Temasek Holdings

Ecxentrique SG

This one very powerful company in Singapore... How its very much in determining how everything works in Singapore.. These are the main companies that is listed on the website.. Does anyone have a full list of ALL the companies that Temasek actually owns? One that I know is actually Delgro.. which owns Citycab and also SBS... perhaps then we know y fare increases are so frequent and how it fits into the grand conspiracy. Evil or Very Mad

Port
PSA Corporation

Marine
SembCorp Marine
Keppel Offshore & Marine

Shipping & Logistics
Neptune Orient Lines
SembCorp Logistics

Property
CapitaLand

Airline
Singapore Airlines

Telecom & Media
Singapore Telecoms
Media Corporation of Singapore

Banking & Financial Services
DBS Bank

Power & Utilities
Singapore Power
PowerSeraya and Senoko Power
Tuas Power

Technology
Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing
ST Assembly Test Services

Engineering
SembCorp Industries
ST Engineering

Rail
SMRT Corporation

Atobe SG

For a fuller understanding of the entire Temasek Holding set up, visit the following site and see the extent of the web of connections and inter-connections.

Why it might be difficult for the government to withdraw from business

By Tan Boon Seng, Feb 10, 02

http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/02Pf/glc_100202.html

Life is full of surprises, but nothing beats this shocking piece of research for one to understand the deep seated investment made in politics, and the need to preserve power in order to preserve the empire that has been so painstakingly built up.

Now we can understand the ruthlessness in the methods employed in destroying any threats to the political power.

tankee1981 SG

Seems to me that Singapore is being run by a huge company instead of a government! Very Happy

Trojan SG

This arrangement is actually a spin-off of something that we call 'Quasi-Fiscal Policies'.

In simple terms, it sort of refers to the 'outsourcing' of certain economic related activities that require reaction to market forces, but yet are of symbolic importance to the country.

These most visible examples of local manifestations of this nature are your GLCs and Statutory Boards.

greyskymorning SG

Delgro has merge with comfort, now known as ComfortDelgro. u hv also miss out companies like Keppel Corp, Tibs & CSS (under SMRT), SFI (SembCorp) and the most impt one, many of ur things are bought there...NTUC. Of course, there is much more...am i disclousing too much?? Wait ISD come after me...

greyskymorning SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

For a fuller understanding of the entire Temasek Holding set up, visit the following site and see the extent of the web of connections and inter-connections.

[b]Why it might be difficult for the government to withdraw from business

By Tan Boon Seng, Feb 10, 02

http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/02Pf/glc_100202.html

Life is full of surprises, but nothing beats this shocking piece of research for one to understand the deep seated investment made in politics, and the need to preserve power in order to preserve the empire that has been so painstakingly built up.

Now we can understand the ruthlessness in the methods employed in destroying any threats to the political power.

[/b]

this info is outdated

Trojan SG

For all you know, we could all be under surveillance right now. Haha..

Atobe SG

Are there new members of the First Family involved in some other new businesses ?

There are certainly new additions to the list of Retired Politicians and Good Soldiers who have been assigned new postings.

Unfortunately, it will require some skills and patience to sift through the web of secrecy and get at the honey of information; but along the way, be prepared for some bee stings.

Do you have some information that can be used to update what has been organised in 2002 ?

jsf SG

i know singtel, m1 and starhub are all fully and partially owned by our govt or govt-owned firms. so much so for competition.

nismoS132 SG

just because temasek has a share in the different telcos doesn't necessarily mean they still aren't trying to drive each other out of business.

it's not like temasek has 100% control over all the telcos, there're still other shareholders.

Atobe SG

Surprisingly, if you look into the TEMASEK's interests in all the Singapore Government Linked Companies, every single Telco and Internet Service Provider will have two or three GLC participation and holding major controlling shares.

TELCOs :

StarHub
owned by British Telecom , Japan's NTT , Singapore Technologies Telemedia, Singapore Press Holdings, Media Corporation Singapore and Singapore Power,
http://www.starhub.com/corporate/aboutus/index.html
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3_76092_Ext

Singapore Cable Vision
SCV is a consortium dominated by local government-linked companies, with 31 percent owned by the Media Corporation of Singapore, 24 percent owned by Singapore Technologies, and 20 percent owned by Singapore Press Holdings. The remaining 25 percent is held by MediaOne International, based in Englewood, Colo.

http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/en/xml/00/01/17/000117ensing.xml
http://www.sttcomms.com/hp_about_4_milestones.htm

ST SunPage 100% subsidiary of ST Telemedia
http://www.jobstreet.com.sg/jobs/2003/7/default/20/94673.htm

SingTel is majority owned by Temasek Holdings. Temasek has an aggregate (direct and deemed) interest of 67.5% in SingTels issued share capital. The Capital Group Companies hold 5.96% while the rest of the shares are in public hands.
http://home.singtel.com/about_singtel/board_n_management/organisation_structure/boardmgmt_orgstructure.asp

Singapore MobileOne
On 4 December 2002, M1 was listed on the Singapore Exchange in Singapore's largest public offering in three years and the third largest of all times. Founding shareholders -- Keppel Telecoms (14.16%), SPH Multimedia (14.16%) and Great Eastern Telecommunications (12.14%) -- now jointly own 40.46% of M1 with the rest owned by institutional and public investors
http://www.m1.com.sg/M1/CDA/Generic_Sections/User_Guide/User_Guide_Details/1,1044,6154,00.html?v_image=40&v_pageNumber=7

Virgin Mobile - established 2000 - 4th mobile operator, a 50-50 joint venture worth US$550m between Singapore Telecom and Richard Branson's UK Virgin group
http://www.uniapro.org/apb402.htm

INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS :

In June, it was announced that a company called Pacific Internet had been formed to buy Technet for Singapore $2.5 million.

PI is a joint venture between Sembawang Media, ST (Singapore Technologies) Computer Systems, and Singapore International Media.

Sembawang Media owns 50 percent of PI, with the other two partners owning 25 per cent each. PI officially began operations in September 1995.

(Source: Sembawang venture to buy Technet for $2.5 m, The Straits Times, 20 Jun 1995, p. 40; Pacific Internet can start its services today, The Straits Times, 5 September 1995, p. 36).

Meanwhile, in May 1995, tenders were called for a third ISP. When tenders closed, six companies had bid for the license. The highest offer was from a joint venture between Times Publishing and AT&T, which offered Singapore $5.101 million. The lowest bid was Singapore $450,000 by Cyberway , a joint venture between Singapore Press Holdings Multimedia, and ST (Singapore Technologies) Communications.

The Telecommunications Authority of Singapore said it hoped competition between the three ISPs would stimulate growth and diversity in the quality and range of Internet access services.

In September, it was announced that Cyberway had won the bid. The amount Cyberway had bid - $450,000 - became the amount each ISP in Singapore had to pay for the one-time license fee. If the highest bidder had won, each ISP would have had to pay $5.101 million.

(Source: Tender for third internet service provider, The Straits Times, 18 May 1995, p. 40; Times Pub and AT&T submit highest bid for Internet license, The Straits Times, 1 July 1995, p. 47; Cyberway to become third Internet service provider, The Straits Times, 6 September 1995, p. 3)

In March 1996, Cyberway - now 55 per cent owned by Singapore Press Holdings, and 45 per cent by ST (Singapore Technologies) Communications - began operations.

(Source: Cyberway's Net entry heralds new price cuts, The Business Times, 22 March 1996, p. 2).

Only three ISPs are allowed to operate in Singapore at the moment, though other companies can buy access from these three ISPs and subsequently re-sell them. Singapore CableVision, the local cable company, looks to be an important re-seller if its cable modem trials are successful. It hopes to offer Net access at speeds of up to 10 Mbps.

By the year 2000, Singapore will be wired with fibre to the curb, and then co-ax to the home. Once this is in place, the infrastructure for high-speed Net access will be available to most Singaporeans.

(Source: Cable link promises fast access to the Net - in two years, The Sunday Times, 28 April 1996, p. 25).

Because only three companies are allowed to directly provide access to the Internet, problems have arisen. The launch of Windows95, which allows easy access to the Microsoft Network, and from there, the Internet, was marred because access to MSN would allow Singapore subscribers to bypass the three ISPs.

In December 1995, Microsoft and Singapore Telecom signed an MOU to create a new category of subscribers - Singnet/MSN.

These users would log on to MSN, and from there to the Internet, presumably via Singnet. Other arrangements were supposed to be made with the other two ISPs, and MSN was supposed to be officially launched in March this year (1996). So far though, there has been no news.

(Source: Launch clouded by questions over built-in access to Internet, The Straits Times, 23 August 1995, p. 40; SingNet will offer access to Microsoft Network next year, The Straits Times, 8 December 1995, p. 68; Micosoft Network targets March launch, Business Times , 17 January 1996, p. 3)

In another case, a local PC company Aris Microsystems, advertised that it was offering unlimited Internet access for its customers for Singapore $50 a month for a minimum subscription of six months. It was thought that the company was offering direct Net access, bypassing the three local providers.

The Telecommunications Authority of Singapore investigated the company. It found that Aris was re-selling access it had bought from Singnet, and that it was not offering a direct link to the Net. No action was taken against the company except a reprimand for offering "unauthorised access to the Internet."

(Source: TAS probes firm for unlicensed Internet services, The Straits Times, 12 December 1995, p. 3; TAS raps Aris for offering unauthorised Internet access, The Straits Times, 16 December 1995, p. 46).

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~jimmyyap/old_homepage/banned/isp.html

Atobe SG

What will the Madam at Temasek say to Dana at DBS for the events happening in Hong Kong ?

Another slap for Dana from the Madam, following husband's earlier slap that led Dana to leave the Cabinet (see thread 'One good slap deserves another') ?

Here is an interesting observation from the pages of Sintercom:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sintercom/messages?msg=1746.1

Politics and Government
This is How our Reserves are Squandered
Previous | Next
From: QXP Sep-11 10:51 am
To: ALL (1 of 6)

1711.1

DBS Group had already owned majority of perhaps 100% of Kwong On Bank and majority shares of Wing On Bank in Hong Kong prior to its bid of 3.1 times book value for Dao Heng Bank which was controlled and majority owned by Malaysian tycoon, Quek Leng Chan, in May 2001.

Quek Leng Chan was very heavily indebted to many banks and probably had to raise money to settle his debt or at least to reduce his debt.

In any case, the economic prospect of HK was already deteriorating at that time and that the cartel of setting interest rate in HK was to be disbanded with a free for all in the interest rate banks charged customers.

Despite such adverse conditions and the weak bargaining power of Quek Leng Chan, our wise Scums in White decided to pay 3.1 times book value for Dao Heng Bank for the privilege, on hindsight, to close down many Dao Heng Bank branches and now discarding the Dao Heng brand name.

Compare this with Taiwan's Fubon Financial Holding Company taking over HK International Bank of Asia for only 1.16 times which Fubon intends to use for expanding into China.

Note that Fubon doesn't have any banks in HK whereas, as stated, DBS already had 2 HK banks as subsidiaries and could have used its 2 subsidiaries to expand into China, which is the reason for taking over Dao Heng.

It just goes to show the ineptness of the Scums in White in deciding on a good value for its overseas acquisitions.

---------------------------------------

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/030909/3/3e1f4.html

Tuesday September 9, 7:00 PM

Taiwan's Fubon eyes China market in IBA deal
By Kirby Chien

TAIPEI, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Taiwan's Fubon Financial Holding Co said on Tuesday its planned $553 million acquisition of Hong Kong's International Bank of Asia Ltd (IBA) could help it catch up with rivals in China once restrictions were lifted.

Taiwan's finance ministry has said that the island's banks could not use Hong Kong units to open branches in China, but Fubon said it hoped these regulations would eventually be relaxed.

"This is a good opportunity for us to enter Hong Kong's market and will be our springboard to the mainland market," said Richard Tsai, co-chief executive of Fubon, referring to Fubon's HK$4.31 billion ($553 million) offer for IBA.

IBA's Hong Kong shares rose 4.35 percent to end at HK$3.60 on Tuesday, but the news failed to boost Fubon's shares, which closed down 3.13 percent at T$31.00.

"I'm a little more negative about this transaction than positive at this time," said Ray Hueng, an HSBC banking analyst in Taipei. "I think there are some regulatory risks."

Taiwan's finance ministry said on Monday the island's banks are free to acquire overseas units, but "they cannot use a Hong Kong or Macau subsidiary as a springboard to mainland China."

Nevertheless, Taiwan has said it was willing to negotiate with Beijing on lifting these restrictions and is well aware that an overbanked home market offered Taiwan banks few prospects for growth.

Strained political ties between Taiwan and China have meant that banks are still waiting for the green light, but many of Fubon's competitors have already opened representative offices in China.

They hope Taiwan and Beijing can resolve political differences and allow these offices to be upgraded to operating branches as early as next year.

A STEP BEHIND

Fubon, Taiwan's fourth-largest listed financial holding company, is a step behind its peers in getting a toehold in the mainland market as it could not meet minimum capitalisation requirements set by the Taiwan government.

"Fubon couldn't go directly to China, so merging with IBA is one of its few options left," said Victor Tseng, a banking analyst at KGI Securities in Taipei.

Fubon said the acquisition of Hong Kong's smallest listed lender, IBA, would add three to five percent to Fubon's earnings per share after the company is absorbed. Fubon has forecast earnings of T$2.05 per share this year.

Analysts figure the overcrowded Hong Kong banking sector will offer little real boost to the Taiwan parent's bottom line.

The real target is China, they say, where Taiwan firms have funnelled some $100 billion since late 1980s and are in need of reliable banking services to maintain those operations.

Fubon hopes to use recently relaxed rules in the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) between Hong Kong and China that allow smaller banks in the territory to set up shop in the mainland, analysts said.

Analysts also noted that Fubon would first have to build up IBA's asset base to US$6 billion, the minimum set by China, from the present US$4 billion.

Fubon's Tsai said he expected to achieve that in two years, and added that he was pleased with the price-to-book value for the IBA deal of 1.16 times.

"In medium to long term it is a fairly positive strategic move by Fubon," said Sherry Lin, the research head at Credit Suisse First Boston in Taipei.

Fubon said it has T$10 billion (US$293 million) in cash and would raise US$225 million in an upcoming convertible bond issue. It will also gather another T$10 billion from subsidiaries to pay for IBA.
It expects to complete the deal by the end of the year by buying a 55 percent stake in IBA owned by Arab Banking Corp and is considering an offer for the entire bank.

Beijing-backed financial conglomerate China Everbright Ltd said on Tuesday it won't rule out selling its 20 percent stake in IBA.

spyder SG

Shocked i am surprised to there are in fact so many companies 'secretly' owned by the government... but anyway, isnt it through that what every industry that has a good opportunity to generate big income, the government is always there to take away all these opportunities from us, the people, forcing people to lose jobs in private companies... this is how i feel... the government monopolise almost every industry in singapore... private companies are struggling to keep up with the competition becoz they do not have so much money like the government... thats how i feel... Crying or Very sad

Atobe SG

With the extensive web of GLC linked companies, it will now seem that the Annual Government Surplus is coming from the profits generated from the domestic economic services consumed by the Singapore Population.

Are there any real value or material assets created or earned - as one can expect if such services or goods are exported to earn REAL Foreign Exchange ?

In accumulating and generating PROFITS through consumption in a closed economy that is largely monopolised by GLC linked Companies, any aberrations will result in rapid deflation of the economic bubble.

With reductions in wages and CPF contributions forcing belt tightening, this can only result in lesser economic activities through domestic consumptions, that can only lead to further and deeper job cuts affecting those remaining that provide such services.

With an impending increase to the GST (from 4 percent to 5 percent), it can only result in deeper cut into the pockets of Singaporeans - and it can only mean even deeper reduction in consumption of "NON-essential" consumption (if ever one can determine with a fine tooth comb).

justamonk SG

in another word....
CPF deduction cut on employer side (employee cut still remain) benefit to company
....where companies mostly owned or sharehold by temasek holding,
this implied lot of saving up for them (whoever relatives it is or themselves)....is this a conspiracy or what.. Confused
so all of them getting big bonus this year i guess....just imagine how many millions can they save.... Mad

ps: just my personal opinion.....

Honeybunz SG

You forgot to mention: Singapore Zoo, Night Safari and Jurong BirdPark Embarassed

Atobe SG

This article was printed in February 2002, and most would have missed it from the Singapore Press due to obvious reasons that are not at all complimentary to the Ruling Elites.

Up in smoke
SingTel's Lee Hsien Yang paid A$14 billion for Optus and its growth story.

Eric Ellis and Geoff Elliott write the next chapter
Australian
February 9, 2002

RELATED:
Optus weighs on SingTel profit

BRITISH royalty aren't the only people who have anni horribili. Singaporean princelings have them too.

Like the one that Lee Hsien Yang, youngest heir to Singapore's self-styled philosopher king Lee Kuan Yew, and SingTel Optus shareholders are having as they grapple with the grim truth that he paid way too much, $14 billion, for Optus.

The reality that's long been evident in the market -- where SingTel shares are down almost 40 per cent in the past year -- hit home with Lee yesterday on the plush 32nd floor of SingTel's head office in the city state.

Flanked by Optus chief executive Chris Anderson, an uncomfortable Lee fidgeted through an unconvincing briefing that was part results announcement but in larger part a justification of the struggling Optus deal.

``We paid fair value for Optus,'' Lee stoically maintained, and if you are Cable & Wireless, Anderson and Optus's recently departed finance director Norman Gillespie, you couldn't agree more. C&W got $14 billion for Optus and the two executives pocketed upwards of $10 million between them as their options kicked in on the sale to SingTel.

But the harsh truth for Lee Hsien Yang is that Optus is burning a big hole in his well-tailored pockets.

He clearly thought he was buying a company at the bottom or near the bottom of a cycle. He was wrong, and yesterday's results offer stark proof.

Optus is not self-funding. SingTel's anticipated Australian growth hub requires $1.7 billion a year from outside the business to keep going. And that's at a time when debt funding for telecommunications companies is tight and share market investors don't want to touch phone companies.

SingTel will pay to keep the operation ticking over, and with its publicly unquestioning Singapore Inc government controllers it can. In fact, it's going to pay big-time through higher borrowing costs.

If economic conditions turn around quickly it will surely turn out all right, since in advanced economies like Singapore and Australia higher GDP invariably equates to more phone calls, more emails, and thus better sales for phone companies.

But SingTel's Lee admits capital markets have shut off the valve, in the area where it hurts most -- telecommunications. The glossy interpretation of that, and one Mr Lee exploited yesterday, is that it means less competition for Optus in Australia.

But it also means that the funding for all those internet and telecommunications-hungry companies -- the dotcoms and the e-commerce divisions of big corporates -- has stopped. It was an area where Optus achieved huge sales growth and was a key impetus for SingTel to pay so much for the company in the first place.

Little wonder, then, that yesterday both Lee and Anderson were stressing that growth was now in mobile retail, when six months ago the sexy part was data and wholesale.

From a run rate of more than 20 per cent a year, sales in the last quarter in the ``Optus Business'' division have hit a brick wall, down more than 11 per cent in the last quarter compared with the previous corresponding quarter.

``There is no doubt that there has been a very significant fall in wholesale traffic,'' Anderson said yesterday.

Now, SingTel is looking to recover the situation. To cut the costs of running Optus it will need to pare back Optus's business dramatically through lower capital expenditure, a fact acknowledged yesterday by Lee and Anderson.

Anderson said the company was working through that issue now, but it looks set to slash capital expenditure to about 20 per cent of sales compared with 32 per cent before.

When Anderson and Lee sign off on that and wind back the business it will be the most tangible evidence that SingTel's $14 billion acquisition has blown up in Lee's face.

But Australian consumers should be thankful: without the deep pockets of SingTel, Optus would hit the wall and Telstra would have the game to itself

With that huge funding requirement of $1.7 billion, Optus is still a start-up company. That's fine when growth is running at 20 per cent or more but it's dire when growth starts evaporating. .

``There will be continuing weakness in the fourth quarter,'' Lee told reporters yesterday.

While the headline numbers for the nine months ended December 31, 2001, scream a headline loss of $213 million for Optus, it's a red herring -- and has nothing to do with the main game when it came to SingTel's acquisition of Optus and why it's turning out to be such an expensive move.

Lee, his advisers, telecommunication analysts -- even some Optus executives -- were always circumspect about former Optus chief financial officer Norman Gillespie and his attempts to tart up the company's bottom line.

As soon as SingTel arrived it slashed nearly $500 million of Optus's net profit line, undoing years of Gillespie's work. Gillespie quit suddenly last month. He was a former executive at Cable & Wireless in the UK, the former owner of Optus and the company on the other side of the Optus transaction that did so well to get out when it did, as it also did when it sold Hong Kong Telecom at the top of the market to a now struggling Richard Li.

The newly enriched Gillespie has gone and it appears only a matter of time before the polished Anderson does likewise, despite the denials to the contrary and his mateyness with Lee in Singapore yesterday.

Atobe SG

cont.

The joke doing the rounds in the market was that Optus's past accounting practices were ``Norman Gap'' accounting, a satirical reference to how Singapore GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) were far more conservative than the Australian principles that Gillespie applied.

And while all that might strike one as similar to the collapsed US energy giant Enron, everyone knew what Gillespie and Optus were doing. Optus was never about the bottom line and the ability to pay dividends, anyway. It was always about growth.

Singapore is an island state, small economy, dominated by one of the biggest cash generators in the world: Singapore Telecommunications. With its docile government a major shareholder, SingTel cares less about the bottom line of the companies it buys; it has enough cash to splash around and to absorb the operations. Still, it doesn't want a business going backwards.

But two of the three businesses within Optus that SingTel has bought have been slammed into reverse.

``At the growth rates for Optus when SingTel acquired the company last year they paid a premium,'' said one analyst of the $14 billion acquisition price. ``At the growth rates now, SingTel paid at least 50 per cent too much.''

On that analysis, that's $5 billion of shareholders' funds, mostly the Singapore government since it is the dominant owner of SingTel.

The US consulting giant Stern Stewart takes an even harsher view, noting that since 1996 -- about the time Lee took over as SingTel CEO -- the company has lost a staggering $US30 billion in shareholder value.

Could the news get worse? Yes. Singapore is struggling out of the world's worst recession outside of Afghanistan, and last week came the US$12 billion collapse of the trans-Atlantic Global Crossing group, bailed out in a US$700 million deal by Hong Kong tyro Li Ka-shing, Richard Li's much savvier father, in joint venture -- deliciously -- with Singapore Technologies, the company run by Lee's sister-in-law.

Global Crossing's dramas suddenly make SingTel's own $2.1 billion pan-Asian data carriage play, C2C, look a little less sexy than it did when Global Crossing was valued at $12 billion. That's about when Lee started pushing ahead with the C2C platform in a part of the world less economically active that the Atlantic region.

Yet things change. Rapid shifts in market conditions often can catch executives holding the bathwater and no baby. But the folly of buying growth in a sector when asset prices have gone through unprecedented price appreciation -- the thing that also meant Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski had to admit to a humiliating $1 billion writedown on his Asian investments with Richard Li -- has become something that now dogs Lee Hsien Yang and Singapore Inc.

Optus's chief operating officer Paul O'Sullivan, who has been promoted since SingTel took over, says Lee is taking a long-term view.

He says the company is not run by asset traders.

``They have bought a company in the region that is stable and growing and there is daylight between Optus and its nearest competitors,'' O'Sullivan says.

``In the short term (the acquisition price) may look one way or another, but I don't think it is the way they view it.''

And O'Sullivan offers some blue sky, saying Optus expects to make some big wins with big corporate telco accounts. It won late last year a big contract with St George Bank and the company is down to a shortlist of two in a contract for the IAG, formerly known as the NRMA, the big NSW insurance group.

Optus will no doubt benefit from the consolidation in the industry and probably be able to charge higher prices. It's already followed Telstra's lead on some price increases, hiking charges on some of its mobile phone products.

But it's this same consolidation that is savaging companies that were buying Optus's products in the first place.

It's a big contraction in the industry and O'Sullivan, more than Anderson, has his hand on the tiller in Australia for Lee, steering the ship in tough times.

O'Sullivan acknowledges the difficulties, and he obviously thinks things will get tougher before they get easier.

And he's not looking for survivors: all merger and acquisition activity has been shelved this year at Optus and the focus is on costs and other operating expenses. No doubt capital expenditure will be slashed, a sure signal that the growth company that SingTel thought it acquired is hardly that.

O'Sullivan will just be trying to keep things afloat until the storm passes, so that he and his crew can see brighter days. In fact, in all the controversy over SingTel's acquisition, it is O'Sullivan who will play a key role in determining whether SingTel can eventually claim success for its Australian strategy.

For now, SingTel and its chief executive are nursing some mighty bruises.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020209au.htm

relevation SG

How come Singaporeans never recieve dividents from these profitable comapnies? Temasek's money belongs to Singaporeans.

Hey PAP leaders- you must start redistributing the dividents to us the citizens!!!

Open book report on what is the earnings and report to us all and don't prey prey and don't act blurr!

Don't just give us Singapore Shares (peanuts) and think that we Monkeys will be happy.

We are fools no more!!!

Atobe SG

From the preceding story dated 19 November 2003, which was a repost from a news article from 9 February 2002, SingTel was supposed to have overpaid a sum of A$14Billion for the takeover of OPTUS :-

Up in smoke
SingTel's Lee Hsien Yang paid A$14 billion for Optus and its growth story.

Eric Ellis and Geoff Elliott write the next chapter
Australian
February 9, 2002

RELATED:
Optus weighs on SingTel profit

Can the following news report in Thursday edition of the Straits Times - dated 5 February 2004 - be true, or is it more window dressing ?

Can the amount of A$14 billion be fully recovered in TWO YEARS, and now allow SingTel to make such handsome returns of 200 PERCENT Annual Rise ?

SingTel's Q3 profits surge almost 200%
SINGAPORE -- Singapore Telecommunications announced on Thursday a 188-per-cent annual rise in net profits for the third quarter to December 2003 of S$854 million (US$505.33 million), well above market expectations.

The performance of SingTel's wholly owned Australian unit, Optus, its regional mobile associates, foreign exchange gains and the sale of investments all contributed to the strong performance.

'I am delighted with the excellent progress of the group's performance,' SingTel president and chief executive officer Lee Hsien Yang said.

'SingTel is well on track to meet its targets for the year with strong growth in both earnings and cash flows.

'The careful formulation and successful execution of our strategy over the years have enabled SingTel to transform itself into the blue chip growth stock it is today.'

Analysts had forecast SingTel to post a net year-on-year profit for the third quarter of between S$430 and S$533 million. -- AFP

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/latest/story/0,4390,233607,00.html?