Dhevarajan Devadas
After reading Dr Teo Ho Pin’s second forum page letter, I can only conclude that he is unable to understand what Singaporeans are demanding from him. Dr Teo, we do not want you to waste time “exploring” ways of how to keep residents informed of the town councils’ finances. We want you to inform us right now about what the town councils have spent our money on.
We do not need stock replies and interviews from you reassuring us. We want to know the exact details of your investments. And don’t you dare keep referring us to the annual reports as if they contain the information we want. As shown in the analysis by TOC, these reports lack any details about specific investments by the town councils.
It is already outrageous that you have invested our money in such high-risk investments without informing us. Now you conduct this ‘wayang’ about being on top of the matter when in reality you don’t seem bothered at all. Mr Mah Bow Tan has stated, “Each town council has the duty to explain to its residents how it invests its funds, what is its philosophy, what are the risks it takes”. So far neither you nor any of the other PAP town councils have done anything of that sort. You even have the audacity to say that the town councils’ investment strategies cannot be revealed!
We pay the service and conservancy charges (S&CCs) so that the town councils can maintain our estates. We are not paying so that town councils can accumulate enormous sinking funds and act like little “Temaseks” and “GICs”.
If town councils can build up such huge sinking funds that they can invest it in high-risk investments, why is there a need to collect the charges at the present rates? I can’t help but compare this to the old NKF collecting millions in donations but spending only 10 cents out of every dollar on the patients. The rest was wastefully spent or accumulated into huge reserves as we eventually discovered to our horror and disgust.
I believe that our current S&CCs can be reduced dramatically. Such a move would be timely in the face of the worsening recession. Nothing is more ridiculous than paying more than is necessary to the town council so that it can gamble our money away or accumulate it for that elusive “rainy day”.
Much has been said and written about the responsibility of the PAP town councils and MPs in this issue. Dr Teo, as the Coordinating Chairman for PAP town councils, you have the ultimate responsibility in revealing and explaining all the investments by the town councils. For a change, please start giving truly genuine answers to the residents.
So Dr Teo Ho Pin, where is our money?
———–
SZ
the only difference is that they legalized it here themselves so no one can question them, the question here is who implemented them and under which party who approved it? aren’t they both the same person from the same party?
37) lee pull ball on December 8th, 2008 3.49 pm
“A disgusting leader without accountability to it’s people….. want good salary but no guts to admit mistake…..shame on u & yr party…..”
That’s why the party find it so difficult to attract good men / women into its ranks, even after upping the pay by multiples. Those that meet the party’s standards are unwilling to join politics; party doesn’t meet their standards? LOL.
By this yardstick, the ruling party is a FAILURE, no matter the economic growth attained. The country is a hollow shell, where men of calibre are either self-serving and thus unwilling to step out, or having self-respect such that they are not willing to associate themselves with POLITICS.
Oh, and the “best man for the job” at Temasek Holdings specialises in getting credit of previous management and in destroying current value? LOL
In his first letter in the ST, Teo Ho Pin mentioned that, on AVERAGE, there’s only $200,000 in the sinking fund for EACH block in the PAP controlled Town Council.
This is MISLEADING and brings to mind ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’.
HDB flats are of varying ages; some, like those in Ponggol & Sengkang only a few yrs old and would hv around 20 yrs more to build up their sinking fund for eventual replacement of the lifts which Teo had said has a life span of 28 yrs.
Separately, remember that a blogger had studied the Creative company’s annual report and mentioned that the Holland-Pasir Panjang GRC under Teo was (& still is) a substantial holder of Creative shares, which hv dropped substantially in value.
As the TC’s annual report is for the yr ending March 2008, one has to note that financial markets hv dropped by more than half in most cases since end March 2008.
Note that one Ho Yew Kee’s letter was published in the ST print edition on Sat which was a cheap attempt to distract from the public anger against the TC’s failed investments in the Lehman bankruptcy.
Ho alluded to bank failures in other countries with the obvious -in my view – attempt to mischievously raising the failure of Singapore banks with the result that even FD in local banks, which many people who hv written to oppose TC’s investments, had been advocating.
I certainly hope that the MAS would come out strongly to rebuke Ho and the ST for trying to reduce confidence in Singapore banking system.
On the issue of inflation pls don’t forget that the world as a whole is facing DEFLATION currently and that such economic factors are beyond the understanding of most people, let alone those serving in the TCs.
Latching on Ho’s mentioning of some banks in other countries failing to scare heartlanders that TC also run a risk in just leaving the sinking fund in local bank deposits, I would like to point out that there is a country where the inflation rate is more than 2 million % and there are others with double digit inflation.
Can the PAP controlled TCs generate investment returns of double digits, let along 2 million % if we were to accept their arguments of the need to invest TC sinking fund to hedge against inflation.
As others hv pointed out, the function of the TC is maintain and upkeep the HDB estates and not to generate returns from investing, which as hv also been pointed out the TC had failed to achieve returns commensurate with the risk.
Both Teo Ho Pin’s replies and response and letters in the press by people like Ho should be taken as not well-intentioned, as Ho had claimed in his letter.
check his cv, phd from some shitty uni
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/AboutUs/Org-MP-CV-TeoHoPin.htm
SDP gentleman Alex Tor / Toh hardly see him in this areas campaigning during the GE and he got 33.7% share and what happened to Teo Ho Pin share…drop nearly 10% if not wrong…why???ask Teo Ho Pin……my feed back is simple–during his walk abt before GE house to house , when we tell him and asking questions..he is not listening/don’t want to listen and his grassroots -(I called them followers) never take notes of what residents(Younger people in the house)want him to improve or suggest,Teo Ho Pin only argue back what he thought is correct that’s it!!…I called this ARROGANT!!!!.
Bukit Panjang lift upgrading..example Blk 248 with 2 Fujitec lifts due to certain level not abt to reach to some units(very limited units-maybe a 1/4″ of household)so another lift were built to services them which I think is a very good solution after 15 years….On the other hand on the main lobby it was fixed with only 1 China lift and the exists 2nd lift were taken away chute Closed up.,originally this 2 lifts services the whole block of resident now 1 China lift service almost 3/4 of units,why closed up the second lift chute why not putting another China Lift??it don’t cost Town council too much and end of the day each household were charge at $1,200/-(with this amount charging to each unit it will also make a huge profit for town council),further more this China lift when you want to go to 6 floor it will send you to 7th floor==Teo Ho Pin calling this as UPGRADING???..BULLS**t !!
B4 the GE the RC CLEAR a wide area in front of Blk 248 to make a Vegetable garden for the resident -nearly 10 lorries of soil + saw dust were send in and also fencing…this estimated cost could easily reach $30,000/- ,this should be approved by Teo Ho Pin via RC Chairman…why this funds were simple used on this kind of project rather then putting into better usage..as what I said another lift in 248 should NOT BE DISMANTLE so to service the resident better..This are also Public funds and should spend wisely…just look around Bukit Panjang project of this type of vegetable planting for the residents????.,one was abandon and another Near Blk 211 poorly maintained..if not wrong..what’s purpose? does this serve as everyone will own a small piece of land & End of the day result there will be Human conflicts due to mismanagement from the RC concerned.