Loh - July 21, 20183079
In the past week, several postings by Temasek on its Facebook page has made claims which are being questioned by members of the public. But Temasek has also responded to the reactions by explaining its positions on these questions.
As part of its “mostly commonly asked questions about us” series, the self-proclaimed “commercial investment company” had put up several posters providing answers to these queries.
In them, Temasek claims that it “does not manage Singapore CPF savings, Singapore Government Reserves, [and] Singapore Foreign Reserves.”
In another poster, it says that it in fact “is not a Sovereign Wealth Fund” but “a commercial investment company”, and “own and manage our own assets.”
https://www.facebook.com/temasekhold...403848/?type=3
In a third, Temasek explains it operates “on commercial principles, pay taxes wherever we operate, and invests off of our own balance sheet.”
Temasek is helmed by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Its chairman is former minister Lim Boon Heng.
Temasek’s postings immediately drew questions and criticisms from members of the public, who challenged its assertions.
Shih-Tung Ngiam, commenting on the page on Temasek’s claim that it is not a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), but a “commercial investment company”, called it a “lie”.
“This is an outright lie,” he said. “I do not understand why Temasek keeps trying to deny that it is an SWF. What benefit do Temasek insiders get from that denial ? Singapore does not gain anything. If anything we lose points on transparency and honesty.”
But it is Temasek’s posting on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings that drew the most reactions from the public. The CPF is a compulsory savings plan for all working Singaporeans for retirement and housing needs, among others.
Some on Temasek’s page expressed disbelief that the fund does not manage CPF money, describing the claim as “a joke” and “fake news”, and asked Temasek where its funds for investment comes from, if not from CPF savings. Reactions also questioned the husband-and-wife relationship of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Temasek and the Prime Minister.
Temasek responded that CPF monies are invested by the CPF Board in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government.
“The proceeds from the SSGS are then invested by the government through MAS and GIC, just like how the proceeds from the market-based Singapore Government Securities (SGS) are invested,” Temasek says.
“We also do not receive any SGSS proceeds for management,” it added.
When asked to publish its financial statements, Temasek said:
“Just to clarify, as a Singapore exempt private company under the Singapore Companies Act, we’re actually exempted from disclosing financial information publicly. Nonetheless, we’ve been publishing our Temasek Review annually since 2004 as a public marker of our performance. Also, you might be keen to know that our sole shareholder is the Minister for Finance; no other investors were involved in our growth over the last 44 years.”
It then directed readers to this page for more information.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) explains on its webpage:
“Temasek’s consolidated financial statements are audited by leading international audit firms. In addition, Temasek’s financial performance is scrutinised by bond rating agencies, which have given it a AAA credit rating.”
Temasek also publishes its investments portfolio on its website. See here.
Earlier this month, the fund reported a record net portfolio value of $308 billion.
“It is now almost three times the dotcom peak of just over S$100 billion at the turn of the millennium,” Executive Director and CEO, Temasek International, Mr Lee Theng Kiat, said then.
Chairman Lim said, “To succeed as an investor is not an end in itself. Ultimately, that success must be translated into a better and more sustainable world for our people and communities.”
Temasek is one of three government entities which manage and contribute to the reserves. The other two are the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Government Investment Corporation Pte Ltd (GIC Pte Ltd).
The actual size of the total reserves are not published but is estimated to be about $750 billion.
Only MAS and Temasek disclose their assets. GIC Pte Ltd does not.
The MOF explains “what has been revealed is that GIC manages well over US$100 billion.”
“Revealing the exact size of assets that GIC manages will, taken together with the published assets of MAS and Temasek, amount to publishing the full size of Singapore’s financial reserves,” the MOF says.
“It is not in our national interest to publish the full size of our reserves. If we do so, it will make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability.
For more detailed answers to the questions which readers posed to Temasek, perhaps it is best to refer to the Ministry of Finance website for the answers.
Please click here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NotMyPresident
Now we know where the PAP MPs disappear to . No wonder the parliament is always half full . Will Singaporeans be brave enough to vote them out ?
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2012/01/...uuuuuuuuu.html
No one cares about your pay cuts if you don’t solve their problems | Main | the mrbrown show: a minister shares his thoughts on the pay cut »
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Grace FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
Grace Fu on her Facebook page,
about the pay cuts:
When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.
Foot, meet mouth.
My first thought was, where got loss of privacy? It’s not like Singapore media is THAT invasive.
My second thought was, the PAP slate at Aljunied GRC does need a few more MPs to make up the numbers.
I think sometimes, the most gracious way to respond to a hot topic like a ministerial pay cut is not say anything at all, lest you make people say Grace FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 at 09:45 AM in Random Rants | Permalink ShareThis
http://theindependent.sg/disgraceful-grace-fu/
Disgraceful, Grace Fu
By The Independent - April 30, 2016
By: Andrew Loh
So, as I had expected, it didn’t take long for the PAP to resort to below-the-belt attacks on Dr Chee Soon Juan – again.
Just a day after Nomination Day, at her party’s first rally for the Bukit Batok by-election, the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Grace Fu, apparently launched an ad hominem volley at the SDP secretary general.
“He wants to be a full-time MP,” Ms Fu said, referring to Dr Chee. “As far as I know he’s not held a full-time job for a long time… The work experience is essential. It’ll be interesting to see if there is a referral letter from Chiam See Tong.”
First, it is a rather uncultured remark from a minister of culture. Yes, ironic.
Second, Ms Fu’s remarks would actually bring the same question to her colleagues, many of whom are helicoptered into ministries and GLCs and associations without any thread of relevant experience.
Lee Bee Wah in the table tennis association, for example.
Tin Pei Ling as some adviser in a football club.
And what about the many ministers over the years – perhaps including Grace Fu herself – who were sheltered into the ministries without any relevant experience.
Vivian Balakrishnan, an eye doctor, for example.
Or more recently, military general Ng Chee Meng as Education Minister.
But the more important thing about Ms Fu’s attack is this: Dr Chee has not been sitting idle at home all these years. Commonsense would tell you that if he did, his family would not have survived till today – given, as a fact, that Ms Fu’s party has been running him down for more than 20 years.
24 to be exact.
Dr Chee has nothing to be ashamed about.
He has been bankrupted, and jailed and fined, and has had his name dragged through the mud, with all sorts of labels pinned on him – from the mouth of the late Lee Kuan Yew to the pages of the govt-controlled mouthpieces.
Yet, he has survived, taken all this in his stride – and has not returned kind for kind.
Dr Chee, in fact, even in his rally yesterday (29 April 2016), called on his supporters to not attack the PAP’s David Ong, whose personal indiscretions have led to the by-election.
Dr Chee has nothing to be ashamed of.
Even as a student, Chee knew what it was like to struggle, as recalled by his friend and party colleague, Jaslyn Go, in the book “A Caring Family Man, An Inspiring Friend”.
“With what little money he had, he went to the United States to study for his degree,” she said. “The money he had at that time was only enough to last him for only one trimester (sic), not even one year…While most of his peers were busy partying, he was stuck, taking on odd jobs to pay for his tution fees and living expenses.”
Another of his friend, Dr Wong Wee Nam, knows his family well.
“His (Chee’s) children do not carry a handphone or play with iPads or any computer gadgets. Instead they indulge in simple pleasures like reading books borrowed from the public library.”
So, how has Dr Chee survived, financially?
He worked.
Yes, he did. Like everyone else.
And he worked hard.
His work is to write books and academic papers – as many thousands others do. And he has had to sell his books, oftentimes literally on the streets, as the bookstores here were frightened to sell them.
And he also does political work for his party, and indeed for Singapore, even helping to distribute supplies to the needy.
There is no shame in such work.
Grace Fu needs to understand that there are many different ways for a person to work. But this might be hard for someone who lamented at the cut in ministers’ salaries in 2012, even after the drubbing her party received from the electorate in the general election just months earlier.
It is worth repeating what she said then, as it shows the small mind that inhabits her head:
“When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were.
“The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut.
“If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.”
Appalling, even now.
Of course, Ms Fu later “clarified” and claimed that the public had “misunderstood” her remarks. This led to one blogger-lawyer saying Ms Fu should resign instead. (See here.)
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s Nomination Day pledge for a clean fight in the by-election is now left asunder by his minister-colleague ad hominem attack on Dr Chee.
One can only hope that the DPM will have a quiet word with Ms Grace Fu – and tell her that her remarks, and her mindset, are unacceptably disgraceful, and lowers the office of a minister to the cesspool of dirty politics.
In the 2015 general elections, Chee gave a speech.
There was one part in which he spoke of an instance where he and his wife considered buying a box of Haagen Dazs or Ben & Jerry’s ice cream for his kids.
In the end, they chose Wall’s after looking at the prices.
But even then, his wife said they should buy it only if it was on offer.
This is what ordinary folks like us face.
Sometimes we have to make such decisions when we go grocery shopping, for example. We would only buy “luxury” items if they are on offer because it makes sense as many things in Singapore are overpriced.
But I don’t think someone like Grace Fu can really understand how we ordinary folks live.
For if she does, she would realise that the many people out there who have lost their jobs and who may be out of work for a long time would be facing quite trying times.
It is nothing to make fun of.
But if you want to know about Dr Chee – who lives in a 3-room HDB flat with his family – have a look at this video, and see if you would agree with the careless and insensitive remarks of Minister Grace Fu.
—
Published with permission from Andrew Loh’s website.
