Temasek's Email gaffe
-
This is not what we can get from our 140th:
Temasek's
Email gaffe
Accidentally sent to media, document reveals its sensitivity to its image and ties with government. By Sara Webb. Reuters.
Mar 30, 2006
Reporters rarely get a glimpse behind the scenes at Singapore's notoriously secretive state investor, Temasek Holdings.
But the company accidentally revealed more than it intended this week when it e-mailed an internal document to journalists that set out how Temasek officials should reply to tough questions from the press.
"We are trying to find out what happened," said Temasek's spokeswoman Eva Ho in an email to Reuters on Wednesday.
The briefing document, received by Reuters and other news media, covers 59 potential questions ranging from the firm's government ownership and potential conflicts of interest to its motivation for buying banks and telecom companies overseas.
"While it is standard practice around the world for company officials to be briefed by 'spin doctors' on how to handle the media, the document shows which areas Temasek considers particularly sensitive.
The 13-page briefing spells out what to say when the media asks whether the appointment of Temasek CEO, Ho Ching - the wife of the Prime Minister - was 'politically motivated' and whether there are conflicts of interest because Lee also heads the Ministry of Finance, which owns Temasek.
"We are not here to discuss politics since we are not politicians or a political organisation. Our CEO is accountable to the board of directors' which is headed by an independent chairman just like any other commercial organisation," is Temasek's official response.
Temasek's chairman, S. Dhanabalan is a former cabinet minister who entered politics in 1976 and who held several cabinet positions between 1980 and 1993 including Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Trade and Development.
He was also chairman of DBS Group Holdings, Singapore's biggest bank, which is partly owned by Temasek.
Singapore's blue-chip companies such as Singapore Airlines and telecom firm, Singtel, whose CEO is the Prime Minister's brother.
The document, which mainly covers Temasek's purchase this week of an 11.55% stake worth USS$4B in emerging markets bank Standard Chartered, shows how sensitive Temasek is about its image at home and abroad, as well as its relationship with Singapore's government.
"The Singapore government, as a shareholder, is not involved in our investment decisions and business operations, much less in the businesses in our portfolio companies" is the official reply to questions about the government's involvement in business.
Temasek has helped spark a political crisis in Thailand and attracted hostility when it led a consortium that paid US$3.8B for Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's Shin Corp.
"Our investment in Shin Corp reflected our confidence in Thailand's long-term growth" is the answer top two different questions - question 46, on the Shin takeover, and question 47, which reads: "Now with Standard Chartered, you are seen as taking over Thailand's financial services as well. Isn't this politically motivated?"
One stock reply in the document sounded all too familiar to reporters covering the firm.
In case of a news leak about the Standard Chartered deal before the signing of the deal, Temasek spokespeople are instructed: "We do not comment on market speculations". -
Standard non-replies, is that very new in SG? But now, we actually their exact replies... Hehe, how will Ho Ching answer?
Standard reply: It was an accident and we are investigating
(the actual reply could probably be: Some idiot click "All contacts" rather than "Company Staff". We have already sacked that idiot ... ) -
No matter how Temasek is corporatised no one will believe the crap that it is only a commercial organization which answers only to its own board. Who are the board members?
Even if Temasek can side-track the query to open up and be accountable for a while, can it hide the fact forever that it is actually custodian of Singaporeans' public funds?
It is incredible that Temasek appears to be able to do as it likes like the NKF under Durai. It should be held accountable as trustees or custodians for any actions causing losses. Some such wrongs have been exposed by the foreign parties Temasek has had dealing with e.g. insider trading ireported by a Japanese company by one of Temasek's employees.
Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong was right in asking for accountability and transparency of organizations like Temasek to list down its assets and valuations.
Government has missed a valuable opportunity to use the office of elected president wisely to allay certain lack of information giving rise to unnecesary fears and uncertainties as reported in the international press.
It is sad that in investing people monies in so many projects overseas, Temasek cannot even understand the fundamental principle that it has to reveal information on how such decisions are made and what kinds of management reviews are being conducted on such investments.
Why must citizens only rely on foreign press to understand such investment decisions and actions. Why are our own press not daring enough to ask for or publish such matters.
MM Lee has apparently not been very forthcoming in answering the journalist on such issues such as the unwillingness to provide information and lack of accountability and transparency on the part of Temasek or the government.
The latest email leakage scandal is indeed uncalled for and could have been less embarrassing if Temasek has been more open and accountable. MM Lee has defended his lack of accountability on certain matters like control of the press by rhetorics that he would not tolerate foreign press setting agenda for Singapore. Is he reserving then all the right for him alone to set agenda for Temasek or Singapore? -
Hmm... what are the odds that we'll be reading about this in tomorrow's papers?
-
Who cares about the papers? haha, when the generations move on and the last of the non-web literate generation passes on, the role of the newspaper is more or less, gone to the dogs.Originally posted by fudgester:Hmm... what are the odds that we'll be reading about this in tomorrow's papers?
No one will tolerate a monopoly of agenda setting these days.. -
1 thing all have to be clear, ownership and control are totally 2 diff issuesOriginally posted by robertteh:No matter how Temasek is corporatised no one will believe the crap that it is only a commercial organization which answers only to its own board. Who are the board members?
Even if Temasek can side-track the query to open up and be accountable for a while, can it hide the fact forever that it is actually custodian of Singaporeans' public funds?
It is incredible that Temasek appears to be able to do as it likes like the NKF under Durai. It should be held accountable as trustees or custodians for any actions causing losses. Some such wrongs have been exposed by the foreign parties Temasek has had dealing with e.g. insider trading ireported by a Japanese company by one of Temasek's employees.
Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong was right in asking for accountability and transparency of organizations like Temasek to list down its assets and valuations.
Government has missed a valuable opportunity to use the office of elected president wisely to allay certain lack of information giving rise to unnecesary fears and uncertainties as reported in the international press.
It is sad that in investing people monies in so many projects overseas, Temasek cannot even understand the fundamental principle that it has to reveal information on how such decisions are made and what kinds of management reviews are being conducted on such investments.
Why must citizens only rely on foreign press to understand such investment decisions and actions. Why are our own press not daring enough to ask for or publish such matters.
MM Lee has apparently not been very forthcoming in answering the journalist on such issues such as the unwillingness to provide information and lack of accountability and transparency on the part of Temasek or the government.
The latest email leakage scandal is indeed uncalled for and could have been less embarrassing if Temasek has been more open and accountable. MM Lee has defended his lack of accountability on certain matters like control of the press by rhetorics that he would not tolerate foreign press setting agenda for Singapore. Is he reserving then all the right for him alone to set agenda for Temasek or Singapore? -
Who cares?Originally posted by fudgester:Hmm... what are the odds that we'll be reading about this in tomorrow's papers?
They can censor what happen here but the when we google search, news from foreign news agencies can come out -
Tell that to my peers who don't bother reading the papers, much less foreign news sources.Originally posted by sbst275:Who cares?
They can censor what happen here but the when we google search, news from foreign news agencies can come out
Oh yeah they do read the papers - the sports section. -
GeezOriginally posted by fudgester:Tell that to my peers who don't bother reading the papers, much less foreign news sources.
Oh yeah they do read the papers - the sports section.
No wonder SPH introducing free chinese paper -
Honest mistake?
-
The issue of Temasek Holdings gives me a big headache. As our tax dollars are invested by them, obviously I want them to do well and I loathe to bring down their global reputation. On the other hand, I detest the lack of transparency with both the wife and brother of the PM holding on to the reins of the country's economy. I cannot accept that there is anyone else good enough to replace them in Singapore.
If they are so good, let them go and run a private company. Family members should not be running state enterprises. When Kellog cornflakes ran a contest, family members of employees are not even allowed to take part. How can we allow family members of the PM to run state enterprises?
Certainly Ho Ching and LHY may well be upright and completely above blame, but do people SEE the transparency here? After all, public perception matters in investment choices too.. -
Bravo for honesty.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The issue of Temasek Holdings gives me a big headache. As our tax dollars are invested by them, obviously I want them to do well and I loathe to bring down their global reputation. On the other hand, I detest the lack of transparency with both the wife and brother of the PM holding on to the reins of the country's economy. I cannot accept that there is anyone else good enough to replace them in Singapore.
If they are so good, let them go and run a private company. Family members should not be running state enterprises. When Kellog cornflakes ran a contest, family members of employees are not even allowed to take part. How can we allow family members of the PM to run state enterprises?
Certainly Ho Ching and LHY may well be upright and completely above blame, but do people SEE the transparency here? After all, public perception matters in investment choices too..
It is about time that the truth be spoken as it is seen.
It was simply disappointing that given the opportunity to say so, GCT did not rise to the occassion but simply gave a weak explanation " about some dubious limitation of talent in Singapore " .
What will happen when this SECOND generation from the FIRST FAMILY is gone ?
Are Singaporeans to accept that the THIRD generation from the FIRST FAMILY should follow suit - much like the present dynastic nurturing of the second son of the present Chairman Kim of North Korea ? -
hmmz so any one has the document?? maybe we should educate the masses
-
FUck straits time censor so much..cheat my money buy e fucked up paper
-
