Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Money put to better use?

More information about funds that were invested by the TCs in investments that lost money. Certainly one can imagine that it is important to have capital for long term investment, but if the rationale behind it is to change lifts every twenty-eight years, then perhaps it might have been better to pick something lower risk? This seems to be especially so when the investment gave a return of over 3% but government securities gave an average of 2.9%

I am not disputing that in any investment there is risk, but this isn't money that an investor is investing on his or her own behalf. This is taxpayers' money that has been entrusted to TCs.

A while ago some of you may remember seeing my post about how much TCs have in reserves. How does this relate to cats? Obviously because if there seems to be not much public feedback/insight into how this money is being spent, then money is being spent on things that people don't want or agree with - point in case, higher risk investments and also on things like spending money on pest control costs. Instead, if residents had a say in it, perhaps this money could be put to better use in sterilising cats - it seems arguable that it would have cost less in Holland-Bukit Panjang's case then the amount they may have potentially lost. As an aside, Teo Ho Pin is also the MP we met who told us that there should be 'zero stray policy' in TCs.


yskat said...

I especially disliked how Dr Teo attempts to defend the decision by suggesting that $16m is only 0.8% of the funds available for investments. To a regular person in Singapore, $16m is a huge amount of money. If we take the monthly conservancy charge of a 3-room flat as $37.50, $16m is equivalent to what needs to be coughed up every month by 426,666 families.

Anonymous said...

Transparency and accountability are words that shd apply on how TC money is spent...esp when the sum is in millions!!

I totally failed to see Dr Teo's defence of TC's investment strategy. If average returns is over 3% a year, why not invest in Govt bonds of 2.9%? That 0.1% is worth risking $16m?

Dr Teo pointed out that TC needed to build up sinking fund bec for long-term improvement works like lifts that needed replacement every 28 yrs?? In the NEXT 28 yrs' time, more money would have been collected. You don't eat now for the next 28 hours or next 28 days.

Anonymous said...

How about zero-tolerance to millions "potentially" lost. If potential-loss is made public, chances of recovery is pretty small lah.
Tolerance shd be for all. Next election, remember $16m at risk.

Anonymous said...

The likes of Dr Teo are getting people to be averse to the arrogant leadership of the PAP.
With such asshole like Dr Teo, how can TC be any kinder to residents who DO NOT dislike cats.
The real nuisance are asses like Dr Teo and all the TC officers who kill cats on any opportunity of a complaint!

Anonymous said...

When MP like Mr Teo who siphons millions of dollars every day to pay him for stupid decisions including unrealistic "zero cat" TC policy but with no balls to tell another asshole Mr Tan Bow Tan to remove the ban on cats and let the cats from estate to move into flats so it no longer becomes TC's problem!
With millions being paid to MP, $16,000,000 is peanut. What do MP know what is like to be poor!!

Dawn said...

yskat - exactly the amount lost is not a small amount at all. Who sees that kind of money?

I don't think to be fair, even any of the MPs are paid that kind of money. I do agree that it is important to try and build that money up - but who is doing the safeguarding, and are they doing a good job of it?

If the zero stray policy is any indication, then it's worrying how decisions like these are made.