Comments on: Town councils’ funds – Teo Ho Pin responds

By: Maybe Opposition-held Town Councils should get a lesson or two from the non-Opposition-held Town Councils « One Married Man

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:22:55 +0000

[...] my simple Google research [3] [4] [5], it seems that upgrading an estate to a large extent is paid for by funds from the respective Town [...]

By: honey

honey — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:20:40 +0000

Why must singaporean sigh ?As a singaporean we have to accept what goverment arrange for our country future since now economy going slow
that doesnt mean we have to sigh for everthing PAP done so much for the
pass few years…look ahead…now singapore is a peace country n clean
must we still question abt all stupid question…hehe..life need to go on if we love our country dont asked for this and that because goverment do for the best for their citizens and country…im proud to be a singaporean

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:29:10 +0000

why the need to be so exccessive? so they can do whatever they like and when the time comes for lift upgrading or painting, they will still call for increase of fees. If not becos of the financial saga, you think they will disclose to all you people of these sinking funds? many of the PAP TCs don’t even have any annual auditing reports for so many years, why? becos the master allows them to make these excess monies out of the citizens pockets. C’mon singaporeans, you people has been taken as bloody suckers for so many years by these coffers doing things behind your backs, and you people still want to believe them?

By: inflate

inflate — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:13:54 +0000

“After almost two decades of accumulation, our sinking funds amount to under $2 billion or just over $200,000 per HDB block. This is not excessive as the overhaul cost of just one lift for a 12-storey block can cost about $100,000.”

Err… so? Do we need to overhaul all HDB blocks any time soon? Then there must be something wrong with the way HDB build flats…

“Over the last 6 years, we have achieved an average rate of return on investments of over 3 per cent per annum. This is more than three times the average interest of about 0.9 per cent per annum earned on Fixed Deposits, and greater than the2.9 per cent from SGS 10-Year Bonds over the same period. ”

Doesn’t sound very impressive leh. What’s the point of comparing to Fixed Deposits? Did you guys actually manage to beat inflation or not?
If not, don’t collect so much in the first place la! The only reason for collecting excessive amounts in the first place is so that they can do whatever they want, and we would be none-the-wiser!
If they collect what they need for the short term, then they will have to tell us when they need more money what the money is for! And that kind of transparency is exactly what they fear!

By: squidsquid

squidsquid — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:24:02 +0000

during election time, they said if they elected, there will be fund for lift upgrading, etc…..then why now TC needs to pay, residents also need to pay??? so in the end, who are the actual parties paying???

By: chih hong doh

chih hong doh — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:55:19 +0000

We can only comment on the tc based on what information we have.
We cannot say exactly how good it really is performing until we have all the necessary info. * this is the most important part of my message *

to me, a B/S or P/L is just a very summarised info.
it would be good to know where money is invested in what products and funds transfered from where to where or to where from where.

By: aiyoyo

aiyoyo — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:59:50 +0000

aiyoyo

keep sinking funds, compare to funds keep inside our own pocket

got difference??

cant understand the logic leh..

aiyoyo

By: veefer

veefer — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:17:40 +0000

$100,000 for lift replacement is every 28 yrs. even if it is every 10 years the amount of $$ kept in sinking funds are too excessive.

By: who else is also responsible ?

who else is also responsible ? — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:34:42 +0000

btw, i do not find that annual reports is good enough info for me.
that is way too high level.
we need more details like what products have they invested in now and before.
how the money flows.

By: who else is also responsible ?

who else is also responsible ? — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:32:14 +0000

Unfortunately, each and every singaporean is also responsible for the lack of transparency.

we are part of the equation – we cannot shun the responsibility. we did not ask for transparency before. thus , you have current situations. there may be deeper implication than what meets the eye.

i am sad to report that many many singaporeans really, as in REALLY, do not care about this issue. I swear, they really boh chap even when they are :

either:
1. the min bond investors who lost money, they do nothing about it. only a handful signed the petition even after so long. Fact is fact.

2. the one who pay and pay the S & C C.

do you want to retire?

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:16:09 +0000

111) anonymous on November 30th, 2008 12.48 pm
If this is the kind of loss that happened in a private condo management the manager or the Board of Management would have been sacked long ago.

What? they could have landed themselves in jail already, this is illegal.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 04:48:35 +0000

I think we are all barking up the wrong tree. Teo Ho Pin was merely working according to the investment rules for a TC as stipulated by the Finance Ministry. And he has kept within the rules by limiting his gamble on toxic investments to less than 35%. So he has nothing to answer for. The person who should be blamed is the one who stipulates these investment rules. So, it is not difficult to see that the Finance Minister was soley responsible for this fiasco. Who was the Finance Minister who approves these rules? Could it be Tharman or his predecessor? Perhaps we should also be thankful to the Finance Minister for allowing only 35% to be gambled away. It could have been worse, right?
If this is the kind of loss that happened in a private condo management the manager or the Board of Management would have been sacked long ago.

By: LPC

LPC — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:00:23 +0000

Great! we have so many supervisor here to supervise the quality services provided by the Town Council.

Yes! it’s time that the Citizen stand up to supervise our govt.

Stand up Singaporean, voice up Singaporean,, write out TOC……

By: Selamat wong - the buck stops at my desk

Selamat wong - the buck stops at my desk — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:07:18 +0000

Why is Dengue still a proven in HDB estates?
Please use some of the money in the sinking fund to hire professsionals solve this age old problem.
1 life too many.

By: kevin

kevin — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:53:00 +0000

In 107), it is obviously that there is a calculation error. Somebody works for ZaoPao said the $16m loss is a ‘calculated risk’ so chim but luckily mine is a only a calculation error . Must apology for the honest mistake for the simple maths I did with my eyes open.
$24m – $16 M = $ 6m
Where goes the other $2m?
This $2m is the provision for the likely $3m loss in TC’s another CLN investment in Pinnacle CLN series 6 arranged by Morgan Stanley.
Sorry for non-disclose of this material information: a provision for a potential $3m loss.

By: kevin

kevin — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:15:31 +0000

FACT is FACT.
Figure is FACT.
Thought I could do some simple maths but shockingly I couldn’t find excuse for the loss.

$16m is lost.
$16m is reasonably pressumed to be the capital which is wiped out without recovery.
Risky structured product CLN is presumed to have a history of 2 yrs.
The 5% return is 3% more than the return from FD or FD equivalent about 2%, hence
The gain over the 2 years = $16m x 3% x 2 = $1m

Add to the 2-yr gain another 4-yr gain presumably another LB Minibond type CLN, the figure = $1m + $2m = $3m

The loss over the 6 years:
$16m – $3m = $13m

Obviously there were other investments (seems that it was the entire sinking fund) that could yield a return of more than $13m, or else how could the $13m be recouped?

It is now that we are told that the loss of $16m is from the $24m – an aggregate of 6 years return, so a simple mathematics suggests that the net return for a total of 6 years is only $6m (after the $16m is wipe out) which gives an average of $1m return in a year,

$1m/$2b, what is the rate of return? Excellent? Mediocre? Your judgement!

Is the figure wrong or my maths wrong?

By: aiyoyo

aiyoyo — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:53:57 +0000

aiyoyo,

cpf $ can be ‘seen’ only sometime age 62 or 65,

how huh? still got several years to reach age 62/65…

not sure by age 62/65, got chance to take+spend our hard earn $ in cpf???

aiyoyo work very hard, and still ? mark whether we can use our cpf $ by then….

aiyoyo think life in this country getting tougher and tougher

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:29:53 +0000

All our cpf monies will be lost, it is possible when things are done behind our back, this is illegal.

By: jefj0901

jefj0901 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:26:22 +0000

Haha.. Dr Teo just don’t get it. He use our money to gamble and when the TCs got richer and gambled again and lost. “It’s not your money”, he said , “it’s the profit from your money,wat!”
How can any govt body use citizen’s money to deal in high risk investments without at least informing the public prior..I don’t get it..He keeps saying TCs are financially secure..we must be thankful.. Don’t worry be happy..I can’t take this! Can we get Bozo the clown to take his place?..No? Then how about those guys from Jackass the movie?..No?..oh dear.

If this happens to our CPF money..Then all is lost..

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:23:16 +0000

anyway, using the taxpayers monies to invest behind their back is already illegal, whether win or lose is not the point here, are we trying to say that CFOs of private companies can also secretly using the company’s fund to do investment without first consulting or informing the board of directors? so why are we arguing here when the case is already pproved ILLEGAL, and when it’s illegal, the person authorizing the transaction must be held accountable for and not let off scot free. There laws in singapore applies to everyone, well unless somebody. . . . . you guess is as good as mine!