Friday, December 7, 2007

检查小组再突击 两成店屋摆货仍违例


早报 071207

● 吴淑贤
萧紫薇(摄)

  自组屋商店摆货守则出炉近两个月以来,建屋发展局、民防部队及国家环境局已对1180间商店展开突击检查,发现仍有约四成店家违反守则,在店外乱摆货物及杂物。

  跨部门稽查小组在首次检查后三个星期再回到这些违例商店检查,发现违规情况一般已改善,违例商店减少到两成左右。

  稽查小组和荷兰—武吉班让市镇理事会昨天下午对万吉路的61间商店展开突击检查,发现有26间违例,其中20间因此受到书面警告,其余6个店家被口头警告后立即移除违例摆放的货品。
  建屋局、民防部队和环境局是在10月11日颁布一套全国通用的组屋商店摆货守则,明确列出店外摆放区范围,以确保紧急事故发生时,公众的逃生之路通畅无阻。一些守则包括禁止店外物品摆设超过3米、店前走道不得少过1.5米宽和不能将货物通宵留在店外等。

  昨天进行的检查中,最多业主违反的守则是在店外安装不可伸缩的固定棚盖,以及所摆放的货物堵住楼梯口,共有14名业者触犯这两条守则。

  售卖日常用品及小饰品的易慧丰(59岁)说,稽查人员告诉他不得使用卷式帐篷遮盖店外商品,可是他在一个月前订做可伸缩棚盖还未交货。他估计店外棚盖安装费用整千元,他得自掏腰包。

店家抱怨生意下跌

  他说,自摆货守则出炉后,生意大不如前,因为他得把多数物品摆在店里,结果吸引不到逛街购物者光顾。

  在店外摆设处售卖衣服的谢丽清(41岁)说,摆货守则严格限制摆设处的出租,对像她这样的小本经营者影响很大。谢丽清曾租下店面卖衣服,不过由于成本高,只维持两个月,之后她就在店外摆卖。

  她说:“我是家里的经济支柱,不能没有工作。要是他们不让我在这里做生意,我真的不知道该搬去哪里。”

  武吉班让的正华商联会主席陈维忠(50岁)希望当局能体谅业者的处境,执行守则时更有人情味,不要剥夺业主的生存空间。他说,自守则推出以来,许多商家向他申诉生意下跌两三成。正华商联会大约有90个会员。

  现在正值佳节期,一些邻里商店会在店外摆放更多货物以刺激销售量,带动人潮。建屋局产业与土地部副处长林发荣说,即使在佳期期间,商家也得遵守摆货守则,各市理会也必须提高警惕。

  他说,昨天稽查行动结束后,跨部门稽查小组已完成16个市镇会管辖区的首轮突击行动,如果有必要,他们会进行第二轮突击行动,以辅助各市镇会的执法力度。

ODA Inspection


Thursday, December 6, 2007

Manage estates, not investments


Friday • December 7, 2007
Letter from KARMA TSULTRIM WANGCHUK

I refer to "Move to protect council funds" (Dec 1). It is noteworthy that rules on the investment of Town Council funds have been tightened for the sake of risk management. However, we should not be distracted from what I consider to be the priority issue that has not been really addressed in recent reports and comments regarding this matter.

First, let's examine what we expect the role of Town Councils to be and not to be. In my view, Town Councils have only one primary role: As estate managers, that is, to upkeep the HDB estates under their charge in acceptable livable conditions. To fund such activities, they charge and collect monthly fees from residents to defray recurring and seasonal costs, as well as to set aside a sinking fund to cover cyclical costs which recur every few years.

With many years of experience, Town Councils are by now quite capable of budgeting fairly accurately for the short- and long-term and the sourcing of funds including Government grants and the capital levy imposed on residents for any one-off upgrading.

Granted, monthly conservancy charges should be levied on residents to balance the budget, leaving at most a reasonable reserve for contingency purposes.

It is not the business of estate managers to collect charges from residents and then engage in financial investment activities, which are not within their area of expertise. Also, residents are not shareholders of Town Councils and I believe therefore, they do not have any legal right or direct access to the excess funds or earnings from these. And yet they are the major providers of these funds and bear the risk if the sinking funds are invested badly. If investments result in a net loss, the residents will most likely be asked to top up.

Two things should be done for the sake of the public's interest.

First, if a substantial portion of the funds held by Town Councils is indeed excess funds, Town Councils should lower their monthly conservancy charges sufficiently so that the excess can run down over time. With the rising cost of living, this is the right way to reverse over-charges, if any, and ease the cash-flow of the heartlanders.

Second, the Government should immediately call for an audit on the management of these funds (and share the findings publicly), so as to address the following issues:

• The adequacy of the risk management processes for proper control.

• The existing investments should be marked to market and the profit and losses of previously-held investments determined. Only then will the public have a complete picture of the time performance of the investments.

• Review investment limits and policies with a view to confine investments only to Government-issued and "Triple A" instruments. Also, the centralisation of fund investment at Ministry level should seriously be considered. This will facilitate the pooling of investment expertise, control and provide economies of scale so as to minimise administrative and risk management costs.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

New rule to safeguard council funds

ST Dec 2, 2007
By Tan Hui Yee & Mavis Toh

TOWN councils tempted to play the stock market to increase the returns on their sinking funds will now have to meet a new rule that caps how much they can put into higher-risk investments.
Councils, which have had some leeway when investing their cash, must limit their investments in non-government stocks, funds or securities to 35 per cent of the sinking fund.

This new rule, which kicked in yesterday, applies to more than $1 billion in sinking funds managed by the 16 town councils in Singapore.

The money is collected through monthly service and conservancy charges and government grants and is used for cyclical repairs, such as re-painting or re-roofing.

The Ministry of National Development brought the rule in to strike a balance between councils trying to get good returns on their funds and not taking undue risks with residents' money.
Some council cash has been going into shares and corporate bonds, which are considered riskier than government ones.

The president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals Leong Sze Hian said: 'Corporate bonds are only as good as the company can pay. The risk of a company running out of money is higher than that of the Government.'

Before the new rule, council investments were governed by the Trustees Act, which placed restrictions on some instruments. The new 35 per cent cap is seen as stricter, but no council contacted by The Sunday Times said it would have trouble complying.

The Hong Kah Town Council has about $150 million in its sinking fund, with one-third invested in government bonds returning 2 to 3 per cent. Another third is in short-term fixed deposits with returns of 1.5 to 3 per cent, with the rest handled by fund managers.

The investments can include corporate bonds and stocks, which are riskier. But this portion, handled by fund managers, nets about 8 to 10 per cent in returns a year, said council chairman Ang Mong Seng.

Sinking funds are typically parked in safe investment instruments, such as government bonds and fixed deposits. But a few years ago, many councils felt that they could do better by investing in other instruments, such as shares.

Many then let fund managers invest a bigger portion of their cash and reap better returns.
In light of the recent turmoil in the financial markets, many back the new cap, stressing that their primary goal is to preserve their capital, rather than maximise returns.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, who heads the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council and is also the coordinating chairman of the People's Action Party town councils, said: 'Some town councils may have to make some adjustments with this rule.' This includes his council.

The chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee on National Development and the Environment Charles Chong said that councils have been given five years to bring their investment levels under the cap. This will allow existing debt instruments to mature and reap returns.

But he cautioned town councils against becoming too conservative with their investments: 'Our inflation rate is going up and estimated to hit 5 per cent. If we're getting a yield of 2 or 3 per cent, we are really eroding the value of our reserves.'

tanhy@sph.com.sg
mavistoh@sph.com.sg

Accident CCK Way / CCK Ave 3


Stomp
Posted on 02 Dec, 2007 15:42

STOMPer Frank saw this accident at the junction between Choa Chua Kang Way and Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3 at about 2pm today (Dec 2).

STOMP has contacted the Police for more information.

Advertising stickers on lamp posts





Saturday, December 1, 2007

Dangerous CCK Junction


Stomp
Posted on 01 Dec, 2007 11:47

STOMPer Choo sent this illustration to highlight the hazards for cyclists and drivers in Choa Chu Kang, following recent accidents in the area.

The STOMPer also sent this photo taken of an accident at the traffic junction of Choa Chu Kang Ave 4 and Choa Chu Kang Loop at about 4.30pm on Thursday (29 Nov).

"This accident happened just a couple of weeks after another accident (I believed it was reported in ST Forum online letters) which occurred at only the next junction to the above, at Choa Chu Kang Ave 4 and Choa Chu Kang Way," Choo said in an email on 30 Nov.

"The goods of the damaged lorry landed on the traffic island where all pedestrians usually stand while waiting to cross the road.

"Fortunately no one was injured. I remembered a news contributor appealing for something to be done, and he highlighted that many pedestrians can be seen standing on the island of the traffic junction whenever he drove past this junction each morning to work.

"I have drawn an illustration of a situation which might cause these accidents to happen.

Perhaps it is in no way related to both accidents. I'm talking about cyclists," the STOMPer said.Choo said there are many cyclists in Choa Chu Kang, especially during peak hours.

"I have witnessed a car stopping just before a pedestrian crossing to avoid a cyclist speeding across it. The driver was making a right turn. It was almost an emergency brake for the driver.
"If the cyclist is coming from the opposite direction, I'm sure the driver can see him. But it will be more difficult if the cyclist is coming in the same direction as the car driver.

"It's an unpredictable situation for any car driver. The driver has to turn his head further to the right and behind to check for any cyclists trying to dash across "pedestrian crossings" before he makes a right run.

"I hope something can be done to inculcate safer cycling habits," Choo said.