They need to cry father cry mother because they can't do anything
else.
Please try to understand that.
On Apr 24, 9:18 am, yansimon52 <yansimo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 12:01 am, Tah Hwoh Chi <internetkeybo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 5:04 pm, fifo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > Uniquely Singa****e
>
> > > Public Accountability
>
> > > Leong Sze Hian
>
> > > In all the Parliamentary Debates, Singa****eans have never been told
> > > what the amount of our reserves is, by way of the Government
> > > Investment Cor****ation (GIC) and Temasek=92s assets.
>
> > > In the ChannelNewsAsia re****t,
>
> > > =93Young NTUC members ask wide range of questions at forum=94 (15
Marc=
h
> > > 2008), it states that :
>
> > > =93The audience also got the answer to perhaps one of the biggest
mone=
y
> > > question of them all.
>
> > > Mrs Lim (Hwee Hua, Minister of State for Finance) said: =93You asked
h=
ow
> > > much reserves we have. I=92m sorry =96 I am not able to give you
that
> > > answer. There are many, many people who are interested in how much
we
> > > have. It has nothing to do with not wanting Singa****eans to know.
It=
=92s
> > > only if we go public with you, a lot of other people will know.=94
>
> > > What harm can there be to disclose this information to Singa****eans?
> > > Wouldn=92t it cause greater harm to Singa****e=92s reputation and
stand=
ing
> > > by not disclosing?
>
> > > Perhaps one possible reason I can think of may be that if we know
the
> > > total assets, then it may have to continue to be disclosed every
year.=
> > > Then, we may be able to track the ups and downs of our investments
and=
> > > assets.
>
> > > Are Budget surpluses and CPF added to the funds of GIC or Temasek?
> > > This is perhaps reminiscent of our late President Ong teng
Cheong=92s
> > > remarks, that when he asked for a listing of the nation=92s assets,
he=
> > > was told it would take 54 man-years.
>
> > > The Bloomberg News re****t (Mar 21),=93Temasek Says It=92s Not
Affected=
by
> > > Paulson Pact on Wealth Funds=94, states that =93An agreement by
govern=
ment-
> > > run funds of Abu Dhabi and Singa****e to increase transparency
won=92t
> > > shed more light on Temasek Holdings Pte=92s $118 billion ****tfolio,
> > > because the company said it already meets disclosure guidelines.
>
> > > U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said recently that funds,
> > > including the Government of Singa****e Investment Corp, agreed to
adopt=
> > > rules for greater disclosure. Temasek, owned by Singa****e=92s
finance
> > > ministry, said it already provides more information than government-
> > > run funds.
>
> > > =93Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund,=94 spokesman Mark Lee
said =
by
> > > telephone today=85. Temasek has to sell assets to raise cash for new
> > > investments and doesn=92t require the government to give
approvals.=94=
>
> > > =93Temasek discloses a lot more than GIC and always has a strong
sense=
> > > of cor****ate governance,=94 Lee said. Paulson=92s statement =93will
no=
t have
> > > any impact,=94 he said.
>
> > > The company seeks approval from a board consisting of independent
> > > directors and a representative from the Ministry of Finance, its
only
> > > shareholder, Lee said.
>
> > > Temasek in 2006 headed an investor group that bought almost all of
the=
> > > stock in a Thai telecommunications company from the family of then-
> > > Prime Minister Thaksin ****nawatra, triggering a chain of events that
> > > led to the Thai premier=92s ouster in a coup.
>
> > > The company also faces opposition in neighboring Indonesia, where
the
> > > antitrust regulator has accused it of using stakes in the nation=92s
t=
wo
> > > biggest mobile-phone companies to fix prices.
>
> > > =93Temasek is ultimately controlled by the government and it is not
a
> > > private organization,=94 said Cohen of Action Economics. =93Temasek
ha=
s
> > > many similarities to GIC.=94 (Bloomberg)
>
> > > So, =93Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund=94? A sovereign wealth
f=
und
> > > is accountable to the citizens of it=92s country =96 is it or
isn=92t =
it?
>
> > > Why is it that there is so much information in Singa****e that is
> > > secret?
>
> > > I attended the Human Rights and Trade programme conducted by UNSW in
> > > March/April 2008, and stumbled upon another =93secret=94.
>
> > > Secret settlement - If all money recovered, why so secret?
>
> > > I refer to the editorial =93Singa****e=92s great civil servants=94
(BT,=
Dec
> > > 12), the articles =93UNSW agrees to repay $32.3m=94 (ST, Dec 12),
> > > =93Australian varsity agrees to settlement=94 (BT, Dec 12), and
media
> > > re****ts about the settlement.
>
> > > The EDB would not reveal the total amount or the repayment period.
An
> > > EDB spokesman said, =93We are bound by the terms of the agreement
whic=
h
> > > are confidential=94.
>
> > > As it involves about $32 million of loans and grants, which are
> > > taxpayers=92 money, shouldn=92t there be more disclosure and
transpare=
ncy,
> > > since the question had been raised in Parliament ?
>
> > > Since it has been re****ted that the media =93understands that UNSW
has=
> > > agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants and loans=94,
w=
hy
> > > does EDB still maintain that =93the terms of the agreement are
> > > confidential=94 ?
>
> > > Isn=92t EDB contradicting itself by saying that it would not reveal
th=
e
> > > total amount or the repayment period, but yet the media
=93understands=
> > > that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants
> > > and loans=94 ?
>
> > > As UNSW officials also declined to comment, how did the media obtain
> > > its understanding that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3
> > > million ?
>
> > > What about the $30 million to remove steel and concrete pilings
> > > already driven into the university campus site, which earlier media
> > > re****ts had said that the university would have to pay ?
>
> > > In line with the Government Investment Cor****ation=92s (GIC)
statement=
> > > on 10 December, 2008, in conjunction with its $14 billion stake in
> > > UBS, that going forward, it would set an example for others to
follow,=
> > > in providing more disclosure and transparency, government agencies
> > > should also do the same.
>
> > > Are not government agencies accountable to Parliament and
> > > Singa****eans, instead of saying that the terms of any agreements are
> > > confidential ?
>
> > > Surely, the least that Singa****eans can expect of our world class
> > > civil service, is to be told how many cents out of every dollar in
> > > total, will be recovered, and how long it will take!
>
> > If not for his former good ties with the Lees, the late ex-President
> > Ong Teng Cheong would be sacked immediately for asking questions on
> > how Singa****e's Sovereign Funds are being used or invested. These are
> > forbidden questions. Thou shalt not ask. Singa****e's Sovereign Funds
> > are Familee run and and private. Any monies collected through taxes or
> > otherwise and when it goes right into it is something like being
> > sucked into a [black hole]. The Familee is not accountable on how they
> > want to use it. Just like the former late President of Philippines;
> > Ferdinand Marcos and his families had done that before.
>
> Alamak you rubbish ppl everyday 'cow pay cow bo' on those billion $
> reserve.......OK lar.........let's split.......you rubbish take back
> the Sg's reserve of 140 billion and the rest should belong to the
> Familee....like ppl part company what?........how about that?...can or
> cannot?
|
