One definition of "spend" is to give (money) to pay for goods, services, or so as to benefit someone or something. The only way not to spend money is to hide it in a biscuit tin like grandma used to do. Even asking a bank to keep it for you (a service) can be a risky business, if one of their employees happen to be Nick Leeson.
Tharman has made it crystal clear that in the early days, before they amended the constitution in 1992, CPF monies were expended on Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), then used by the Government to finance infrastructure, which probably included the assets that were transferred by the Government to Temasek at time of inception.
We also know now that GIC knows is managing Government assets, a hodgepodge of commingled sources of funds which includes CPF monies. The same GIC which, over the last 5 years, it earned a pathetic 0.5 per cent in Singapore dollar terms. Your friendly neighborhood bank probably gives you a better deal in fixed deposits.
Do we still need to dwell further into the semantics of spending like Clinton did for the definition of sex?
Ma always says she keeps our angpows to save for our future needs, like university education or the big wedding expense. Maybe that's what we should do with the CPF - lock it away untouched in a special vault, where even the Colonel Sanders look-alike has no access to. The Government has plenty of other sources of funds - taxes, tariffs, fines, etcetera, etcetera - to generate the pathetic 2.5% interest rate paid out to CPF account holders, and still have lots of leftover monopoly money for the fund managers in GIC to play with. We trust our mother, can we say similar for the Government?
Posts
KFC's Colonel Sanders or Mr Jiak Liao Bee with unsteady co-mingled hands? Is he still getting his retirement package from being an ex-DPM, ex-Director of SPH and ex-Director of GIC? Money no enough for this Uncle?
ReplyDeleteI have one very stupid question to ask of Tarman.
ReplyDeleteFrankly if the CPF monies is transferred to the Govt into a common pool, why does the Govt need to clarify that Temasek does not use any CPF monies for their investment when this fact has never been make known to anybody right from day one when Temasek as incorporated ?
Is it because if they admit that Temasek uses CPF funds, then our PAP leaders will be seen as being TOO GREEDY (if they already are not) in retaining the profits of Temasek as their own as compared or opposed to giving miserable returns to CPF members ?
I can only see this as the most possible reason why they can't be so honest or truthful in their clarifications, no ?
GIC and Temasek's investment objectives are totally different. GIC invest solely for financial returns. Temasek is "strategic" fund, they are incentivized to invest to enhance whatever the politicians see as important to the national interest. Eg when they want to encourage relationship with Malaysia, temasek will take big stake in Iskandar; when the politicians think they want to develop the natural gas hub in Jurong, temasek will buy shale gas companies in the US; ditto stakes like Olam even though things are murky, THL can justify taking stakes. Temasek will bankroll hedge funds start-ups with little track record to encourage more hedge funds to come to Singapore (from HK???!). Temasek is clearly a less disciplned gambler compared to GIC. So even though its the same co-mingled pool they give to both GIC and THL, they can never admit they are gambling through THL using CPF money. Anyone has anything to add?
DeleteIt's not the gambling or not gambling. It's the 5% versus 15%. They don't want to say that our CPF is earning 15%.
DeleteThere is no "15%", temasek just released a 2014 report, do your job as shareholder and educate yourself. There never was. If you still don't follow all this twists and distorted argument, suggest you follow Prof balding's blog. The money is not there, its a ponzi : they need more money to cover the holes, let alone give you back or give you 5%.
DeleteWe all do trust our mothers and fathers more than this coverment and the ones before it. As for that EP, how can I put it that will not sound so disrespectful ? I need a few more years to think of a politically correct word or two !!
ReplyDeleteTarman say our CPF is risk free and therefore get low interest while GIC earn high interest. My question is, if GIC were to lose 90% of its investment, whose money did they lose? And who will bail them out?
ReplyDeleteThe kind of sophistry our PAP leaders are engaging now shows they a) are dishonest, b) and have no integrity. These are the people who do not need in civil service as they collectively will do more harm to us than good. Their priority is always about themselves and not how they can serve as better. There is no passion to serve amongst all the PAP MPs.
Just look at the numerous occasions when they fail to meet the quorum to pass a law in the parliament and their lack of attendance. I heard Mr Mah Bow Tan has never spoken a word in parliament and Lee Kuan Yew has never serve his constituency. If that is the case, why do we need them at all.
I hope Singaporeans can stand up and sack all these jokers as they are not serving the nation.
I am sure you know the answer to your first question, many have answered "who will make good the money lost"?. You are. And kojak just said: the govt has ample reserves to back the CPF money. The "govt's reserves" belong to you, not some entity called "government". He is again playing with words, the govt has this, the govt can do that. Out of every cent the govt spends, you own a 1 out of 5.9 million'th share. And the more citizens they bring in each year, your share gets smaller while your sons in NS need to defend the additional heads called "new citizens" who steal his job while he goes for reservist.
DeleteDid the town council managers and MPs who lost the sinking fund reserves' money in mini-bonds during lehman crisis, did they repay the money? Of course not, its written off! Each family from your GRC just "donated" a few thousand bucks to the rich Wall Street bond fund manager to buy a Mcmansion in Manhattan, and not forgetting the town council mayors' $500k salary and their side kicks admin service oppicers attached to the town council who cannot get a proper job in PMO. They also enjoyed 18 months bonus to buy Keppel Bay condos or maseratis while doling out your money to buy minibonds. Who do you think are still buying Ferraris and Lotus cars despite the loan clamp down?
Currently, it is 1 out of 3.3 million'th share, unless you agree with Lee that Singapore belongs to everyone who has a foot here.
DeleteThere is one important fact is deliberately hidden in the word "infrastructure" for which CPF monies were used. That is the government borrowed the monies for buying the land and constructing HDB houses thereon. This was very cheap funds when interest rates were hitting 18% in the 1970/80s. Having used our savings for this purpose they then tell you that you have to pay market price for the cost of the land and construction. This is absolutely deceitful and unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThey cannot admit that Temasek's money comes from CPF because the day will surely come when they have to cave in and repay more of our CPF money to us even if the MIW remain in power. In fact, as a quid pro quo for them to stay in power, the CPF could well be dangled as a sweetener for the 60% to continue supporting them. When that day comes, that means temasek must sell their huge stakes in Singtel, SMRT, DBS Bank, SPH, Keppel, Sembcorp etc? What happens to those chiat liao Bees from various PAP organs now drawing salaries ion the GLCs board of dierctors? Where would ex-generals, ex-sperm secs get their million dollar jobs? When they lose the financial power to bribe the elites, their power base crumble. GIC invest mainly overseas, they can, without hurting the PAP's patronage system, reduce their already humongous fund size and distribute some CPF money back to us. In exchange, (of course the MIW never gives without taking), you probably have to agree to allocate the CPF returned (on paper) to you, to some private fund managers for a fixed period of say 5 to 10 years. Most likely these private fund managers would be the same ones who will lose their jobs in GIC. OMG! I am starting to think like a crooked MIW haha
ReplyDeleteMe thinks that they want to delink or mask the assets and cash injections into Temasek otherwise the 18% annual returns would be a farce. They simply hated to be proven wrong.
DeleteThe way it goes, they are merely providing excuses to cover up their messes. My personal opinion is they seems to be coming up with more lies to cover previous ones.
ReplyDeleteI think enough excuses has been given. The only way to deal with such less than truthful leaders is to make them lose a few more GRCs in the next GE.
Hopefully they will repent in the same manner that the old man wanted others to regret for their rest of their lifes. That is the only way to punish them for such outrageous insincerity.
Meanwhile, Medishield Life is no longer talked about, tick tock tick tock. Each year, for ever $1 in premium we pay for Medishield coverage, insurers pay out less than $0.5 in claims. Yet premium for medishield is rising, which insurance companies are growing fatter by earning the surplus? Why is there not a law stating how much profit insurance companies are limited to earn? If surplus is so indecently high, why are premiums still rising? Is the G in cahoot with the insurers to cheat the public? Why can't there be a cap to profit, surplus are returned to our Medisave, like the SAF insurance scheme?
ReplyDeleteIt is a real joke that it took them so many months only to admit the fact that only GIC invests CPF monies while Temasek does not invest any of the CPF monies right from day one.
ReplyDeleteWhat took them so long ? To prepare & cover up their tracks is it ?
The Clinton-Lewinski "I did not have sex with that woman - bcoz oral sex is not sex" example is very well chosen. Still, Clinton was not impeached for lying, and today yankees around the world think of him as one of the most popular US presidents. The power of spin is strong and papigs learnt that lesson after GE2011. To fight the divide and conquer and overwhelming the poor and somewhat apathetic (and demoralized, increasingly dependent on govt subsidies) voters by jumping and spinning their way quickly from one hot subject to the next, I think they have a viable strategy for GE2016. Perhaps the start of the tide turning in their favour.
ReplyDelete"I did not have sex" but I have xes, my own term for it, so I cannot be said to have sex. I have xes not sex. Anyone seem the same similarity of playing with words that mean the same thing that has always been modus operandi of PAP.
Delete