This is filed under Letters to TOC

Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Lee Hsien Loong has been adamant in insisting that the Temasek-Shin Corp deal is a ‘commercial investment’ and that the govt is not dealing with it. It’s not a government issue.”

He goes on to say:

“When you make commercial investments there is a risk. And if you take no risk, you make no reward. So you have to make sure that across the portfolio, all the projects you have undertaken, overall you come out ahead.”

“That’s what Temasek aspires to do. On each case, they are very careful to make sure that each investment is a good one, but as it affects results you have to look at the whole portfolio and decide whether it has been good.”

Of course, what the PM said may make sense but still, it does not answer the question of how a Temasek-Shin Corp transaction can be just a ‘commercial investment’ in which the government of Singapore is not involved.

The questions in the minds of Singaporeans are:

1. Is not Temasek run on public money?

2. And is not this public money contributed by Singaporeans?

3. Is not the government, elected by the people, the custodian of this money?

4. Is not the Minister of Finance (MOF), particularly, in charge of overseeing the use of this money?

5. Does it not follow then that any use of such money must be approved by the Government through the minister of finance?

6. And if he approves it, he must know what it is for, correct? (Although he may not be involved in each and every business decision of Temasek but we’re not talking peanuts here but billions of dollars.)

PM Lee also said:

“you have to look at the whole portfolio and decide whether it has been good”

The question, obviously, is who ‘decide whether it has been good’? Temasek itself or the MOF? One would think, reasonably, that it is the MOF which would ultimately decide. Surely, the MOF cannot be saying that it does not want to be involved when a reported $2billion dollars has been lost – at least on paper!

Even if it’s a ‘commercial investment’ (which itself defies logic), the MOF must get involved now – as the issue is no longer a commercial issue but also a political one, involving public funds.

At a time when the government is raising GST to 7% (reaping a projected $4.5billion annually) to ostensibly ‘help the poorer singaporeans’, the govt’s seeming nonchalance about this loss of $2 billion by Temasek is disconcerting.

The picture emerging, at least in my view, is one of the government distancing itself from the responsibility of the saga.

How can the finance minister himself say it is a ‘commercial investment’ and ‘we’re not dealing with it’ when it involves public funds?

It makes one very concerned to hear the prime minister and finance minister say this.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

苏睿勇再次向奥委会发出律师信函 拒绝奥委会两项要求

我国马拉松名将苏睿勇再次向奥委会发出律师信函,表示无法理解奥委会“延期至下周回复“的行为,并拒绝对方不公开往来信件内容的要求。 苏睿勇近日因东南亚运动会落选而与新加坡国家奥林匹克委员会(SNOC),以及新加坡田径总会(SA)争执,奥委会指出苏睿勇作为国家代表和青年运动员的典范,却表现出“不符合该委会期望的态度和行为”,同时新加坡田径总会表示已“暂时”把苏睿勇封锁在总会的聊天群组和社媒平台外,包括whatsapp、脸书、推特和Instagram等,避免后者在这些平台发文,带来负面影响。 而苏睿勇于8月7日向两协会发律师信函,指控他们在未举办任何听证会或给他辩护的机会,已“违反自然公义的基本原则”, 并要求两人于8月13日下午5点前给出具体解释,为何将他排除出2019年东南亚运动会新加坡代表团参赛阵容。 翌日,奥委会透过律师回复苏睿勇并向苏睿勇提出两项要求:1. 他们将在“下周结束前“回复苏睿勇的问题;2. 他们要求苏睿勇不再公开双方之间的细项。 苏睿勇8月11日于个人部落格上发文表示10日再次向奥委会发出律师信函,拒绝奥委会两项要求。 文内表示,“我们无法理解为何主办方需要一整个星期来回应,对于排出参选东南亚运动会阵容的理由应记录在案。“ 另外,文中也指出拒绝私底下解决问题的行为,“我们相信奥委会在未提出具体事件时,已公开谴责我作为一名运动员却表现出“不符合该委会期望的态度和行为”,他们应该能够针对以上指控,以及主观地筛选成员的行为,在公开的场合下作出解释。 苏睿勇也坚信,只有公开所有过程,才能确保奥委会维持最高标准的问责制。 日前本社报导,新加坡运动选手将在今年11月30日,赴菲律宾马尼拉出征2019年东南亚运动会。但是,2015、2017年东运会马拉松冠军得主苏睿勇,却无缘在这场体育盛事角逐金牌。…

Citigroup: S'pore GDP to contract 8.5% as restriction measures get extended

Citigroup Inc. forecasted a larger economic contraction for Singapore as it cautioned…

Woman blocks bus and demands the driver takes her back to her desired stop as she missed her stop

A woman who missed her stop on Friday night (25 January) created…

PSP’s Brad Bowyer questions “clockwork” appearance of letters and posts that give excuses for the Govt

Referring to a letter published in The Straits Times, Progress Singapore Party…