SG top in foreign reserve per capita
-
You have a problem with reading and comprehension again.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then wat figures do u have to show their accounts r manipulated ? AT least I based my studies on reports tat have legal obligations from the organisation. Where do u based your conclusion from ?
Since when I said that their accounts are manipulated???Originally posted by maurizio13:1) Accounts can be manipulated, as with Texaco, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Kmart, NTL, WorldCom, UAL, and Conseco. These are all big companies, but they managed to keep the real state of affairs of the company from outside eyes. They provide a set of financial statements for SEC, it doesn't prove that there is nothing wrong within the company then.
Legal obligation? To whom?Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
When you say legal obligation, means you are oblige to do so by law. Failing to do so will result in legal action.
You going to sue Temasek if they fail in their duties?
Sue the CEO?
You are very funny!!!
Hahaha.....
I enjoy talking to you.
Hahaha..........Originally posted by stupidissmart: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 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.
Damn!!! You are better than Gurmit Singh, Kumar and Hossan Leong!!!
So foreign investors give US$20 billion for Singapore to build Suzhou Industrial Project? So government only need come up with US$147 million?
You really are clueless about what you read!!!
Hahaha.......
I always sleep better after I have had a good laugh at your antics.
EH!!!! FARK YOU LAH!!!! IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND, RESPOND PROPERLY, ATOBE AND MAURIZIO13 ARE 2 DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!!! YOU ADD UP OUR TWO POST AND EXPECT ME TO READ THRU OTHER PEOPLE'S POST???
YOU WANT ME TO ADD UP ALL MY POSTING FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND REPLY TO YOU???
YOU JUST PUT QUOTE, DIDN'T EVEN SPECIFY WHO YOU RESPONDING TO.
IS IT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR RIDICULOUS POST THAT YOUR BRAIN CANNOT HANDLE THE MAGNITUDE OF RESPONSES???
PLEASE HAVE THE COMMON COURTESY TO STATE WHO YOU ARE RESPONDING TO!!!
WHEN YOU WRITE LETTERS TO 4-5 PEOPLE. DO YOU ADD UP WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY TO THESE 4-5 PEOPLE AND MAIL THEM EACH A COPY??? -
U r wasting my time and u r making anti PAP people sounds stupid
Since when I said that their accounts are manipulated???
Since 24 Feb 2007 0622
Accounts can be manipulated, as with Texaco, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Kmart, NTL, WorldCom, UAL, and Conseco. These are all big companies, but they managed to keep the real state of affairs of the company from outside eyes. They provide a set of financial statements for SEC, it doesn't prove that there is nothing wrong within the company then.
U r obviously suggesting their accounts can be manipulated and I answer u tat if u wanna say they twist their account, u have to prove it. From tis reply, I can see u can't prove it. Then your reply above r just rubbishLegal obligation? To whom?
The reports must be as true as it get because investors r reading it and gathering info from it. If it is lies and false, they r answerable to the investors. 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.
When you say legal obligation, means you are oblige to do so by law. Failing to do so will result in legal action.So foreign investors give US$20 billion for Singapore to build Suzhou Industrial Project? So government only need come up with US$147 million?
Investors have to come with their money to invest. U think singapore build free for their factories yah ? U r the one tat is funny.
You really are clueless about what you read!!!EH!!!! FARK YOU LAH!!!! IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND, RESPOND PROPERLY, ATOBE AND MAURIZIO13 ARE 2 DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!!! YOU ADD UP OUR TWO POST AND EXPECT ME TO READ THRU OTHER PEOPLE'S POST???
HEY ? WAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH U ? I WRITE ADOBE POSTS AT 24 FEB 0905 REPLY YOUR ONE IN A SEPERATE REPLY 0914. WAT IS WRONG WITH TAT ? THEN WAT DO U EXPECT ME TO DO ?
YOU WANT ME TO ADD UP ALL MY POSTING FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND REPLY TO YOU???
YOU JUST PUT QUOTE, DIDN'T EVEN SPECIFY WHO YOU RESPONDING TO.
IS IT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR RIDICULOUS POST THAT YOUR BRAIN CANNOT HANDLE THE MAGNITUDE OF RESPONSES???
PLEASE HAVE THE COMMON COURTESY TO STATE WHO YOU ARE RESPONDING TO!!!
WHEN YOU WRITE LETTERS TO 4-5 PEOPLE. DO YOU ADD UP WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY TO THESE 4-5 PEOPLE AND MAIL THEM EACH A COPY???
U R PERHAPS THE BEST PAP SUPPORTER BECAUSE YOUR SENSELESSNESS MAKE ANTI PAP PEOPLE LOOK STUPID AND VULGAR. -
haha...Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r wasting my time and u r making anti PAP people sounds stupid
-
Exactly....same reason I suspect PAP had been paying Harban Singh to stand against them all those yearsOriginally posted by stupidissmart:U R PERHAPS THE BEST PAP SUPPORTER BECAUSE YOUR SENSELESSNESS MAKE ANTI PAP PEOPLE LOOK STUPID AND VULGAR. -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ?
[This message was edited by stupidissmart on 2007-02-24 21:06:51.]
My mistake. You cut and paste the same stuff and you don't put who is the quote from. The issues you discussing with Atobe is almost the same. When you put quote, at least put quote from who. Honest mistake because you cut and paste repeating everything, seems like this post has my stuff in it too. -
Don't put words in my mouth. Since when I said Temasek accounts was manipulated. I just said that there are alot of companies around who manipulated their accounts. Can you tell me which line I post to say that Temasek manipulated their accounts? Like I said, you need to learn to read. If you talk about John Doe, him being a good citizen and all. I tell you that a knife can be used to kill people. Does that mean that I am telling you that John Doe is a murderer?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Accounts can be manipulated, as with Texaco, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Kmart, NTL, WorldCom, UAL, and Conseco. These are all big companies, but they managed to keep the real state of affairs of the company from outside eyes. They provide a set of financial statements for SEC, it doesn't prove that there is nothing wrong within the company then.
U r obviously suggesting their accounts can be manipulated and I answer u tat if u wanna say they twist their account, u have to prove it. From tis reply, I can see u can't prove it. Then your reply above r just rubbish
Is it? Answerable to investors eh? Who are the other investors or companies you claim to exist? Can provide some names? Last I know Temasek is a private company, not trade on the stock exchange. Let me guess, you can't provide any names as usual? All unsubstantiated claims again!Originally posted by stupidissmart:The reports must be as true as it get because investors r reading it and gathering info from it. If it is lies and false, they r answerable to the investors. 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.
So your understanding is: the Suzhou industrial park cost US$20 billion to build, investors came with US$20 billion for Singapore to invest and Singapore only came out with US$147 million, which they recovered in 2001 and made a profit of US$10 million?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Investors have to come with their money to invest. U think singapore build free for their factories yah ? U r the one tat is funny.
Ok. I have no more issues regarding this point. I guess I was really the funny one.
Hehehe......... -
Don't put words in my mouth. Since when I said Temasek accounts was manipulated. I just said that there are alot of companies around who manipulated their accounts. Can you tell me which line I post to say that Temasek manipulated their accounts? Like I said, you need to learn to read. If you talk about John Doe, him being a good citizen and all. I tell you that a knife can be used to kill people. Does that mean that I am telling you that John Doe is a murderer?
Then may I ask why has your post on other companies got to do with Temasek ? Wat is the point u r trying to say ?
I give u a better example. Someone is murdered. Then john doe tell people he is not the killer. Then u say "all murderer won't say he is a killer mah". John doe then tell say if u don't believe, then u to prove he is the murderer. Then u r not happy because of tat. Well let the reader decide then. I don't wanna waste time on such silly issuesIs it? Answerable to investors eh? Who are the other investors or companies you claim to exist? Can provide some names? Last I know Temasek is a private company, not trade on the stock exchange. Let me guess, you can't provide any names as usual? All unsubstantiated claims again!
Tat is stupid. U go and read up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temasek_Holdings
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
Otherwise why do u think empty plots of land need 20 billion ? IMO 147 million is a lot liao ! The 20 billion money is for investors to build their plant, and with their own money.
So your understanding is: the Suzhou industrial park cost US$20 billion to build, investors came with US$20 billion for Singapore to invest and Singapore only came out with US$147 million, which they recovered in 2001 and made a profit of US$10 million? -
To atobe:
Since you 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?
''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.
''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.
''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 of 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.
After lionnoisy calculated the per capita of foreign exchange and gold reserves, then he asked whether the reserves were included in the assets of GIC and temasek holdings, he asked whether it is the gov or banks that owned the foreign exchange reserves, whether the reserves were invested and what is the performance. I don't know what the per capita of foreign exchange reserves and gold have to do with the assets of GIC and temasek holdings. They are totally different things altogether. Later, he also asked about the profits of these companies.
But then you picked out the quote about the per capita GDP and per capita income, and tried to draw a connection with that to refute lionnoisy's statement about the profits of GIC, temasek, etc. It doesn't make sense to use the per capita GDP and per capita income to refute lionnoisy's statement about the companies' profits because the per capita GDP and per capita income refer to the economy as a whole, not specifically to GIC and temasek holdings. Unless you can prove how much of the per capita GDP is that of GIC and temasek holdings, etc, then you stand a better chance of having a logical argument about the link between per capita GDP or per capita income with your discussion about temasek, GIC, etc.
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.''
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. "
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. Anyway, lionnoisy was talking about the companies' profits which is not the same as per capita income. Who can understand what kind of quack theories you are coming up with. And you can boast that your economics is so great.....
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.'' -
I was just making a statement.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then may I ask why has your post on other companies got to do with Temasek ? Wat is the point u r trying to say ?
I give u a better example. Someone is murdered. Then john doe tell people he is not the killer. Then u say "all murderer won't say he is a killer mah". John doe then tell say if u don't believe, then u to prove he is the murderer. Then u r not happy because of tat. Well let the reader decide then. I don't wanna waste time on such silly issues
How you want to interpret it, is your prerogative, but don't put words in my mouth.
I went to your link about Temasek in Wikipedia, it says that Temasek is 100% owned by the government. You told me that there were other investors. Can you show me who are the other investors that will take legal action against Temasek?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is stupid. U go and read up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temasek_Holdings
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
Temasek is an arm of the Singapore government and owned 100% by the Ministry of Finance, and these close links to the government have on several occasions caused protests in foreign countries.
Ok. Agreed. So they paid US$147 million for the land, then they get people to give them US$20 billion to build the park. Will Singapore collect rental from these companies after they finished building the project?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Otherwise why do u think empty plots of land need 20 billion ? IMO 147 million is a lot liao ! The 20 billion money is for investors to build their plant, and with their own money.
It seemed like a fine idea when Singapore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world's most populous nation.
The China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park, which was intended eventually to become a self-contained manufacturing, urban and high-technology center covering 70 square kilometers (27 square miles), was a joint project with the Chinese central government in Beijing. But it ran into trouble when local officials began a rival operation, the Suzhou New District industrial park."
I think either the International Herald Tribune has very bad reporters, or I have a poor understanding of English. Think I accept the latter.
I "accept" your explanation, Singapore bought a 70 square kilometer plot of land for US$147 million and ask investors for $20 billion to build the park. After the completion of the project they will charge those companies rental for using the park. After completion of the park. Who does the park belong to? Does the 65% and 35% rule still apply or does it belong to the companies that invested in the project?
So....we have Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park, Jurong Industrial Park, etc. Does it mean that these companies that have factories there own the factory and building? Or do they pay rental to government? -
I went to your link about Temasek in Wikipedia, it says that Temasek is 100% owned by the government. You told me that there were other investors. Can you show me who are the other investors that will take legal action against Temasek?
U really make me wanna laugh... u really did... I dig for u a trap 2 replies ago, 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 -
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?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have study their fiancial statements. It is opened for the public in their website. Overall they made a profit from the investments. I don't agree why ho ching should be CEO though. But the fact is tat they still made a lot of profit and I guess tat is the bottom line.
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? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
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.
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]
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 -
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?
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)
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.
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
-
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.
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 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.
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) -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Are you blaming me for your own stupidity and stubborness in conducting your arguments in the manner that you did ?
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]
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 :
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 -
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.
''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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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. -
continuation
Let us be more accurate with what is being referred to.
''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.
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.
What is your problem with this statement ? Are you disputing this statement of fact ?
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.'' -
continuation
What are the words that I have put into lionnoisy's mouth ?
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. "
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:
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''.
''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.....
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 ?
Yes, I had fun grinding those 4 or 5 frauds - characters like you and OM who make baseless statements with such hollow authority.
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]
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. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
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?
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] -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Did you concede to this point in your very long reply to my exposure of your stupidity ?
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?
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 -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
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.
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.
Where did you get your facts from concerning the following that you had posted on 23 February 2007 11.19PM ?
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
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 ?
The crux of the matter is not as simply as you put it.
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
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 ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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 ? -
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did Singapore only spend US$147 MILLION in Suzhou ?
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]
From the following research paper - Global Cities and Development States : Understanding SingaporeÂ’s 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 ? -
continuation
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.
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 ?
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 ? There are many opportunities for investment, but it requires business acumen and experience to judge the potential of opportunities.
Everyone knows that Annual Reports have are specially dressed up WINDOW DRESSINGS - for window shoppers only.
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 ?
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 ? -
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. -
Go to the mirror and talk to yourself, and when you are finished, why don't you kiss your own reflection.Originally posted by Atobe: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
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. -
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.