Connect with us

Current Affairs

Why is Ho Ching's salary a "state secret"?

Published

on

Temasek Holdings reported a massive plunge in one-year shareholder returns for the financial year ending March 31. The Singapore state investment firm reported a mere 1.49% shareholder return in their annual report, a major decline from the previous year’s 12%.
“We remain watchful around the risks of a late cycle recession in the US. Brexit and political fragmentation continue to weigh on Europe, while China has yet to move fully to restructure its economy for longer term sustainability,” Lim Boon Heng, Temasek’s chairman, said in the annual report.
“These issues have key repercussions on global sentiments and sustainable growth for the longer term,” he added.
The company also reported making more divestment than investment in their last financial year, letting go of S$28 billion in assets while adding S$24 billion.
However, the one thing that everyone in Singapore has been asking about all these years: Ho Ching’s salary. Nowhere in the report does the company state how much they pay their CEO.

Everyone is still wondering how much Temasek pays its CEO

PM Lee’s brother Mr Lee Hsien Yang pointed out this glaring omission on his Facebook page yesterday (10 June), saying “Temasek announced its results yesterday. No surprise that it still didn’t disclose Ho Ching’s salary. Why is it such a big secret?”

Also noting the omission is Chief of People’s Voice Party Lim Tean. Following Mr Lee’s post, he noted on his own Facebook page how “absurd” it is that Ho Ching’s salary still has not been disclosed. He asks, “where is the transparency and accountability?”

The politician also backed up Mr Lee’s query of the non-disclosure of Ho Ching’s salary as Temasek CEO, adding that this is one issue that should be debated in Parliament.
Mr Lim Tean asked, “Why is the salary of the Chairman and all top executives of Temasek, the Sovereign Wealth Fund not open to scrutiny by the stakeholders i.e the citizens of Singapore?”
Back in May, we noted in an article that Temasek Holdings is an exempt private company under the Singapore Companies Act, which means that the company is not required to publish its audited statutory consolidated financial statements. It’s even stated on their website.
Basically, they don’t have to tell us how much Ho Ching is paid.

A calculated guess

Since Temasek has so far refused to reveal the details of the remuneration package of their CEO, blogger Phillip Ang speculated back in June 2018 that Ho Ching’s salary could be somewhere around $100 million a year.
Mr Ang said that since Temasek Holdings (Private) Ltd is considered to be private sector company, it’s reasonable to assume that the CEO’s salary would be pegged to top earners in the industry without any discounts.
Mr Ang based his calculations on how much other CEO’s were paid per year and how much was offered by Temasek to Charles Goodyear when they approached him to be CEO in 2009. At the time, Mr Goodyear was making a cool $54 million a year at BHP Billiton. So it would be reasonable to assume that Temasek would have offered him more.
Taking $54 million as the starting point at the time when Ho Ching was appointed, that would mean she earned about $147,945 a day. That’s 25 times the Prime Minister’s salary already. Over the years, now that Temasek’s portfolio has doubled under her supervision, she must be earning more, said Mr Ang.
Based on those factors, Mr Ang estimates Ho Ching’s salary to be about S$300,000 a day which comes up to about S$100 million a year.

Shouldn’t sovereign wealth funds be transparent about their finances?

Now, it’s puzzling that a sovereign wealth fund like Temasek is so closely guarding the true salary figures of their top officers. After all, as Mr Lim Tean said, the stakeholders are Singaporeans and they should have the right to know how their money is being managed. This includes being transparent about how much Temasek staff are paid.
When you look at Norway, for example, the management costs of their sovereign wealth fund is not a state secret. Norway’s SWF manages a portfolio of about S$1.49 trillion. Of that, about 0.05% goes to management costs which includes CEO salaries – that’s about S$750 million. We know exactly how much their CEO earns and the details of how much funds are invested in each company under their portfolio.
Earlier this year, Worker’s Party MP Png Eng Huat brought up this matter in Parliament, specifically asking whether there is a remuneration cap for key management staff in GIC and Temasek and what the rage of total remuneration paid to the top three executives in GIC and Temasek, including salary and annual bonuses.
In response, the Second Finance Minister Lawrence Wong who is also the National Development Minister merely evaded the question by saying that the government keeps an “arms-length relationship” with those two companies. Without revealing any salaries, Mr Wong added that the government expects the Boards to hold accountable for their respective performances and that the government leave it up to the companies to decide on management matters.
He also said, “Ultimately, the Government evaluates the performance of the two entities based on their long-term returns, net of all expenses incurred.”
He did, however, say that remuneration is based on performance and industry benchmarks and that the government supports a “prudent risk-taking culture”. A portion of the remuneration at both entities are also tied to long-term performance, noted the Minister.
As you can see, Mr Wong did not answer the question. We still don’t know how much Ho Ching makes as the CEO of Temasek, a sovereign wealth fund. Why the secrecy?

Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending