Nathan didn't even know that Govt had dipped 55 times into reserves since 2002?

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

Mr Tharman said that tapping past reserves in this way is “in essence a conversion of past reserves from one form (financial assets) to another (state land), rather than a drawdown of reserves”.

He was responding to a question from Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam.”

In this connection, I would like to refer to the article “Reserves: ‘No’ to dipping into coffers” (Straits Times, Apr 19).

Dipped into the past reserves only once?

It states that “The Government has dipped into the past reserves only once. In 2009, it obtained the President’s approval to draw down $4.9 billion from past reserves to fund special schemes in the light of Singapore’s worse recession since independence. In 2011, it put back all the money – $4 billion – it used into the reserves.”

Used more than 27 times, but nobody knows?

Contrary to the above, “President Nathan revealed just before he left the presidency (August, 2011), that the past reserves have been used more than 27 times since 2002, for projects like land reclamation and the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers)”. (“President guards Reserves: Really?“, Aug 24, 2011; “How much of the Reserves has been really used?“, Aug 10, 2011)

So now, if not for NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam’s question, no one would have known that the Reserves have been used 55 times, instead of the 27 times disclosed by our former President.

President also don’t know it was 55 times?

Why did our past President reveal that the Reserves has been used 27 times, when it was actually used 55 times?

Before 2002, never use is it?

Since the reply in Parliament now says “Past reserves have been drawn on 55 times since 2002″ – does it mean that the Reserves were never used before 2002?

If this is indeed the case, then why say “since 2002″?

As to “tapping past reserves in this way is “in essence a conversion of past reserves from one form (financial assets) to another (state land), rather than a drawdown of reserves”” – the issue may be not what the drawdown in essence means, but why it was never disclosed?

- http://leongszehian.com/?p=5492


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.