On Apr 25, 12:01 am, Tah Hwoh Chi <internetkeybo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
standin=
g
> > 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
b=
y
> > Paulson Pact on Wealth Funds=94, states that =93An agreement by
governme=
nt-
> > 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 =
have
> > 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
fun=
d
> > 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,
D=
ec
> > 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
transparenc=
y,
> > 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.
Alamak you rubbish ppl everyday 'cow pay cow bo' on those billion $
reserve.......OK lar.........let's split.......you rubbish take back
the Sg's reserve of 140 billion and the rest should belong to the
Familee....like ppl part company what?........how about that?...can or
cannot?
|
