“No regrets” for $6.8bn loss?

“No regrets” for $6.8bn loss?

Sometimes I wonder why Parliamentarians and political commentators even bother to debate government expenditure. To paraphrase a senior statesman, perhaps we all have “no sense of proportion”.

Temasek’s realised loss after selling its Bank of America (BoA) stake could be as high as S$6.8 billion, according to figures published by the pro-government Straits Times. That’s more than the Singapore government’s 2009 budget for healthcare, community development, social services, and manpower development combined!

And the secretive Temasek thought it could keep it hush hush when it sold its stake before the end of March. It was only discovered when a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that Temasek no longer held BoA or Merrill Lynch shares.

Why did Temasek divest its shares when they were at rock bottom? Did they expect BoA to go under? Surely not, given the fact that the Obama administration has shown it is prepared to bail out banks like Citibank. If they had just held on for a year or two, or even a few months, the share prices would have had no where to go but up. This is not 20-20 hindsight. It is common sense.

While I believe Singaporeans accept that in all investments there will be ups and downs, Temasek and the government cannot hide behind this flimsy excuse for realising as large a loss as this. This is a national scandal!

Where is the accountability? None whatsoever, it seems. The CEO of the company is allowed to retire gracefully, saying she has “no regrets”. So what will cause you to leave with regrets, Ms Ho Ching? A $10 billion, or a $100 billion loss of our future generations’ money?

Since Temasek is a wholly owned company of the Ministry of Finance, I don’t think they can just claim they are a private company that is accountable only internally.

The Minister of Finance must answer to Parliament and to the people for this staggering loss of Singapore’s reserves. The government needs to be reminded that the reserves belong not to them, but to the people of Singapore, and more importantly, our children and future generations.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.6

Observers welcome government's restraint in AWARE matter

Observers welcome government's restraint in AWARE matter
By Alicia Wong, TODAY | Posted: 16 May 2009 0741 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 AWARE's EGM - from TODAY
	Related News • Gay agenda 'unfounded', says AWARE • Homosexual groups, pro-family groups call for tolerance on gay issue • Questions over Siew Kum Hong's role as AWARE 'legal adviser' • Media coverage "not sufficiently balanced" at times • Government's position on homosexuality unchanged Special Report • AWARE Dispute

SINGAPORE: Beyond being a case that reaffirmed the OB markers between politics and faith, what impressed some watchers was how civil society had jumped into action, when it seemed that religion was involved in the takeover of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).

And equally admirable was that the state held back from intervening for as long as it did. To protest the election of the New Guard to the executive committee, "civil society acted and threw them out", said political scientist Bilveer Singh.

He was commenting on Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng's remarks on the need to keep religion and politics separate — which observers found reassuring — and how the government had been careful in its comments before the decisive May 2 EGM.

Other than proving the maturing of Singapore's society, said Dr Singh, these events showed that "the state is beginning to have faith in civil society, something which they have been suspicious of all this while". "And it shows our (citizens') own OB markers — that religion is out-of-bounds," he added.

Another academic was "glad the government held back". "If they had charged in ... it would have done neither the Old nor New Guard any good and reduced the space for civil society," added the don, who did not want to be named.

Did the previous AWARE exco, in the first place, cross the line by bringing religion into the fray?

Former exco member Jenica Chua is adamant that they did not. She maintains that none of them had spoken on religion at the March 28 AGM, media reports of which had sparked off the whole controversy.

"The question that bears answering is, who put in the religious slant?" said Ms Chua, who spoke to TODAY in her personal capacity.

She felt Mr Wong "hit the nail on the head" when he said the media coverage was insufficiently balanced. The reports, she said, "polarised" the election as "that of a secular versus religious tussle".

She also defended Church of our Saviour pastor Derek Hong, who had rallied support for those in the exco team who were part of his congregation; he later apologised for using the pulpit in this saga.

Ms Chua clarified that he had asked for support for them through this stressful time, when they were worried about death threats and job security. "He did not say, 'go and join as members of AWARE and vote for us'," said Ms Chua.

Mr Wong warned against religious groups using the pulpit to mobilise followers to pressure the government, as this would lead to trouble.

Netizens at REACH's forum applauded Mr Wong's views overall, and especially felt the media should have been more factual.

Dr Singh agreed the coverage was excessively negative against the New Guard, but judging by "coffeeshop talk", it only reflected the majority view out there which was unsettled by the intrusion of religion into a secular organisation.

While religious undertones did "come across in the media", said sociology professor Tan Ern Ser, "the key issue could easily be conveyed as one involving differences in values, even secular values".

What he would take away from the AWARE saga: When two value standpoints are diametrically different, compromise can be a "tall order" and robust debates may not always win an argument — "it may end up being decided by strength in numbers, volume and eloquence".


- TODAY/so

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.377

Coach Liu meets table tennis officials to resolve saga

Coach Liu meets table tennis officials to resolve saga
By Patwant Singh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 May 2009 0027 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 Liu Guodong
	Related News • Table tennis saga continues with coach Liu getting more support • Former national table tennis coach back in S'pore to seek clarification • Online petition calls for STTA president's removal over coach saga Video Coach Liu meets table tennis officials to resolve saga on his professionalism

SINGAPORE : Former Singapore table tennis coach Liu Guodong met officials from the association on Friday to lay out his terms, in the continuing saga, questioning his professionalism and integrity.

Coach Liu had told the media he wanted clarification from the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA).

The association's president had earlier cast doubts on his professionalism and integrity, as reasons for not nominating him for the Coach of the Year Award.

The media staked out the Meritus Mandarin Hotel where Liu is staying, hoping to catch the meeting, but it took place at Shangri-La Hotel instead.

However, STTA President Lee Bee Wah was not at the two-hour meeting - where the association was represented by its CEO Chew Soo Sheng and secretary Soon Min Sin.

Liu said the meeting was cordial.

"We talked about what I mentioned before; as long as STTA make clarifications in the newspapers, there will be no problem. I came to Singapore by taking leave from the Indonesian team while it's training for competitions. I spent much effort in this. I don't want anything but to clear my name," said Liu.

The association said the discussion helped it better understand Liu's viewpoint, and they agreed to put a closure to the case as soon as possible.

Liu now said it is alright if he does not meet with the STTA president, but what is more important is for the association to publicly clear the air on the remarks made by her.

A second meeting between the two sides is on the cards over the weekend, and hopefully the saga could be settled at that meeting. - CNA /ls

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28588.32

Gay agenda 'unfounded', says AWARE

Gay agenda 'unfounded', says AWARE
By Alicia Wong, TODAY | Posted: 16 May 2009 0741 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 AWARE's new exco - elected at EGM on May 2, 2009
	Related News • Observers welcome government's restraint in AWARE matter • Homosexual groups, pro-family groups call for tolerance on gay issue • Questions over Siew Kum Hong's role as AWARE 'legal adviser' • Media coverage "not sufficiently balanced" at times • Government's position on homosexuality unchanged Special Report • AWARE Dispute

SINGAPORE: Their stand is clear: "AWARE has never promoted homosexuality".

In a statement on Friday evening, the 24-year-old Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) stressed that its stand has always "been identical to that of the government".

"We agree that the heterosexual family is the norm for our society," the women's advocacy group stated. "But homosexuals are also part of our society and they should be able to live freely and happily, free of any discrimination."

Their comments come in response to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng's comment that homosexuality was "clearly a major issue to both sides" in the AWARE saga.

While welcoming Mr Wong's reminder of the need for restraint, respect and tolerance, AWARE said it was "most regrettable" that some people now think it has a "gay agenda" and that "wrongful allegations" continue to be perpetuated online and through other channels.

"This is totally unfounded," it stressed. The allegations by Dr Thio Su Mien and those she "handpicked" to take over AWARE's leadership were based "on the strength of bits of information taken out of context and strung together to create an imaginary and inaccurate picture of AWARE's activities", said AWARE.

But, the current executive committee is moving on, they said. With an expanded membership, they are now putting together programmes for the year.


- TODAY/so

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.376

Aware president calls attacks on Siew Kum Hong “most foul and unfair”

Aware president calls attacks on Siew Kum Hong “most foul and unfair”

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Darren Boon

A Facebook group, ‘We Support Siew Kum Hong’, has been set up to support Mr Siew Kum Hong’s bid for a second term as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP).

In a strong show of support for Mr Siew, the group, which was set up only yesterday, has 430 members so far, ballooning from 90 odd members to more than 400 members in a number of hours. The number is still on the increase.

The group was set up by Mr Patrick Chng, in response to the personal attacks directed at Mr Siew on the government portal, REACH, over his involvement with AWARE’s Extra-ordinary General Meeting and his purportedly pro-gay agenda.

Amongst those who have joined the facebook group are Sintercom founder Mr Tan Chong Kee, filmmaker Mr Martyn See, and current AWARE president Ms Dana Lam.

Ms Lam posted a message in support of Mr Siew saying: “I speak for the many who have witnessed his generosity. We are shocked and extremely upset by the aspersions and baseless allegations made against Kum Hong for standing with AWARE during our most vulnerable and critical period.”

“It is most foul and unfair. It pains us to witness the progress of this smear campaign over the past weeks,” Ms Lam added. “We have no doubt he will triumph over the current adversity.”

Sintercom founder Mr Tan wrote: “Kum Hong is one of the best NMP we have seen in Singapore. He has enormous integrity and passion.”

Mr Tan condemned the “coordinated attack” on Mr Siew and the use of the “wedge issue” of homosexuality.

Another supporter, Mr Jonathan Kwok, argued that it is necessary for people to understand that a person is “multi-layered” and is defined by more than his sexuality or views on sexuality.

“Mr Siew has much to contribute to Singapore, and his views on sexuality form just a small part of his person and his portfolio,” Mr Kwok said.

Mr Abdul Salim Harun, a former Workers’ Party member and elections candidate, said Mr Siew is a good man who vocalises issues in the open when necessary and for walking the talk, and pledges his support for Mr Siew.

Ms Elaine Jung, another supporter, hopes for more NMP terms for Mr Siew, while Mr Chang Yong Kai suggested that Mr Siew ran for Member of Parliament in the general elections.

However, Mr Chia Yeow-Tong highlighted what he felt was the undemocratic NMP selection process. He pointed out that the final decision rests on the Parliamentary Selection Committee: “And they can choose either the voice of reason or to side with the conservative view. It does not matter even if the majority of Singaporeans want Mr Siew back as NMP. We are unable to make the decision.”

Meanwhile Mr Colin Lam wrote his praise for the starting of the Facebook group. “It’s time for the people who appreciate what his man has done to be more vocal in their support for him,” he said.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.30

CNBC David Faber described Temasek sale of BOA as “one of the worst investment” for one single fund

David Faber from CNBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t8-HyA6wvU

“A $4.6 billion loss on a $5.9 billion dollar investment. TPG lost $2 billion really quickly on Washington Mutual, but this one guys, is right up up there, as one of the worst investment during this period for one single investment fund.”

Now, what does the Lee family think of this latest investment loss?

Ho Ching, Temasek’s CEO, wife of Prime Minister Lee and daughter-in-law of MM Lee:

“No. I think if you want to run life with regret, you will end up doing very little.” (when asked if she had any regrets about leaving Temasek, Reuters 6 February 2009, source)

Lee Kuan Yew, GIC’s Chairman, father of Prime Minister Lee and father-in-law of Ho Ching:

“When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up.” (CNA, 7 February 2009, source)

Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, husband of Ho Ching and son of MM Lee:

“Both Temasek and GIC are professional investment organizations, highly regarded around the world for their track record. Management hired all over the world. Boards are competent and experienced. They pursued sustainable returns over the long term, and avoided excessive risk-taking for short-term gains. Thus we have achieved good long term returns through ups and downs in the global economy and market cycles.” (in a speech on 21 October 2008, source)

Since we are investing for the long-term, why did Temasek sell of its stake in BOA so early and at such a low price? In less than a year, it lost 83% of its initial investment in Merill Lynch!

Is Temasek pursing “sustainable returns” over the long term by pulling out so early from BOA? Does Ho Ching still have “no regrets” over such a disastrous loss? Of course she won’t, since the money is not from her own pockets.

Does Singapore still has a future when its SWFs are bleeding our precious reserves dry with such ill-judged investments?

Imagine using the $4.6 billion dollars to help ordinary Singaporeans tide over the current economic turmoil by subsidizing medical bills, providing retrenchment benefits and paying for the education of needy students.

The government kept telling the people that we should be self-reliant and not develop a clutch mentality. It is not as if it has no means to help the less fortunate in society. It is so filthy rich that it is able to blow billion dollars away in an instance without blinking an eyelid!

In her latest speech as Temasek’s CEO, Ho Ching said:

“We must do things today with tomorrow clearly in our minds. The story of Temasek is likewise a journey, each generation doing things yesterday and today with tomorrow very clearly in our minds – to make a difference to our fellow men and women, to support and build a future where Asia and Singapore can realise their full potential for their people, and to put in place the foundation for a better tomorrow.” (read her speech here)

Forget about Asia, Madam Ho. Haven’t you caused enough trouble in Thailand? Obviously the investment decisions made by you during your tenure did not take the future into account. How else can you explain the terrible losses suffered by Temasek from the purchase of Shin Corp, ABC learning and now Merrill Lynch?

The Singapore government must account to the people immediately on the latest loss by Temasek since it is a corporate entity fully owned by the Ministry of Finance which is in turn financed completely by taxpayers’ monies.

It is a shame that the PAP pay only lip service to transparency and accountability and continue to demand us to pay them exorbitant salaries only to screw up big time, again and again.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.5

DPM Wong Kan Seng on pushing civil society limits

DPM Wong Kan Seng on pushing civil society limits

Express views, but be mindful of sensitivities

DEPUTY Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng has spoken up on several issues arising from the recent tussle over women's advocacy group Aware.

16 May 2009

DEPUTY Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng has spoken up on several issues arising from the recent tussle over women's advocacy group Aware. He responded yesterday to questions fielded by The Straits Times, on issues including homosexuality, government intervention and pushing boundaries. Here are excerpts of his replies: On homosexuality 'They (homosexuals) have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives. 'This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be - a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their private lives and contribute to society.' On pushing boundaries 'Our society will not reach consensus on this issue (homosexuality) for a very long time to come. 'The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.' On government intervention and public perception 'The Government has been very careful in its comments, especially before the EGM, as it did not want to be misunderstood as taking sides... 'However, the Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality, had moved in and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what Aware had been doing...' 'I was grateful therefore that Dr John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS does not condone churches getting involved in the Aware dispute.' On rules of engagement for religious groups 'Religious individuals have the same rights as any citizen to express their views on issues in the public space, as guided by their teachings and personal conscience. 'However, like every citizen, they should always be mindful of the sensitivities of living in a multi-religious society... 'If religious groups start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the Government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble. 'Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.' On need for political arena to be secular 'Our political arena must always be a secular one. Our laws and policies do not derive from religious authority, but reflect the judgments and decisions of the secular government and Parliament to serve the national interest and collective good. 'These laws and public policies apply equally to all, regardless of one's race, religion or social status. 'This gives confidence that the system will give equal treatment and protection for all, regardless of which group one happens to belong to.' On Aware saga's impact on civil society 'Many different communities share this tiny island. If our diversity is not to become a source of weakness, we must manage such disagreements in a responsible and balanced manner... 'The Government has to maintain order, and hold the ring impartially. 'It encourages the development of civic society, and gradual widening of the OB markers. 'But it will not stand by and watch when intemperate activism threatens our social fabric.' On observing balance and moderation 'On the whole, our religious communities have played a positive role in our society. 'The maturity of our religious leaders and the restraint and sense of responsibility of their followers have helped to make this a communally peaceful society. We must keep it that way by observing the rules of engagement. 'This applies also to the media. The media plays an important role reporting on the issues, the groups and the personalities involved. They need to do so dispassionately and impartially...'

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28982.19