I wrote an article on the merits of the two parties system and was published in ST forum page two days ago.

Today, there are three letters published there advocating for one party politics! What a shock.

I remembered LHL telling Singaporeans during the so-called Marxist plot that his father, the Whiter-than-white Immortal, had read the bible a couple of times and he knows everything about the bible.

See, he knows everything. He is already God! No wonder his son takes after him, declaring that he is also the second God. With the gods in power, who needs mortal men to oppose them, let alone stand side by side with them.

Pui! to these fake gods!

Simon Koh
General Manager
Tanjong Pagar Town Council

The town council did not purchase any Lehman Brothers funds directly. One of the town council fund managers, Lion Global Investors, has informed us it has a small exposure to Lehman Brothers bonds. It invested $250,000 in the bonds. This amount accounts for only 0.14 per cent of the town council’s total sinking funds.

TC does not invest in LB directly but FM did. Er, it seems like TC pushing the blame to FM. You mean that TC did not know what FM invested in, till now? Again, TC is using the percentage tactic.

Another spinning effort.

You are absolutely spot on! Teo SL knew the structured products were complex.

The Town Councils did not foresee the financial tsunami and its impact on complex structured products. Teo Ser Luck, MP Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC.

Yet, he found it wise to invest public funds into it. Whether he foresaw the tsunami or not is another thing altogether. Why use public funds for complex investments with high risks?

You are therefore right that “legal investigation must be conducted as it involves illegal use of the public fund”. Walter Woon has also gone into hiding.

But from the press, it is obvious that they consider it low risk not high risk for minibomb, hence a thorough investigation must be conducted otherwise they just prove to us they are nothing but a kangaroo government. We are talking about abusement of public fund now.

I stress again: On the contrary, it actually highlighted why PAP government does not want to investigate. The PAP government themselves had made losses from the Lehman debacle, so they cannot be an impartial investigator.

A lost is still a lost, whether its paper or cupboard, so don’t confuse the public which all these idiots are good at, always never admitting to their mistakes!

If the Court rules in favour of financial institutions, the Singapore Judiciary looses its standing in society as an impartial forum to address grievances. If the Court rules in favour of victimised investors, MAS looks bad. Either way, the PAP government looks bad.

Plus you are suggesting that PAP is politicising the issue by airing that they made losses over the Lehman debacle. On the contrary, it actually highlighted why PAP government does not want to investigate. The PAP government themselves had made losses from the Lehman debacle, so they cannot be an impartial investigator.

It is not only retail investors such as Ah Gong and Ah Ma that have lost money. Other victims who had lost money due to the Lehman bankruptcy includes the PAP Town Councils, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Singapore Civil Service College, Singapore Land Authority, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore and Professional Engineers Board.

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_303765.html?vgnmr=1

The release of information about the losses by the Town Councils and MAS are part of an overall political move to show that these are legitimate products. The move is to defeat the arguement that these are illegal products which should never been sold to the investing public in the first place.
.
Politically, there is no way that a legal action will be allowed to succeed in the Singapore’s courts. The Singapore courts are fair 99% of the time. However in the 1% of the time that the decision has significant political implications, then there will be executive guidance on what the “correct” decision should be.
.
Hence while there is considerable anxiety to do something now, it would be best to wait for a precedent to be established in another jurisdiction e.g. Hong Kong. If there are a series of sucessful law suits across the world where banks are made pay compensation, then it will make it very hard for the Singapore courts to rule against such compensation. The last thing you would want is for a Singapore court to set the legal precedence for such cases.
.
At the same time, sucessful action overseas would put pressure on the Singapore government to act in a way which is consistent with what has been established internationally. Your blog and speeaches at Hong Lim are therefore crucial since there would be an effective media blackout on such news.
.
Really appreciate your time and effort to help those who have lost money and ensure that there is a fair outcome.

Can’t agree more.
This is another manifestation of Uniquely (U NEED LEE) Singapore.

I am also looking for that part too. I am still searching but I found some hints from an old ST news article:

ST Dec 2, 2007
New rule to safeguard council funds
By Tan Hui Yee & Mavis Toh

TOWN councils tempted to play the stock market to increase the returns on their sinking funds will now have to meet a new rule that caps how much they can put into higher-risk investments.

Councils, which have had some leeway when investing their cash, must limit their investments in non-government stocks, funds or securities to 35 per cent of the sinking fund.

This new rule, which kicked in yesterday, applies to more than $1 billion in sinking funds managed by the 16 town councils in Singapore.

The money is collected through monthly service and conservancy charges and government grants and is used for cyclical repairs, such as re-painting or re-roofing.

The Ministry of National Development brought the rule in to strike a balance between councils trying to get good returns on their funds and not taking undue risks with residents’ money.

Some council cash has been going into shares and corporate bonds, which are considered riskier than government ones.

The president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals Leong Sze Hian said: ‘Corporate bonds are only as good as the company can pay. The risk of a company running out of money is higher than that of the Government.’

Before the new rule, council investments were governed by the Trustees Act, which placed restrictions on some instruments. The new 35 per cent cap is seen as stricter, but no council contacted by The Sunday Times said it would have trouble complying.

The Hong Kah Town Council has about $150 million in its sinking fund, with one-third invested in government bonds returning 2 to 3 per cent. Another third is in short-term fixed deposits with returns of 1.5 to 3 per cent, with the rest handled by fund managers.

The investments can include corporate bonds and stocks, which are riskier. But this portion, handled by fund managers, nets about 8 to 10 per cent in returns a year, said council chairman Ang Mong Seng.

Sinking funds are typically parked in safe investment instruments, such as government bonds and fixed deposits. But a few years ago, many councils felt that they could do better by investing in other instruments, such as shares.

Many then let fund managers invest a bigger portion of their cash and reap better returns.

Ministry of National Development is the one that set the 35% rule. Before the 35% rule, TCs were using the Trustee Act to “play” with the sinking funds. Now, the trace somehow needs to start from MND. We need to find where is the starting point.

It is going to be a long day.

TOWN COUNCILS ACT (CHAPTER 329A)

LINK to the Act

A few points from the Act:

Power of investment
41. A Town Council may invest its funds in accordance with the standard investment power of statutory bodies as defined in section 33A of the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1).

Grants
42. For the purposes of enabling a Town Council to carry out its functions under this Act or any other Act, the Minister may from time to time make grants-in-aid to the Town Council of such sums of money and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.

For your information.