Rilek1Corner

Tag: accountability

  • Leong Sze Hian: $324.2b Owed To CPF Members?

    Leong Sze Hian: $324.2b Owed To CPF Members?

    I refer to the article “Why does Singapore have an external debt of US$1.766 trillion?” (Straits Times, Dec 28).

    Govt “invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed”

    It states that “A Government article on the subject explains that Singapore does not borrow to spend. Instead, it invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed.

    Total outstanding Government borrowings is S$436b

    The income which it earns from its investments is also more than sufficient to cover the debt servicing costs. As of March this year, the total outstanding Government borrowings stood at S$436 billion.

    The Government issues three types of domestic debts:

    * Singapore Government Securities to develop the domestic debt market;

    CPF is part of domestic debts

    * Special Singapore Government Securities to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund, and

    * Singapore Saving Bonds to provide individual investors with a long-term saving option that offers safe returns.

    What is also important to note is that unlike some other countries which have to raise funds in currencies such as the US dollar or euro to balance their books, the Government does not have any foreign currency debts.”

    Amount due to CPF members is $324.2b

    According to the Department of Statistics’ Monthly Digest of Statistics – the Amount Due to (CPF) Members is $324.2 billion in October, 2016.

    This has been increasing steadily annually from $150.9 million in January 1961.

    % credited to CPF members – “na” from 1961 to 2001?

    The Interest Credited to CPF members is shown as “na” from January 1961 to December 2001.

    % in 2002 was 2.6%?

    For January 2002 – the Interest Credited was $238 million over the Amount Due to Members of $92.9 billion.

    This works out to an annual interest of only about 2.6 per cent.

    % in 2006 was 3.1%?

    Similarly, for October 2016 – the Interest Credited was $1.02 billion over the Amount Due to Members of $324.2 billion.

    This works out to an annual interest of about 3.1 per cent (up to October).

    Real % was 0.5% from 2001 to 2015?

    Since inflation from 2001 to 2015 was about 2 per cent per annum (CPI 2015 99.461 divided by 2001 75.568) – does it mean that the real annualised rate of return on our CPF Ordinary Account is only about 0.5 per cent (2.5 – 2.0) per annum?

    Lowest real % of all national pension funds in the world?

    Is this the lowest real rate of return of all national pension funds in the world since 1999 – the year that I understand that the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate has remained at 2.5 per cent until now?

    Returns from investing our CPF?

    What is the annualised rate of return derived from investing our CPF funds since 1999?

    In this connection, I would like to quote again – “A Government article on the subject explains that Singapore does not borrow to spend. Instead, it invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed“.

    Cumulative returns from investing our CPF vs % to CPF members?

    What is the cumulative difference between the annualised rate of return derived from investing our CPF funds since 1961 (when CPF started) to today, and the annualised rate given to CPF members?

    In absolute numbers on a cumulative basis with interest – how much money are we talking about over the last 55 years?

    No transparency and accountability?

    Are we the only developing or developed country in the world that is arguably non-transparent, as there is no disclosure on the rate of return derived from our pension funds relative to the weighted average interest rate paid on all our CPF accounts (Ordinary, Special, Medisave and Retirement accounts)?

    $324.2b owed to CPF members?

    Also, does it mean that our domestic debt owed to CPF members is $324.2 billion?

     

    Source: http://leongszehian.com

  • Damanhuri Abas: Ministers Must Be Held Accountable For Lapses In Financial Management In Their Ministries

    Damanhuri Abas: Ministers Must Be Held Accountable For Lapses In Financial Management In Their Ministries

    In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

    On Thursday, the AGO released its report on serious and major lapses in financial management across several government Ministries and Statutory Boards  across Ministries, to the tune of hundreds of millions of tax-payers money.

    The Singapore government has always pride itself for its much vaunted so-called corrupt free practices and non-tolerance to any corruption. But this revelation from the AGO clearly provides evidences that may show otherwise.

    Singaporeans first need to salute and congratulate the AGO for being courageous in reporting the truth of financial lapses that may be pervasive across the government sectors. And it really begs the question of the kind of flimsy oversight being practiced under the watch of the million-dollar paid Ministers.

    Surely it is only just and fair for Singaporeans to expect a much better job by those premium paid Ministers. Or are they becoming precisely sloppy due to their own self being extremely cash-rich making them lacksadalsicle towards public money under their care.

    Firstly, Singaporeans demand to know from Ministers running those Ministries and Statutory boards their explanations for these serious financial lapses in their respective Ministries. Why and how can it be possible that given the enormous powers vested to them and the people they had assisting them, yet they failed miserably in supervising and ensuring such wastage of public funds given to their care by tax-payers who had to slogged it our tireless for their hard-earned money to pay taxes.

    Secondly, there are plenty of precedents of cases that were given much publicity in the press that led to jail terms to several individuals for lesser amount of money involved, such as the recent case of Hari Raya lighting involving Majlis Pusat. This case involved some inflations of invoices for payments while not going into the pockets of the management team involved, were deemed as CBT worthy cases. And now the expose by the AGO are plenty of worst cases of possibly CBT worthy ones such as the gross inflation of consultation fees of $410,000 for a Bin construction that only cost $60,000. Clearly someone pocketed much public money here.

    For these and many more reasons of consistency and transparency that the public demands accountability by all the Ministers whose Ministries were flagged by the AGO, for the clear failure of oversight.

    What is more fundamental here is the need to call these Ministers to task as they were only a while ago demanding such serious consequences to WP and its leadership for alleged financial lapses involving the AHPETC. Ministers were so bold as to even call for severe action even for hara-kiri as a benchmark for lapses of management of public money. Now these same Ministers have been very silent when they are now caught for much bigger quantum of losses of public money that they are responsible for.

    Singaporeans must not allow the AGO report to go quietly away but must insist that Ministers come clean and explain the serious failures of their own governance of public money and must take the full responsibility for it. Singaporeans remember clearly that these Ministers are paid premium justified precisely on terms that now dictate consequences upon their failures of duty.

    The government must now walk their own talk.

     

    Source: Damanhuri Abas

  • MCCY And NAC Must Come Clean On Exorbitant Consultation Fees For Bin Centre

    MCCY And NAC Must Come Clean On Exorbitant Consultation Fees For Bin Centre

    The AGO report has revealed lots of lapses, including an eye-popping $410,000 consultancy fee for a $470,000 bin centre.

    Whoever authorised the payment at the National Arts Centre has to be held accountable and the MCCY owes the public an explanation.

    Instead, MCCY Minister Grace Fu defended her subordinate and claimed that it was a “complex” project requiring “significantly more design expertise”. Fu is wrong to assume the public could be taken for a ride easily.

    Should Fu decide to conduct an internal investigation and if it uncovers “more than meets the eye”, the CPIB may need to put in some OT. I am not alleging any wrongdoing but this should not be ruled out as the amount of tax dollars involved is more than 7 times the amount paid by NParks for 26 Brompton bicycles.

    In 2012, former MND Minister Khaw had defended NParks’ purchase without any inside information. Khaw’s knee-jerk defence made him look foolish when CPIB investigations subsequently revealed a NParks’ director had purchased $57,200 worth of bicycles from a friend.

    Fu has got to be kidding by refusing to even conduct an internal investigation. Worse, she insisted on behaving like her SMOS and has started to chut pattern (warning: do not watch video if you feel like puking).

    The $410,000 consultancy fee could have bought 186 Brompton bikes for NParks or 100,000 plates of mee siam without cockles for her boss.

    The following information should be disclosed to public:

    1 The name of NAC director.

    2 The name of the consultant.

    3 The relationship between the consultant and the director

    4 The amount overcharged by the consultant

    5 Action to be taken against director’s overspending of tax dollars.

    So how complex is the construction of NAC’s bin centre? Does it require 56 man-years?

     

    Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

  • Osman Sulaiman: Train Defects Saga Shows Limits Of Local Mainstream Media, Lack Of Government Accountability & Transparency

    Osman Sulaiman: Train Defects Saga Shows Limits Of Local Mainstream Media, Lack Of Government Accountability & Transparency

    Most of us would have heard the news about our SMRT trains being exported back to China because of ‘superficial’ hairline cracks.

    Apparently, LTA says that it is of no concern. It tried to downplay the defect. It also mentioned that repair of the trains will take about 7 years and later on clarified that it will take between 3-7 years.

    Interestingly, the news was first reported by foreign media and not by our mainstream media who is supposed to be the citizens first point ofinformation.

    Either they (journalists) are incompetent to sniff out such infos or someone in charge is holding back information to cover up this mess.

    Instead of taking those responsible over these purchases and do a full inquiry, it has decided to keep the matter unknown to the public and hush up these activities (train defects) in an attempt to cover up.

    As these issues involves the life of millions of commuters, it is important that the public is informed of such matters. Afterall, Singaporeans have a stake in the transport system and billions of public funds were used to purchase these trains.

    Our government is never known for its transparency. Where the late LKY would have taken out to dry those responsible over major mishaps, the current leadership has developed a system of shielding those who are responsible.

    Without transparency and a functioning media, we are at the mercy of those who are in position to manipulate the people for its own benefit.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • CNB And SPF To Explore Recording Interviews During Investigations

    CNB And SPF To Explore Recording Interviews During Investigations

    The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Singapore Police Force will start consultations on the Video Recording of Interviews (VRI) during investigations, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced on Wednesday (Jul 22).

    The consultations will be conducted with a view to start the VRI pilot from first quarter of 2016, it added in its press release.

    The pilot will involve a limited set of offences and allow for an assessment for how the VRI impacts investigations, its effectiveness in different situations, and the resources required to implement VRI, before a decision is made on its broader implementation, said the ministry.

    This comes after MHA, together with the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Law, conducted a study on the feasibility of introducing VRI. The study looked at how VRI has been adopted in the US, UK, Australia and Hong Kong, and how the various models of VRI impacted the administration of criminal justice, said MHA.

    The ministry found that the implementation of VRI in Singapore “will further strengthen confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system and assist the Courts to try cases more effectively”.

    With the VRI, a recording of the interview will be provided to the Courts so as allow it to “take the interviewee’s demeanour into account in determining the admissibility or weight to be accorded to the interviewee’s statement”, said MHA.

    “It will also provide an objective, contemporaneous account of the interview process and allow the Courts to decide on allegations that may be made about the interview,” the ministry added.

    MHA said the pilot will be conducted under the existing legal framework, and that they will commence consultations with various stakeholders on its implementation. Further details will be announced after consultations have been completed, it said.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com