For advertisement

Sample

11/27/2008

Town Council Funds

After going through Teo Ho Pin's explanation on the investment of Town Council Funds, I got the impression that the investment objective is just to invest for better returns. But the returns will not be translated to direct benefits to the residents. It is just investment for investment's sake. Thought any gains should be returned to the residents in some ways like lower S&C charges. The other point that came through is that the investment is for long term and gains or losses do not mean anything or have no impact on the residents. They will not affect the residents in anyway. Really? Another point I thought Teo Ho Pin should address is the Sinking Fund. How much is enough? The NKF's 20 year reserves came to mind. There must be a limit on how much should be set aside and when enough, the burden of payment by the residents could be proportionately reduced. What we are hearing is that residents shall keep paying regardless of how much is already in the reserve. Collection of public money must be capped at some point. It must not be unlimited and unconditional.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, I fully agreed that there should be a limit to the sinking funds or a reduced contribution once it hit a certain threshold figure.
As to the example of the cost of lift replacement that Mr Teo quoted,I wondered whether he has included the cost of building a new lift shaft. That is, is he referring to the highly subsidised lift upgrading programme? Maybe he can elaborate as to what proportion of the cost of 'lift upgrading programme' is coming out from the sinking fund.

Anonymous said...

Thought any gains should be returned to the residents in some ways like lower S&C charges



but what are the incentives or disincentives for anyone to return their earnings? listed companies like sph return a large part of their earnings to their shareholders in the form of dividends becos they are, as listed companies, transparent with their reportings and earnings, and tightly scrutinised by shareholders in the AGMs.

redbean said...

from his reply, a lift needs only be replaced in 28 years. so you will have 28 years to accummulate for it. at $280K per lift, just an assumption, you need to collect only $10k, and not talking about interest or investment returns.

aiyoyo said...

aiyoyo

really confused by the terms & powderful wordings used by these PEOPLE..

anyway, think easy - they need how much then collect from residents lor, simple correct?

aiyoyo what invest here and there, loss here & there, gain here and there, very luan leh.
(so far not sure if get to be given/distributed on the gains, so called, that these PEOPLE made)

aiyoyo life is so 'interesting' liao, still need worry these PEOPLE, think being singapore people also need stamina & endurance which SAF teach, now understand a bit why 1st day in SAF being told on stamina & endurance...

aiyoyo

Anonymous said...

While it is correct to question them, I would like to urge all Singapore HDB Leaseholders to admit that you too have to be held Responsible in a way given that you have allowed things to go on and on and did not QUESTION since the sinking funds were created.

1 word came to mind - COMPLACENCY.

There have been other examples of Complacency already.

Lets also be Responsible.

Its TIME.

redbean said...

hi aiyoyo, welcome to the blog.

yes, complacency is going to kill us. we have been told not to question. even in this forum i have been walloped by a few perpetual pests for posing unpleasant questions.

the people acquiesced and allowed the management of town council funds to do what they liked. they deserve to be in their shit position now. when the time to raise questions and objections they do not wish to.

the same thing is going to happen. this time 100 times more serious. they are trying to sell the option of letting one party rule this country forever. imagine putting all your eggs in one basket? and they say it is good, very good indeed.

and you have half baked intellectuals also blowing the same trumpet. and the people are silent on this. the talents in the academia, in the industry and civil service, in all the professions, are very quiet. no one dares utter a no. so we accept our fate of a one party system.

don't kpkb next time: )

Anonymous said...

No it is not complacency.. IT is SHEER arrogance in power.

One ex- Perm Sec. loved to say this "Dont like SIN - give up your citizenship.." This is how far arrogance had gone. You know what, MANY ACTUALLY LEFT and GAVE UP CITIZENSHIP for a more talent based econnomy. Now they have to double guess how many more will eventually leave. LEAVE this arrogance behind and head for a place you loved.

Complacency, try calling any civil servant on the telephone. they are always not in. Complacent? NO they serve their master; they dont serve the public. Period.