Is Madoff In The House?

Poor Christopher Balding is asking all the right questions, but the answers won't be forthcoming. With the passing of Dr Toh Chin Chye, only one surviving member of the old guard can unlock the secret. We can't be too sure if dad will allow sonny to have the keys to the car.

"To be clear there is no public record of expenditures by the Singaporean government to account for the $512 billion SGD in free cash flow since 1991. Nor is there a public record of assets held by Temasek, GIC, or other public body in large enough amount to account for such a large discrepancy. Remember if this $512 billion earned the 7% GIC claims to have earned there should be more than $1 trillion in assets."
("The Mess That Is Singapore Part II", The Balding Blog)

If, as the professor asks, the Singapore government enjoyed free cash flow from budget surpluses and borrowing totaling S$512 billion between 1991 and 2002, where did the money go?

When Dr Chee Soon Juan raised the issue of Singapore's secretive US$10 billion loan-pledge to Suharto at a wet market in Jurong East during the hustings of GE 2001 (“Mr Goh! Mr Goh! Where is our money, Mr Goh?”), Goh Chok Tong, without saying a word, facetiously pointed to his pocket and waved his pesky questioners away. Election theatrics aside, Goh later said the issue referred to a US$10 billion loan offered to the Suharto government during the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. The loan had conditions attached and was not taken up.

Last month, Singapore announced a contribution of US$4 billion to the International Monetary Fund. Under query in parliament, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assured the public that the money will not come from the Government Budget, but from Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) held by the MAS. And where did MAS get their seed money in the first place, pray tell.

From the layman's perspective, why should good money be thrown after bad, especially when our own people need it more - to boost up wages for the lower income, build more affordable housing, repair a failing transport system, and reduce health care costs.

With so much money bandied around, it is a wonder that Singapore still has a high debt-GDP ratio. The truth is that our CPF savings is exchanged for pieces of paper called “special issues of Singapore Government Securities (SGS)”, a unique loan instrument afforded to the government. In other words, the CPF is the primary purchaser of the debt issued by the government of Singapore. Oh, we are supposed to get our retirement money back, with the pathetic 2.5% - if the monies are invested wisely. GIC and Temasek have boasted of 7% and 17% returns since inception. If their books are in order, we are back to the original question: where did the money go?

Ex-President Ong Teng Cheong asked that question once, and was informed by the Accountant-General that it would take "52 man-years" to produce just the list of physical assets of the Government (Government’s assets include both physical assets and financial assets). Now that we have a president related to the prime minister through family ties, will a better answer be forthcoming? Here's what the Ministry of Finance says:

MAS and Temasek already publish the size of the funds they manage. As of 31 March 2011, the Official Foreign Reserves managed by MAS was S$295 billion, and the size of Temasek’s portfolio was S$193 billion.

It is the size of the Government’s funds managed by GIC that are not published. What has been revealed is that GIC manages well over US$100 billion. Revealing the exact size of assets that GIC manages will, taken together with the published assets of MAS and Temasek, amount to publishing the full size of Singapore’s financial reserves.

It is not in our national interest to publish the full size of our reserves. If we do so, it will make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability.

Further, our reserves are a strategic asset, and especially for a small country with no natural resources or other assets. They are a key defence for Singapore in times of crisis, and it will be unwise to reveal the full and exact resources at our disposal.

A simple no would have sufficed.

Not Your Typical Case Of NIMB

It is important to highlight this instance of objecting to the building of an elderly centre has nothing to do with the not-in-my-backyard (NIMB) syndrome. The good folks at Jalan Batu are just cheesed off why the elected MP for Mountbatten didn't even know about the development at the void deck, and that there are more viable sites within the same vicinity. Such as:

• -The open field between Blocks 10 and 11, which transforms into a humongous pond every time it rains;
• -The water fountain near the blocks, which used to be a popular basket ball, now spewing water nobody cares to watch;
• -The Katong Community Centre, euphemistically presented by one resident's prose: "This CC is a big white elephant. I've stayed here more than 50 years, but I haven't stepped inside it for more than 10 seconds." Except when the meeting was convened to point out what a waste of money it was to build it in the first place.

The void deck is a feature of HDB blocks as nobody wants to stay on the ground floor, the landing place for jettisoned litter originating from above. It has evolved into a focal point of community life, be it a Malay wedding or a Chinese wake. It's probably all Greek to MP Mr Lim Biow Chuan, but the resident of Block 11 says it best, "Our children play every day at our void deck. I feel so secure because when they play downstairs there are neighbours watching over them. They're not my race, they're not related to me, but the amount of bonding you have in the void deck cannot be found even in your own house." This is social integration in action, communal harmony at its finest hour.

Feigning ignorance (Lim: "I have absolutely no idea who authorised it") only made the gathered residents angrier, which drew jeers and the caustic rejoinder:"Without your consent, people are doing this. So, what are you doing?" Wait a minute, weren't Singaporeans supposed to be daft, and docile like sheep? MPs in white are supposed to be worshiped like gods, they alone can decide whether an estate turn into a slum. Something is in the air, the spirit of Hougang must be contagious.

Spoiler: Lim may remonstrate till he's blue in the face but, just like MP Sim Ann's "support" at Toh Yi, the final official response will be "the other alternative sites are not feasible as they are either too small, or have been set aside for other future development." 


The neglected fountain - all form, no function

 

What Really Matters

Her previous blog entry was dated 15 May, 2011, one week after celebrity Returning Officer Yam Ah Mee announced in his robotic monotone that Aljunied voters had decidedly returned the mandate to the Workers’ Party. The Chairman recalled one supporter had bellowed out: “I want to REPE-N-N-T-T-T”, which should tickle your funny bone.

Unlike the joker who flooded you with a tsunami of words, and a decades old graveyard will still be paved over for a new property development - you read that correctly, the pathetic road widening excuse was just a lame cover up - Sylvia Lim Swee Lian ( 林瑞莲) is one of those rare types who says what she means, and means what she say. No one can express her strength and conviction better than herself, unfettered of mainstream editorial bias:

The Difference One Person Can Make

In Montgomery, Alabama, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white. She wrote in her autobiography, My Story: "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

Madam Vellama, 42, part-time cleaner, has a son aged 18 and a daughter aged 8. She is her family's sole breadwinner. Her husband cannot work due to memory loss and other ailments. After Yaw was expelled on 15 February, Hougang's meet-the-people-sessions were helmed by WP's Aljunied GRC MPs. But Madam Vellama said: "I don't want to see one MP this week, then another week, another MP" - especially since she did not elect them.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong maintained (still maintains) that the Constitution does not require him to call a by-election within any time frame. Lawyers and academics weighed in with their expert opinions, but Madam Vellama acted.

• 2 March - Madam Vellama filed an application to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding whether and when to call a by-election. She also asked the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a "reasonable time";


• 30 March – AG argued in High Court to throw out Vellama’s application, Judge Pillai reserved judgement;


• 3 April – Judge Pillai dismissed AG’s argument to throw out Vellama’s application and fixed date (16 Apr) for hearing of the application to proceed in an open court;


• 4 April – AG filed Notice of Appeal against Judge Pillai’s oral judgment of April 3 and sought an expedited hearing on its appeal;


• 5 April - Mr Ravi argued successfully that the appeal hearing should take place only after Justice Pillai issued his written grounds of decision. The open court hearing, scheduled to take place on April 16, put on hold;


• 10 April – Justice Pillai said he granted leave for Madam Vellama Marie Muthu's application to be heard in open court as he was of the view that the very low threshold for leave has been met, noting:
  (i) the matter complained of is susceptible to judicial review;
  (ii) the applicant has sufficient interest in the matter; and
  (iii) the material before the court discloses an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting leave;


• 12 April – Judge Phang ordered AG to file its case for appeal by 26 Apr and for Vellama to file her response by 10 May. Hearing fixed in the week commencing 14th May for AG’s appeal to be heard;


• 13 April – Madam Vellama filed application to Court of Appeal to strike out AG’s appeal on procedural ground;


• 17 April – AG’s appeal against Judge Pillai’s decision and Madam Vellama’s application to strike out AG’s appeal are both fixed on 16th May to be heard in Court of Appeal;

Then someone blinked.
On 9 May, PM Lee directed the President to issue the writ of election for the by-election to be held, with polling day set on May 26. Nomination day 16th May, also happens to be the date scheduled for the Court of Appeal hearing.

On 11 May, Madam Vellama, through her lawyer M. Ravi, declared that "as the factual objective of her litigation has now been achieved timeously, she is prepared to withdraw her application".

Rosa Parks did not just inspire change during the civil rights movement, her action also inspired many to stand up for their beliefs, and understand the difference one person can make. We dare say Madam Vellama has achieved similar for Singapore.

Don't Insult Hougang

For two decades Hougang had to put up with second class treatment, sand was kicked into their faces by the bully on the beach. They were perennially placed at the bottom of the list when it came to Lift Upgrading Programs (LUP), projects financed by public money, not the private coffers of the incumbent political party.

In 2010 Low Thia Khiang exposed the duplicity of state funds allocated for Interim Upgrading Program (IUP), Main Upgrading Program (MUP) and CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) when he challenged Senior Minister of State Grace Fu to show the public how much additional funding each PAP Town Council had received through the various upgrading programs funded through the national budget. The disgraceful minister of state clammed up in a hurry. The light of truth has a tendency to do that when shined on dark intentions.

Stopping short of asking them to repent during GE 2011, MM Lee even alleged Hougang flat values are lower compared to that of similar flats in neighbouring areas because they belong to an opposition ward. "If you have the wrong government, your property prices go right down. Ask why in Hougang the property prices are not as high as their neighbours," he sneered.

Hougang is living proof that Singaporeans can carry on without the presence of the bully boys. Its 37,407 residents go to work, raise children, take care of their elders and serve NS, all without having to bow and scrape to the white attired. Sure they had to walk the extra kilometer, heads held high, after their wet market was bulldozed to the ground, but their families need not starve. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was right when he said what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

DPM Teo insulted the 243,368 voters there when he suggested that Hougang could have "two MPs for the price of one". That's not even original, a plagiarism of Low Thia Khiang's brilliant strategy for securing the Aljunied beachhead. Perhaps Teo has already seen the future, when the reversal of fortunes finally come about, and top dog becomes real underdog. Forget what they are blabbering on about a "local contest". This by-election is a watershed opportunity to send them a national message. A nation is demanding to have its identity back, cleansed of the dilutants eroding our original stake holding. It's time to put on the Les Miserables soundtrack:

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing a song of angry men?

It is the music of a people

Who will not be slaves again!

When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums

There is a life about to start

When tomorrow comes!