Dear Kin Lian,
I would like to share my opinion on an issue with you.
One of the points mentioned by Mr. Ong TC was "That the Accountant-General had informed him it would take 52 man-years to provide him with a list of the Government's physical assets".
Even if this is true, then we should in my opinion just spend the 52 man-years to get it listed. Besides the president, don't the government of the day need to know the list of assets it has in its control so as to deploy them for the maximum benefit to the people?
Furthermore, we have spent many orders of magnitude more than 52 man-years on lesser or even frivolous things. Think of the man-power and resources used for the YOG or building a meandering "river" at Bishan. Do we sincerely think these are more important things for the government to spent resources on?
HHW
Saturday, June 11, 2011
What is a Plutocracy?
Read this article about what is a plutocracy and see if it also fits Singapore.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1417.htm
Where America now stands she has stood many times before where the forces pitting its citizens against its moneyed elite have clashed in titanic battles that defined what that country was all about; either aPlutocracy giving all political control of the state over to an oligarchy of the wealthy, or a Republic giving supreme control over the government to its citizens.
Song: Born again America
Does the sentiment of this song also apply to Singaporeans?
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1417.htm
Where America now stands she has stood many times before where the forces pitting its citizens against its moneyed elite have clashed in titanic battles that defined what that country was all about; either aPlutocracy giving all political control of the state over to an oligarchy of the wealthy, or a Republic giving supreme control over the government to its citizens.
Song: Born again America
Does the sentiment of this song also apply to Singaporeans?
To dare mighty things
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of The United States
Friday, June 10, 2011
Ministry of Law statement on Elected President
Several journalists have asked for my response to the Ministry of Law's statement:
REPLY
Please read this statement:
http://www.tankinlian.com/
Quote
I also like to focus on another matter, namely the investment policy adopted in the investments of our financial assets. Should our two wealth funds (i.e. GIC and Temasek) adopt an active investment approach (to increase the return on our assets) or to adopt a conservative approach (i.e. avoid speculation on market timing and asset selection)?
My personal preference is to adopt a conservative approach in the investment of our assets and to use the influence of the President’s office to achieve this goal. I recognize that there may be limitation in the power of the President on this matter.
Unquote
I have no further comment.
Tan Kin Lian
Is the President merely a rubber stamp?
http://maverickbuzz.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-presidency-merely-rubber-stamp.html
Ultimately, I believe that Singaporeans are clear about their expectations of the role of the President. We know that the President has limited powers, but I also believe that we would like the President to be able to counsel the government through a process of engagement with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and active deliberations of government decisions.
This engagement and deliberation would be predicated on the President having a good feel of the pulse of the ground, which should be the case since the President is after all elected by the people for the people.
And only if he can truly do that, can we honestly say that we have our next people’s president.
Beyond guarding the reserves
Dear Mr Tan,
I live away from Singapore but have been following recent events especially the Elections and also now the Presidential Elections. I have read your statement and see much to be heartened by it. In particular, I entirely agree that there is a need to recover the sense of public service that has been lost in the kind of 'unbridled' meritocracy that has led to frankly quite obscene ministerial salaries especially when the ordinary working citizen is struggling and trying to cope with the cost of housing and generally the cost of living.
I go back to Singapore for about two months every year and cannot fail to notice that in the last 5 years in particular even hawker centre food prices have risen very noticeably and on the low income of those at the bottom strata of society this is a real struggle as I gather from the taxi drivers who often hold two jobs to keep their families going. For a country that seems so economically successful it is quite shameful that the elderly, the less fortunate and the socially-burdened should have to live the way they do.
I know that you have been active in championing the cause of ordinary people (like those who have lost money in the recent financial scandal) and it certainly appears as if you genuinely do care for the people. I share your principles of honesty and integrity and public service (indeed i think the idea of a 'vocation' or 'calling' is not amiss when thinking about being an MP or being the president of a country; they are 'elected' to REPRESENT the people.
In this regard I would urge you to consider carefully what the 'reserves' of the country is really all about. Whilst I do not disagree about the need to very conservatively 'guard' these reserves I also think that a small proportion of it should be deployed to enhance the wellbeing of the most needy in society and especially the elderly. After all, was it not they who with their thrift, sacrifice and hard work in the 60s, 70s,and 80s especially that has made possible the success that Singapore now is? Should society not now repay them in some small measure for their contribution to its success?
In Britain where I live, people who retire have a small 'state pension' and various allowances (like heating allowance for winter, free healthcare etc.) to help them cope with the cost of living so they can live a modest but dignified life. After all, even those who are not considered 'talent' have still a right to live a dignified and fulfilling life.
So, Mr Tan, should you be elected to the role of President, and I wish you well in this endeavour, would you please consider how to not just safeguard our national reserves but also to wisely deploy it to meaningful use. After all, the accumulation of wealth is not a goal in its own right but a means to fulfilling the average Singaporean dream of living a sufficient, meaningful and fulfilling life in an economically vibrant, gracious, self-confident, well-balanced, and caring society.
In closing I would like to share with you a quote which has inspired me all these years since living away from home. It reminds us that being successful alone is not enough.
‘The motive of success is not enough. It produces a short-sighted world which destroys the sources of its
own prosperity…A great society is a society in which its men of business think greatly about its function. Low thoughts mean low behaviour, and after a brief orgy of exploitation, low behaviour means a descending standard of life’ (Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas,1933)
I live away from Singapore but have been following recent events especially the Elections and also now the Presidential Elections. I have read your statement and see much to be heartened by it. In particular, I entirely agree that there is a need to recover the sense of public service that has been lost in the kind of 'unbridled' meritocracy that has led to frankly quite obscene ministerial salaries especially when the ordinary working citizen is struggling and trying to cope with the cost of housing and generally the cost of living.
I go back to Singapore for about two months every year and cannot fail to notice that in the last 5 years in particular even hawker centre food prices have risen very noticeably and on the low income of those at the bottom strata of society this is a real struggle as I gather from the taxi drivers who often hold two jobs to keep their families going. For a country that seems so economically successful it is quite shameful that the elderly, the less fortunate and the socially-burdened should have to live the way they do.
I know that you have been active in championing the cause of ordinary people (like those who have lost money in the recent financial scandal) and it certainly appears as if you genuinely do care for the people. I share your principles of honesty and integrity and public service (indeed i think the idea of a 'vocation' or 'calling' is not amiss when thinking about being an MP or being the president of a country; they are 'elected' to REPRESENT the people.
In this regard I would urge you to consider carefully what the 'reserves' of the country is really all about. Whilst I do not disagree about the need to very conservatively 'guard' these reserves I also think that a small proportion of it should be deployed to enhance the wellbeing of the most needy in society and especially the elderly. After all, was it not they who with their thrift, sacrifice and hard work in the 60s, 70s,and 80s especially that has made possible the success that Singapore now is? Should society not now repay them in some small measure for their contribution to its success?
In Britain where I live, people who retire have a small 'state pension' and various allowances (like heating allowance for winter, free healthcare etc.) to help them cope with the cost of living so they can live a modest but dignified life. After all, even those who are not considered 'talent' have still a right to live a dignified and fulfilling life.
So, Mr Tan, should you be elected to the role of President, and I wish you well in this endeavour, would you please consider how to not just safeguard our national reserves but also to wisely deploy it to meaningful use. After all, the accumulation of wealth is not a goal in its own right but a means to fulfilling the average Singaporean dream of living a sufficient, meaningful and fulfilling life in an economically vibrant, gracious, self-confident, well-balanced, and caring society.
In closing I would like to share with you a quote which has inspired me all these years since living away from home. It reminds us that being successful alone is not enough.
‘The motive of success is not enough. It produces a short-sighted world which destroys the sources of its
own prosperity…A great society is a society in which its men of business think greatly about its function. Low thoughts mean low behaviour, and after a brief orgy of exploitation, low behaviour means a descending standard of life’ (Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas,1933)
Very best regards
Robert Chia
Professor Robert Chia, PhD FRSAProfessor of Management
Strathclyde Business School
University of Strathclyde
SCOTLAND
Land banking in the UK
.....The Financial Services Authority (UK) does not regulate land as an investment, but it does regulate the operation of collective investment schemes (CISs), which is how it is able to pursue landbanking firms........
Justice and the rule of law
A few people have asked for my personal views on the following:
a) Internal Security Act
b) Mandatory death sentence, i.e. the President's power to grant a pardon
c) Operation Spectrum - arrest of the Marxist conspirators
b) Mandatory death sentence, i.e. the President's power to grant a pardon
c) Operation Spectrum - arrest of the Marxist conspirators
The general principle is - we need laws to be passed for the good of the country and the people. The laws have to be fair and have to be exercised honestly and fairly.
My view on the first two items are similar to the views set out here. I have discussed these two matters with VSL and he has put them into the appropriate words. My views on Operation Spectrum are set out here and are based on the limited facts that are available to me.
I wish to add that these types of decisions should be debated and decided by Parliament, which is elected by the people to play this role, and should not depend on the personal views of an Elected President (whoever he may be).
Tan Kin Lian
My statements - Presidential Election
I have issued a few statements in connection with my participation in the Presidential Election. They are posted here: http://www.tankinlian.com/Information.aspx?CatID=16
Some people have been misquoting my intentions (often unknowingly) in the social and mainstream media. I urge them to check the facts and read my statements correctly before they pass any opinions about my intentions.
I also urge my well wishers to help me in pointing out the facts to the people who made these opinions based on misunderstanding of the facts.
Tan Kin Lian
Some people have been misquoting my intentions (often unknowingly) in the social and mainstream media. I urge them to check the facts and read my statements correctly before they pass any opinions about my intentions.
I also urge my well wishers to help me in pointing out the facts to the people who made these opinions based on misunderstanding of the facts.
Tan Kin Lian
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Millionaires in Singapore
Dear Mr Tan,
ref your blog post about newspaper articles highlighting the number of "millionaire households" in Singapore, this is the BCG report that claims that 15.5% of S'pore households have assets under management of over US$1mil.
The definition of AuM (see page 6) seems to include properties that are not their own residences.
Therefore I would conclude that its the appreciation of investment properties plus the strong S$ which have contributed to this large percentage. However, this is not a true reflection of wealth as I would expect that the vast majority of these investment properties are also leveraged.
May I also take the opportunity to wish you all the best for the upcoming Presidential Elections!
best regards,
sidat
ref your blog post about newspaper articles highlighting the number of "millionaire households" in Singapore, this is the BCG report that claims that 15.5% of S'pore households have assets under management of over US$1mil.
The definition of AuM (see page 6) seems to include properties that are not their own residences.
Therefore I would conclude that its the appreciation of investment properties plus the strong S$ which have contributed to this large percentage. However, this is not a true reflection of wealth as I would expect that the vast majority of these investment properties are also leveraged.
May I also take the opportunity to wish you all the best for the upcoming Presidential Elections!
best regards,
sidat
Powers of the Elected President
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1134223/1/.html
In the early 1980s, Prof Jayakumar, who was then the law minister, was involved in drafting the White Papers and constitutional amendments on the Elected Presidency.
He said some candidates seem to imply that the president is a separate centre of power, distinct from the government and that he has certain executive powers. But Prof Jayakumar said this is not the case.
He said the president does have some discretionary custodial powers, mainly to do with reserves and key appointments.
He also has some custodial powers over detentions under the Internal Security Act, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigations and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony restraining orders.
Other than these specific areas, the president constitutionally has to act on the advice of the Cabinet and this is the legal position.
Prof Jayakumar said it would be good if Singaporeans, and especially aspiring candidates, are clear about this.
Otherwise, wrong expectations will be created about exactly what the president can and cannot do.
REPLY BY TAN KIN LIAN
In the early 1980s, Prof Jayakumar, who was then the law minister, was involved in drafting the White Papers and constitutional amendments on the Elected Presidency.
He said some candidates seem to imply that the president is a separate centre of power, distinct from the government and that he has certain executive powers. But Prof Jayakumar said this is not the case.
He said the president does have some discretionary custodial powers, mainly to do with reserves and key appointments.
He also has some custodial powers over detentions under the Internal Security Act, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigations and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony restraining orders.
Other than these specific areas, the president constitutionally has to act on the advice of the Cabinet and this is the legal position.
Prof Jayakumar said it would be good if Singaporeans, and especially aspiring candidates, are clear about this.
Otherwise, wrong expectations will be created about exactly what the president can and cannot do.
REPLY BY TAN KIN LIAN
I am aware of the role of the Elected President and the limitation of the President's powers as prescribed in the constitution. My understanding is the same as expressed by Mr. Jayakumar. I thank the former Senior Minister, who I respect very much, for explaining these facts for the understanding of the people of Singapore.
Some people have expressed the view that the President who is directly elected by people, hopefully with a clear majority, should have the moral authority to influence the government in reviewing some of its policies that have a significant negative impact on the lives and the future of Singaporeans.
I hope that, within the limited constitutional powers, the Elected President can have an influence in these matters and that his or her contribution would be welcomed by the Government. Hopefully, this would benefit the people of Singapore and the improve our system of governance.
I will be giving more thought to what can or cannot be done, and how the objectives can be achieved and may issue a more detailed statement on this matter in a few days time.
Temasek Review Online Poll
Here is the result of a different poll, not connected with Facebook:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/08/if-the-presidential-election-were-to-be-called/
The online website tends to have mostly anti-PAP readers, judging from the postings, so the results will not reflect the views of the general population.
The online website tends to have mostly anti-PAP readers, judging from the postings, so the results will not reflect the views of the general population.
Safeguarding our reserves - investment policy
Dear Mr Tan,
I applaud you for stepping forward to offer your candidacy in the upcoming Presidential Election. I am glad we will likely see a contest. May the best man win for the good of our homeland.
I am an investment manager and wealth manager working for a global financial institution. In the course of my professional career, I have played multiple roles including managing money for institutions and wealthy individuals. For all these investors, there are always varying investment objectives and targets as the funds always have differences in use.
This should be no different when dealing with funds belonging to the nation, hard-earned monies from our forefathers. Just like a patriarch who stores his wealth, hands over to future generations, one would imagine that the purpose (investment objective) of such a fund would be: saving for the future, saving for "rainy days" and enhancing portfolio value to retain and grow future purchasing power.
While I believe that it is beyond to remit of the Elected President to involved himself in the operations of our sovereign wealth funds, I hope the EP will question GIC and Temasek on the basis of their performance and exposure reports which I would imagine is submitted to the EP.
I echo your call to urge GIC and Temasek to adopt a more conservative investment approach instead of going for the "big bang". In lay man's term, the way I would re-phrase the investment objectives I stated above for the SWFs is : "first, don't lose money. Second, retain its value. Third, grow and enhance the value sensibly". Given these objectives, looking back, it is questionable why GIC and Temasek went "big" into investments in Citi, UBS and Merrill Lynch.
It is not too long ago that you were helping investors with bad investments in Lehman mini-bonds. It was on the back of that episode that we saw the sudden emergence of terms like "suitability check" for investors. My question is: Do the "aggressive" approaches adopted by our SWFs meet the "suitability check" for our reserves? Do our reserves deserve sensible and conservative investment objectives I had stated above? If we stretch our imagination further, it beats me why town councils went into Lehman minibond which were clearly not bonds even though the names implied so.
Another question relates to Temasek. It was set up many years ago as a holding company for our strategic holdings in companies like SIA, Singtel and DBS. This was a good move. As we know, the government divested some of these holdings in the 1990s and Temasek started to use the proceeds of those sale to go regional and invested in companies like the ICICI, the former ABC Learning and others. So, Temasek has deviated from the original "path". While we applaud Temasek for doing their annual reports, I think it is best to segregate the strategic holdings like SIA from other active investment decisions like buying and writing off ABC Learning. The rationale is very simple. I am quite sure Temasek management has no powers to actively trade SIA, DBS and other strategic holdings. So, their value-add to the citizens is in the non-strategic holdings.
We should know how they have performed without the strategic holdings so that they get the rightful credit and blame. Ideally, it would be better for Temasek to retain its original role. They can invest excess cash from sale of strategic assets but it must be properly accounted for.
A better way is that Temasek can invest those proceeds via a separate vehicle so that that vehicle alone can capture all the active investment decisions taken. Temasek already owns two fund management units, Fullerton Fund Management and Seatown. Why don't either or both of these be wholly responsible for those active investments. This will provide full transparency on the real performance of the Temasek management minus the strategic holdings.
During a recent press conference Dr Tony Tan hosted to announce some management changes in the GIC, his Chief Investment Officer categorically stated that the fund has returned to pre-crisis level. What was the reference point? How do we define pre-crisis period? It was publicly reported that the fund has slightly more than half the fund invested in global equities. If we simply look at the MSCI World stock index, the highest level the index attained pre-crisis was in Oct 2007 at 1686.32. Yesterday, the same index was at 1301.84. Assuming half their investments (i.e. in equities), the other half must have done extremely well to claw back return performance back to pre-crisis level. Question is what kind of "turbo-charged" investments did they make that helped so much? Granted it might have performed well to help portfolio returns, were they suitable investments for a fund like the GIC? I have to assume that the claim about the fund being back to pre-crisis levels. Thus, my concern about the type of risks they took to achieve that.
Wishing you success in the elections.
HZN.
I applaud you for stepping forward to offer your candidacy in the upcoming Presidential Election. I am glad we will likely see a contest. May the best man win for the good of our homeland.
I am an investment manager and wealth manager working for a global financial institution. In the course of my professional career, I have played multiple roles including managing money for institutions and wealthy individuals. For all these investors, there are always varying investment objectives and targets as the funds always have differences in use.
This should be no different when dealing with funds belonging to the nation, hard-earned monies from our forefathers. Just like a patriarch who stores his wealth, hands over to future generations, one would imagine that the purpose (investment objective) of such a fund would be: saving for the future, saving for "rainy days" and enhancing portfolio value to retain and grow future purchasing power.
While I believe that it is beyond to remit of the Elected President to involved himself in the operations of our sovereign wealth funds, I hope the EP will question GIC and Temasek on the basis of their performance and exposure reports which I would imagine is submitted to the EP.
I echo your call to urge GIC and Temasek to adopt a more conservative investment approach instead of going for the "big bang". In lay man's term, the way I would re-phrase the investment objectives I stated above for the SWFs is : "first, don't lose money. Second, retain its value. Third, grow and enhance the value sensibly". Given these objectives, looking back, it is questionable why GIC and Temasek went "big" into investments in Citi, UBS and Merrill Lynch.
It is not too long ago that you were helping investors with bad investments in Lehman mini-bonds. It was on the back of that episode that we saw the sudden emergence of terms like "suitability check" for investors. My question is: Do the "aggressive" approaches adopted by our SWFs meet the "suitability check" for our reserves? Do our reserves deserve sensible and conservative investment objectives I had stated above? If we stretch our imagination further, it beats me why town councils went into Lehman minibond which were clearly not bonds even though the names implied so.
Another question relates to Temasek. It was set up many years ago as a holding company for our strategic holdings in companies like SIA, Singtel and DBS. This was a good move. As we know, the government divested some of these holdings in the 1990s and Temasek started to use the proceeds of those sale to go regional and invested in companies like the ICICI, the former ABC Learning and others. So, Temasek has deviated from the original "path". While we applaud Temasek for doing their annual reports, I think it is best to segregate the strategic holdings like SIA from other active investment decisions like buying and writing off ABC Learning. The rationale is very simple. I am quite sure Temasek management has no powers to actively trade SIA, DBS and other strategic holdings. So, their value-add to the citizens is in the non-strategic holdings.
We should know how they have performed without the strategic holdings so that they get the rightful credit and blame. Ideally, it would be better for Temasek to retain its original role. They can invest excess cash from sale of strategic assets but it must be properly accounted for.
A better way is that Temasek can invest those proceeds via a separate vehicle so that that vehicle alone can capture all the active investment decisions taken. Temasek already owns two fund management units, Fullerton Fund Management and Seatown. Why don't either or both of these be wholly responsible for those active investments. This will provide full transparency on the real performance of the Temasek management minus the strategic holdings.
During a recent press conference Dr Tony Tan hosted to announce some management changes in the GIC, his Chief Investment Officer categorically stated that the fund has returned to pre-crisis level. What was the reference point? How do we define pre-crisis period? It was publicly reported that the fund has slightly more than half the fund invested in global equities. If we simply look at the MSCI World stock index, the highest level the index attained pre-crisis was in Oct 2007 at 1686.32. Yesterday, the same index was at 1301.84. Assuming half their investments (i.e. in equities), the other half must have done extremely well to claw back return performance back to pre-crisis level. Question is what kind of "turbo-charged" investments did they make that helped so much? Granted it might have performed well to help portfolio returns, were they suitable investments for a fund like the GIC? I have to assume that the claim about the fund being back to pre-crisis levels. Thus, my concern about the type of risks they took to achieve that.
Wishing you success in the elections.
HZN.
President's pardon and ISA
Dear Mr Tan Kin Lian,
Please consider the following two issues as part of your Presidential campaign.
President’s Pardon
Currently, the President’s pardon on capital offences is decided by the Cabinet. The President just acts on the advice of the Cabinet. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent of the Cabinet. However many citizens are not comfortable with this approach, especially since the Judges are appointed by members of the Cabinet and/or the relevant ministries. This appears to make the clemency review process biased, as there is no independence and transparency in the deliberation process. Furthermore, calling it the President’s Pardon gives the incorrect impression that the President is deciding on the matter independently, when in fact it is not ie the Cabinet is deciding on the matter.
Currently, the President’s pardon on capital offences is decided by the Cabinet. The President just acts on the advice of the Cabinet. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent of the Cabinet. However many citizens are not comfortable with this approach, especially since the Judges are appointed by members of the Cabinet and/or the relevant ministries. This appears to make the clemency review process biased, as there is no independence and transparency in the deliberation process. Furthermore, calling it the President’s Pardon gives the incorrect impression that the President is deciding on the matter independently, when in fact it is not ie the Cabinet is deciding on the matter.
To bring independence and transparency into this process, may I suggest the President, together with his Council of Presidential Advisers, review clemency cases independently of the Cabinet. The President may seek advice from any other resource as he deems fit to assist in his decision-making process, as long as it is not from the Cabinet/Judiciary. I believe this will be fairer to the convict, as there will be a separate set of minds looking at the matter. This will provide more credence to the clemency process and reflect accurately the term “President’s Pardon”. The constitution may have to be amended to achieve this.
ISA Act
The ISA Act should be reviewed to reduce its scope. It should not be used to detain political opponents and dissidents.
It may be used to detain potential “criminals” who have intent and plans to commit crimes but have not done so yet. Such potential “criminals” may commit crimes if let loose. They may be detained without trial, even though no offence has been committed and no charges have been pressed against them. An example of such cases would be terrorists. Another example would be in the case of suspected “criminals” where the authorities are in the long-drawn process of gathering evidence against him. In the interests of national security, and since the law has no other way of handling such cases, detention without trial may be justified.
The constitution should be amended to limit the scope of the ISA Act to such cases only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)