An Open Challenge to PM Lee Hsien Loong

In the light of the recent events surrounding PM Lee's lawsuit threat against TR Emeritus, I would like to issue a challenge to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Board of Directors of Temasek Holdings, to put to rest, once and for all, the doubts and rumours surrounding Ho Ching's appointment as CEO of Temasek Holdings.

Instead of wasting time and money on unleashing lawsuit threats against hapless bloggers, the Prime Minister and the Government of Singapore should practice the highest standards of transparency and accountability with regards to the corporate governance of Temasek Holdings, for the benefit of its ultimate beneficiary owners, the citizens of Singapore.

I demand that the Prime Minister provide complete, incontrovertible, exhaustive documentary evidence demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that the selection process that ended in the appointment of Ho Ching as CEO of Temasek was made "on merit and through proper process".

Dr Lee Boon Yang and Keppel Corp - The Curious Intertwining of Singapore's Business and Politics

Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew was the Minister of State for Education until March 2009, when he was promoted to Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts with effect from 1st April 2009. With his promotion, he displaced the incumbent Dr Lee Boon Yang, who now found himself without a job.

Only 25 days after RAdm Lui's promotion, Dr Lee Boon Yang was the newly appointed non-executive Chairman of Keppel Corp, Singapore's largest industrial conglomerate. It was an event of little fanfare, and by the lack of any noise made by Keppel shareholders, you would have thought that everybody is happy about the change in leadership at the helm of Keppel's board of directors.

However, a careful examination of Dr Lee Boon Yang's CV, and the demands of the role of Chairman of the Board of an industrial conglomerate like Keppel - leaves the interested observer rather puzzled.

Temasek’s divestment of BoA stake – A clear admission of an investment error

"Yes, they were good long term investments with risks thoroughly assessed"

- Minister Tharman, Jan 2008 on Singapore investments in banks.

These were the words of Singapore's Minister of Finance, slightly more than a year ago when Singapore's SWFs made major investments in a few global financial institutions. Take note, in particular, that Minister Tharman was defending the individual investments made by the SWFs in the banks - not the portfolio performance.

A year later, everything had changed. The stock markets had declined significantly and the global financial system was in major turmoil. The stock prices of the big banks had sunk to record lows after having their balance sheets destroyed by the dislocation in credit markets. Seeing that his original argument was no longer tenable, Tharman changed his tack as the investments in the banks sunk deeper and deeper into the red. Now, instead of taking the line that the investments in the banks were good long term investments, he instead argued that Singapore's portfolios were well diversified, and hence Singapore's investments were fine.

'We would be worried if global banks comprise a large proportion of the portfolios of GIC and Temasek, or for that matter, any other highly vulnerable industry globally,' he said. 'But these are diversified portfolios, with not a large degree of concentration risk.'

- Minister Tharman, Jan 2009, on Singapore investments in banks.

Apparent Lack of Coordination Between Temasek and Ministry of Finance is Alarming

[I just sent this letter to ST Forum. It is about an issue I blogged about earlier, see for background information. If this letter doesn't get published, at least a few people who care to read my blog will get to see it]

I am disturbed by recent events (“Disclosure Deal,” ST March 22 and “Guidelines for wealth funds apply to Temasek, says ministry,” ST April 01) that suggest a lack of coordination between Temasek Holdings and the Ministry of Finance.

This issue is not just a matter of definitions and of whether Temasek is a Sovereign Wealth Fund. 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.

[End]

I had also previously written a letter to the press last year in March 07 about Temasek & the MoF.