Comments on: Sinking funds: From $1 billion in 2007 to $2 billion in 2008

By: The SS

The SS — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:38:44 +0000

Guys,

I read all your comments. All valid. INSTEAD OF JUST COMPLAINING (WHICH WE SINGAPOREANS ARE LABELLED AS BEING GOOD AT), DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. STOP COMPLAINING.

LIKE THE NIKE ADVERTISEMENT SAYS — JUST DO IT.

NEXT ELECTION, KICK SOME OF THESE CLOWNS OUT. ONLY THEN WILL THEY START LISTENING. DONT YOU GUYS REALISE THAT BY NOW?

By: Lee Chee Wai

Lee Chee Wai — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:16:30 +0000

Apparently, town councils are required by law to keep aside a portion of the conservancy fees as part of their sinking funds. This was implied from the accounts of Hougang Town Council (they are fairly transparent, but as I’ve indicated before, I wished they made it more easily accessible).

Anyway, while that surprised me (that it’s the law), there is no mention of how the sinking funds may be spent. All I know is “in an emergency” they could use the funds to do something. The trouble with this line of thinking is “what constitutes an emergency?” and “just how much do Town Councils really need to keep to handle an emergency (foreseeable or otherwise)?”. If someone could dig up the Town Councils Act, it might help us understand this issue better. Otherwise, by law, everyone’s gonna be maintaining sinking funds until they become larger than our GDP …

By: liesbuster

liesbuster — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:21:30 +0000

If the $2 billion is indeed meant for life replacement every 30 years, then most residents will get to see the replacement only once in their lifetime. (assuming they still stay in the same estate).

If all residents are prepared to do without lifts but insists on climbing the staircases no matter what, is the town council prepared to give away the $2 billion to all these residents?

For those who must / want to use the lift, the town council can build a lift that activates on a pay-per-use basis. You pay only when you use – very clear cut.

By: Jackson Tan

Jackson Tan — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:50:42 +0000

Okay, I’m not sure if I get the issue.

The one-year-ago statement was:
more than $1 billion in sinking funds
and the current statement is:
the $2 billion in the sinking funds.

Look at it carefully. The first reports it as more than a billion. It didn’t say that the TC had $1 billion dollars and then one year later they had $2 billion dollars.

Maybe I got it wrong, but it appears to me that this rule (first report) is setting a limit of $1 billion dollars. It’s not saying that the TC has $1 billion dollars. It’s just setting a point in which this rule will apply to the TCs. For all we know, the TCs may have $10 billion dollars but lost 80% of them within a year.

It’s like saying:

In a general election, if a defeated candidate got less than 12.5% of the votes, then his election deposit will be forfeited.
EQUALS
All defeated candidates got less than 12.5% of the votes.

Did I miss something?

By: NORTHGATE2007

NORTHGATE2007 — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:34:07 +0000

Gd! EXPOSE ALL THESE GREED!!! HIT IT HARD!

By: SZ

SZ — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:35:52 +0000

if you can’t beat them, confuse them

By: gemami

gemami — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:46:18 +0000

ST’s figures are never wrong. They are always calculated to mislead.

By: Lim Peter

Lim Peter — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:05:03 +0000

Answer is simple, Shit Times figures are wrong.

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:27:06 +0000

Well, the figures changed and will keep on changing all the time to confuse the public, whats new with these remote controlled elites who are just $million instruments bought and used by the master.

By: Ganga

Ganga — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:20:06 +0000

I believe the report in 2007 downplayed the value (ie. 1.5 billion reported as ‘more than one billion’ etc.) so as not to rile the peasants…er, I mean people. The more recent report obviously had to show that the funds were healthy in spite of losing (obscene amounts of) money and so, 1.8 billion would have been conveniently reported as 2 billion. In such a scenario, the difference would be much less stark in contrast (a few hundred million) and would in fact be unsurprisingly, in light of all their income avenues (conservancy, lease/rental etc.).

Also, the figure reported in December 2007 would have been based on FY2006/7 and the more recent one, on FY2007/8. This would effectively mean that only the transactions up to March 2008 would have been included in the ‘$2 billion figure’ – with the losses very well not having been included.

By: Ex-Secret

Ex-Secret — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:47:56 +0000

Since KBW uses the secret society as analogy and comparison, let’s follow this line of thoughts.
From the great K-gang, to the gangster depicted in various Hollywood, HK and local movies: Even in secret society, there is transparency among its top leaders. They know where, who, how and when to rob, kill or create havoc. So there is total transparency. But with its runners and public? total secrecy.

Who grow in wealth and who suffer?

U have the answers.

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:12:39 +0000

Every auditings of these PAP TCs are done within their own companies, thats why alot of things are not being reported on. If they are being audited by outside party to do their auditing, I think basically all of them are already in trouble, but then again, this is internal things done internally within their own group of people, so what can you people do?

By: red-dot

red-dot — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:47:19 +0000

How Much Is Too Much?

The services that are provided by the TC in the Jurong area I must say is mediocre and reflects the Asian standards of cleanliness. Nothing to shut about. Surely much can be done to improve the cleanliness, stain marks on the floor and the heaps of rubbish around the rubbish bin near the letter-boxes. The life – oh just sickening. If they have hundreds of residential blocks to maintain and decades of experience in doing that why are they still so amateur in maintaining lifts?

It appears to me that the PAP- TC is treated just like another statutory board with the
primary goal of making profits and retaining excessive funds.

With a hoarding of $2Billion it must be excessive unless proven otherwise. They must let an outside party to do an operational audit to see why the PAP-TC justify hoarding such a huge amount of funds.

By: aiyoyo

aiyoyo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:27:34 +0000

aiyoyo

sinking funds really make $ huh?

what’s the rate p.a. huh?

if make $, got share share with commoners huh?

if no make $, commoners need to share share on the responsibility huh?

think commoners more elite than ELITEs, many friend says..

aiyoyo

By: kingfisher

kingfisher — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:15:35 +0000

ST says if this guy has his way, TC will have more power..oh oh..
To do what? To decide what the estate can and cant do! So that the govt can push the blame on to the TC if anything wrong happens, and the TC can also push it back to the govt. I the govt succeeds in making the TC the fallguy, then the govt need not fear they can lose the ward in an election, cos TC pple are not voted in. Haha..neat trick! Good try KBW!

By: new3142

new3142 — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:06:06 +0000

lift prices probably do not inflate as fast as the inflation rate.

Look at your PC prices…

I don’t know why hoard prices.

By: me

me — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:09:44 +0000

“Furthermore, the $2 billion in sinking funds is supposed to help pay for “long term maintenance work like lift upgrading” – where “a lift is replaced every 30 years or so” (ST – 7 Dec 08). Excuse me – $2 billion now waiting for a lift replacement every 30 years?? What kind of lift is that? In 30 years time, I wonder how many more billions would have been collected just for that 1 in 30 year replacement. What’s the mathematical logic? Someone please help.”

what help? you don’t understand? let me explain it in one simple word.

INFLATION.

still don’t get it? please don’t pro-create, graduates only.

“That is the way the world is. I have explained this. I think I lost votes after I explained the awful truth. Nobody believed it, but slowly it dawned on them – especially the graduates – that yes, you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university!”

anyway to be frank, i don’t get it either.

By: why the extensive coverage « Everyday’s Life in a Snapshot

why the extensive coverage « Everyday’s Life in a Snapshot — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:05:57 +0000

[...] Seriously why not just come clean, and move on? I found some great comments here. [...]

By: To Supporters of ...

To Supporters of ... — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:01:06 +0000

Honestly,
tell me is there a problem with transparency ?
tell me what is the harm of revealing the information about TC investments in terms of which are all the FIs that had invested sinking funds in toxic products, and the total amount.

tell your children also. honestly.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:47:00 +0000

The discrepancy between $1b and $2b is frightening. How can we trust what is the true amount of sinking funds they are reporting when the figure keeps changing like a yo-yo? How can we trust them unless they give us more substantiated audited figures? Without proper audited figures it looks like they can suka suka change the amount to announce as they wish.
With so much discrepancy of figures occurring every time they make an announcement, even whatever little confidence I still had in the TC’s accounting has evaporated away.