From The Wall Street Journal:
Your editorial “Temasek and Transparency III” (Review & Outlook, Aug. 20) makes unfounded claims on disclosure regarding Temasek.
The government takes a principled approach in what it discloses on Temasek, not merely “what it deems acceptable.” It discloses all relevant information that Singaporeans need to judge Temasek’s performance as a long-term investor, favorable or otherwise. But it does not believe that either government or parliament should become engaged in Temasek’s investment strategies or internal governance. This would politicize Temasek’s operations and prevent it from managing its portfolio professionally and sustaining good, long-term performance.
Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law. It publishes annually its total shareholder returns over various time horizons from one to 30 years and since its inception in 1974, as well as the value of its portfolio for each year since inception. It also publishes the group’s financial summary including profit and loss statements and balance sheets. Temasek’s accounts are audited by reputable international auditors.
You cited Temasek’s losses since March last year as warranting greater scrutiny by parliament but omitted other facts disclosed by the government in parliament—that while Temasek’s portfolio value had fallen in line with the recent market decline, its annualized returns of 15% (in U.S. dollar terms and excluding capital injections) from the start of the market cycle in 2003 until the trough in November 2008 exceeded relevant market indices, as well as many comparable investment entities internationally.
On Charles Goodyear, what Temasek stated about the mutual agreement not to proceed with the planned CEO succession is no different from typical disclosure by large companies which make senior management changes.
Your editorial also gave the misimpression that the government did not favor a non-Singaporean as CEO of Temasek. As the finance minister told parliament, while it is ideal to have a Singaporean, this is not always possible, as the field of candidates with experience in running international operations is narrow. This is why the government wants Temasek to get the best person for the job and accepted the Temasek board’s decision to appoint Mr. Goodyear, a non-Singaporean, as CEO-designate.
Chin Sau Ho
Press Secretary to Minister for Finance
Ministry of Finance
Singapore
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The universe awaits–What is the return from TH on all its foreign foray including those of toxic banks like UBS that even the Swiss govt is dumping.?
We are not interested in muddled return when monopolistic gains from GLC are added.
To TOC—-Can you start a countdown clock, like the one for Mas Sela , for the search for new CEO. Hope they get a new CEO before this decade is outI I have NOT seen any ADVERT yet!
BTW–you cannot de-politicise TH when there are so many ex-politicians and their daughters- in- law in the organisation.
Big brother is watching…..
Finance Minister reports to Prime Minister
Prime Minister’s wife is CEO of Temasek
Theory – Finance Minister “indirectly” reports to PM’s wife. Now Finance Ministry works for Temasek – not the other way round.
Does the recent happenings, and common sense/logic conforms to the above theory?
To: 23) Jeez on August 26th, 2009 4.08 pm
You are most welcomed.
[i]SINGAPORE is charging a senior editor of the Wall Street Journal with contempt of court for three articles last year ..”[/i]
you meant wallstreetjournal have a editor in singapore?
so where is the chargin take place?
in temasek green polytechnic carpark perhaps?
walao. this lady from MOF defend TH like TH=old man lee’s co. (which it is, OBVIOUSLY!!!).
then old man lee still say that TH is not part of Govt. waaah, so confusing right????
Lies after lies, trying to cover each one up. Wait till they get exposed, then old man lee and his dogs will be screwed.
Btw, WSJ shouldnt hesitate to slam ST or TH, infact, it has every right to.
hi Daniel,
post #45 on August 27th, 2009 9.39 am
“When will Hojinx publish her Biography?”
Christmas? Jin(x)gle bell, Jin(x)gle bell, Jin(x) all the way!! :)
oh what fun its to ride on Temasek, where citizens (pay & pay)…
56) heavenhelpus
Don’t make a mockery out of yourself. This is the last time I will say again, go do a internet search and find out how Singapore can sue them. Nobody is going to spoon feed you, especially on the way of your reply.
Another hint to you is, go and find out what is a function of a country attorney office do. How Malaysia and Singapore fight for the island? Which court they fight on the case? Maybe your primary school court…
/// 3) Mr.E on August 26th, 2009 9.31 am
Like my professor once said, in the long term, we’re all dead. ///
Mr. E – you didn’t happen to have a Mr John Maynard Keynes as your professor, did you? I think JMK was long dead. In that case, you should tell your professor to attribute his quotes, or else he may be accused of plagiarism.
[#46 Joseph Teo]
First class observation and evaluation, Joesph. Kudos to you.
I think there is much truth in what you say.
Ho Ching has brought over to Temasek her magic touch from her role as MD of Singapore Technologies. I have read an article in the Internet that unlike King Midas, whose touch on anything would turn them into gold, HC’s touch, it seems, has turned them into shit.
Hi Joseph Teo #46,
I agree with you. This was actually hinted in the Temasek Charter 2002 Backgrounder which revealed that Temasek divides its portfolio companies in Groups A and B.
Group A are firms that are essential to the Singapore economy and our national security. As such, the Government will continue to hold high ownership stake in these firms. Firms that fall into category would include Singapore Petroleum Company, Singapore Press Holdings, DBS Group and the ST Group. Group B are firms with regional potential and they are less tied to our national interest. Capitaland, Singapore International Airlines, UBS, Standard Chartered would fall under this category.
However, the distinction between Groups A and B can be quite blurred. For example, Singtel has overseas subsidiaries in Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia. Yet at the same time, the earnings from Singtel overseas subsidiaries are beginning to exceed the earnings in Singapore. In terms of commercial operation, it begs to question whether the commercial managers will shift local resources abroad to better capture overseas opportunities at the expense of the “home” market.
stupid singaporeans pay so much tax to them to parked your money outside the country while those MIW keep paying and self rewarding themselves with all the profits made into their own pockets at the expense of all you stupid singaporeans.
The longest term they ever used and still using is …. “30 years ago”, “40 years ago”. They always compare now with our grand father’s time…. This is the longest term ever!!! Mata wear shorts last time.
When you compare “last time” of course now it will look better. If I kill someone tomorrow, can I use my last 30-years good conduct to get myself off murder? No right?
2 year ago, the coffee shop fried spring chicken is $6.50, why now they are selling at $7,50? Why don’t tell them to look long term?
” its annualized returns of 15% (in U.S. dollar terms and excluding capital injections)”
Now, where did the capital injections come from? Our CPF? Annualised returns of 15% and pay us peanuts for using our CPF?
/// 46) Joseph Teo on August 27th, 2009 10.27 am
An insight into Temasek’s returns. ///
Joe – actually the data have been published before. I remember seeing a chart of the value creation. The BIGGEST single contributor is SingTel. On its listing, it created billions in asset value overnight. If you strip out SingTel, the return will be miserable. A lot of the values are from private companies injected into TH.
ooh, can i add that (fromwhat i see with my own eyes) Singtel does a “decent” business selling prepaid cards to construction workers on offshore islands.
no competition from M1 or Starhub there.
Lets not complain about the creme dela creme.
After all, they are just doing what they are tasked to do , with the mandate received.
And who gave the mandate to enable them do what they are doing?
And what more can i say?
Need not change charter—Change name to TEFLON Holding
Run by TEFLON HO
I have no regrets because I NEVER make any mistake.
no more lee , no more Ho
“its annualized returns of 15% (in U.S. dollar terms and excluding capital injections) from the start of the market cycle in 2003 until the trough in November 2008″
Mr Leong,our financial guru,pl check whether it is possible,15% retuen for 6 years (2003-2008)is really very high and would have made Ms Ho on top of investment guru,Mr Warren Buffet..
I think all of us should apologise to Madam Ho for critical comments in the past due to failure of PAP to explain this critical information.
Joseph Teo,
I just read yr msg,OK,I have a better understanding of such fantastic performance by Madam Ho,and would not now grade here above guru Warren Buffet.
I remember Madam Ho did some quick sales of some crown jewels in TMS,such as Seraya power station and Spore Food to SATS,all at recorded profit.
But then this lady fr MOF is clearly lying,she should be talking about investment made by Madam Ho when she was CEO,and not realise profit of assets held since old Dr Goh K S and claimed to be her own.
MOF is terrible,coming out with such distorted statement.
[#73 Simon Ng]
“I remember Madam Ho did some quick sales of some crown jewels in TMS,such as Seraya power station and Spore Food to SATS,all at recorded profit.
But then this lady fr MOF is clearly lying,she should be talking about investment made by Madam Ho when she was CEO,and not realise profit of assets held since old Dr Goh K S and claimed to be her own.
MOF is terrible,coming out with such distorted statement.”
Yup, excellent observation. Kudos to you Simon.
Mr Tharman, please enlighten me with the following:-
1. Please give a breakdown of how much money do Temasek made from companies in Singapore and from those overseas?
2. Do you agree with me that Temasek linked companies have many advantage that she would not have outside Singapore?
3. Would you agreed that these advantages would make them to let down her guards when investing oversea?
4. If due diligent and risk assesment were made by the highly paid in-house experts when investing in Merrill Lynch and Barclay Bank, how come the junk investments of both were not discovered? Are they highly paid rubber stampers who base their decisions on credit rating agencies?
5. How come those responsible were not sacked to make them accountable? Is this an example of accountability?
the biggest fish in a fish tank cannot survive the ocean…
sleepwalker,
Highly paid bunch of rubbish managed to go into TH through backdoor links, you really believe in meritocracy? One whole bunch of cronies. Those fund managers i guess might be some relatives of government officials that’s why they cannot be identified because there is no special rigourous selection in picking the best FM to run the investments. All by links to links only.
66) T on August 27th, 2009 11.12 pm
72) Simon Ng on August 30th, 2009 11.56 am
Please, please take note that SINGAPORE POOLS – the Singapore monopoly for TOTO, 4-D & other forms of BETTING – was a CASH COW for Temasek until around 2004, which helped to boost its return. Even a dimwit can make money owning a gambling franchise, and a monopolistic one as that.
Other cash cows for Temasek are PSA, SingTel/Starhub oligopoly, SMRT, power stations which have since been sold only from last year, ST Engineering etc.
Al – you have to remember that competition is a “Vulgar” word when it comes to certain businesses. Remember the days when we had competition in the media and then you had the heads of SPH and MediaCorp running to the government crying that “The Market is too small for competition.” Erm, the reality was the two former monopolies got it into their heads that profits were entitlement and the fact that they were not making any was a divine abomination.
Funnily enough, the “Pro-Business” Singapore government actually bought the story and said consumers don’t matter and so they actually remonopolised the media.
But the story gets better. Re-monopolising the media hasn’t actually made them all that much more profitable and guess what? There are actually government monopolies in Singapore that lose money.
Who can forget Ez-Link Pte Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of the LTA? These guys are incidentally former clients of mine – I project managed the design of the poster to inform the public that the refundable element in the Ez card was not going to be refundable.
Look at their business model. They have a monopoly on a product that nearly everyone uses (Ez-link card). They collect 1 percent on every transaction the cards are used for and there are any given time 2 million transactions a DAY. The best part is, cash is collected up-front. Name me a business model that could be more fool proof? I don’t think it requires a Harvard MBA to realise that in this situation, all you have to do is to collect the money.
Yet, somehow, these guys actually lost something like $17 million in 2003. Forgive me for being cynical here, but I think that really took talent.