TR EMERITUS

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair I refer to Mr Hri Kumar Nair’s 28 May 2014 parliament speech. Government has no risks, only allocates risk Mr Kumar’s response to Mr Gerald Giam’s bemoaning that the government is good at managing its own risks but not those of the people’s was to say that the government has no risks but merely allocates risks between young and old, present and future generations, employers and employees and so on. But the government’s allocation of risks between groups should not result in the government becoming richer. When the government takes $10 from one group thereby increasing the group’s risk by $10 and gives it to another group thereby reducing the latter group’s risk by $10, it gains nothing and so should not be richer. Yet the government is becoming richer and accumulating bigger budget surpluses year after year. In other words, the government isn’t just allocating risks; it is also extracting from the groups it assigns risks to. The more the government extracts, the more risks it leaves behind for the various groups. Mr Kumar illustrated his concept of the government being a mere risk allocator with French economist Frederic Bastiat’s description of everyone endeavoring to live off everyone else through the government. But Frederic Bastiat also said that the state too lives off everyone else. In other words, Frederic Bastiat’s everyone endeavoring to live off everyone else includes the government. So contrary to what Mr Kumar said, the government isn’t just a passive umpire but an active player as well in the game of risk tai chi. Contradictions Mr Kumar pointed out the contradictions to what people want: • Less stressful education, better education • Higher wages, lower costs • Free market for investment and job creation, job protection However, • Finland is an example of less stressful education with comparable education outcomes. • Higher wages need not be tied to lower costs but can be tied to higher value added services or products. • Free job market may be abused and hence necessitates protection just as capitalism may be abused and hence must operate within the confines of law and regulation to avoid a repeat of the Global Financial Crisis. Mature democracies Mr Kumar pointed to the millions spent, negative campaigning and grand speeches at every election in mature democracies. Is that not true for Singapore? Mr Kumar pointed to US politicians referring to American healthcare as the best in the world despite the 2013 Bloomberg survey ranking it 46th in the world while Singapore came in 2nd. But American healthcare is indeed the best in the world in some respects. When George Yeo’s youngest son had a relapse of leukemia, his father sent him to the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in the US instead of to Singapore hospitals. In any case, healthcare administrators and statisticians throughout the world make the same mistake of not adjusting healthcare costs with population age, an important reason why Singapore is ranked very high. Mr Kumar pointed to American politicians saying a different thing behind closed doors. But unless we get behind the closed doors of Singapore politicians, how can we tell what they say behind closed doors? Mr Kumar pointed to US politicians telling popular untruths. Is that worse than Singapore politicians telling unpopular untruths? Mr Kumar pointed to politicians in mature democracies doing what they want to do, not what they said they would do. Is that worse than Singapore politicians insisting in going against Singaporeans’ wishes? Mr Kumar pointed to an overwhelming belief in mature democracies that people run for political office not to help citizens but to satisfy egos and thirst for power. How does Mr Kumar know Singaporeans don’t feel the same way? Mr Kumar pointed to contempt for the most important office in most mature democracies. From graffiti on HDB water tanks, bus stops, notice boards to defacement of government websites, is it not already clear that Singapore is no different? Voter or voting age turnout Mr Kumar claimed that people in mature democracies are turning off from politics because they no longer vote. He gave the following examples: • US presidential election voter turn-out falling below 50% in 1996 and hovering in the mid-50s in the last few elections. • UK voter turnout falling to 65% in 2010 compared to 80+% in the 1950s • German voting age turnout was 66% in 2013 • Japan voter turnout was 59% in 2012 • Switzerland voter turnout was 40% in 2011 There are several issues with Mr Kumar’s examples. He sometimes used voter turnout (UK), and sometimes used voting age turnout (Germany). In the case of the US, there is a big difference between the two. The US presidential election voter turnout in 1996 was 82% (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance http://www.idea.int), not falling below 50% as Mr Kumar had claimed. The last few elections’ voter turnouts have been above 60%, not around 50% as Mr Kumar had claimed. If Mr Kumar had been referring to voting age turnout (VAP) instead, then VAP has been stable since World War 2 and not falling as Mr Kumar had claimed. Mr Kumar’s depiction of UK’s 1950s voter turnout as 80+% is also problematic. UK had four elections in the 1950s and the voter turnout had been 81.6%, 81.4%, 75.8% and 77.5%. Overall voter turnout in the 1950s was 79%, not 80+%. Mr Kumar’s selective use of examples doesn’t do justice to voter turnout across mature democracies. The following table from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (http://www.idea.int) shows 6 countries with better voter turnout since their first elections compared to Singapore and another 7 countries with less than 10% decrease in voter turnout since their first elections. Mr Kumar’s claim that people in mature democracies are turning off politics is therefore only half true … and half false. Country 1st year parliamentary voter turnout (%) Latest year parliamentary voter turnout (%) Change in voter turnout since first election (%) Change in voter turnout per year since first election (%) Taiwan 68.32 74.72 6.4 0.3 Sweden 82.74 84.63 1.9 0 Norway 76.36 78.23 1.9 0 Denmark 86.29 87.74 1.4 0 Australia 93.95 93.23 -0.7 0 Luxembourg 91.9 91.15 -0.8 0 Singapore 94.09 93.18 -0.9 0 Belgium 90.3 89.22 -1.1 0 Ireland 74.25 70.05 -4.2 -0.1 Iceland 87.41 81.44 -6 -0.1 United Kingdom 72.55 65.77 -6.8 -0.1 Germany 78.49 71.55 -6.9 -0.1 Finland 74.87 67.37 -7.5 -0.1 Spain 76.96 68.94 -8 -0.2 Japan 72.08 59.32 -12.8 -0.2 Liechtenstein 93.36 79.8 -13.6 -0.2 Italy 89.08 75.19 -13.9 -0.2 Greece 77.2 62.47 -14.7 -0.2 Canada 76.31 61.41 -14.9 -0.2 Netherlands 93.12 74.56 -18.6 -0.3 Austria 94.31 74.91 -19.4 -0.3 United States 89.66 67.95 -21.7 -0.5 South Korea 76.12 54.26 -21.9 -0.5 Switzerland 71.69 49.1 -22.6 -0.4 New Zealand 97.6 74.21 -23.4 -0.4 France 79.83 55.4 -24.4 -0.4 Portugal 91.73 58.03 -33.7 -0.9 Furthermore, mature democracies tend not to have compulsory voting. The New Paper Young Voters 2011 survey found 40% of Singaporeans aged 21 to 35 would not bother to vote if voting wasn’t compulsory. Thus, without compulsory voting, Mr Kumar may find us in an even worse situation than the mature democracies he is ridiculing. ’Clear’ evidence of minority groups seizing agenda from majority Mr Kumar claimed there is clear evidence of well organized and funded pressure groups seizing the agenda from the majority and shaping it. Mr Kumar’s evidence was the supposedly over 70% people in US who want stricter gun laws but who cannot pass them because the minority 30% is lobbying against it. The chart below shows that the percentage of Americans who want stricter gun laws have never gone above 62% let alone 70% since 2000. As of this year, only 49% of Americans want stricter gun laws. 49% is not the majority. The chart below shows the percentage of Americans who are satisfied or unsatisfied with American gun laws. For much of the last 14 years, those who are satisfied outnumber those who are not. The trend has changed in the last two years but still does not exhibit the 70-30 ratio Mr Kumar claimed. The rest Mr Kumar described mature democracies as being infected by cynicism, hopelessness and pessimism whereas Singapore is free from these ailments. However, both the World Happiness Report and the Happy Planet Index placed most mature democracies higher than Singapore in happiness. How can people in mature democracies feel hopeless and pessimistic while feeling happy at the same time? Country World Happiness Report 2013 2010-2012 Happiness Happy Planet Index 2013 Inequality adjusted well being Average happiness 2013 Denmark 7.7 7.6 7.6 Norway 7.7 7.4 7.5 Switzerland 7.7 7.3 7.5 Netherlands 7.5 7.3 7.4 Canada 7.5 7.4 7.4 Sweden 7.5 7.3 7.4 Finland 7.4 7.1 7.3 Australia 7.4 7.1 7.2 Austria 7.4 7.1 7.2 New Zealand 7.2 7 7.1 Ireland 7.1 6.9 7 Luxembourg 7.1 6.8 6.9 Iceland 7.4 6.5 6.9 United States 7.1 6.7 6.9 United Kingdom 6.9 6.7 6.8 Belgium 7 6.6 6.8 France 6.8 6.5 6.6 Germany 6.7 6.4 6.5 Singapore 6.5 6.3 6.4 Spain 6.3 5.8 6 Korea 6.3 5.7 6 Italy 6 5.9 6 Japan 6.1 5.7 5.9 Hong Kong 5.5 5.3 5.4 Greece 5.4 5.2 5.3 Portugal 5.1 4.4 4.7 Mr Kumar expressed his belief that most Singaporeans believe in the nobility and integrity of politics and that the government is a force for good. But Mr Kumar’s fellow MPs are not turning up for parliament so much so that NMP Eugene Tan had to twice remind the House of the insufficiency of MP numbers to pass bills. How noble can Singapore politics be if MPs don’t even turn up for parliament? Mr Kumar said Singapore has thrived in the last 50 years despite obvious limitations. But statistics show that small size, small population and lack of natural resources are no limits to the globalised economies of today. Mr Kumar expressed his belief that members of parliament should be honest with the electorate and not sugar coat or over reach. In the same token, government controlled media should be honest with the people and not flood our senses with half truths or falsehoods. Mr Kumar lamented that we have not been getting robust debates from the opposition. Mr Kumar, being in the debate himself, is in no position to judge. Judgment rests with the people. Mr Kumar likened the opposition to World War II German prison guards who were always finding out what prisoners were doing and telling them to stop what they were doing. In the same token, the PAP can be likened to Hitler who ruled with an iron fist, insisted his way, ignored his generals’ advice and pleas and ended up ruining the country. Mr Kumar brushed off critics saying it doesn’t take a genius to criticize. What genius does Mr Kumar or the PAP has to show? Mr Kumar asked those who call for the abolishing of the GRC to say how minority representation in parliament can be ensured. The NSP has done precisely that with its “Constituency reserved for minority scheme” proposal. Mr Kumar asked those who call for CPF Minimum Sum to be lowered or for earlier withdrawal of CPF monies to say what the government should do if people run out of money. Mr Kumar should first ask the government why its risk allocation role results in an ever growing layer of buffer fat around itself. Does it not occur to Mr Kumar that the fatter the government’s buffer layer is, the thinner the buffer layer will be for the people with consequently higher risk for the people and lower risk for the government? Mr Kumar boasted that while governments in the world claim to take a long term perspective for the common good, it is the Singapore government that has been actually doing it. Mr Kumar’s boast doesn’t square with the government’s admission of being caught flat footed for the massive infrastructure problems caused by its growth at all costs economic policy. Mr Kumar boasted that Singapore has been showing the rest of the world in the last 50 years what honest, realistic policies and constructive politics can achieve. Actually, Singapore has been showing the rest of the world for close to 200 years already since 1819. Our preeminent Dr Goh Keng Swee has made it clear that what we have been doing post independence was to merely continue with the priceless policies of our former British colonial masters. • [Goh Keng Swee, The Practice of Economic Growth, Chapter 1: Why Singapore succeeds, pages 6-7] For well over a hundred years Singapore learnt to adapt her economy to changing circumstances. This ability to adapt which was won in the hard school of experience remains an asset which the government of independent Singapore decided to retain. It might have been politically expedient to rid ourselves of institutions and practices that bore the taint of colonial associations. Had we done so, we would have thrown away a priceless advantage. Thank you Ng Kok Lim Parliamentary Speech by PAP MP Hri Kumar, 28 May 2014 I had prepared a speech on constructive politics, but so much has been said about it this week, that I have had to re-write most of it. But despite all the heat, I am not sure how much light has been provided to Singaporeans outside this House on this issue. I hope the Prime Minister's speech today will be seen and read by all Singaporeans for it provides an important framework for good politics and good government. I think that the real question is: what do Singaporeans want from Government? The French economist, Frederic Bastiat once described government as that “great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” That is true of Singapore as it is of every other country. So when Mr Gerald Giam accuses the Government of being very good at managing its own risks but not the risks of Singaporeans, he completely misunderstands what Government is. Governments don’t have risks. It is people who have risks. The allocation of risks is always between one group of people and another group of people: between old and young; current generation and future generations; employers and employees; and so on. It is the Government’s role to allocate risks between these different groups in an equitable, sensible and sustainable way. So when you say you want one group to bear less risk, you are in effect saying that another should bear a higher risk. Except opposition politicians find it inconvenient to mention this second group of people – so they call it the Government. I think that it is easy to answer what people want at a general level: less stressful education but a better educated and more competitive workforce; higher wages but lower costs; a free market which promotes investment and create better jobs but with protection from competition. It is when we come to the details that things get a bit more complicated. But the details are everything. It is what distinguishes a successful country from one that is not. We are fond of saying that in this House – “the policy sounds good, but the devil is in the details.” But very few critics of the Government are prepared to get into the details, because it is not always pleasant to see the sausage being made. Mr Low Thia Kiang said something I found quite interesting. He said: “To achieve the outcome of constructive politics in a diverse and open society like those in mature democracies and to nurture an environment conducive for it require much effort, and everyone across the society has their part to play.” “Mature democracies”. What has politics become in “mature’ democracies" around the world? It is the art of winning elections. In “mature democracies”, millions of dollars are spent at every election, not on improving the lives of the people, but on public relations, messaging, image makeovers and, more and more so, negative campaigning. Politicians make grand speeches, and even grander promises – all crafted by professional writers and vetted by focus groups, who press different buttons when they hear something they like or something they don’t. The whole objective is to make sure they say what people want to hear, and therefore make them believe their lives will improve. Never mind that what they say is not true or they do not actually believe it. In the US, opponents of the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) were rallying people to oppose it on the argument that America has the best healthcare system in the world, and there was no reason to change it. Many people bought into that assertion. Never mind that a 2013 Bloomberg Survey ranked the US health system 46thin the world, with a score of 30.8 out of 100. Singapore came in second with a score of 81.9. And what politicians say in closed rooms is quite different. We saw a great example of that when US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was recorded in a private meeting as essentially describing 47% of Americans as deadbeats and recalcitrants, and that he was not really concerned about them. It has been said that “Statesmen tell you what is true even though it may be unpopular. Politicians will tell you what is popular, even though it may be untrue.” There are very few statesmen in “mature democracies”, because it is not politically profitable to be one. So, in “mature democracies”, after politicians get elected, they set about doing what they were going to do anyway, not necessarily what they said they would do. People get disillusioned, and so, every so often, they vote the opposition into power, because they say they will do things differently. But it almost never happens. And so, people change the government again. That is the very definition of madness, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Is it any surprise that people get disillusioned with politics and politicians? Underlying it all is a deep-seated sense of cynicism and hopelessness; an overwhelming belief that people run for political office, not to help the country or their fellow citizens, but to satisfy their egos, or their thirst for power. In “mature democracies”, there is a thriving, multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry dedicated to making fun of, and running down, politicians and governments. Politicians become the subject of ridicule, and they even run themselves down lest they be accused of lacking a sense of humour or being out of touch. There is contempt for what should really be the most important and serious office in any land. So, what has happened and is happening in “mature democracies” is that people are increasingly tuning out of the political system. They no longer bother to vote because as far as they are concerned, the political parties are just different cheeks of the same bum. Voter turn-out in the US fell below 50% for the 1996 Presidential Elections and has been in the mid-50% for the last few elections. Voter turn-out in the UK was 80+% in the 1950s but had fallen to 65% in the 2010 elections. In Germany, which we tend to associate with having a more engaged, disciplined population, the voting age turnout was 66% in 2013. In Japan, it was 59% in 2012. In Switzerland, it was 40% in 2011. There are serious consequences to this disengagement. Well organised and funded pressure groups end up shaping the government’s agenda. Although they are in the minority, they seize the agenda from the majority. There is clear evidence of this. In the US, over 70% of people want stricter gun control rules, but they cannot pass laws to get it done. That is because if you take a position against guns, that 30% minority will organise and vote against you, and you are done for. So, every mass shooting in the US is followed by a mass hand wringing exercise and people wonder why nothing gets done. Is that the kind of “mature democracy” we want? The real question posed by the President is whether politics in Singapore can remain different. Can we continue to march to the beat of a different drum? I believe that the cynicism and hopelessness that characterises politics in many “mature democracies” has still not infected our politics. The vast majority of Singaporeans still believe that politics remains a noble cause, that politicians and political parties must have integrity and that Government is, and must always be, a force for good. The Straits Times recently commissioned a survey on the half-time performance of the Government since the last General Election, particularly on hot-button issues – education, transport, housing, immigration, etc. Singaporeans have expressed their concerns on these issues. But most recognise and accept that some of these issues will take time to resolve. What was most revealing was that the majority of the respondents were confident that almost all these issues would improve in the future. The people expect the Government to deliver and most are confident that it will. That expression of optimism is not present in most mature democracies. But there are larger issues and more difficult questions looming. As the President noted, Singapore is at the cross-roads. We are reviewing the social compact between the State and its people. We are changing the formula which allowed our nation to not just grow, but thrive, in the last 50 years – despite all our obvious limitations and in the face of one global crisis after another. Is this new social compact sensible? Will it serve us as well? That is the debate we must have today. And what is the role of this House, and indeed all politicians in this debate? I believe the simple answer is to be honest with the electorate. Do not sugar-coat and do not over-reach. Explain clearly why we do what we do, and why we cannot do what we are not doing. In 2007, I said I was glad that our political leaders were serious and a bit boring. I remain of that view. They are still serious and boring. But I think Singaporeans are fine with that. We do not need soaring rhetoric and grand promises. We need practical and workable solutions to improve the lot of all Singaporeans, and give them confidence and hope for a brighter future. What of the opposition? Mr Giam said: “Robust debates which focus on the issues and the problems at hand and where alternative solutions are proposed and properly considered can help shape better policies which will benefit Singaporeans.” I absolutely agree with him. It is only by debating alternatives that the real strengths or flaws of a policy or proposal will be revealed. But that is not what we have been getting from the opposition. The famous English author, PG Wodehouse, who was imprisoned by the Germans during the war, wrote that the Camp Kommandant would give the same instructions to his prison guards every morning: go and find out what the prisoners are doing, and tell them to stop doing it. The opposition in Singapore is like that. One gets the impression that their role is to find out what the Government is doing and to think of reasons why it is wrong. Singaporeans are getting wise to such tactics. No plan or policy is ever perfect or benefits everyone in the same way – and so it does not take any particular genius to think of criticisms. And proposing alternatives means giving proper details. Issuing Meaningless Motherhood Manifestos is not an alternative 3M framework. So let’s deal with the real issues which confront us, and let us give details of what we propose to do. For example, in Education, the Minister is under constant pressure to reduce stress and work-load for our children. But he has to ensure that there remains rigour in our system, because the education experts say that that is an important component in any education system. And he also has to ensure that while opportunities must remain open to all, the system must continue to recognise, encourage and push harder those who can do better. For CPF, we can debate lowering the CPF Minimum Sum, and the call for Singaporeans to be allowed to withdraw more of their CPF monies sooner, but you also have to say what the Government should do if people run out of money. We can debate the GRC system, but you have to say how you will otherwise ensure minority representation in Parliament. Or if that is not important to you, say so. We can talk about increasing social spending, but we also have to address revenue. Mr Gerald Giam says that before the Government raises GST or income taxes, it should: ‘look first to increasing the net investment return contributions or taxes on profits derived from economically non-productive activities”. So, the Government should take more money set aside for future generations? What are “economically non-productive activities”? And how much money will that raise? He should be clear to Singaporeans. The President urged us to debate our challenges, be prepared to take necessary and bold decisions and take a long-term perspective for the common good. Every government and political party in the world claims to do this, but we have actually been doing it. We have been showing the rest of the world in the last 50 years what can be achieved with honest and realistic policies, and constructive politics. And the world has sat up and taken notice of the magic of our tiny Red Dot. We all hope that they will continue to do so for the next 50 years. I support the motion.  Read More →

[This is a Chinese Translation of Roy Ngerng's Article: (PART 1) 10 Things The Government Has To Be Transparent About How They Use Singaporeans’ CPF. Roy has given me permission to translate his article. Should there be any discrepancy between this translation and his article, the latter bears the original intention. Translated by Wang Rui Rong] 第一部分全文如下： 在这个月较早的时候，政府终于承认了他们投资在新加坡政府投资有限公司（以下简称‘GIC’）了。这是人力部部长陈川仁在FACENBOOK社交网友上与大家分享有关‘公积金投资在哪儿’ 见示图： 示图1：商业时报——公积金是如何运作的 无论如何，政府透露的这个信息在过去是不存在的——过去政府是不承认这个信息的。与此同时，这是与政府告诉我们过去他们怎样使用公积金是有差异的。 在这（一和二部份）文章里，我们将重点说明这些差异在哪些地方，同时，探讨政府在哪些范围里的事项必须向新加坡人民展现他们如何使用我们公积金的透明化。. （一）GIC是否知道是在使用我们的公积金进行投资？ 现在我们已经知道我们的公积金是投资在GIC了。让我们看看GIC说明他们是如何使用我们的公积金的。 您知道吗？在上个月（即6月份）较迟时间时GIC是咋说的？GIC过去说：‘GIC管理政府的储备金，但是，公积金如何流入国家储备金？后来由金融管理局、或者GIC或者是淡马锡控股负责管理。政府并没有明确的告诉我们。’ 见示图： 示图二：GIC的一般问题与答案 就是到上个月GIC还坚持声明，他们并不知道。假设他们是在管理着我们的公积金，那是因为政府并没有‘明确’的告诉他们。 然而，就在这个月GIC在他们的网站更改了这个信息。以下是他们已经使用新的信息替代的内容： GIC和金融管理局共同管理发行新加坡政府特别债券（简称‘SSGS’）。这个SSGS是由新加坡政府负责发行和担保的。这个债券是公积金局动用公 积金的资金投资的。这样一来，尽管公积金局没有把公积金的资金直接转入到GIC的管理笼子里，其中的一个资金来源是进入政府资产管理的笼子。这个资产管理 的笼子是由GIC负责管理发行的SSGS债券。 4.GIC是否使用公积金进行投资？（见示图） 示图3：GIC的一般问题与答案 因此，紧接着本月份，政府终于承认了这个事实。（见示图一）GIC现在也终于承认他们是使用我们的公积金进行投资。 接下来的问题是： 为什么政府截至今年5月份仍然拒绝承认我们的公积金是投资在GIC？但是在几个星期前他们突然承认我们的公积金是投资在GIC？ 与此同时， 为什么政府过去拒绝承认他们是使用我们的公积金进行投资？为什么在最近几个星期前他们承认了呢？ 为什么GIC突然改变他们的立场？ 要求透明化管理的诉求： 为什么政府和GIC过去拒绝承认他们动用我们的公积金投资在GIC？为什么他们突然间要大转弯在这个月最终承认他们是动用我们的公积金投资在GIC？ （二）新加坡共和国总理和部长同时担任GIC的董事会董事是否涉及利益冲突关系？ 只要进一步把他们承认的这些事实凑合在一块儿，您就会明白下一个信息。您是否知道是那些人在GIC董事部担任董事吗？ GIC董事会主席是李显龙。其他的董事会成员包括了两位副总理，善达曼和张志贤、教育部长王瑞杰和贸工部长林勋强。李光耀是担任高级顾问。 示图：GIC董事部结构图： 示图四：GIC董事部董事 这样的董事会背景下，上述的信息就更加令人感兴趣 一、假设政府和新加坡总理是在GIC董事会，那么，GIC是否可以说，他们不知道是动用了我们的公积金资金进行投资？ 二、假设GIC是知道他们是在动用我们的公积金资金进行投资，为什么之前GIC告诉我们不知道是动用了我们的公积金资金？ 三、假设和政府知道是动用了我们的公积金资金投资在GIC，为什么之前拒绝承认这个事实呢？ 四、为什么政府和GIC在几个星期前才承认他们是动用了我们的公积金资金投资在GIC呢？ 与此同时，您是否知道，GIC辩解说，“GIC在进行投资决定时，财政部是代表新加坡政府，他不会指令或干预有关GIC的投资决定事务的。财政部要求GIC董事会全面承担业绩表现的责任”。 示图五：GIC的一般问题与答案 事实上，政府也一再强调说，“政府在个别的投资项目上并没有扮演决策的角色。这些个别投资项目的决策者是GIC、金融管理局和淡马锡控股。那些在GIC和金融管理局董事会是包括了部长的。这些投资项目的决策是由他们的管理团队各自负责的。” 见示图： 示图六：新加坡财政部——第一部分：国家储备金由哪些部分组成？谁负责管理国家储备金？ 同样的问题。当新加坡总理仍然是GIC董事会的董事时，新加坡政府可能不直接参与或干预GIC的运作？ 根据菲利普洪先生（Phillip Ang）说，“在政府的主导下，GIC扮演的并不是主要的角色。事实上，它是由公积金的资金支撑起来的。它就是一个空壳和不用承担任何后果的！早在 2007年，公积金会员的存款结余是1370亿。一个精明的基金经理是不会把总资金的10%投入单一的投资项目。GIC是完全没有后果的。董事会承担全部 的责任。” 菲利普洪先生（Phillip Ang）在他文章里也讨论到GIC投资失利的问题。他说，‘公积金会员现在是为GIC的投资失利付出代价。’ 因此： 一、假设新加坡政府同时也是GIC。那么，政府的首要任务就是照顾新加坡人民的公积金，或者是通过GIC的投资为公积金赚取利润。 二、同样的，假设新加坡政府同时也是GIC。当GIC使用新加坡人的公积金进行投资的项目失败的时候，谁要负责应向GIC追究责任？当新加坡政府就是GIC，特别是当新加坡总理本身就是GIC的主席的情况下？新加坡总理本身是否需要承担这个责任？ 三、假设政府就是GIC，那么，这会不会存在利益上的冲突呢？ 或许，在这许多的问题当中更重要的是： 政府的部长们从纳税人领取了数百万的薪金外，那些同时是GIC董事会成员的部长们也是否从公积金哪里领取薪金？ 新加坡人民是否知道我们的公积金局支付给这些部长们的薪金是多少？ 这么一来，政府可能会辩解说，“将确保每一个实体都有胜任的董事会在监管着和同时确保 他们进行的投资是遵照董事会的授权的。” 问题是：如何决定胜任？是不是这些部长都经过培训达到胜任的素质？ 要求透明化的诉求： 为什么政府让自己成为GIC董事会的成员？ 这些担任GIC董事会成员的部长是否有足够的资质担任资金经理？ 当GIC的投资失败时，谁来负责追究GIC的责任？ 谁来采取防范措施避免在未来的投资不会再重犯错误？ 那些在GIC董事会担任董事的部长领取多少董事金？ 显然，这是一个非常明显的利益冲突的。这种安排政府与GIC之间的关系已经存在了几十年。这种利益冲突说明了政府缺乏负责任，特别是在GIC管理新加坡人的公积金的责任方面。 （三）淡马锡控股使用了我们的公积金进行投资已经多久了？淡马锡控股是什么时候停止使用我们的公积金进行投资的？ 上个星期，淡马锡控股在写给海峡时报的信中说，“淡马锡控股并没有投资或者管理公积金会员的存款。” 示图七：海峡时报言论版来信——淡马锡控股并没有投资或者管理公积金的存款。 然而，在《国家发展：关联、冗余或重新组合Development States: Relevancy, Redundancy Or Reconfiguration》这本书这么写道：“从1970 年代末，公积金储备已经是公共盈余的一部份。这笔资金已经被淡马锡控股在国内或者GIC在国外和其他投资混合起来使用进行投资了。” 示图八：《国家发展：关联、冗余或重新组合Development States: Relevancy, Redundancy Or Reconfiguration,》？ 这就是说，在过去的一段时间新加坡人的公积金是投资在淡马锡控股。 假设是如此： 一、淡马锡控股使用新加坡人的公积金进行投资活动的时间多久了？ 二、淡马锡控股是什么时候停止使用我们的公积金进行投资活动的？ 三、淡马锡控股在几个星期前（即6月初）才透露他们并没有使用我们的公积金进行投资活动。这是不是等于说，在迟至今年5月份，淡马锡控股还一直在使用我们的公积金进行投资活动？ 事实上，政府也已经说了： 政府有系统的评估了这三个投资实体所进行投资的全部证券投资组合的整体风险。。。基于政府对证券投资组合的整体投资风险的评估，这就确定了政府投放在这三个投资实体的资金。这是考虑到金融管理局、GIC和淡马锡控股三者在不同的投资风险环境的情况 示图九：新加坡财政部——第一部分：国家储备金由哪些部分组成？谁负责管理国家储备金？ 因此，什么时候政府决定把我们的公积金从高风险高回报投资的淡马锡控股转移到低风险低回报投资的GIC？为什么政府会做出这个决策？是否有任何的报告可以披露？ 要求透明化的诉求： 政府是什么时候停止动用我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股的？ 政府动用我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股已经多久了？ 为什么政府决定停止动用我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股？ 政府是在怎样的情况下做出这个决定的？ 为什么政府和淡马锡控股没有把这个事实告诉新加坡人民，他们是动用了我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股？ 政府和淡马锡控股在动用我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股的信息方面有哪些被遗漏了？ （四）淡马锡控股支付给建国一代的配套是多少？ 淡马锡控股同时也说了如下一段话： 淡马锡控股支付了税收和派发了年终红利给予所有的股东。这些附加红利的税收是由政府收取后设立了各种基金计划，包括了援助建国一代的终身医疗费用。 示图十：海峡时报论坛来信——淡马锡没有投资或管理公积金的存款。 假设这是事实。那么，实际上淡马锡控股到底确实为建国一代配套提供了多少金额？ 政府已经“为支付建国一代配套预留了80亿基金”，在这笔款项中，“预计其中的一半将在第一个10年支付”。 这说明了其中的40亿将在第一个10年支付。假设这笔40亿款项是平均分成十年支付，那么，今年将会支付4千万。 在去年三月份，淡马锡控股的投资值是2千150亿。那么，政府计划支付的4千万元只是淡马锡投资总值的0.002%。这笔4千万元的建国配套款项，淡马锡控股捐献了多少？ 假设，淡马锡控股捐献了1/4建国配套基金，即1千万元，那么，这只是淡马锡控股总投资的0.0005%。即便是我们看到淡马锡控股的净利润是110亿，那么，这1千万元只是占了它的利润的0.009%吧了。 好了。到底淡马锡控股捐献给建国配套是多少。但是，更重要的是，淡马锡控股使用新加坡人的公积金进行投资赚取的多少利润？淡马锡控股使用的公积金的资金数额尚未偿还给公积金局？ 淡马锡控股使用新加坡人的公积金资金去赚取的利润与它们捐献给建国一代的配套相比，那简直就是小菜一碟？！ 要求透明化诉求： 假设是这样，那么。淡马锡控股捐献给建国配套的实际数额是多少？这些捐献的目的是什么？ （五）GIC和淡马锡控股的追加‘注入资本金’是从哪儿来的？ 最终，政府说，‘政府并没有也从未有过为了改进淡马锡控股或GIC的营运业绩表现而注如资金’。 然而，政府说，他们‘不时的注入资本金进入淡马锡控股是政府分配新的流动资金的其中一部分。’ 根据政府的说法，这些‘注入资本金可以提高证券投资组合的规模，但是，不是改进投资回报’。 见示图： 示图11：新加坡财政部——第一部分：国家储备金由哪些部分组成？谁负责管理国家储备金？ 最终政府说，“那些调拨的资金是不可以用来掩饰投资的亏损”。 示图12：新加坡财政部——第一部分：国家储备金由哪些部分组成？谁负责管理国家储备金？ 关于以下两个问题我让大家自己去辨别。假设， 1.‘调拨资金’和‘注入资本金’两者之间是否有不同之处？”. 2.‘隐藏投资亏损’和‘增加证券投资组合比例额’两者之间是否有不同之处？ 对一般人而言，这就是为了掩盖实际情况的一句大话。我们唯一能够知道实际的情况就是在GIC 和淡马锡控股全面披露有关它们是如何使用公积金进行投资后，它们在哪些项目上投资是亏损了？它们如何管理这些亏损？这些资金如何被调动？这些资金是从哪儿调拨来的？ 事实上，政府可能会辩解说，他们给淡马锡控股“注入了资本金”。然而，这些‘资本金’是从哪儿来的？国家储备金已经是在金融管理局、淡马锡控股和GIC共同管理。假设国家储备金已经由他们全面管理了，那么，这些增加部分的‘资本金’是从 哪儿来的？ 而且，政府说，他们并没有从别处“调拨资金”，那么，这些增加的‘资本金’必然不会是从现有的基金调拨。假设是这样，那么，那些增加的‘资本金’是在哪儿来的？这些‘新流动基金’是从哪儿来的？这些增加部分的‘资本金’的来源明细表在哪儿？ 这些增加的‘资本金’是不是从提高新加坡人的公积金哪儿筹集而来的？与此同时，为什么每年都在改变增加‘资本金’？ 要求透明化诉求： 淡马锡控股和GIC从设立至今到底亏损了多少？他们如何管理这些亏损？ 淡马锡控股和GIC设立至今，政府到底为这两家公司‘注资’了多少？ 政府为这两家公司增加‘资本金’的资金是从哪儿筹集来的？ 政府必须全面的披露有关淡马锡控股和GIC成立至今的全面报告，让新加坡人民自己分析政府、淡马锡控股和GIC是如何使用我们的公积金？. 最后，您是否注意到以下的事情？ •政府只是承认，他们在今年6月份较早时间使用新加坡的公积金投资在GIC（即几个星期之前） •GIC只在‘一般问题与答案’栏里更改有关信息。他们承认是在今年6月份较早的时间使用新加坡的公积金的。 •淡马锡控股在今年6月份较早的时间里披露说，他们没有使用新加坡人的公积金。 在今年6月份所有的问题都浮出水面。上个月，我还是受雇于陈笃生医院。为什么是6月较早的时候？在6月份之前的这段期间，政府是不是做了些什么？他们是不是重新评估‘整体证券的资产’和重新组合这些证券资产？ GIC在承认使用公积金进行投资前，在6月份之前这段期间是否做了些什么？ 在6月份之前，淡马锡控股停止使用公积金进行投资前，在6月份之前这段期间是否做了些什么？ 为什么这些事情同时突然发生？到底这之前是发生了什么事？请大家自己的思考！ 在我的第二部分的文章里， 我将进一步探讨有关管理公积金的差异和现在是时候政府必须公开与透明地向新加坡人民说明是如何使用我们的公积金进行投资的时候了。 . ***** 非常明显的，在政府、GIC和淡马锡控股管理我们的公积金问题上是出现了疏漏了。这些疏漏所产生的漏洞和差异是政府至今还没有纠正的。这些重要的漏洞是政府必须承认和毫无保留的说出来的，特别是新加坡人所关心的退休基金问题方面。. 新加坡人民的公积金到底去了哪儿？ 在2014年7月12日将举行一个要求政府《归还我们的公积金》的集会。在这个集会上将进一步探讨有关政府在公积金的问题和管理公积金上缺乏透明度和可信度的问题和要求政府归还我们的公积金。  Read More →

We had put up an Expression Wall early this year, at the Amphitheatre in Chong Pang City. It was hugely successful, with many people expressing their views. We put up another wall last week. This time we were hoping to hear ideas, views, thoughts on how we can develop quality wellness and care centres for our elderly. The response from the residents has been overwhelming. We kept the wall for extra days, and had to add more writing space, using sheets – just like the last time. It has also been fun for residents to express themselves creatively as well as reading the views and drawings of others. We have captured every comment on the wall, including taking pictures and videos of them. This is important because some of the residents have written over the comments of others. There were some rude comments and graffiti as well. Some were drawn by little kids. This is to be expected. There were also negative comments and complaints by residents on policies which they want changed – these were genuine expression of views. People are entitled to disagree with government policies and give their views. This is what this expression wall is all about. Unfortunately, there was also some unconstructive element to it. Some Opposition supporters (clearly identifiable because of what they did) decided to co-ordinate and hijack the Wall – defacing the Wall, writing over other comments, scratching out existing comments, and standing by the Wall and asking people to write down negative comments, calling for the death of one of our founding fathers. They also took screen shots of the negative comments which they themselves wrote, presumably so that they can post them on line and pretend that that these were comments by residents. (We noted they quickly took pictures of such negative comments and posted them on some websites). One such writer scribbled across a section of the wall to cancel out dozens of good suggestions, and wrote very prominently the name of the political party he supported. We did not stop them. People can judge for themselves what such a behaviour means. He and some others believe that freedom of expression means that only their views should be seen, and so he needed to scratch out the positive comments.( As I have said earlier some of the comments which were critical of policies were honest expression of views by residents. The unconstructive behaviour was exhibited by only a few, though they attempted to scratch out large parts). Despite all this co-ordinated effort, it is heartening that that the majority – about 90 per cent of the comments – were positive or constructive. We will review the comments in greater detail and do an update later. We were able to tabulate because we kept track of all the comments, including those which were scratched out, written over, so we know what all the comments were. We will send all the feedback to the relevant agencies. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d00ojoRCK3k   K Shanmugam [Source]: https://www.facebook.com/k.shanmugam.page/posts/727858453927354   Related: Nee Soon residents give real ground feedback          Read More →