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.