Dear Mr. Tan,
I am disappointed that you accepted the statement by the Law Minister that the President have no say on the investment strategy. How can you safeguard the reserves when it can be invested recklessly?
REPLY
I accept the statement that the President must work within the powers allowed under the Constitution and should not interfere with the decisions of the Government. I also agree that it is necessary for the President to have a say on the investment policy as a logical extension of his duty to safeguard the reserves. I agree with the Law Minister that this involvement does not go into the day to day execution of the investment policy - which should be left to the full time professionals. I do not wish to debate this issue now, and will be happy to let the matter be resolved by the next elected President. It can be discussed behind closed doors.
I am disappointed that you accepted the statement by the Law Minister that the President have no say on the investment strategy. How can you safeguard the reserves when it can be invested recklessly?
REPLY
I accept the statement that the President must work within the powers allowed under the Constitution and should not interfere with the decisions of the Government. I also agree that it is necessary for the President to have a say on the investment policy as a logical extension of his duty to safeguard the reserves. I agree with the Law Minister that this involvement does not go into the day to day execution of the investment policy - which should be left to the full time professionals. I do not wish to debate this issue now, and will be happy to let the matter be resolved by the next elected President. It can be discussed behind closed doors.
2 comments:
President should have veto power on major investment decision using the reserves. Can this be discussed behind closed doors? Changes to constitution to give President this veto power are initiated by members of parliament (PAP or WP). ??? ??? ???
Mr. Tan
We do not agree any investment discussion by our two SWFs to be discussed behind close doors, that is the only reason we won't vote for TT, as he is exceptionally close to the PAP.
We do not agree with group thinking and group obligation to agree, as expressed by Lim Boon Heng on the Casino project,
prefer the President to be independent, with his own opinion and judgement on how our Reserves are being used, with DILIGENT CARE.
Nonetheless, this does not mean the President acts alone, he still have to consult with his Council members, then make known his own opinion to the Public. Why we are not happy with Nathan is he did not even query about the losses sustained by the two SWFs. This is called his duty to protect our reserves??? TT blurted out "we saw the crisis coming", and together with Nathan, they take the easy way out by keeping mum, going along with group thinking and obligation, afraid to express their own reservations, no guessing why, simply, both the PM's father and wife are helming GIC and Temasek.
If the President is so cowed, why bother to make the EP a contest, may as well scrap it. No need for any elected President to donate half his pay to charity, make the whole of the $4.2m pay saved and donate all to charity. By going to the polls twice in a year, our Society would be more polarized, no any President could unify the nation, as the status quo is still there, and back to business as usual. Then it would be a waste of the citizens' time to vote the second time. With the high costs of living to worry about, please don't waste our precious time, and get on with the usual Governing, and dispense with all the
unnecessary crap.
Post a Comment