Where’s the coordination?
It appears the right hand didn’t know what the left was doing,
creating unnecessary uncertainty in people’s minds. By Seah Chiang
Nee
Apr 3, 2008
On Mar 23, Temasek Holdings said it is “not a sovereign wealth
fund” and therefore not covered by an agreement by Singapore, Abu
Dhabi and the USA on the transparency of these funds.
A week later the Ministry of Finance contradicted it by saying that
Temasek should abide by the agreement since the government had
crafted it with the two other parties.
In real life, of course, the Finance Ministry wholly owns
Temasek.
The contradiction between the two organisations, which are renowned
for efficiency and transparency, has come as a surprise to many
people.
At the time of this writing, there has been no official explanation
as to how the contradiction arose.
‘Uneasy’ Singaporeans
The Temasek statement saying it is not a state fund bothered some
Singaporeans, and they raised strong objections over the Internet.
The mainstream media did not cover the controversy.
If Temasek’s money is not considered state fund, people ask
uneasily, who then are the owners? Are the people’s mega-billions
now in private hands?
One correspondent wondered what could be the motive that drove
Temasek to declare that it is “not a state wealth fund” since no
country or government is going to agree with it anyway.
”They can shout that it is an independent investment fund until
they are blue in the face, no one will believe them,” he
added.
Was Temasek trying to exclude itself from being subject to an
international agreement that clearly covers Temasek and GIC
(Government Investment Corporation)?
“It only creates unease among Singaporeans who are already worried
about whether their reserves, invested or not, are safe.”
What bothered blogger ‘Under the Willow Tree’ is not just a matter
of definitions or of whether Temasek is a Sovereign Wealth
Fund.
The writer added in a letter sent to the Straits Times Forum, the
following (which he blogs): -
“Rather, it suggests that for at least a brief week and a half,
Temasek was a corporate entity that was able to decide on its
principles of corporate governance, ahead and independently of its
sole shareholder and owner, the Government of Singapore.
“Temasek’s corporate governance framework has implications that go
far beyond standards of financial disclosure, into the realm of
critical issues such as Temasek’s investment mandate and the
decision-making process that Temasek uses to make or dispose of
investments.
“These issues, amongst others, have as great an impact on allaying
foreign suspicion and lowering the risk of protectionist measures,
as the levels of disclosure adopted by Temasek.
“The process of determining a company’s principles of corporate
governance is a principal issue for every corporation, particularly
a company like Temasek that invests its funds on behalf of the
country.
“Thus, I certainly hope that the two contradicting statements to
the press were the result of an honest miscommunication between the
two parties, and that my concerns are misplaced.”
Read in full:
http://utwt.blogspot.com/2008/04/apparent-lack-of-coordination-between.html
all the confusion because they are not telling the
truth