Comments on: Why not apply ‘town council logic’ to worker wages?

By: abc

abc — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:05:05 +0000

fpc Mar 18, 2010 2:25
Firstly, any and all debts are bad? That’s a misconception that confuses many laymen. There are different types of debts. Financial-savvy people can tell you why companies want to go into “good” debt that they can prudently afford. It is called gearing – use money to make more money.
This public debt is not for making money or to make up a shortfall. It serves another purpose – to control liquidity. It’s not a “bad” debt that comes from deficit. Singapore does not control the interest rates like the US Federal reserve.
Second, land sale has nothing to do with liquidity control. Nobody says that. It’s too illiquid, unresponsive with no leverage and lacks reach. To control liquidity, things must done in the financial system.

By: fpc

fpc — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:25:57 +0000

//Rw and ABC
1. holding on an asset that is worth X amt means nothing about paying off debt because it is very likely that when you want to sell, it is worth a lot less.
It is like many of us having the fallacious idea that our primary asset – housing is worth xxx amt but when we try to sell say in 2003-2004, we find it hard to find buyers.
That our house is worth xxx amt and then we can retire rich.
Once you sell your house, where are you going to live.
In the same way, if we already cannot pay down our public debt which is so big over the last 2 decades, and need to sell our asset to pay it down, what are we going to fall back on in the future?
2. if we can pay down our public debt, why didn’t we? it is so good to owe monies?
3. I bet if we start paying down our public debt, the values of our assets by govt will go down in value because they have been artificially prop up by low interest rates.

By: fpc

fpc — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:16:51 +0000

//RW
Thank you for the information about interest rate control which I had written on, primarily using land sale to suck up all the liquidity and to keep interest rate low.
The sad thing is if the govt were to pay down the public debt, releasing liquidity to S’poreans, interest rate will have to be increased.
That will hurt the GLCs who have been borrowing cheaply from the govt.
indirectly hurting the govt’s holding of the GLCs.
The value of the govt holding is probably not worth as much if the govt was to pay down the public debt.
If you think that having a gdp:public debt ratio>100% is a good idea, then we should be seeing that from many countries.
Too bad, it is not the perfect tool.
I didn’t even want to go into the detail how good our assets are …

By: fpc

fpc — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:08:44 +0000

//abc
//The government has enough revenue to cover its expenditure. My friend Mon, why are //you so adamant that Singapore is so hard pressed for money that we definitely must //borrow by hook or by crook?

The govt do not have enough to cover future expenses.
That’s why they are not paying off the public debt and holding on to your cpf monies.
The size of the public debt has grown over the last 2 decades, contrary to what you claimed.
This begs the question, how come the govt didn’t choose to pay down public debt?
Also, our gdp is not going to grow like 10%. It is going to be like 3-5%. If the public debt is not paid down, our gdp to public debt ratio will take a long time to come below 100% if ever since we are paying interest on the public debt as well.
That’s why interest rate for CPF is reduced.
If GIC/TH were to be drawn down to pay down this debt, we will probably end up had to realise lots of losses.

To think that GIC/TH losses had nothing to do with the wellbeing of our economy is naive. Especially when the losses are to foreigners.

If the govt lose monies in S’pore, a large part of the monies is lost to S’poreans.
So no big deal.
But when the monies is lost overseas, the loss is to a foreigners and S’poreans get nothing.
We just end up working for the foreigners for free.

By: fpc

fpc — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:59:57 +0000

//abc
//Mon my friend, there is no need to touch the reserve at all to clear public debt. The simple solution to clear the debt is : don’t borrow. Every year, the revenue is already more than enough to cover expenditure, so there won’t be any long term issue if there is no borrowing. Right?
If that was the case, as we have a persistent budget surplus over the last 2 decades, how come this public debt didn’t get smaller but get bigger instead.

By: FeverGuy

FeverGuy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:58:01 +0000

I pasted them all together you probably want to try the forum itself and read the whole story. I am not surprised that TC is willing to charge such cases under criminal proceedings that civil case. I just wondered how low can they go.

By: RW

RW — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:17:04 +0000

@Feverguy
Given the whole recent hoax thing, i have been a little more cautious about what i believe on the internet. Since your story is someone heard from someone, heard from someone, it is difficult to put too much stock in hearsay especially when the original person in question is not even the person who posted in the first place.

By: RW

RW — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:28 +0000

@ abc
oh no, you are probably right.
the amount i cited are liquid cash reserves.
obviously there are investment in other assets probably in bonds, shares etc.
if you count those in, Singapore’s reserves will be much higher.

By: FeverGuy

FeverGuy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:20:21 +0000

Helping to post this article from a ASIAONE Forum about abuse by Town Council.
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=28272
AMK-YCK Town Council Abuses Singapore Citizen HDB Resident – 13-03-2010, 05:18 PM
I am starting this as a new thread to highlight this very serious case of abuse by the Ang Mo Kio – Yio Chu Kang Town Council and the Area MP Inderjit Singh’s not responding to this case because he is the AMK Town Council Chairman as double standards exercised by the PAP Government’s “highly paid” civil servants’ insensivity.
There are already two town councils trying to raise service and conservancy charges citing high costs of maintenance etc. I think this is an excuse to raise their own salaries of the CEO and their senior managers so as to keep “unique talents” who are there to carry out such abuse of Singapore Citizens.
Originally Posted by Dato Jude
One of my client was a bankrupt and did not pay his Service & Conservancy charges for the period of his bankruptcy. When he was discharged, he paid prompt and sometimes in advance. What happened was that the AMK-YCK Town Council used what he paid to settle the arrears incurred during his bankruptcy. That resulted in him being a current default and delinquent.
My client is a Singapore Citizen.
I helped him to draft the letter to the Auditor-General to complain about the acts of the Town Council. The reply from the Auditor-General was the usual “cut and paste” format. No need to elaborate.
I helped him draft the letters to his MP, Inderit Singh, setting out the case in proper perspective. That is, how can the AMK-YCK TC imposed penalty and fines on bankrupts for outstanding. It was clear that the arrears incurred during his bankruptcy. The Town Council’s position is that they are imposing the fines and penalty on “current” outstanding.
The next thing he got was a court summons under Criminal Procedure Code citing the Town Councils Act which attracted a fine of $1,000. I believed that the the Town Council chose to “charge” under the CPC and not the usual civil suit because they wanted to make sure they flex their muscles. The hatchet carrier is a lawyer, Jeffrey Beh from Lee Bon Leong and partners.
The MP for Kebun Baru was silent – he did not even bother to respond. The Town Council’s CEO, Wan Chong Hock, responded with “instructions from the Town Council’s chairman, i.e. the MP” citing the usual threats fo suit etc. and how to get the cancellation, i.e. pay the arrears and the fines penalty etc. More will be added if he did not pay.
The conclusion in the CEO letter was the usual please approach for financial assistance from the …. In short, “beg for mercy!”.
The summons and not a civil suit is definitely an abuse of power and I hope the CPIB picks this case up.
Asiaone Moderator, please highlight this posting in your front page.
Friends of this forum, please help to highlight the plights of the people who are now suffering from acts of civil servants employed by the elected PAP MP and the Government.
Some forumers IM me and asked why I used the word “abuse”. Here are my reasons:-
1. From the message posted by Dato Jude, he wrote that his client was a bankrupt and owed S&CC during his bankruptcy not when he was discharged.
2. The client paid promptly and sometimes in advance.
3. The Town Council used what was paid to offset the arrears. This means that the resident was in “delinquent” but in actual fact, he was current in his payment.
4. The Town Council filed a “criminal charge” under the Town Council Act instead of a civil action for non-payment. That created an offence which means that the Town Council has an “upper hand”.
The above are records of “abuse” of authority. The Town Council is an office created under the “Elected Member of Parliament”. So, the MP becomes the chairman and has a “conflict of interest” even if he pleads on behalf of the resident. He is already the “highest office” and so does not need to plead.
That laid on him the accusation that “he failed to take care of his resident” and that he endorses the acts of “abuse” by his staff, namely the CEO of the Town Council namely, Wan Chong Hock.
I have every reason to believe that this is a real story because the names are cited and I believed that tomorrow if Dato Jude signs in, he might want to add more detail to this story.
Thanks KayPoh,
I am a volunteer social worker. This is a REAL story. You can just do a summons check at the courts registry and find this story. I do not need to divulge more details. I have also come across other similar stories.
You will find to your dismay that the Town Council CEO does not answer or report to anyone. He is the BOSS! He can do whatever he wants even investment millions of the “sinking funds” in his control.
Spread the story and broadcast on all available internet portals. Bring down the hatchet carriers and make the Town Council CEO answerable for all his actions. For the two Town Councils that have annouced raising the Service and conservancy charges, make all the noise and file complaints for the slightest mistake.

By: pancake

pancake — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:03:15 +0000

TC should get NTUC to teach them how to be cheaper, faster, better.

By: abc

abc — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:43:22 +0000

RW Mar 13, 2010 18:51,
Thanks, RW. With due respect, I feel we can pay off that public debt easily.

Since we don’t need to use the money that we borrowed because we already have more than enough revenue, the borrowings must be sitting somewhere in the balance sheet.

Maybe it’s not in the reserve, but another item? Some liquid funds in statutory boards or ministries? I don’t know, but that’s just my deduction. Do correct me if I’m wrong. =)

By: REALLY?

REALLY? — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:28:13 +0000

Is there any interest bearing on the debt?

Any problem if GDP growth not sustainable in long run to meet the obligations carried with the debt?

By: RW

RW — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:51:55 +0000

@mon, abc

thanks for the enlightening exchange on the topic. i asked an economist friend and was given the same answer- that singapore’s ‘debt’ is to decrease money supply in the market- because when they sell bonds, they soak up liquidity. it is merely one of the tools that the govt use to moderate interest rates.

i did a fact check on abc’s statement that if we want to, we can pay off our debts.
as it turns out, our GDP is 182billion, so 110% is approx 220billion.
checking MAS website, we have 187 billion in cash reserves (excluding assets).
http://www.mas.gov.sg/data_room/reserves_statistics/Official_Foreign_Reserves.html
so abc’s statement about paying off overnight is not totally true.
but we definitely can afford to pay it and are, in reality, not in debt.
because what we owe people is less than what we have.

think of it the same way as people selling their HDB and upgrade.
some people just simply prefer to keep the cash from the old house and take bank loans for the new house because they want to have cash on hand. those people are not in as much debt as you think because if they pay off with the cash they have, their debt will be much smaller. so it is just paper debt.

and this makes sense too- because given all this info is out there, we will have icelandic/greek panic by now if Singapore’s economy is borowing beyond its mean. The reason why trained economists and bankers don’t panic and run (given then info out there) is that they know it’s paper losses in reality. Put it another way, with KJ (an economist) in opposition party, if there is any merit to this argument, he will be the first to pick it out.

nevertheless, thanks for the interesting observation, mon.

By: paul

paul — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:26:00 +0000

CPF is not an eternal source of cheap funds for a profligate government…
What happpens when our generation ages and starts to withdraw our CPF, then the debt which is owed to us will come creeping up and it will be Greece, Portugal and Iceland all over again

By: abc

abc — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:53:38 +0000

mon Mar 13, 2010 15:00,
“To mask the external debt problem, Govt got TH to borrow monies instead.”

The government has enough revenue to cover its expenditure. My friend Mon, why are you so adamant that Singapore is so hard pressed for money that we definitely must borrow by hook or by crook?

By: abc

abc — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:31:25 +0000

mon Mar 13, 2010 14:29,

“You mean releasing those surpluses will clear the public debt once and for all.”

I don’t understand “those surpluses”. You are referring to the reserve?

Mon my friend, there is no need to touch the reserve at all to clear public debt. The simple solution to clear the debt is : don’t borrow. Every year, the revenue is already more than enough to cover expenditure, so there won’t be any long term issue if there is no borrowing. Right?

By: abc

abc — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:28:42 +0000

mon Mar 13, 2010 14:29,

“You mean releasing those surpluses will clear the public debt once and for all.”

I don’t understand “those surpluses”. You are referring to the reserve?

By: mon

mon — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:07:48 +0000

//Jack
if public debt to GDP is not an issue, the british pound would not have sunked this low.

By: Whose fault?

Whose fault? — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:03:34 +0000

Instead of losing millions of sinking funds to lehman bonds, why would not they instead use them alleviate S&C and other cost and not increase charges.
If oppositions can keep S&C charges at a fraction of PAP wards, something is very wrong?
Is TC another profit machine like GLC?
Foreign Talents and migrants and PRs go up.
HDB prices go up.
Ministers pay goes up.
ERP goes up.
COE goes up.
Everything goes up.
But wage is stagnant or comes down.
Despite all these crabs, they still win every election and people who complain like bitches still vote them.
Strange phenomenon….

By: mon

mon — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:00:02 +0000

//Jack
To mask the external debt problem, Govt got TH to borrow monies instead.
It is all about manipulating your statistics as we all know.