TR EMERITUS

We refer to the Clerk of Parliament’s reply “Lack of quorum: Clerk of Parliament replies” (Straits Times Forum, Jul 17) to Mr Leong Kok Seng’s letter (“Questions over lack of quorum” (Jul 14). 91 MPs attendances? It states that “The sitting on July 7 was attended by 91 MPs and attendances are recorded in the Official Reports and Votes and Proceedings available on the Parliament website.” 91 MPs dropped to less than 22?  - Since “a quorum of one-quarter of the total number of 87 MPs, excluding the Speaker, is needed for a Bill to be passed, as specified under the Constitution” (“Eugene Tan keeps an eagle eye on quorum numbers”, Straits Times, Jul 8) – does it mean that the number of MPs dwindled down from the “91 MPs and attendances recorded in the Official Reports” on that day, to less than 22 MPs, such that 2 of the Bills almost or could not be passed due to a lack of quorum? Evasion to answer the questions? The Clerk of Parliament’s subject reply in our view, may simply have evaded the questions asked by Mr Leong Kok Seng, and more importantly, anyone reading the reply, without the benefit of reading the letter of 14 July or the news report of 8 July, may be none the wiser as to the fact that 2 bills could or almost could not be passed due to a lack of quorum. Misleading the public? By saying just that “When the votes on the Bills that were passed on July 7 were taken at the sitting, the quorum was met” – it may at best be not just not answering the questions, but arguably, misleading to the public as well. Breakdown of the different MPs? It may also be misleading too from the perspective that as we understand it, the 91 recorded attendances may include the NMPs and NCMPs as well.  So, how many elected MPs were actually in attendance or absent? How many from the various political parties? Any breakdown? How many sought permission? As to “MPs have to seek the Speaker’s permission in writing to be absent from a sitting. They also have to inform the party Whip if they are unable to attend Parliament on time or have to leave early” - Can we have the statistics as to how many MPs have sought “the Speaker’s permission in writing to be absent from a sitting” for how many times, and how many have informed “the party Whip if they are unable to attend Parliament on time or have to leave early”? How many of the at least 69 who left sought permission? Did any of the at least 69 MPs (91 attendances recorded – 22 required for quorum) who apparently left early, inform “the party Whip (that) they have to leave early”? How often MPs don’t speak at all? By the way, since we are on the subject of Parliamentary attendances, how about giving the statistics as to how often MPs spoke in Parliament? Former Minister never speak? For example, I searched the Parliamentary records http://www.parliament.gov.sg/publications-singapore-parliament-reports for “Mah Bow Tan” for the Parliamentary sittings of the current 12th Parliament, since the last general elections in 2011 until 5 February, 2013, and could not find anything that was said by him. So, does this mean that he did not say anything in Parliament over the one and a half years or so, till 5 February, 2013? NCMP spoke 82 times? For the purpose of comparision, I searched “Lina Chiam” which returned 82 results, for the same period. Former Minister spoke once only? I searched “Wong Kan Seng” and found only one result, for the same period. Are there any other MPs who didn’t say, or hardly said anything too? (“MPs who didn’t utter a word in Parliament?“, Feb 5, 2013)   S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/    Read More →

In 1960, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “I have not the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in [the people's] interests.” With that promise, the PAP wrote Singaporeans a cheque: If we forsook our political rights and let the party take care of our interests, we would be well-taken care of. We have lived the past half-a-century with no freedom of the media and assembly, critics get sued or detained when they spoke up, and we have no right to information about our reserves and savings. Indeed, we have sacrificed much of our political rights but, at least, we still have our economic well-being to look forward to. After more than 50 years, we are ready to cash the cheque. Only now, the PAP tells us that Without foreigners, our economy will collapse. If we want minimum wage, foreign investors will flee. Young couples have to take 30-year loans to pay off their HDB flats. When they finally pay it off, they have to sell it because they have no money left. We cannot take back our CPF retirement money because we will waste it away. We must not have too many university graduates, otherwise they will plan violent revolutions. What is the point of having a university degree if they cannot find us a job? We have to vote for it first before we can get lifts to stop on every floor. If we want to live more cheaply when we grow old – in nursing homes – we can go to Johor Bahru. If we don't pay the ministers a lot of money...they may become corrupt...or CEOs who are paid more will not listen to them...or they just won't want to serve us any more. If the poor ask for help, tell them they have to decide whether they want to eat in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant. We have to work cheaper, faster and better. And if we are better, we have to become betterer and even betterest. We don't have to worry about recessions, we just have to upturn the downturn. If it doesn't stick spurs into us, we will become stupid and lazy. Floods occur only once in 50 years. It's no fun being poor but our poor is better off than other countries' poor. It is like the little frog – deaf to criticisms. The cheque bounced. Singapore Democrats  Read More →

DPM Tharman on SSGS in Parliament (8 Jul): "Investment returns in excess of the SSGS rates... are not simply hoarded away in our reserves. 50% of the returns from our reserves flow back to our annual Budget... This currently adds about $8 billion to the Budget annually... CPF monies are invested in SSGS that are guaranteed by the Singapore Government. The Singapore Government's guarantee is a key safeguard." This is what Chris K said this morning: “Chris K: July 16, 2014 at 6:58 am (Quote) btw there are no bonds like those SSGS, BK. Nowhere in the world do u find bonds, govt or otherwise whose rates are set by administrative fiat by the issuer itself. This is a massive conflict of interest.” A few reflections prompted by Chris K’s invaluable insight: (a) arguably the SSGS is an anomalous and singular construct that is not a “bond” (according to the normal usages and practices of the world of finance) which can effectually translate, convert or transform the trust monies held by CPF Board into the “proceeds of a debt issue”; (b) the release of monies to the GIC in purported consideration for the SSGS arguably does not meet the criteria of “investments” as generally understood in the financial industry and is therefore outside the scope of the “investment powers” of CPF Board spelled out by s 33A of the Interpretation Act; (c) furthermore, this purported “investment” by the Trustee CPF Board in SSGS is arguably not an arms’ length transaction because both the “buyer” and “seller” are effectively the government. My caveat is that we are all just thinking aloud here, and none of this is definitive of course. But given the massive asymmetries of information/data as between government and citizens, we can only proceed by (hopefully) intelligent conjectures made in good faith. For the avoidance of doubt it is not our intention to impute wrongdoing to anyone. But we are CPF beneficiaries and citizens and we certainly have the right to use my minds and communication tools to discourse with fellow citizens and mutually edify one another. The constitutional guarantee of free speech only means something if we exercise our perception of what it means in good faith on matters of pressing national concern – not just lashing out in anger or complaining in frustration (although I STRONGLY empathize with such spontaneous outpourings!).   Trust and et al monikers * Comment appeared in: Ministry of Finance contradicts Minister of Finance?   Editor's note: SSGS stands for "Special Singapore Government Securities". See the following for more info - http://app.mof.gov.sg/sg_borrowings.aspx. Singapore Government Borrowings - An Overview The Singapore Government enjoys the highest short- and long-term credit ratings of AAA from the three main credit-rating agencies. This can be partly attributed to the following features: a) Borrowings are not for spending. Singapore Government Securities (SGS) are issued to develop the domestic debt market and Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) are non-tradable bonds issued specifically to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board. b) Under the protection of reserves framework in the Constitution, the Singapore Government cannot spend the monies raised from SGS and SSGS. c) All borrowing proceeds are therefore invested. The investment returns are more than sufficient to cover the debt serving costs. Surplus returns belong to Past Reserves and cannot be spent by the Government. d) The Singapore Government has a strong balance sheet that has assets well in excess of its liabilities. In assessing the debt sustainability of Singapore, rather than just looking at the level of our debt, research agencies take into account the large net asset position of Singapore. Read about the unique nature of the borrowing of the Singapore Government. ( 248kb)    Read More →