Ravi Philemon

“A Temasek spokeswoman declined Friday to comment on the price the fund sold its shares for or the timing of the sale”, reported the Associated Press.  Why should the secretive Temasek Holdings reveal such sensitive information to a wire agency when they will not reveal it to the real stakeholders in the government holding company, the citizens of Singapore?

In 2008,  Temasek Holdings (which was by then managing portfolios worth $185 billion), was asked to appear before the US House of Representatives before a joint sub-committee of the House Financial Services Committee in a hearing related to foreign government investments in the United States.  Temasek Holdings then declared that, “(it) has to sell assets to raise cash for new investments and doesn’t require the government to give approvals”, mainly to assuage US concerns on transparency and non-politicization of investments.

Ms. Ho Ching’s penchant for risk-taking came to the fore in July 2007 with Temasek’s roughly $6 billion investment in Barclays, taking a 2.1 percent stake in the bank.  The New York Times then reported a former (unnamed) advisor to Temasek Holdings as warning that Temasek’s strategy of buying big chunks of companies exposes it to potentially deep losses if markets turn. 

The warning by the unnamed former advisor now certainly looks prophetic.  In March 2009, the Ministry of Finance reported that the Singapore sovereign wealth fund lost $39 billion – 31 percent of its value – in just eight months. It’s portfolio shrank from $185 billion to $127 billion between March and November last year. 

Temasek seems to be on a roll with its losing streak; and what is even more appalling is its continuing secrecy in the face of these losses. A Temasek spokesman, who revealed that “we have divested our shares in the Bank of America”, failed to answer any other queries, including the price it got for divesting 188.8 million shares in the Bank of America.

A culture of secrecy

Secrecy seems to be the culture that Ms. Ho has brought with her to Temasek Holdings.    

Temasek Holdings lifts its cloak of secrecy partially when it is beneficial to its cause.  For example, in October 2004, to satisfy the legal requirements in issuing bonds to raise money from the public, Temasek reported its accounts to the public for the first time in its 30-year history.  Where is this accountability when $6.8 billion seem to have been lost in the untimely divestment from Bank of America? 

What is even more alarming is the fact that they would have probably kept quiet if not for the compulsory Form 13F filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from Temasek indicating that the fund no longer held shares in Bank of America or Merrill Lynch as of 31 March 2009. 

In taking pre-emptive measures from the negative response such news will be unleashed from the public, Ms. Ho posted on Temasek’s website that it will now cut its holdings in the so-called OECD countries to 20 percent as it expands in Asia and emerging markets from Latin America to Africa. 

The question remains, even with the pre-emptive statement before the filing was made public, “even if there is a need to cut the exposure to OECD countries, why do it now, especially when you will make such huge losses?”  Did not Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew say in February this year when explaining why Singapore was able to invest in American banks that, “When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up”? 

How right was Minister Mentor when he says that the investments are “your shares”? If they indeed belong to the people of Singapore, don’t they have a right to know where, when and how the funds are invested; and even more importantly what are the profits and the losses of such investments? Why the reluctance to reveal to the real shareholders the actual price the fund sold its shares of Bank of America for or the timing of the sale?

Ms. Ho was the head honcho of Singapore Technologies before she became the CEO of Temasek Holdings.  Singapore Technologies under her leadership bought Micropolis in 1996 for $55 million, despite knowing that Micropolis had a history of failures. Approximately one year later, Singapore Technologies had tired of losses generated by the disk-drive manufacturer and ended Micropolis’ operations worldwide; loosing $630 million as a result.  The Chairman of Temasek Holdings had defended Ms. Ho’s fiasco in Micropolis by saying that she had the courage to cut the losses.

Ms. Ho seems to leave a trail of taking huge risks and making even larger losses, first with Singapore Technologies and now with Temasek Holdings. 

You need no courage to cut the losses when the funds invested were not yours in the first place. 

Read also: Temasek, “no regrets for S$6.8 billion loss?

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

控诉司法体系受干预 泰国法官当庭自戕明志

泰国南部一名法官于上周五(4日)在宣判一宗谋杀案的被告无罪后,突然举枪自轰,以自身性命控诉泰国独立的司法体系受到干预,引发国际哗然。 据悉,该名法官也拉府法院法官卡那功(Khanakorn Pianchana)周五正审判某宗谋杀案,指出因证据不足,5名被控谋杀与持械被告无罪释放,不过在他宣判完毕后,转身面向法庭内悬挂的国王肖像,并拔出手枪朝自己胸膛开枪。 有舆论指出,泰国法院经常偏帮富人与强权,但却对犯下轻罪的普通百姓予以严惩。他宣读判词时说明:“你们需要明确可靠的证据来惩罚某人, 因此如果不确定,请不要惩罚他们。” 他同时用自己手机上脸书直播。“我并不是说这5名被告没有犯罪,而且可能有干案……”“但是,司法程序需要透明及可信……错误惩罚使他们成为代罪羔羊。 综合各媒体报道,卡那功在自杀前,曾在个人脸书发表25页的备忘和一段自陈短片,控诉受到该区域的资深法官所威胁,逼迫改判五名被告有罪,令当中的三人判死、2人入狱,但卡那功却坚持,被告虽未必无罪,但目前仍无充分证据检控。 文最后并写下,还判决于法官,还正义于人民,不过有关帖文已被删除,目前该备忘仍未获得法院确认。 司法机关发言人苏里扬周六告诉法新社,“他正接受医生救治,已脱离了危险期。“,而他称卡那功自戕是出于‘个人压力’。惟压力背后的成因尚不详且将调查。 他还说,“从未有泰国法官违反规章,发表类似言论以争取更开明的司法体制。” 也拉府穆斯林检察中心的阿都罗向法新社说,“如今这5人仍被扣留,正等待国家检察官是否对无罪释放判决提出上诉。” 民众今天纷纷到法院前献花致意。…

MOH says MediShield Life limit covers a majority of subsidised bills despite only paying S$4.50 for an elderly man’s post-subsidy bill

Recently, the nation was given a shocking news when they found out…

警方吁民众别轻易分享个资 银行诈骗五个月卷走60万元!

我国自今年1月至5月,至少有82起银行客户被诈骗的投报,造成至少60万元的损失。 警方周二(7月28日)发文告指出,诈骗分子会向享有银行简讯服务的客户发出简讯,指他们的银行账户已经被停用或暂停服务,并指示他们联络指定号码以寻求帮助。 当受害者拨打相关号码时,冒充银行职员的诈骗分子就会接听电话,并询问受害者的个人资料、网上银行资料和一次性密码(OTP)。受害者在提供了相关资料后,不久就会发现银行账户被他人用于进行未经授权的交易。 警方促请民众在面对类似情况时,采取数项措施,避免受骗。 在面对不请自来的银行简讯或电话时,民众应该提高警惕。警方指出,诈骗分子可能会使用各种欺骗技术来隐瞒真实电话号码,以便在“Viber”和WhatsApp等应用程序的来源显示中,展示出银行的名称、号码和标志。 此外,警方也劝请民众不要向任何人透露银行详细资料,包括账户名字、个人识别码和一次性密码,更强调银行和政府机构永远不会要求用户透露有关个资。而在面对未曾进行过的网上交易,民众也受促不要做出回应或进行认证。 而在收到来自银行的可疑简讯或电话时,民众应该拨打该银行官网上所提供的热线电话,以验证其真伪,而不是拨打简讯中所提供的号码。