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