atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Lawrence Wong’

Don’t ministers get paid millions so that they get things right?

In Uncategorized on 28/04/2019 at 2:14 pm

Isn’t that the argument the PAP used when they said ministers had to be paid like CEOs?

I tot these tots when I read

Tough to get ‘balance right’ when pricing HDB flats: Lawrence Wong 

(Headline from constructive nation-building media)

Looks like Ah Wong wants to get millions for doing bugger all.

And cybernuts want ministers from non elite schools? Lawrence Wong attended non elite schools.

Still he talk cock, sing song king, like ministers from elite schools.

Lawrence Wong: a PM-in-waiting

Lawrence Wong talked cock

Tharman has a point, but Lawrence Wong missed the plot

Fixing Sabo King minister

Will resale flat owners still vote for PAP in next GE? contd

Will this resale flat buyer vote for PAP in next GE?

Fixing Sabo King minister

In Political governance, Property on 29/01/2019 at 10:58 am

I refer to my Double confirm, ground not sweet for PAP (about the discrepancy between falling HDB resale prices, while private property prices keep inching up in an election yr) where I alsomumbled about how the PAP can make the ground sweeter.

This blog is a fan of of Lawrence Wong: Lawrence Wong: a PM-in-waiting.

But if the PM wants to make sure of a strong mandate for 4G leaders (Why PAP aiming for 65% of the popular vote), in addition to promising not to increase GST by two points (How PAP can win 65% plus of the vote), he should publicly sack Lawrence Wong just before campaigning for next GE begins. This should give HDB resale flat owners peace of mind: Sers will cover all expiring leases.

I’ll let the constructive, nation-building media explain why:

In March 2017, National Development Minister Lawrence Wong cautioned home buyers not to assume that all old HDB flats would automatically be eligible for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers).

“From what we hear from agents on the ground, in the past, when people buy older flats in a mature estate, the balance lease was not a top-of-the-mind concern,” said Ms Sun.

“But now, it seems like in almost every other deal, that would be the key question asked.”

Owners of old flats concerned about depreciation also tried to sell their apartments, leading to an increase in the supply of resale flats.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/hdb-resale-numbers-highest-2012-while-sales-private-homes-dive

No need yet

to promise big lease buyback amounts for old flats lorr. And allow more of the compensation to be withdrawable in cash apart from putting into CPF Life.

This would mean loosening the connection between LBS valuation and the ever-dropping actual market transactions.

Fat cat MD

Btw, cybernuts should realise that not coming from an elite school is no sign of competency: Lawrence Wong went to a neighbourhood school and then VJC, not even Hwa Chong or ACS.

 

 

Lawrence Wong: a PM-in-waiting

In Uncategorized on 09/03/2018 at 11:12 am

I’m surprised that the talk cock, sing song academics and other pundit don’t think of Lawrence Wong as a contender to be PM.

Because unlike their favourite, Kee Chui (Why “Kee Chiu” got renamed “Kee Chui”), he knows how to throw smoke when “answering” inconvenient questions

The entire additional S$7.7 billion above the official estimate is being given back to Singaporeans in various ways, instead of just the S$700 million SG bonus, Mr Wong stressed, as he addressed Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Azmoon Ahmad’s suggestion for the Government to share more of the unexpected budget surplus.

“We don’t save surpluses.”

I went WTF!

But I had to admire his explanation (OK BS).

“We give them all back to Singaporeans but we give back in different forms,” said Mr Wong in Parliament on Tuesday (Mar 6) during the debate on his ministry’s budget.

“Some will be for spending (on) future needs. Some will be spending for current needs… and some will be through a direct transfer, like the SG bonus,” he added, urging for the surplus to be viewed “in totality”.

Mr Wong cited the setting aside of S$5 billion for a Rail Infrastructure Fund “which will benefit all MRT commuters”, and S$2 billion for premium subsidies and other forms of support when the ElderShield review is complete.

———————————–
Why Lawrence Wong is wrong on “We don’t save surpluses”
Or rather “We don’t save surpluses” is misleading.
FB post by Chris Kuan

CNA reported Larry the MND and the second MOF as saying all of the $7.7b of additional surplus from the revised 2017 budget overall surplus has been shared with Singaporeans in various ways such as a $5b transfer to the Rail Infrastructure Fund and $2b for Eldershield. Don’t look at the SG bonus in isolation he said. But that is not quite correct, is it? Tell me if I am wrong but this is how I look at it.

If that $7.7b additional surplus had been shared in the 2018 budget, then the 2018 Budget position would not have been a deficit of $0.6b but of $8.3b. After all each Financial Year Budget is based on that FY’s revenues and expenditures plus that FY’s transfers to funds and endowments and its NIR Contribution right? If the $7.7b has been shared with Singaporeans, then the sum of the Budget position for 2017 and 2018 should equal to the original FY 2017 estimate surplus of $1.9b. But that is not the case, the sum is a surplus of $9b (2017’s $9.6b surplus minus 2018’s $0.6b deficit). So how can this be if the $7.7b surplus from the first year is spent or shared in the second year?

The better explanation or rather the truth of the matter may well be that the $7,7b additional surplus has not yet been shared with Singaporeans, It will eventually – just wait for the year before the general election. Of course in fairness to Larry the MND and the 2nd MOF, all that spending on rail infrastructure and Eldershield in 2018 did take place but that is from using up all the revenues and the NIR contributions estimated for the year. Call me pedantic or whatever.

PS: Being transfers to funds and endowments, the $5b allocated to rail and $2b to Edlershield are ofcos not spent all at once but over several years. An important distinction to be aware of given the govie’s propensity to report this kind of expenditures in a single year.

But the fact that Chris Kuan has to go into such detail to show that “We don’t save surpluses” is misleading. shows that Lawrence Wong is a throw smoke specialist, good enough to be PM after Heng’s one term in that post. You heard these predictions here first.

And here’s another one: he’ll be the next Finance Minister. Remember you first heard this here.

————————————————–

Coming back to Kee Chui. If Lawrence has to answer the questions on the need, and the use of reserves, unlike Kee Chui, he would have said something along the lines of what the CEO of Norwaty’s SWF said when he reported a great set of results*
stressed that the good times would not continue forever, warning Norwegians to be prepared for a potential fall in value in the future.
Btw, remember his warning on HDB flats? Why 30-year old HDB flats difficult to sell
 ————————————————
*The oil fund separately reported one of the best years in its 20-year history as it returned 13.7 per cent in 2017, helped by booming equity markets. Equities returned almost 20 per cent, while property and bonds also contributed positively. The NKr1tn ($128bn) return was the biggest ever measured in kroner.
FT

Oxleygate: “the curious incident”/ What S’poreans are not focusing on

In Political governance, Public Administration on 14/07/2017 at 10:36 am

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident.”

The real “scandal” is that DPM Teo and Lawrence Wong did not protect their reputations the PAP way, when the younger Lees defamed them by accusing them of doing their brother’s bidding, not PM not threatening to take legal action against his siblings, but doing a wayang in parly.

ESM Goh said in parly:

[I]t is clear that their goal is to bring Lee Hsien Loong down as PM, regardless of the huge collateral damage suffered by the Government and Singaporeans. It is now no more a cynical parlour game. If the Lee siblings choose to squander the good name and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, and tear their relationship apart, it is tragic but a family affair. But if in the process of their self destruction, they destroy Singapore too, that is a public affair.

Now isn’t the attempt to destroy S’pore by making allegations against other ministers, not just their brother the PM, a good enough reason for said ministers to have demanded an apology and sued the younger Lees for defamation, if no grovelling apology was made? And what about their personal reputations? Why liddat?

After ESM’s Goh’s speech, Lee Hsien Yang posted

“We are not making a criticism of the Government of Singapore, as we made clear from the beginning. What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong.”
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/we-are-not-making-a-criticism-of-the-government-lee-hsien-yang-9006620

————————————————

Talk Cock Sing Song King Lee Hsien Yang talking cock again above. Other examples

Reading Lee Hsien Yang’s repeated “clarifications” on FB to his earlier FB “clarifications” (example on whether his wife’s law firm was used in the final will: he said “No” emphatically, but then went to explain what they did*), I can understand why the committee wants a statutory declaration and I can understand why he hasn’t given one.

Talking cock about the will

Didn’t do his job as executor

—————————————

Huh? I tot the younger Lees were making allegations that the ministerial committee set up to consider the fate of LKY’s house was doing their brother’s bidding, not making independent judgements and findings? That not attacking govt meh?

DPM Teo rightly responded:

“With regard to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations against the Ministerial Committee, public agencies and public officers, the Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament,”
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/38-oxley-road-govt-still-has-to-carry-out-responsibilities-for-9009684

This shows that, while the PM may have felt that he could not sue his siblings, DPM Teo or Lawrence Wong should have had no such qualms about suing PM’s siblings for the good of S’pore and their good name. They should have asked the younger Lees to withdraw their allegations against them, and apologise. Failing which, they’d sue the Lees.

While I’ve argued that that the cabinet full of Oxbridge men royally screwed up

Yesterday’s wayang and the preceding Lee family row could have been avoided if PM (from Cambridge) had not have gone to the cabinet about his doubts about the circumstances around the execution of the will and the cabinet committee headed by another Cambridge man had not decided to act on PM’s doubts.

DPM Teo, Lawrence Wong, and, possibly, other ministers should have been prepared to take legal action to protect the reputation of the cabinet and themselves. They didn’t and that me is the real scandal. It now seems that this White Horse and White Mare have privileges not extended to people like Roy Ngerng. Who else does do these privileges extend to?

Even now, the Princess of Oxley Road is attacking Shanmugam, raking over the ashes of her allegation of his conflicts of interest. Shouldn’t he be telling her to “apologise or else”, instead of sitting down and keeping quiet? She that special isit?

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

Silver Blaze by  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

 

Lawrence Wong talked cock

In Uncategorized on 24/02/2017 at 2:56 pm

Speaking during Channel NewsAsia’s Singapore Budget Forum 2017, which was broadcast yesterday (23 Feb) Mr Wong said he drew inspiration from Sweden where the small country with a population of 9.6 million has produced technology start-ups like Spotify and Skype and further with iconic brands such as IKEA and H&M.

Erm Skype was an Estonian start-up.

Tharman has a point, but Lawrence Wong missed the plot

In Economy, Financial competency on 27/08/2013 at 4:50 am

Speaking at the Network ASEAN forum on Friday morning, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said there was never a realistic prospect of a smooth and easy exit from quantitative easing (QE).

But the QE tapering will not be bad for the ASEAN economies as it is not in anyone’s interest for very low global interest rates to continue indefinitely.

It also signals an economic recovery in the US — a major market for ASEAN. [Channel News Asia last week].

Investors who have suffered from the flight from regional markets and currencies should look on the bright side. What he said is one gd point to remain calm.

Another reason why tapering is gd: The Federal Reserve is forcing Asia to kick its addiction to hot money. The prospect of higher U.S. interest rates had made the region’s dwindling trade surpluses look an increasingly dangerous habit. Though markets may be turbulent, pricier local money or cheaper currencies will improve the trade balance for most Asian countries. http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2013/08/22/fed-liquidity-curbs-will-act-as-asias-detox-plan/

But QE tapering is gd news only if investors are not leveraged to their eyeballs and counting, bringing me to the issue of Lawrence Wong (a board director at the central bank, where Tharman is the chairman) talked cock on “over-leveraged” borrowers.

Most heavy borrowers in Singapore have above average income levels, which means they are less likely to default on their loans.

Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister Lawrence Wong said this [on 11 August] in response to questions in Parliament on household debts from Nominated MP Laurence Lien and Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong.

He went on to say: On borrowers who are “over-leveraged”, or those with debt service burdens exceeding 60 per cent of their income, Mr Wong said most of them have incomes higher than the median household income of S$6,000.

He added that nearly 90 per cent of these borrowers are servicing private property loans, and more than 80 per cent are servicing only one loan.

The reasons to be concerned about these people is not that they earn a lot and can service a loan while leading the gd life, or that they only got one loan. The issues are:

— What happens if they lose their high playing jobs. Will they find another high paying job before the bank manager starts calling? And if they can’t?

— Do they have the cash to cope with a rise in interest rates, whether they have a job that pays them a high a lot or not?

That they have incomes higher than the median household income of S$6,000 is irrelevant, or only one loan is irrelevant to the issue of whether the level of over-leverage poses a danger to the system. Going by the numbers available, over-leverae borrowers do not seem to pose a danger to the system. But the minister’s explanation does worry me: it could indicate the complacency of the central bank and the govt. Hopefully, I’m wrong about their complacency.