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
“Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law.”
I don’t think that the People are giving MOF a choice in the disclosure of pertinent information about Temasek. The People see stone-walling for what it is. Perhaps, Singaporeans have it wrong all this time. The real problem is that the law is just inappropriate for good governance at Temasek and at the Ministry for Finance. The solution is to change the law makers to change the law; the present cohort is defying the wishes of the People.
Meanwhile, I am all for a no-confidence motion on Tharman for failing yet again in his job.
The 2 statements from Temasek are confronting each other:
1. “This would politicize Temasek’s operations and prevent it from managing its portfolio professionally and sustaining good, long-term performance.”
2. ” 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.”
If Temases is free from politics, why does it need a Finance Minister to explain its management decision to parliament??
Like my professor once said, in the long term, we’re all dead.
Funny how the govt keep saying that it has nothing to do with the running of Temasek but then it keeps defending Temasek in letters like this one.
How come Temasek cannot defend itself?
I heard the news of Temasek’s new charter.
I am a layman. Questioning is all I can offer as I dun have the knowledge to give the answers.
Based on commonsense, I like to ask a question:
with this new charter, will private investors be able to invest in Temasek by transferring money they keep in singapore banks?
Yes / No ?
“Extract from WSJ”
But Mr. Tharman ultimately raised more questions than he answered. “Temasek is not untransparent,” he said. “It is more transparent on matters that really concern us ultimately, which is investment performance—being accountable for long-term sustainable returns.” Under Singaporean law, Temasek is not required to disclose its financial statements. But if Mr. Tharman is going to tout Temasek’s returns, then why doesn’t the fund release complete historical financials to back up its claims?
If someone cannot backup his claims using facts, then he’s definitely not telling the truth/hiding something = no transparency.
Can i say either something is Transparent or it is not?
To : 5) CommonSense Question
You want to? Based on their ‘disclosures’ that is above the Law?
Do you see any details on their new Charter? Based on commercial terms? No definition there so far either….. what do you think ‘commercial ‘ means?
Funds normally have a benchmarked return on the prospectus based on last 3 mths, 6 mths, 1 yr, 3 yr & 5 yr performance not from 19xx.. what’s theirs?
It takes a really brave &/or ______ (where applicable) person to decide based on the information they have provided so far.
Monkeys can also perform if given ‘long term’, and by the time for accountability, the monkeys are all dead liao.
The lamest excuse you can find is ‘Long Term’.
“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.”
I must have slept past the moment when they disclose info? or did Tharman say a different stuff?
Gezz….MOF and TH are just hollow
Or maybe, the person thought he was replying to Japan’s Weekly Shonen Jump (WSJ also) comic series instead of Wall Street Journal and thought he can get away with such vague debate…
Instead of answering the doubts and proving their point….the use the same old points again and again….geez…..i don’t think the people at WSJ needs to be taught how to analyse data
Will changing Temasek’s charter or disclosing any more financial information about itself change the fact that TH get its source of funding from Sg’s Min of Finance?
All this charades with selective disclosure of financial information and changing labels within TH are just a FUTILE attempts to convince the market that it is not related to the Sg gahmen.
If LHL selectively shows you just a selected few bank statements and wears a T-shirt proclaiming “I am not my father’s son”, will anyone believe that he is not LKY’s son?
It’s the same old spin. After reading such a long reply, I learn nothing. It is totally empty. Waste my time.
What long term bullshit is he talking about when they still have not explained why they sold their stakes in the banks earlier this year?
What’s the reason for incurring such a huge loss so eagerly? Didn’t someone mention they hold their investments for 20 or 30 years?
The universal reason of “long term” is to buy time so as to answer the people right now. IF anything they wil lsay “wait 20 years then come back”.
When 20 years have passed, do you think the same people who said “long term” will still be here? Even if they are, don’t you think they will say something like “oh we can’t predict 20 years ahead, seriously, things have changed since then”.
All these is assuming that people even remember to ask the question 20 years later.
The sale on the short term could be because the “long term” reason is really hurting so bad they thought of cutting losses. Unfortunately, they cut at the wrong time :P
“Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law” (MOF)
Temasek is a 5th Schedule Company under the Companies Act and does NOT need to disclose ANY financial info.
MOF is just talking crap
Time For Change #15 is correct. All talks about long term investments (20 years down the road) is big BS. Long time ago someone also mentioned that if TLCs cannot gave a good ROIs, TH would rather invest somewhere else and get better ROIs. Now look what has happened ?. The fact is, except for some TLCs like NOL and lately SIA losing money because of the economic downturn, most of the other TLCs like SingTel, DBS are still providing reasonable ROIs for TH. On the other hand, TH have lost billions in their investments in other companies. Anyway, head they win.. tail they also win. What else can we say.
haa, i knew it!! major foreign journalist would not keep quiet abou TH!! an opportunity not to be missed, where there is smoke there is fire.
as for investors, i think only people in the familee will invest lah. TH is familee jewel mah….
“Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law. ”
Which country’s laws?
Ref:
20) Shaun on August 26th, 2009 2.41 pm “Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law. ”
Which country’s laws?
Answer: The law of strategical (only ) disclosure, according to our govt. ministers.
Jeez #17,
You are quite right that Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd is Fifth Schedule entity under the Constitution of Singapore (but not under the Comapnies Act).
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?&actno=1999-REVED-CONST&date=latest&method=part&segid=931158661-004006
As a Private Limited entity, Temasek is protected, under the Companies Act, against public disclosure. Its only legal shareholder is the Ministry for Finance.
However, under the Constitution, things are quite different.
You see that, in Article 2, the term “reserves” is defined as
“reserves” , in relation to the Government, a statutory board or Government company, means the excess of assets over liabilities of the Government, statutory board or Government company, as the case may be
Article 24(2) states that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament.”
By consistently stone-walling the questions in parliament, Tharman has consistently demonstrated that he is unresponsive and indeed irresponsible for the entity Temasek under his charge.
Furthermore, by the powers of Article 22F(2), The President may request —
(a) any Minister, or any senior officer of a Ministry or of a department of the Government; or
(b) the chief executive officer and any member of the governing board of any statutory board or the directors of any Government company to which Article 22A or 22C, as the case may be, applies, to furnish any information referred to in clause (1) concerning the reserves of the Government, the statutory
board or Government company, as the case may be, and the Minister, member, officer or director concerned shall be under a duty to provide the information.
That the president has NOT caused this to happen does NOT bode well with the efficacy of the checks and balances.
To: 22) Steve Wu on August 26th, 2009 3.00 pm
Your correction of my mistake and further elaboration of the Constitution with regards to Temasek & the other 5th Schedule Companies are much appreciated.
Quite clearly Tharman’s stonewalling is against the spirit if not the letters of the Constitution. People should seriously wonder why.
Many thanks.
Agree with you that it is rather disconcerting that the current President has not asked for accountability. Remember that when former President Ong had asked for details of our reserves he was told it would take 56 man-years
Is a Singaporean an intellectual if they don’t question ?
I am talking to you, singapore youths!
The present President is sleeping and dare to take so much pay doing nothing. Taking about safeguard our reserve. I think the gov. dare not to reveal much as the losses may be even more that we cannot imagine.
Anyway, we need a change through our vote in the next election. I just want to remind all brothers and sisters out there. Don’t be fool by PAP again especially during election. They will give out goodies and relax the ruling.
Example: the recent property tax law. I was surprise the IRAS willing to accept public opinion. Our gov usually go ahead impose any changes without consulting us. This just the beginning.Let’s wait and see what other goodies they will ome out with. Maybe tax free for this Year. HAHAHA.
viswa sadasivan seems to be the new generation and the rebirth of our late father rajaratnam.
he just tickle abit softly on a main subject and lky knees shiver.lol
what happen if viswa sadasivan bring out his lion in him?
then lky would not be able to answer it.
just like rajaratnam
lky hear raja (the king) name coming he hide push all his mp forward.lol
Yang,
“Anyway, we need a change through our vote in the next election”
Easy to say. Are you aware that there is no unity in opposition?
That instead of coming together they are fragmenting the pie.
Foolish, imho.
don’t vote for PAP don’t support the lky
“26) we, singaporeans on August 26th, 2009 5.26 pm viswa sadasivan seems to be the new generation and the rebirth of our late father rajaratnam.”
I wonder why he did not speak up at HLP but only now?
He was also working in media related organization right?
So, when someone nominated him to speak up, he speak up?
correct me if i wrong.
Let’s see if MOF sue WSJ, then we will see how firm they stand.
Why is the succession plan like this?
Was all these years insufficient time to find the replacement?
Likewise, the G.
Q1) What do you do when the CEO screwed up a company?
Shareholders have an EGM and remove the CEO and change its directors.
Q2) What does MOF do when Temasek screwed up?
Temasek is owned by MOF. This shareholder instead continue to defend the CEO and the directors of Temasek. Saying that it is doing a great job when all numbers tell us otherwise.
So Temasek is constituted differently and MOF (and the government) is responsible to Parliament for its proper conduct….but when it screwed up…. and MOF (and the government) is doing nothing about it… what should Singaporean do?
Well… there is only ONE thing to do…. either have the government change the Minister of Finance and if that fails….. change the government!
What else can you do?
//17) Jeez on August 26th, 2009 1.41 pm
“Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law” (MOF)
Temasek is a 5th Schedule Company under the Companies Act and does NOT need to disclose ANY financial info.//
Does this mean that if someone in TH farts, the company is already disclosing well beyond what it is required to under the law?
So I stand corrected… only the President can remove Temasek CEO and Boards… but our President cannot do ‘sh*t’ without the the “advise” from his master!..
A letter bristling with indignation, full of self-righteous belief and the intent to browbeat the opposing party to silence.
Of course, this is reminscent of the NKF saga. Hubris will ultimately be their downfall.
RED-man,
post #30 on August 26th, 2009 9.25 pm
“Let’s see if MOF sue WSJ, then we will see how firm they stand.”
i agree!!
MOF cannot sued WSJ for wsj is just a newpaper reportin financial news whatever
no other countries in the whole wide world could sued a well established paper
the only weapons it can used is to downscale the nos of copies to be circulated in singapore.
if every country can sued the world media
than bbc and cnn should had been bankrupt and closed by now…
It reminds me of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were above scrutiny of SEC, fully backed up by the federal government and the only two companies in Forbes 500 that are not liable to disclose their financial to the public. ….and just look at what happen now? Might not be the same thing but the formula for failure seems the same
Hi Heavenhelpus
///MOF cannot sued WSJ for wsj is just a newpaper reportin financial news whatever…////
Are you talking about a myth? Kindly do a search in the Internet and come back to tell us again all about it. Please refer to the below caption which happened not so long ago. Thanks
“SINGAPORE is charging a senior editor of the Wall Street Journal with contempt of court for three articles last year ..”
We still don’t know why Charles Goodyear left Temasek Holdings and why Ho Ching was re-appointed.
Temasek Holdings is the reason why prices are going up…
Ho Ching, have a heart please. At the rate you are losing our savings, GST will be up to 12% in 5 years time.
(1) “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.”
- Agree. Which is why there is a demand for transparency to understand why was there a sudden reversal on the same decision. Just as a corporation is answerable to its shareholders, we have the right to demand an answer to this reversal, as interest and stakeholders of Temasek.
(2) “It discloses all relevant information that Singaporeans need to judge Temasek’s performance as a long-term investor, favorable or otherwise.”
- Agree. Which is why there are many who voiced the opinion that Ms. Ho is not suitable and appropriate for her role in Temasek. Not suitable because of the dismal performance results and not appropriate because there is an OBVIOUS conflict-of-interest in her being the sleeping partner of the leader of this country.
(3) “This would politicize Temasek’s operations and prevent it from managing its portfolio professionally and sustaining good, long-term performance.”
- Agree. However I question the sincerity of this statement considering Ms. Ho (or Mrs. LHL) is the CEO of Temasek while her husband wields the most powerful policy-making post in the land! It is already an obvious politicizing of it’s operation!
There seems to be alot (obviously more than the three I raised) of contradiction in Ms. Chin’s rebuttal to WSJ. Comrades, this is just another example of arguing the relevance of Communism in today’s world. Not exactly your regular, run-of-the-mill 1st world country, wouldn’t you say?
all these angmos…when they are in trouble, will go round the world begging people to buy their banks, bonds, TB etc…now they can talk cock….**#@*
TH not only paid a heavy price to learn, but now pulling its hairs and knocking its head against the wall…save the angmos and get kicked ion return
For commercial principle next time better invest your funds (our monies) in singaporeans to save singaporeans…..
I just hope Chip (whom I am sure does not come Cheap) will sell his story to WSJ or publish a book on his stay in the Garden of Eden. I am sure it will sell millions of copy and make him a nice bundle.
I would also be interested to see if our great defenders of their honour will take legal action in another country (where WSJ is published) where the judges are not so elite or world class.
But then as someone pointed out it was announced that there was “no legal obligation to pay” but the statement did not explicitely deny that any payment was made to buy his silence. So fat hope I guess…
When will Hojinx publish her Biography ?
Suitable title and subtitle ?
HoJinx
- the Story of World’s most powerful woman of one of World’s most powerful Oppressive Dynasty, who lost billions and still live a live of no regret.
HoJinx
- The One And Only Jinx that costs Billions.
An insight into Temasek’s returns.
If you understand Temasek’s history, you will understand why it is able to produce high historical returns. It was set up as a holding company for government assets. Companies like SIA, SIA Engg, Singtel, the ST group, Capitaland, DBS, etc would have formed a large proportion of its portfolio. These companies were built on the hard work and on the backs of many Singaporeans, and their value become monetised when they were listed and large investment houses bought into them. That is, their value was not created by Temasek, or by any investment decision made by Temaksek management. It is the management and employees of these companies that created value.
Because of the lack of transparency, we are unable to assess Temasek’s performance in terms of it’s investment decisions – that is shares and derivatives that it bought and sold. I suspect that if it was assessed on this alone, we will find it’s performance to be dismal.
I can’t back my statements with any data, because Temasek won’t release it. However, I suspect that it is not too far from the truth.
#25
Yang, I agree with you; we need a change in govt and the sooner we kick the Papies out the better.
#27
Between Rock and a Hard place, just vote for the opposition in the next elections.That’s the first step.
“Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required to under the law.”
More accurately, this must be praphrased as, “Temasek itself discloses well beyond what it is required by the lawmaker(s)”
We must all be very clear in Singapore that the law is not the kind of supreme standard that it is made out to be, but given the very, very strong mandate that the people, year after year, perhaps unthinkingly and unknowingly, have given to the PAP, have led to a situation that lawmakers are way above the law, and even the Constitution; and that the law is simply a legal cover and strong defence for the ultimate powers in the land, namely one, or maybe, two persons.
This oft resort to appeal to the law also obscures and deludes the people to think that we are a democracy when actually we are closer to North Korea or Myanmar. Even China I think is more democratic, in the least, power is not solely in the iron fists of one man.
such news can be very disturbing to citizens especially the youths.
I hope people dun go around and sms blast or email blast to all their friends and colleagues the article by WSJ . This is so bad for the country.
The danger is that mass communication in this way , though instantaneous, will lead to people Questioning more when they should be working harder so as to achieve happiness for their singaporean bosses. Hey, even bosses are humans ok. they need to be happy with higher bonus and salaries.
work harder! else, get replaced! ha !
I am worried about the people reading this article for 1 reason:
1. I worry that people will be Distracted from their daily routines. Singaporeans are happy people as reported. This kind of news may distract people and could affect their happy.
Quote the article:
[["People do want to know," Mr. Tharman replied. "There's curiosity. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information." Later, he added: "It will not be advisable, nor in the interest of Temasek or Mr. Goodyear, for us to comment further. It serves no strategic purpose."]]
This part I think should not have been published by WSJ :
[[In other words, the government will only disclose what it deems acceptable regarding Temasek...]]
I used to be happy and now affected and disturbed. I hope the majority youths do not see or hear this article on MSM. We must continue to trust. A five letter word but smells so delicious.
My only consolation is that most people do not visit websites that are ALTERNATIVE. Phhheeeew!!
I am happy once again.
I am 1st world and intellectual. yeah!
Hello number 49′er:
[["People do want to know," Mr. Tharman replied. "There's curiosity. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information." Later, he added: "It will not be advisable, nor in the interest of Temasek or Mr. Goodyear, for us to comment further. It serves no strategic purpose."]]
I think he said it excellently.
The people have given them the mandate all the half Century and these people do what they can.
His views may be coincidental with the views of the public, if there is a Referendum conducted, I am sure.
majulah!