Skip to main content

What if CPF Board files for bankruptcy?


[Individual lapses can happen in an organization despite safeguards and processes to prevent wrongdoing.]  
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pms-office-statement-cpib-officer-case

Is it possible? What will be the consequence?

In business world, in investment and even a wrong purchase of property, one will get into trouble and face huge financial difficulties. So, noting is impossible, especially when you see a weaker and less credible leader taking over an important institution likes Temasek Holdings or gaps in internal control and staff competencies at National Research Foundation.

Why is it possible? CPF Board buys bonds from the government and in many ways these bonds are guaranteed by the government.  There is less concern about this link. But the next link about investment is a big concern to many Singaporeans and up till today, CPF members still worry about the CPF Board has no money to pay members.

Why? It is because of the investment and investment risk that the bond monies are being used and invested.  The government entrusts these monies to Temasek Holdings and GIC Pte Ltd to invest.   If they are unable to generate income and make punctual and due payments back to the government, the government will have to default the loans (bonds).

Of course, the government may use the huge foreign reserve to pay CPF Board under special circumstance but the use of reserve is subject to President’s second key.  Of course, the government can quietly use the reserve without informing the President. 

So, there is always a risk that the government may dishonour payments to CPF Board when all the bad timings plus all the bad and wrong investments come together. If you recall the collapse of Barings Bank in 1995:
"Barings' collapse was due to the unauthorised and ultimately catastrophic activities of, it appears, one individual (Leeson) that went undetected as a consequence of a failure of management and other internal controls of the most basic kind".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank

Comparing this with the above PMO’s statement on CPIB officer, does it look alike? Or, in the case of National Research Foundation, it is again the lack of internal control and staff competencies.

Detroit files for bankruptcy why not an institution

Detroit filing for bankruptcy protection is not a sudden event.  It is forecasted and expected due to the sharp drop in population.

(Reuters) - Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history on Thursday, setting the stage for a costly court battle with creditors and opening a new chapter in the long struggle to revive the city that was the cradle of the American auto industry. The bankruptcy, if approved by a federal judge, would force Detroit's thousands of creditors into negotiations with the city's Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to resolve an estimated $18.5 billion in debt that has crippled Michigan's largest city.

In fact, CPF Board may escape filing for bankruptcy if Singapore population is allowed to increase to 6.9 million. Under a big population background, the cash inflow contributed by new employees and young members will be bigger than the cash outflow of older members who reach withdrawal age or pass withdrawal age.  So, even the government defaults in loan payments temporarily, CPF Board still has sufficient cash flow to meet the withdrawal demand. 

Unfortunately, 6.9 million is a political issue which is bigger than the cash flow problem of CPF Board now.  It turns the possibility into impossible and advantages into disadvantages.

There are two impossibilities which under normal circumstance should not have happened. Firstly, it is the default of the government due to bad investment management and lack of internal control.  Secondly, without bigger and younger population, the CPF Board cannot raise enough funds internally to pay its members.     

CPF now faces a situation of no external cash flow from the government and no sufficient internal fund to pay members.

What are the consequences?
 
Under bankruptcy protection, cities, institutions or businesses will have an opportunity to renegotiate new terms and conditions for payments to creditors.  CPF members are the creditors and so full payments or temporary full payments are very unlikely because there are insufficient cash.

CPF Board can also request contributing members’ understand and help by raising the contribution rate to improve its cash positions.
However, it is a difficult option.  The government has always stressed that the current burdens should not be passed to the next generation.  Why should existing members help those old and retired members?  It is against the PAP’s philosophy.

The consequence of a collapse of CPF Board is unthinkable but it is no impossible.  It looks impossible but we cannot deny the risk.

Who can imagine Detroit will file for bankruptcy many years ago even they see the problems coming?

To turn the table around, to avoid CPF Board’s bankruptcy perhaps the best solution is the PAP government has to go or to be removed. 

CPF Board is the pillar of the PAP government.  If really one day CPF Board files for bankruptcy it also means the end of the PAP government. It looks so remote yet possible.


CPF monies, foreign reserve, Temasek Holdings, GIC etc. are all linked together.   Cases in CPIB, NRF, and the comments on lapses by Auditor-General all look impossible in the past but it still happens.  What are the meanings behind all these indications? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...