Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 107 of 107

Thread: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

  1. #101
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    With what happen to a well know banking giant like Societe Generale and a so called "rogue" dealer. Now what happen if this happen to other bank giants like Citibank or UBS. You really wonder if transparency would have helped prevent it. Okay maybe not really since we already know we have investment in those two bank thus if something goes bad the news would cover it and reveal the information. But what if there are other banks we have no idea money from our island was invested in them and something like this happen. Do we get to know about it? Do we have fund invested in Societe Generale we also might not know hehehe.... when i was reading this rather "ill timed" news....."Transparency" pops into my head again heheh...

    Imagine someone doing this and they cover it up and at the same time try to cover the loses somehow to safe guard the situation by misleading information long enough to recover their position like nothing happen or even concealing it from their bosses or the owners of the bank. Till it get too big..it all burst wide open like a dam and the guilty bugger bolts and go into hidding....and the bank still keep mums about it till it is too late. That sents a chill up my spine.
    Last edited by sammy888; 25th January 2008 at 04:06 PM.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888 View Post
    With what happen to a well know banking giant like Societe Generale and a so called "rogue" dealer. Now what happen if this happen to other bank giants like Citibank or UBS. You really wonder if transparency would have helped prevent it. Okay maybe not really since we already know we have investment in those two bank thus if something goes bad the news would cover it and reveal the information. But what if there are other banks we have no idea money from our island was invested in them and something like this happen. Do we get to know about it? Do we have fund invested in Societe Generale we also might not know hehehe.... when i was reading this rather "ill timed" news....."Transparency" pops into my head again heheh...

    Imagine someone doing this and they cover it up and at the same time try to cover the loses somehow to safe guard the situation by misleading information long enough to recover their position like nothing happen or even concealing it from their bosses or the owners of the bank. Till it get too big..it all burst wide open like a dam and the guilty bugger bolts and go into hidding....and the bank still keep mums about it till it is too late. That sents a chill up my spine.
    i think the lesson with Societe Generale and the other rogue traders thing is: Don't trsut them big banks!

  3. #103
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by azul123 View Post
    My guess is you have a neat tidy desk, you are the sort of person that goes back and check the i's are dotted the t's are crossed. Not really a spontaneous kind a guy, would be a good administrator but not a leader. Just my attempt at reading your personality.

    ../azul123
    The Civil Service needs a man like him.

    Please report for duty promptly unpon your return to the country.


  4. #104

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by Sion View Post
    The Civil Service needs a man like him.

    Please report for duty promptly unpon your return to the country.


  5. #105

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by garou12 View Post
    how does having transparency about government spending go against national security? The us has complete transparency about gov spending except for military spending. and their national security is far from compromised.
    No country has a 'complete transparency'. Many info are classified.

  6. #106

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by Winsonapm View Post
    Sounds so pathetic for a rich and developed country liked Singapore to depend on voluntary org to help itís own poor and needy. Free meals, pocket monies, free books are peanuts. Itís the pride that matters and let these underprivileged keep their dignity. Itís not about handouts; itís a moral obligation for any govít. And it cannot be passed on to charity org. Another question is, can we afford it?

    A billion dollars lost in stupid investment will see to all of these basic necessities for years. I think its call accountabilities (heads do not need to roll).
    A few billions made are expected, for which those responsible are paid millions. I think its call transparency. Does any body know how much is the Chairman paid? Each MD, each head gets, bonuses?

    We were told of lots of bullshit over the years, they got away with some buying the stories. I, liked many, bought the bullshit. But cannot live with the issues on accountabilities and transparency.
    Many infos are classified. No country in the world tells you all.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Tharman says not govt's role to comment on GIC, Temasek investments

    Quote Originally Posted by theonlyone View Post
    There are "handouts" from govt organisation. Just that pple in need does not know how/where to get it.

    Again, I've often pictured myself being in charge of giving out these "handouts". My question inevitably comes to this: when you give out the money (from a limited pool) to the poor, do you consider his/her history?

    Eg. if the person has been rich once but gamble away his fortune, does he deserve it. what if a person is not taking care of his own health (never exercise, chain smoke etc) and rack up huge debts in medical cost. how about the one that waste all his money on women in batam.

    We can't do that because it is not practical at all.

    Ultimately, I arrived at the conclusion everyone must take responsibility for their own action. I think it is fair as long as the rules for giving out handouts are consistently applied throughout. So the next time you decide to splurge on the new camera/car/condo/flat/clubmembership/hobby that you can hardly afford instead of saving the money, then you have to be responsible for whatever future repercussion. It is quite clear what the living expenses for now and for the future. Next time if you need handouts, those rules still stand.

    So if you want to take it easy in life or work hard to build up your retirement funds, it is entirely up to you. The rules are consistent.

    What about those who are genuinely poor or unfortunate? I would say these handouts are sufficient. You will never die of hunger in Singapore. But if you're asking for handouts to afford handphone, scv, broadband, I think that is a bit too much.
    I concur.
    Many of those who receive handouts also carry HP and cigarettes. Their children also has them.
    They should spend more on the basic instead.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •