SG top in foreign reserve per capita

last SG · 2007-02-20T14:00:14+00:00

You are talking about per capita income, not 'per capita', like that, i can also say: ''per capita can also be understood as cars per capita'' ''per capita...

AndrewPKYap SG

How much of the profits come from "monopolistic" corporations or corporations that were once monopolies and any good manager would have generated huge profits without taking any risks and without any business acumen?

Any good manager in any of the MNC's being paid 10% of Ho Ching's salary would have been able to do a very good job. In fact a Perm Sec simply keeping an eye on those corporation would do.

They are monopolistic, they run on automatic.
Profits that comes from Singaporeans?

Losses were paid to foreigners?

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

U really make me wanna laugh... u really did... I dig for u a trap 2 replies ago, [b]warn u about it and then now u fell head over heel into it... I don't know wat to say u know...

i write tis 24 feb 11.00
In case u starting to be dumb and say "Temasek is 100% owned by gov", I need to state tat there r many companies within temasek tat is not 100% owned by gov.

And u know wat, u really state tat Temasek is 1005 owned by gov !! The answer to tis question is answered in the reply

25 feb 0133 am

Any company under Temasek tat is not 100% full have the need to find out the statement of the Temasek. Any company tat may be bought over by temasek have the right to know its fiancial status. Any company tat want to buy over temasek companies shares r informed by the report. Any companies tat want to work with Temasek r guided by its report. But u don't knwo anything. U wanna argue about stupid facts which everyone else in the world knows, then so be it

[/b]

Well, I tried my best to understand your command of English. Your replies are so bad that I have to guess the meaning most of the time.

Ermmm....

If a Temasek wants to buy my company. Why would I bother to look at their financial statements? If I have a company that Temasek wants to buy and willing to pay me a good amount of cash, why would I look up on their financial statements to perform due diligence. It's normally Temasek that has to look at the financial statements of the company they are acquiring. The original point of contention was, "you said that Temasek has a legal obligation", I said they don't have because they are 100% owned by the government. You say that Temasek has a legal obligation to the companies it doesn't hold 100%. I didn't know an associate or subsidiary can check up on the holding company. With your command of English, I thought you meant that there were other shareholders in Temasek which has a right to check up on them. You came up with a totally non relevant point to side track the issue.
I think that is what most PAP supporters, when encountered with facts and not being able to provide a suitable response do. They sidetrack the whole issue.

Hehehe

stupidissmart SG

How much of the profits come from "monopolistic"; corporations or corporations that were once monopolies and any good manager would have generated huge profits without taking any risks and without any business acumen?

Any good manager in any of the MNC's being paid 10% of Ho Ching's salary would have been able to do a very good job. In fact a Perm Sec simply keeping an eye on those corporation would do.

Tat is your assumption. Another can easily say the whole capital of Temasek will go bankrupt if someone else takes over the helm. "Wat if" scenario is pretty worthless. (Your example is IF a good manage take over Ho Ching job, he will not make any loss and get unbelievable gain)

Realistically speaking, there r likely companies tat have a huger capital than Temasek, rule by CEO from private sector and may not achieve the result of Temasek. Remember the return of investment from Temasek is suppose to be stellar Rolling Eyes

stupidissmart SG

If a Temasek wants to buy my company. Why would I bother to look at their financial statements? If I have a company that Temasek wants to buy and willing to pay me a good amount of cash, why would I look up on their financial statements to perform due diligence. It's normally Temasek that has to look at the financial statements of the company they are acquiring. The original point of contention was, "you said that Temasek has a legal obligation", I said they don't have because they are 100% owned by the government. You say that Temasek has a legal obligation to the companies it doesn't hold 100%. I didn't know an associate or subsidiary can check up on the holding company. With your command of English, I thought you meant that there were other shareholders in Temasek which has a right to check up on them. You came up with a totally non relevant point to side track the issue.
I think that is what most PAP supporters, when encountered with facts and not being able to provide a suitable response do. They sidetrack the whole issue.

Why not ? Who knows it is not a fraud company and cannot pay the money promised for the company when it was sold over. DO u think I wanna spend the effort calculating and consolidating the price to be bough over only to realise the company can't afford a fraction of it ?

I think u r the one tat side tracked the issue bah. U don't dare to even answer the other questions on which investors who r relevant to temasek and will hold the report accountable. U cannot understand situation and do not know the facts of the world. Wat info have I given out is wrong ? Wat info given out by u is wrong ?

(inflated price for upgrading, no power loss during transmission of electricity, price for power plant, suzhou, temasek invesments, investment by singapore power, example of invesment pulling, economy of air, efficeincy of water cycle)

Atobe SG

Originally posted by saffron60:
To atobe:

Since made such an unnecessarily long reply, i have to break my reply into a few parts, bear with me. There's a lot of rubbish in what you write so i have to extract some more 'meaningful' paragraphs from your reply. If you were more straightforward and succinct in your replies, then i wouldn't have to do this. You accuse me of 'bastardizing' your writing, how am i suppose to prove my point if i'm not allowed to extract the two paragraphs to show how you used the term 'national reserves' in different ways?[/b]

Are you blaming me for your own stupidity and stubborness in conducting your arguments in the manner that you did ?

It was your own insistence that I should have used the words MONETARY RESERVES instead of using NATIONAL RESERVES that started your long and unnecessary effort to debunk my position - which you are doing without having a clear understanding of the English Language.

Instead of 'bastardizing' my post with inaccurate extraction and irrelevant remarks, at least be more honest with yourself with what you have extracted out of my post on 21 February 2007 - 03.58 AM

Compare what you have asked with what I had replied to you in FULL :

3.Pl tell mme if Temasek is losing or making $$ all these years??

What is the $$ amount that have been made all these years, compared to the amount of Reserves spent to make these $$ ?

There is a difference when one spent $100 to make $7, compared to $100 spent and lost PLUS another $100 thrown in to make the $7.

How will anyone of us know how much actually is spent and lost, when there is so much secrecy and NON-transparency in the dealings of Temasek ?

4. Secrecy is part of Economic Defense

Billions or cash or cash convertiables are the main targets of many
out there,on the pretext to promote democracy and freedom in SG.

They will be very happy if we disclose to them how,where,what we
manage assets!

Even sand supply is cut off in order make us say YES.
What happen if they can read us all nake??

Only a parrot and a tape recorder can repeat what is said so accurately; and a simple mind will mix sand with money.

Sand again ? It is funny that you should be so fascinated with sand like some mushroom in this sgForum.

Comparing country size, Singapore can claim vulnerability by revealing its National Reserves, yet countries of near similar physical or population size find no necessity to keep such matters secret.

The Singapore Government arrogantly believe in the necessity of secrecy to the extent that it even refuse to inform the Elected President - who has been legislated to look after Singapore's National Reserves.

Ironically, the Elected President's position and duties are the creation of this Singapore Ruling Party aka the Government.

Secrecy cuts both ways, it benefits those who have reasons to conceal and keep all things secret till infinity; and there are those with genuine interest of the immediate security but will allow revelation after a statutory period that pose no further threat to present security.

Unfortunately, Singapore has no interest to open up the archives of secrecy even for academic research.

After extracting two of my paragraphs that are now repeated in bold and larger text, you continued to ask in your post of 27 February 2007 12.28 PM -

''in this context, you seem to change the meaning of the term to ''military reserves''.

My two replies are now printed ABOVE in full - which you had previously 'bastardized' - it makes me wonder : how did your brilliant reading forced you to associate any reference to ''military reserves'' ?

Did you extract the wrong paragraphs from my entire post ?

''You seem to be very single minded too with your insistence on only a single term with the words 'national reserves' and will refuse to see the statement that NATIONAL RESERVES in your interpretation is an alternative to the words NATIONAL PARKS or NATIONAL RESERVATIONS as commonly found in the USA.

The same words when used in the financial and economic context - as in this thread - will be taken as Nation's Reserves.

Am I the only person on earth using this term 'National Reserves' in this narrow Financial context ?''

Fair enough if you want to use the term in the american context.

Unfortunately, it was your REPEATED insistence that my choice of NATIONAL RESERVES was incorrect, and throughout all your writings you had RIDICULED me that these ''NATIONAL RESERVES'' should ONLY be interpreted as wild life parks or nature reserves - the only ACTUAL MEANING according to you.

Now that PM LHL had been quoted in ChannelnewsAsia to use these two words in the same manner and context - has your brilliant command of English anything more to dispute ?

''The words per capita would already have drawn anyone's attention that this is referring to ECONOMICS, and when put together in the opening post by lionnoisy - ''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value'' my post of NATIONAL RESERVES was referring to a NATION's RESERVES.

Only in your preferred SELF-IMPOSED restrictive understanding of the English Language - and with a SINGLE MINDED NARROW INTERPRETATION - will prevent you from accepting NATIONAL RESERVES being interpreted - UNDER DIFFERENT CONTEXT - to be either monetary reserves or military reserves of A NATION.''

You also said in your second reply to me that:

''Can you appreciate these words 'National Reserves' spoken in different circumstances can mean different meanings - if not used within the context of this thread started by lionnoisy ?

Have you not heard of the National Reserves in the Military ?

With your intelligence and command of English, we can expect you to assume it to be the piece of green real estate that is reserved for military training.''

So, it was you who first said that national reserves are related to the military. So i assumed that sometimes you were talking about military reserves.

Are the comparison of the replies not obvious that I was debunking your effort to limit the interpretation of the words NATIONAL RESERVES only to your preferred understanding to be only nature reserves or wild life parks ?

It is amazing that you could be confused in these two remarks from my post when I had tried to inform you that under DIFFERENT CONTEXT the words NATIONAL RESERVES can ALSO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE - other than your preferred wild life park and nature reserve only - AND your insistence that I should use the words MONETARY RESERVES instead of NATIONAL RESERVES.

My words in the paragraphs quoted above are obvious, as I had stated very clearly for all to read. It seems that you are the only person who is confused, as no one else seems to be coming forth to support your position.

Atobe SG

continuation

''Do you not agree that empty boast of HIGH Per Capita income based on National Reserves is NOTHING more then DELUDING ourselves ?

Boasting high per capita income based on national reserves doesn't make sense to me, but then it was you who said high per capita income, not lionnoisy. You are the one who extracted this:

The following was posted on 20 February 2007 02.31a.m. - found on Page 1 of this thread

From the following report "Singapore : New Poor and Social Cohesion":

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been highlighted that the Per capita GDP in 2000 at around US$23,000 was higher that many First World countries [i]but the remuneration received by Singapore workers or wage share in GDP was about 42 percent, which is unusually low compared to developed countries and lowest among the Asian NIEs.

Some economists have therefore remarked that Singapore, while having attained a First World per capita income, in reality has kept in place an income structure that is closer to that of a Third World country (Department of Statistics, 2001).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from what lionnoisy wrote in his first post he calculated the per capita of foreign exchange and gold reserves, not per capita income on national reserves. You were referring to per capita of GDP in the above quote, which is not the same as per capita of foreign exchange and gold reserves. You should also know that per capita income is a subset per capita GDP. Per capita GDP also includes gov spending. FYI, the correct terms actually are GDP per capita, not per capita GDP and Income per capita not per capita income. But i shall continue to use the terms as originally used in our discussions to avoid confusion.

Let us be more accurate with what is being referred to.

In lionnoisy's opening post that started this thread, he used the words - - ''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value''

Without complicating the matter further, in your expert view, what do you think form the NATIONAL RESERVES - if you are willing to accept this term other then wild life park and nature reserves ?

Comparing the wealth of the citizens basing on different measures of either ''Per capita GDP'' or ''Per capita on foreign exchange and gold reserves'' - is sheer nonsense, as you had also agreed in your statement -
''Boasting high per capita income based on national reserves doesn't make sense to me''.

If you are agreeable to my position, why should you be agitated with my use of the word ''HIGH per capita income'' ?

Why did you not complete the statement to read in total as - ''empty boast of HIGH Per Capita income based on National Reserves is NOTHING more then DELUDING ourselves'' ?

You have already agreed to my comparison that it is useless to boast about HIGH PER CAPITA income - what are you complaining about ?

If you are not a classic case of a nit going on a nit picking exercise, with no base to stand on but to make nonsensical criticism without any clear understanding of the statements posted.

In another post you said:

''Without transparency, any discussion can only be based on the few information that is available; but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''

What is your problem with this statement ? Are you disputing this statement of fact ?

Atobe SG

continuation

You seem to be putting words in lionnoisy's mouth, after that you accuse him by saying:

"the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. "

What are the words that I have put into lionnoisy's mouth ?

Is it not TRUE that a ''boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary'' ?

You did print your views on this subject as - ''Boasting high per capita income based on national reserves doesn't make sense to me''.

You can be quite a ding, when you continue to dong.

And you wrote to me saying:

''If you will relook at the thread started by lionnoisy, this "Per Capita Income with foreign exchange reserves' was his topic and based on his interpretation of what he has read from the referenced CIA site - Reserves of foreign exchange and gold - that he gave in his opening post.

Was he incorrect ?''
Are you trying to brainwash both me and lionnoisy to believe something that was not said in the first place???????? Maybe you have brainwashed lionnoisy but not me.

You are the first person who tried to draw a link between per capita income with per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold and then, tried to confuse us further by accusing lionnoisy of linking per capita income with national reserves. Who can understand what kind of quack theories you are coming up with. And you can boast that your economics is so great.....

You seem to be continuously fixxated with the idea that I am ''the first person who tried to draw a link between per capita income with per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold''.

Did you read the opening post from lionnoisy that started this thread ?

Did you not read the first line that was printed in his statement ?

''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value''

Am I the first person, or should not this credit go to lionnoisy ?

If you are not too clever in reading, can we trust your judgement with facts ?

In your latest reply, there's not much content in what you write, mostly just personal attacks. I don't want to spend that much time personally attacking you because i don't want to be dragged down to your sinkingly low level, which is the pits. You are indeed exceptionally arrogant, which is proven when you said:

''To the best of my knowledge, there are so many participants in this Speakers' Corner, and since the date of my joining this sgForum; and over the five odd years, I had some fun grinding four or five frauds - who are no better than parrots. Yet I have no problems with quite a few regular contributors, who have shown their brilliance in ORIGINAL THINKING; and have largely not challenged the personal views of the larger population of regular contributors.''[/b]

Yes, I had fun grinding those 4 or 5 frauds - characters like you and OM who make baseless statements with such hollow authority.

Four or five frauds from a daily participation by about 100 persons - with some posts logged in repeatedly to a count of 5,000 plus - by your standard of intelligence, I certainly am arrogant.

Then again, is your judgement or views of my person of any consequence ?

In the first place, I was having a civil debate with lionnoisy when you stepped in with your first post on 22 February 2007 04.29AM and insulted me with a challenge that you have now been exposed to be a fraud.

What is there for you to complain about my arrogance, when you cannot even hold your seat together after making a boastful stand about two simple words that you have no understanding about ?

You will sound more convincing if you had researched your facts and got them straight before challenging me, and if you stop wriggling for an escape route by continuously attempting to blame me for your own errors - perhaps I may leave you with an escape hatch to exit with some of your ''saffron'' saved.

saffron60 SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Are the comparison of the replies not obvious that I was debunking your effort to limit the interpretation of the words [b]NATIONAL RESERVES only to your preferred understanding to be only nature reserves or wild life parks ?

It is amazing that you could be confused in these two remarks from my post when I had tried to inform you that under DIFFERENT CONTEXT the words NATIONAL RESERVES can ALSO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE - other than your preferred wild life park and nature reserve only - AND your insistence that I should use the words MONETARY RESERVES instead of NATIONAL RESERVES.

My words in the paragraphs quoted above are obvious, as I had stated very clearly for all to read. It seems that you are the only person who is confused, as no one else seems to be coming forth to support your position.

[/b]

We have already established that i made a wrong assumption on your interpretation on 'national reserves', why do you still want to go on about it? To boost youe ego?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by saffron60:
We have already established that i made a wrong assumption on your interpretation on 'national reserves', why do you still want to go on about it? To boost youe ego?

Did you concede to this point in your very long reply to my exposure of your stupidity ?

Which statement in your long writing had made such an acknowledgement that you made a wrong assumption ?

My ego has always been fine, but I am having fun taking you on with your baseless attacks to my position.

Next time, do some research before you make any unprovoked personal challenge to anyone's position

Atobe SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Original post by Atobe
Where did you obtain YOUR ''facts'' from ?

From the account of temasek. I don't think it is not a figure not to be trusted since it has legal obligations. And I think most of your accusation comes without any evidence or based on any studies.

For a state owned company that is known for lack of transparency, you seem to place alot of faith on the details that they are prepared to report.

2) Overall the investment made earn profit than made loss

3) The initial amount of money given to Temasek is 350 million and gov never top up tis amount after tat

Where did you get your facts from concerning the following that you had posted on 23 February 2007 11.19PM ?

Temasek has never been open about the losses of investments that they have made - unless they pop up on the radar screen to threaten the Government's position; and even then, this Government will claim that Temasek is a commercial body and makes its own commercial decision.

This is ridiculous as Temasek was formed by the Government to manage the annual surplus accumulated by the Government, and the working capital of Temasek comes from the surplus from the Government.

At a declared 7 per cent return on investment since the creation of Temasek in 1974, is it possible for that initial input or $350 to grow to the current size allowing Mdm Ho to go on a worldwide shopping spree to buy up big and small foreign enterprises, wholly purchase or part share in the various businesses, and in the process spend more then US$10 BILLION ANNUALLY ?

Do you want to have a detailed list of grand losses that are publicly known ?

Losses are not only restricted to those loss making ventures, but also to the payments or purchase of grossly over valued investments that are far above market prices, or beyond reasonable market valuation.

there r loses which I agree. But there r profit which u have to agree. Tis is investment. Sometime u win, sometime u lose. Overall they make profit for their investments. Tat is the bottom line

The crux of the matter is not as simply as you put it.

When so much has been lost in poor business judgement without being reported, and the meagre amount is so loudly trumpetted - and with no independent bodies to oversee the operation of Temasek, surely this alone should raise questions ?

You will simply dismiss it in such a callous manner ?

Yes, when a smart kid learn to hide all the red marks, and show only the 4 blue marks in the Report Card out of 12 subjects, only a dumb parent will not question the smart kid and will praise him for his wonderful efforts in getting the blue marks - never mind if the other remaining subjects do not appear in the Year-end Report.

Are you suggesting that Temasek's current portfolio is a result of its own effort to grow its original capital to the current size in its portfolio ?

If this is so, Temasek should have been more honest then to report a mere growth of only 18 per cent for last financial year - as it has more then S$500 BILLION under its care.

Yes. And I cannot open up your link. Furthermore I do not think tat singapore has 800 billion to play with. EVen in the para itself it already say they r estimates. In the annual report, they say tat singapore only give them 350 million in assets full stop.

Here is the link again ''Enhancing Singapore's Competitivenes : Some Fundamental Rethinking'' or http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/asep.2005.4.3.165?cookieSet=1

Even for a small Bio-Medical Firm such as Vical Inc - in which Temasek holds a majority share - it is careful to report future expected losses for 2007.

For a large State Investment Corporation such as Temasek Holding - it is has not fulfilled its obligation to be transparent in its dealings, hiding behind a cloak of secrecy claiming ''national security'' is but a lame excuse to be unprofessional.

Singapore has been making surpluses every year, which means that Temasek's account has been topped up every year.

You were saying ''gov never top up tis amount after tat'' ?

Making surplus means making profit. Wat has tat got to do with top up ? Even gov budget has been making surplus. So who top up singapore budget ? America ? I think tat is a need to differentiate between GIC and Temasek

When the Ministry of Finance confirms that Temasek and GIC is managing the Government surpluses, and you have also agreed that ''even gov budget has been making surplus'' - why are you denying that Temasek and GIC will also be managing these annual surplus.

If Temasek and GIC is managing the annual surplus from the Government - are you denying that its original portfolio of $340 MILLION has been topped up ? Are you in a state of denial ?

The fact is clear that we paid US$3 BILLION for Shin Corp, and since its purchase in early 2006, the investment has been drifting in limbo.

US$3 BILLION in fixed deposit at 0.5 per cent per annum would already have paid for the premium of a National Health and Hospitalisation Insurance Plan; instead of paying for someone's ego trip.

it is 1.88 billion USD. And during tat time it is a good idea which can give singapore much more returns than 0.5%. Now it is still providing Thai telecommunication and we do not know it is a good investment or bad investment

You must be privy to some insider information that makes you to remain hopelessly an optimist despite the gloomy outlook for Temasek - which is being forced to divest its 96 per cent ILLEGAL ownership of Shin Corp.

You are right that it was approximately US$1.9 BILLION that was paid by Temasek for a 96 per cent ownership of Shin Corp - that contravened Thai law on foreigners having a majority stake in Thai Corporations.

Several bad investments since its formation has forced Temasek also to tap the long term bond market, with some not too much publicity being placed.

With most Singaporeans trudging a daily routine, how many will take the trouble to keep track of all the news reports and actually link what has transpire over the last twenty years ? How many will remember or compare what has been said before to the current position held by this government ?

Atobe SG

continuation

Spending S$400,000 to name the Marina Bay was not so clever as part of the strategy making effort, which merely require brain storming by a team that is probably already paid more then S$400,000.

Try harder to sound convincing

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=346

The branding exercise for Marina Bay was not a process to identify a name. Rather, it was an exercise to create a 'competitive strategy' that will guide the development and marketing of Marina Bay. The 9-month long
branding process included the following steps:
a) researching into strategies used by competing cities;
b) interviews with stakeholders, real estate developers, potential investors and tenants both locally and internationally to obtain feedback on a competitive positioning for Marina Bay. Interviews with the broader community to understand what they would like to see at Marina Bay;
c) identifying the differentiating niche of Marina Bay and develop a set of brand identities (which includes validation of the place name "Marina Bay" ) and to market testing them ;
d) design a visual communication system to guide the presentation of marketing collaterals, our communication tone and strategies to give Marina Bay a distinctive identity.

When Singapore first contemplated building the Mass Rapid Transit system, it employed three different groups of foreign consultants - who were supposed to be experts in mass public transport.

After spending S$2 MILLION - the Government received three contradicting reports : the first group recommended an improvement to the public bus system, the second group recommended a parallel development of the public bus system and a limited building of a MRT system, with the third group leaning towards a more aggressive MRT development program.

The late President Ong Teng Cheong, who was an accomplished architect and urban planner, was tasked to head another committee that travelled across the globe to study the transport system of all the major metropolis centers in Europe, USA and Japan. The amount spent will have easily amounted to another MILLION or more.

Any frequent Singaporean traveller will experience and know of the established fact of life that for a city to grow and for new economic centers to developed - it is essential for a mass rapid transport system that is independent of the heavily congested road system.

Yet, this brilliance seems to be dim in the scholars annointed to be in the seat of Government. It seems that the Government being flushed with surplus cash, is heading in a direction of spending easily at the slightest fancy ?

A parallel could be drawn to the cash that was so easily milked from the charitable hearts of Singaporeans, resulting in NKF Durai frivolous spending of a few million dollars to travel to every exotic places on earth, with the frivolous reason of study trips - (studying the methods of aggressive marketing and fund raising).

With infrastructural costs planned to be US$20 Billion since it was first planned in 1994, can this amount be recoup in such a short time that begin since 2004, when it was ready to receive men.

The 20 billion is the money in invested from the foreign investors. I paste a link for your reading

He rejected a claim by a Singapore opposition leader that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money was wasted in the SIP project, saying investment in it from statutory boards and government-linked companies [b]so far was US$147 million.
...

At the end of May, 133 projects worth $3.76 billion had been committed to the SIP, which it is estimated will cost $20 billion to $30 billion over 20 years.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90803af1.htm[/b]

Did Singapore only spend US$147 MILLION in Suzhou ?

From the following research paper - Global Cities and Development States : Understanding Singapores Global Reach - the following paragraphs were noted :

The project started in May 1994 when Keppel Corporation, a major GLC with shipyard background, led a consortium of 24 Singapore companies to form the Singapore-Suzhou Township Development Company (SSTD). 10 of these 24 Singapore companies were GLCs and statutory boards and their share was S$115 million (The Straits Times, 15 January 1998 ).

The China Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park Development Company (CSSD) is a S$75-million joint venture between the Singapore consortium, SSTD (65%), and their Chinese counterpart, China Suzhou Industrial Park Company (CSIPC) comprising 11 state-owned enterprises mainly from Suzhou (35%). It is commissioned to develop an industrial township covering an area of approximately 70 square kilometres. The total cost of the township is estimated to be S$30 billion and it takes about 20-30 years to complete. When fully developed, the township will be able to support a population of 600,000 and provide employment for more than 360,000 people. In November 1994, three consortia led by Keppel Group were set up to develop utility plants in the township. It included a massive S$4.5 billion power plant with a generating capacity equal to almost all the electricity consumed in Singapore in 1993.

By June 1998, four years after the initial launch of the Suzhou township project, it became clear that the loss-making developer CSSD could not expect to make money in the near future (The Straits Times, 18 April 1998; 19 June 1998 ). The Singapore consortium invested about US$155 million into the CSSD (The Straits Times, 10 July 1999). By the end of June 1999, the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (CSSIP) had attracted 133 projects, with cumulative contractual investment exceeding US$3.76 billion (The Straits Times, 29 June 1999: 1). This investment commitment figure, however, was still far below the US$20 billion target. It is also unclear how much of these investment commitments will be realised during and after the Asian economic crisis. The CSSD required a new loan of US$100 million to meet it operating costs. In term of physical development, the CSSD had only prepared 11 square kilometres (about 15.7% of total master plan) for occupation by tenants. On 28 June 1999, the Singapore government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Jiangsu government to cut its stake in the Suzhou Industrial Park project from 65% to 35% and to hand over the management and control of the project to the Chinese government on 1 January 2001.

From the single investment by the Keppel Group for a S$4.5 BILLION Power Generating Plant to service the Suzhou area that is only able to develop 15.7% of the total master plan - will already mean a disastrous financial prospect.

With a smaller stake in the SIP, do you think that Singapore is entitled to any large payout in future profits earned by the SIP ?

Atobe SG

continuation

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

The losses that are known are already well publicized and happily forgotten, there remains the losses that are securely kept secret from a supposedly 'all inclusive society'.

I don't know man, u think singapore investment r all lousy and all will made loss after some time ?

With most of the available information taken from the painstaking researches by neutral parties, will you not form your own opinion in a non-partisan way ? Or will you still prefer to be blindsided by Official Statements made out of self-interest by Politicians who are masters in the art of politiking ?

There are many opportunities for investment, but it requires business acumen and experience to judge the potential of opportunities.

Sadly, after so many disasters experienced, we could have been more careful, more astute, and more diligent in the background preparation works.

Still, these are mere spoken words, and require a game plan to put into action.

From the facts gathered, it shows tat the investment made more profit than losses overall. If u do not believe in it, then u r challenging the annual report made by temasek or believe in all words tat show singapore made loss and refuse to believe in any words tat singapore made a profit. Is it really tat difficult to believe singapore make a profit ?

Everyone knows that Annual Reports have are specially dressed up WINDOW DRESSINGS - for window shoppers only.

The crux of the matters are held back so as not to affect the public views of the value of the company.

In the USA, many corporate fraud have busted open when those Public Companies ran out of funds to back up the cleverly dressed up Annual Reports, and some Public Accountants and Banks have been placed on the chopping block.

The most famous financial disaster was EMRON USA, which was able to slime their way to obtain public trusts - even from banks who are supposed to be astute in their operations. EMRON was able to achieve their billion dollar scam through collaboration from a public trusted audit firm, who helped EMRON to prepare their annual reports.

With a non-transparent system in Singapore, where the Elected Presidency has been created by the Ruling Party aka the Government with the task of overseeing the National Reserves, and yet the same Government aka Ruling Party will thwart all efforts by the Elected President to perform its responsiblity; and is prepared to amend laws that allow it to access the National Reserves without any further checks.

The sinister part of this proposed change was made within the furore of a much publicize increase to the GST to 7%, and with the declared intention to amend the Constitution being inserted and quoted in an INSIGNIFCANT mention at the end of the report (or speech).

Should we not be concerned with the future ?

saffron60 SG

To atobe:

Originally posted by atobe

''Why did you not complete the statement to read in total as - ''empty boast of HIGH Per Capita income based on National Reserves is NOTHING more then DELUDING ourselves ?

You have already agreed to my comparison that it is useless to boast about HIGH PER CAPITA income - what are you complaining about ?

If you are not a classic case of a nit going on a nit picking exercise, with no base to stand on but to make nonsensical criticism without any clear understanding of the statements posted. ''

There is not much difference whether the word 'empty' was in the sentence because we came to the same conclusion that the comparison is meaningless. And you accuse me of nit picking? i'm just trying to show you that you messed up the economic terms you were using, and because of that, your economic theories are flawed. It is not nonsensical criticism.

''What is your problem with this statement ? Are you disputing this statement of fact ?

What are the words that I have put into lionnoisy's mouth ?

Is it not TRUE that a ''boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary'' ?

You did print your views on this subject as - ''Boasting high per capita income based on national reserves doesn't make sense to me.

You can be quite a ding, when you continue to dong.''

No where in lionnoisy's post did he mention 'high per capita income' do you hear me????????? If lionnoisy had said that, then prove it!

You are the one who said this:

''Without transparency, any discussion can only be based on the few information that is available; but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''

i have to keep repeating myself because of your stubbornness. You are the FIRST person who came up with the term, high per capita income, not lionnoisy. Lionnoisy was talking about the companies profits in comparison with the per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold. You put the word 'per capita income' in lionnoisy's mouth when you made the statement above.

''You seem to be continuously fixxated with the idea that I am ''the first person who tried to draw a link between per capita income with per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold''.

Did you read the opening post from lionnoisy that started this thread ?

Did you not read the first line that was printed in his statement ?

''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value''

Am I the first person, or should not this credit go to lionnoisy ?

If you are not too clever in reading, can we trust your judgement with facts ?''

You are the person who picked the quote from the report, "Singapore : New Poor and Social Cohesion'', which was talking about per capita GDP and per capita income. After reading that, you developed some quack theories to use in your argument against lionnoisy. And you made the boo-boo right towards the end when you said ''but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''

Hello!!!!!!! per capita income is not the same as per capita foreign exchange reserves and gold. You seem to only like to read what you write, since you write such long ego boosting statements about yourself...as if the world cares. Go talk to yourself in front of the mirror next time when you want to praise yourself..nobody's interested.

saffron60 SG

Go to the mirror and talk to yourself, and when you are finished, why don't you kiss your own reflection.

You waste too much time writing two posts about the 'national reserves', when i already said in my earlier post that you were right about that. This shows how empty your posts are, and you repeat like a broken tape recorder.
Why the need to reaffirm your position on the 'national reserves' issue with two long posts? ARE YOU A HIGHLY INSECURE PERSON? WHY DO YOU SEEK THIS AFFIRMATION.

I don't know what your definition of fraud is in this forum, you spend too much time here trying to weed out those you think who are frauds, don't you have a life? only a few people are willing to argue with you because you use bombastic english to try to scare them, with or without facts to back up your claim. People are fed up with the way you respond, and that doesn't mean that you won an argument. It just means that these people realize that there's much more important things in life than to stay here and continue to argue with a arrogant, senseless moron like you.

In the real world if you treat people like that, people would have ostracized you because your behaviour is so sickening. Maybe that's the reason why you spend so much time attacking people in this forum.

maurizio13 SG

For the past three post I see Atobe explaining the current dilemma, I don't see him attacking you. But I do see you doing personal attacks on him.

Just stating my neutral observation.

Atobe SG

Not satisfied with the end result, and still trying to salvage some saffron pride ?

I could walk away from this useless debate, unfortunately your stupidity seems unending.

What theories were being discussed ?

Can you manage to understand any discussion of such economic theories or concepts, when you had initially stated - I'm not an expert on economics either, so i can't simply draw theories and conclusions between foreign exchange reserves and gov spending. ?

Did you delude yourself that "we" Question had - come to any conclusion that the comparison is meaningless ?

Which statements have been made concerning this meeting of minds ?

Are you so desparate to the point of pathetic self-delusion ?

''What is your problem with this statement ? Are you disputing this statement of fact ?

What are the words that I have put into lionnoisy's mouth ?

Is it not TRUE that a ''boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary'' ?

You did print your views on this subject as - ''Boasting high per capita income based on national reserves doesn't make sense to me.

You can be quite a ding, when you continue to dong.''

No where in lionnoisy's post did he mention 'high per capita [b]income' do you hear me????????? If lionnoisy had said that, then prove it![/b]

You are great at splitting hairs in trying to score points, and doing it by attempting to ridicule other's position.

First, you made a useless attempt to ridicule my use of the words NATIONAL RESERVES - now you are attempting to question my use of the words HIGH PER CAPITA INCOME - are you capable ?

Do you understand the words 'PER CAPITA' and 'PER CAPITA INCOME' - before making any further ridiculous statements ?

Are you so desparate of winning a single point concerning lionnoisy's inclusion of the word 'INCOME' in his statement of high per capita ?

Can you even understand that 'Per Capita is also understood as 'PER CAPITA INCOME' - unless you can prove me wrong in anyway ?

Was there any mistake in my statement - ''empty boast of HIGH Per Capita income based on National Reserves is NOTHING more then DELUDING ourselves" ? This statement was made in response to lionnoisy's post that boasted of Singapore's 'PER CAPITA is amongst the Top 10 Reserves in foreign exchange and gold'.

Are you such a pathetic nut to be only capable of nit-picking ANY AVOID debating on the real issues ?

You are the one who said this:

''Without transparency, any discussion can only be based on the few information that is available; but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary."'

i have to keep repeating myself because of your stubbornness. You are the FIRST person who came up with the term, high per capita income, not lionnoisy. Lionnoisy was talking about the companies profits in comparison with the per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold. You put the word 'per capita income' in lionnoisy's mouth when you made the statement above.

You are such a hopeless kid attempting to debate in such a uselss manner.

Was lionnoisy "talking" about companies profits "comparing with the per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold" ?

You are certainly brilliant to make such an observation when lionnoisy did not even make any reference to any companies' profit - let alone even a single company ?

If we carefully re-read lionnoisy's post - was he actually referring to the NATIONAL RESERVES - words which you dread even to think, let alone to print ?

Are you having some nightmares about being caught in the NATIONAL RESERVES - floating between national wilf life parks, to national military reserves, and buried alive in a mountain of cash ?

Atobe SG

continuation

''You seem to be continuously fixxated with the idea that I am ''the first person who tried to draw a link between per capita income with per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold''.

Did you read the opening post from lionnoisy that started this thread ?

Did you not read the first line that was printed in his statement ?

''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value''

Am I the first person, or should not this credit go to lionnoisy ?

If you are not too clever in reading, can we trust your judgement with facts ?''

You are the person who picked the quote from the report, "Singapore : New Poor and Social Cohesion'', which was talking about per capita GDP and per capita income. After reading that, you developed some quack theories to use in your argument against lionnoisy. And you made the boo-boo right towards the end when you said ''but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''

Hello!!!!!!! per capita income is not the same as per capita foreign exchange reserves and gold. You seem to only like to read what you write, since you write such long ego boosting statements about yourself...as if the world cares. Go talk to yourself in front of the mirror next time when you want to praise yourself..nobody's interested.

Can you be such an expert in economics to make such comments when you had originally state that - I'm not an expert on economics either, so i can't simply draw theories and conclusions between foreign exchange reserves and gov spending. ?

Per Capita is understood as the division of a pile of cash or value of gold or any asset by the population numbers.

For your simple mind, if Singapore has $1000 and there are only 10 Singaporeans, the Per Capita or Per Capita Income is $100 - per person.

Whether the $1000 is the value of gold - (when sold) or whether the $1000 is in Singapore Dollars or in Foreign Exchange, the final value in foreign currency value or in Singapore Dollar - will still be divided by the 10 Singaporeans.

To prove that it is stupid for lionnoisy to make such a boast about Singapore being in the TOP 10 PER CAPITA in foreign exchange and gold reserves - I introduced the extracts from "Singapore : New Poor and Social Cohesion'', which mentioned that even though Singapore boasted per capita of US$23,000 in Year 2000, Singaporean workers share of GDP is only about 42 per cent - the lowest amongst the NIE.

Unfortunately, you are incapable of appreciating this fact, but prefer to make yourself exist in this debate by concentrating on who said what and what I have put in anyone's mouth.

For a while I thought stupidissmart was the dumbest after OM, but it seems that now you have taken the cake and eat it too.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by saffron60:
Originally posted by Atobe:

[b]''the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. "

National reserves means wildlife parks or nature reserves which are protected by the government. I think you mean monetary reserves.

I know that per capita income is a measure of wealth of a country. I roughly know the functions of foreign exchange reserves but I don't understand how you can link per capita income with foreign exchange reserves or monetary reserves.

I also don't understand how lionnoisy can calculate the per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold and whether it is an accepted economic measure of the wealth of the country. Does per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold make any sense?

Without a basic understanding of these economic terms and measures, it's quite useless to talk about such a complex economic subject and trying to link it to gov spending.

Better let someone who is more knowledgeable about economics to do the talking, I'm not an expert on economics either, so i can't simply draw theories and conclusions between foreign exchange reserves and gov spending.
[/b]

Your initial post you told everybody that you are not an expert in the field of economics, yet you are able to correct forumers on the meaning of these economic terms. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Your initial post you told everybody that you are not an expert in the field of economics, yet you are able to correct forumers on the meaning of these economic terms. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Did I make such a blunder ?

Can you please quote which one of my initial post that this statement was made ?

Although, we may not be economic specialists, surely each of us have some interests in reading up on issues and form our own opinions ?

One may not be an educationist, surely that does not prevent us from contributing our ideas to improve the education system ?

Similarly, we may not be Politicians - does that prevent us from commenting about Politics ?

BTW - are you referring to saffron60 - in his first post that claimed he is not an expert in economics but began to lecture me about his views concerning economics ?

It is approaching dawn in Singapore, and if you have been sitting through the night at this Speaker's Corner, you can be excused for this human error in clicking the quote button at the wrong post.

maurizio13 SG

I was referring to saffron60, he said he is not an economic expert, yet he corrected and criticize other forumers posting on economic terms. I think it's contradictory.

« Previous Page Next Page »