I like the way the Indonesia punish our PAP government
-
Its not the huge fine or force Temasek to sell their Indonesia telecom shares thats matter.It also bring our arrogant PAP leaders down to their knees and crash their arrogant ego.
HAHAHA,elites?What elites?The kind of PAP elites that get bullied by foreign countries and can only whine in the newspapers?Hohoho -
-
Lee Kuan Yew,Lee Hsien Loong,his wife Ho Ching,and boot-licker Goh Chok Tong are a bunch of !diots in this international laughing stock!!!
-
haiz the money that they lost came from where... do not be so quick to gloat...
-
... and that makes it the more tragic... this is "black humor", funny and disgusting at the same time...Originally posted by korusu:haiz the money that they lost came from where... do not be so quick to gloat... -
Yea, but even if they make money, do you think they will share with you?Originally posted by korusu:haiz the money that they lost came from where... do not be so quick to gloat... -
Precisely... they always say economy booming, jobs aplenty, wages increased, more jobs created,... but where is the money? Economy booming for whom? For the people or them??Originally posted by royston_ang:Yea, but even if they make money, do you think they will share with you?
All their screwed up Temasek investments & business deals; whhose money are those?? And indeed, when they reap from a successful deal, did we have a taste of it??
I'd be so contented to just sit and watch as they are increasingly being grilled in the region over the way they conduct business & their arrogant ways...!!! -
A dog bit dog situation, a dog calling another dog legally corruptive
-
eh..sorry for my ignorance ar....what happened??
-
Yup,it is the best drama that happen over the years,in Thailand and Indonesia.But strangely,our Siao Ah Loong still act like nothing has happen at the Asean Summit that recently conduct in here.What a hypocrite!!!Originally posted by HyperFocal:Precisely... they always say economy booming, jobs aplenty, wages increased, more jobs created,... but where is the money? Economy booming for whom? For the people or them??
All their screwed up Temasek investments & business deals; whhose money are those?? And indeed, when they reap from a successful deal, did we have a taste of it??
I'd be so contented to just sit and watch as they are increasingly being grilled in the region over the way they conduct business & their arrogant ways...!!! -
As PM, he cannot show his emotion especially when Spore is hosting the ASEAN summit, the Indonesian case will be appealed.Originally posted by drawer:Yup,it is the best drama that happen over the years,in Thailand and Indonesia.But strangely,our Siao Ah Loong still act like nothing has happen at the Asean Summit that recently conduct in here.What a hypocrite!!! -
if not, what you want him to do?Originally posted by drawer:Yup,it is the best drama that happen over the years,in Thailand and Indonesia.But strangely,our Siao Ah Loong still act like nothing has happen at the Asean Summit that recently conduct in here.What a hypocrite!!!
beg on his knee and say sorry to you...
wait long long... like his name... lee long long -
though i'm not a great fan of temasek, i think one should listen to all views and not be blinded by one's prejudice. the indon themselves are criticising ruling:
Jakarta’s case ”Legal violations”
Ruling against Temasek not only controversial, but based on two legal violations that could be criminal, says legal aid director. Jakarta Post.
Nov 23, 2007
By Habiburokhman
Director of the Legal Aid Body for State Owned Enterprises.
The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) on Monday found Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd guilty of breaching the anti-monopoly law in Indonesia's telecommunications industry.
The cellular telecommunications industry is fairly strategic for Indonesia's development now and in the future, so it is no wonder controversies have shrouded the case right from the start.
It is to be expected therefore the Temasek case will remain highly controversial until the appeal process ends up in the Supreme Court.
Among the controversy a very important suspicion has arisen: there may have been at least two legal violations in the case by the KPPU.
These violations not only have criminal consequences, but could also completely cancel KPPU's case against Temasek.
The violations include the use of false information related to the results of a telecommunications survey conducted by the LPEM-UI socio-economic research unit of the University of Indonesia, and suspicions surrounding the back-dating of KPPU's further investigations report and the formation of KPPU's panel of judges for the Temasek case.
First, there is suspicion false results were used in LPEM-UI study.
On Sept 12, 2007, the National Commission Watch (KNW) reported KPPU chief M. Iqbal and another KPPU member, Nawir Messi, to the Jakarta Police for alleged use of false and highly questionable documents.
In the KPPU document titled "Suspicion of Violation of Law No 5/1999 by the Temasek Business Group", signed by Nawir Messi, KPPU quoted outcomes (several times) from LPEM-UI research titled "A study of consumer losses resulting from unhealthy competition in the Cellular Telephone Industry in Indonesia in 2007".
It must be pointed out the LPEM-UI report was only done on May 7, and signed by the LPEM-UI Chairman M. Chatib Basri on the same date.
This research was commissioned by PT APCO Indonesia, a public relations company hired by the Indonesian unit of Russia's Altimo Business Group.
This means the KPPU had already decided to use the LPEM-UI report before carrying out its own investigations.
While the LPEM-UI research documents were published May 7, the KPPU had released its document, referencing the UI report, on April 26. How could this be?
KPPU can thus be suspected of using false documents and false information in investigating the Temasek case.
The use of false documents is a serious crime, which is regulated by the criminal code, and would automatically nullify all the KPPU's findings and investigations.
Second, there is the issue of back-dating the findings of the KPPU investigation team and the formation of a panel of judges.
On Oct 7, a member of KPPU's Investigation Team, Benny Pasaribu, revealed the date of the KPPU findings and the formation of the KPPU panel of judges had been backdated.
This meant the dates in documents used by KPPU were incorrect and the formation of the panel of judges was not legally proper.
Whatever the motives, back-dating cannot be accepted legally.
Back-dating means a change was made to the date of the report made by the investigation team and the formation of the panel of judges.
In addition, the back-dating can also be categorised as a criminal act with regards to falsifying documents as laid out in the criminal code Para 263.
One conclusion can be drawn from KPPU member Benny Pasaribu's disclosure: KPPU could not prove Temasek carried out monopolistic practices.
This conclusion also makes the Temasek case null and void.
There is a high possibility Temasek would take the case to the international arbitration tribunal.
The two legal violations mentioned earlier would add to Temasek's ammunition.
Other ammunition, which it already possesses is the fact the divestment of 41.94 percent of Indosat (in December, 2002) to Temasek subsidiaries took place at a time when another Temasek subsidiary, SingTel, already owned 35 percent of Telkomsel.
This fact shows that even though Temasek already owned 35 percent of Telkomsel, the Indonesian government and KPPU still invited and allowed Temasek's ST Telemedia to bid for the Indosat stake through an international competitive bid.
So if SingTel's ownership (35 percent) in Telkomsel and ST Telemedia's holding (41.94 percent) in Indosat was considered a monopoly, thus violating the anti-monopoly law, why did the Indonesian government invite ST Telemedia to tender for Indosat in the first place?
In the final bidding process, the government notified ST Telemedia that Indosat shares were free and clear (having no legal problems).
The government had also notified a joint commission of the House of Representatives that state-owned Telkom controlled the majority of the shares of Telkomsel.
This clearly shows the status of Temasek's indirect ownership of Indosat and Telkomsel was cleared in late 2002 and was not considered majority control of both mobile operators until recently.
During the final process of Indosat's divestment, the Indonesian government publicly explained that SingTel and ST Telemedia management teams operate autonomously and independently of Temasek management and are free to compete against each other in the cellular market.
So why did KPPU insist on investigating Temasek after four years.
If this is the way we treat foreign investors who came here at the government's invitation at a time when our economy was in a very difficult period, it is unlikely any more major foreign direct investors with a long-term perspective would enter.
Our economy would then attract only short-term, hot foreign money.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20071121.E02&irec=1