On Apr 24, 5:04 pm, fifo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Uniquely Singa****e
>
> Public Accountability
>
> Leong Sze Hian
>
> In all the Parliamentary Debates, Singa****eans have never been told
> what the amount of our reserves is, by way of the Government
> Investment Cor****ation (GIC) and Temasek=92s assets.
>
> In the ChannelNewsAsia re****t,
>
> =93Young NTUC members ask wide range of questions at forum=94 (15 March
> 2008), it states that :
>
> =93The audience also got the answer to perhaps one of the biggest money
> question of them all.
>
> Mrs Lim (Hwee Hua, Minister of State for Finance) said: =93You asked how
> much reserves we have. I=92m sorry =96 I am not able to give you that
> answer. There are many, many people who are interested in how much we
> have. It has nothing to do with not wanting Singa****eans to know. It=92s
> only if we go public with you, a lot of other people will know.=94
>
> What harm can there be to disclose this information to Singa****eans?
> Wouldn=92t it cause greater harm to Singa****e=92s reputation and
standing
> by not disclosing?
>
> Perhaps one possible reason I can think of may be that if we know the
> total assets, then it may have to continue to be disclosed every year.
> Then, we may be able to track the ups and downs of our investments and
> assets.
>
> Are Budget surpluses and CPF added to the funds of GIC or Temasek?
> This is perhaps reminiscent of our late President Ong teng Cheong=92s
> remarks, that when he asked for a listing of the nation=92s assets, he
> was told it would take 54 man-years.
>
> The Bloomberg News re****t (Mar 21),=93Temasek Says It=92s Not Affected
by
> Paulson Pact on Wealth Funds=94, states that =93An agreement by
government=
-
> run funds of Abu Dhabi and Singa****e to increase transparency won=92t
> shed more light on Temasek Holdings Pte=92s $118 billion ****tfolio,
> because the company said it already meets disclosure guidelines.
>
> U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said recently that funds,
> including the Government of Singa****e Investment Corp, agreed to adopt
> rules for greater disclosure. Temasek, owned by Singa****e=92s finance
> ministry, said it already provides more information than government-
> run funds.
>
> =93Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund,=94 spokesman Mark Lee said by
> telephone today=85. Temasek has to sell assets to raise cash for new
> investments and doesn=92t require the government to give approvals.=94
>
> =93Temasek discloses a lot more than GIC and always has a strong sense
> of cor****ate governance,=94 Lee said. Paulson=92s statement =93will not
ha=
ve
> any impact,=94 he said.
>
> The company seeks approval from a board consisting of independent
> directors and a representative from the Ministry of Finance, its only
> shareholder, Lee said.
>
> Temasek in 2006 headed an investor group that bought almost all of the
> stock in a Thai telecommunications company from the family of then-
> Prime Minister Thaksin ****nawatra, triggering a chain of events that
> led to the Thai premier=92s ouster in a coup.
>
> The company also faces opposition in neighboring Indonesia, where the
> antitrust regulator has accused it of using stakes in the nation=92s two
> biggest mobile-phone companies to fix prices.
>
> =93Temasek is ultimately controlled by the government and it is not a
> private organization,=94 said Cohen of Action Economics. =93Temasek has
> many similarities to GIC.=94 (Bloomberg)
>
> So, =93Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund=94? A sovereign wealth
fund
> is accountable to the citizens of it=92s country =96 is it or isn=92t
it?
>
> Why is it that there is so much information in Singa****e that is
> secret?
>
> I attended the Human Rights and Trade programme conducted by UNSW in
> March/April 2008, and stumbled upon another =93secret=94.
>
> Secret settlement - If all money recovered, why so secret?
>
> I refer to the editorial =93Singa****e=92s great civil servants=94 (BT,
Dec=
> 12), the articles =93UNSW agrees to repay $32.3m=94 (ST, Dec 12),
> =93Australian varsity agrees to settlement=94 (BT, Dec 12), and media
> re****ts about the settlement.
>
> The EDB would not reveal the total amount or the repayment period. An
> EDB spokesman said, =93We are bound by the terms of the agreement which
> are confidential=94.
>
> As it involves about $32 million of loans and grants, which are
> taxpayers=92 money, shouldn=92t there be more disclosure and
transparency,=
> since the question had been raised in Parliament ?
>
> Since it has been re****ted that the media =93understands that UNSW has
> agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants and loans=94, why
> does EDB still maintain that =93the terms of the agreement are
> confidential=94 ?
>
> Isn=92t EDB contradicting itself by saying that it would not reveal the
> total amount or the repayment period, but yet the media =93understands
> that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants
> and loans=94 ?
>
> As UNSW officials also declined to comment, how did the media obtain
> its understanding that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3
> million ?
>
> What about the $30 million to remove steel and concrete pilings
> already driven into the university campus site, which earlier media
> re****ts had said that the university would have to pay ?
>
> In line with the Government Investment Cor****ation=92s (GIC) statement
> on 10 December, 2008, in conjunction with its $14 billion stake in
> UBS, that going forward, it would set an example for others to follow,
> in providing more disclosure and transparency, government agencies
> should also do the same.
>
> Are not government agencies accountable to Parliament and
> Singa****eans, instead of saying that the terms of any agreements are
> confidential ?
>
> Surely, the least that Singa****eans can expect of our world class
> civil service, is to be told how many cents out of every dollar in
> total, will be recovered, and how long it will take!
If not for his former good ties with the Lees, the late ex-President
Ong Teng Cheong would be sacked immediately for asking questions on
how Singa****e's Sovereign Funds are being used or invested. These are
forbidden questions. Thou shalt not ask. Singa****e's Sovereign Funds
are Familee run and and private. Any monies collected through taxes or
otherwise and when it goes right into it is something like being
sucked into a [black hole]. The Familee is not accountable on how they
want to use it. Just like the former late President of Philippines;
Ferdinand Marcos and his families had done that before.
|
