Connect with us

Civil Society

Public accountability

Sze Hian looks into the issue of accountability of govt institutions, namely Temasek and GIC.

Published

on

Uniquely Singapore

Leong Sze Hian

In all the Parliamentary Debates, Singaporeans have never been told what the amount of our reserves is, by way of the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek’s assets.

In the ChannelNewsAsia report,

“Young NTUC members ask wide range of questions at forum” (15 March 2008), it states that :

“The audience also got the answer to perhaps one of the biggest money question of them all.

Mrs Lim (Hwee Hua, Minister of State for Finance) said: “You asked how much reserves we have. I’m sorry – I am not able to give you that answer. There are many, many people who are interested in how much we have. It has nothing to do with not wanting Singaporeans to know. It’s only if we go public with you, a lot of other people will know.”

What harm can there be to disclose this information to Singaporeans? Wouldn’t it cause greater harm to Singapore’s reputation and standing by not disclosing?

Perhaps one possible reason I can think of may be that if we know the total assets, then it may have to continue to be disclosed every year. Then, we may be able to track the ups and downs of our investments and assets.

Are Budget surpluses and CPF added to the funds of GIC or Temasek? This is perhaps reminiscent of our late President Ong teng Cheong’s remarks, that when he asked for a listing of the nation’s assets, he was told it would take 54 man-years.

The Bloomberg News report (Mar 21),“Temasek Says It’s Not Affected by Paulson Pact on Wealth Funds”, states that “An agreement by government-run funds of Abu Dhabi and Singapore to increase transparency won’t shed more light on Temasek Holdings Pte’s $118 billion portfolio, because the company said it already meets disclosure guidelines.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said recently that funds, including the Government of Singapore Investment Corp, agreed to adopt rules for greater disclosure. Temasek, owned by Singapore’s finance ministry, said it already provides more information than government-run funds.

Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund,” spokesman Mark Lee said by telephone today…. Temasek has to sell assets to raise cash for new investments and doesn’t require the government to give approvals.”

Temasek discloses a lot more than GIC and always has a strong sense of corporate governance,” Lee said. Paulson’s statement will not have any impact,” he said.

The company seeks approval from a board consisting of independent directors and a representative from the Ministry of Finance, its only shareholder, Lee said.

Temasek in 2006 headed an investor group that bought almost all of the stock in a Thai telecommunications company from the family of then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, triggering a chain of events that led to the Thai premier’s ouster in a coup.

The company also faces opposition in neighboring Indonesia, where the antitrust regulator has accused it of using stakes in the nation’s two biggest mobile-phone companies to fix prices.

Temasek is ultimately controlled by the government and it is not a private organization,” said Cohen of Action Economics. Temasek has many similarities to GIC.” (Bloomberg)

So, “Temasek is not a sovereign wealth fund”? A sovereign wealth fund is accountable to the citizens of it’s country – is it or isn’t it?

Why is it that there is so much information in Singapore that is secret?

I attended the Human Rights and Trade programme conducted by UNSW in March/April 2008, and stumbled upon another secret.

Secret settlement – If all money recovered, why so secret?

I refer to the editorial “Singapore’s great civil servants” (BT, Dec 12), the articles “UNSW agrees to repay $32.3m” (ST, Dec 12), “Australian varsity agrees to settlement” (BT, Dec 12), and media reports about the settlement.

The EDB would not reveal the total amount or the repayment period. An EDB spokesman said, “We are bound by the terms of the agreement which are confidential”.

As it involves about $32 million of loans and grants, which are taxpayers’ money, shouldn’t there be more disclosure and transparency, since the question had been raised in Parliament ?

Since it has been reported that the media “understands that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants and loans”, why does EDB still maintain that “the terms of the agreement are confidential” ?

Isn’t EDB contradicting itself by saying that it would not reveal the total amount or the repayment period, but yet the media “understands that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3 million worth of grants and loans” ?

As UNSW officials also declined to comment, how did the media obtain its understanding that UNSW has agreed to repay the full $32.3 million ?

What about the $30 million to remove steel and concrete pilings already driven into the university campus site, which earlier media reports had said that the university would have to pay ?

In line with the Government Investment Corporation’s (GIC) statement on 10 December, 2008, in conjunction with its $14 billion stake in UBS, that going forward, it would set an example for others to follow, in providing more disclosure and transparency, government agencies should also do the same.

Are not government agencies accountable to Parliament and Singaporeans, instead of saying that the terms of any agreements are confidential ?

Surely, the least that Singaporeans can expect of our world class civil service, is to be told how many cents out of every dollar in total, will be recovered, and how long it will take!

———————–

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Civil Society

RSF Director General meets Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, proposes measures to combat disinformation

Thibaut Bruttin, Director General of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), met Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te on 16 October 2024 to discuss measures for strengthening Taiwan’s democracy against disinformation. Bruttin highlighted the importance of media reform, citing Taiwan’s improved press freedom ranking and RSF’s global initiatives.

Published

on

Thibaut Bruttin, Director General of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), met with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te in Taipei on 16 October 2024.

The meeting focused on strategies to bolster Taiwan’s democratic resilience against disinformation. Bruttin was accompanied by key figures from RSF and Taiwan’s leadership, including Secretary-General of the National Security Council Joseph Wu and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs François Wu.

The delegation also included notable figures from RSF’s Taipei Bureau, such as Director Cédric Alviani, Advocacy Manager Aleksandra Bielakowska, and Development and Projects Manager Shataakshi Verma.

The talks were held in the context of Taiwan’s rising prominence in global press freedom, with the nation moving from 35th to 27th place in RSF’s 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Bruttin praised Taiwan’s advancement but emphasised the importance of continued reforms to ensure that Taiwan’s media remains resilient in the face of increasing disinformation campaigns, particularly given the island’s tense geopolitical situation with the People’s Republic of China.

“Taiwan, as a regional leader in press freedom and the only democracy in the Chinese-speaking world, has everything to gain from aligning its media regulations with international standards,” Bruttin stated. He argued that reforms are crucial not only for combating disinformation but also for restoring public trust in the Taiwanese media, which he noted is alarmingly low.

According to recent studies, only three out of ten Taiwanese citizens trust the media, a figure that ranks among the lowest in democratic nations. Bruttin attributed this in part to Taiwan’s polarised and sensationalist media landscape.

During the meeting, Bruttin outlined several key RSF initiatives that Taiwan could adopt to enhance its media environment.

Among these was the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), the world’s first ISO-certified media quality standard, designed to promote reliable and transparent journalism.

He also discussed the Paris Charter on Artificial Intelligence and Journalism, which aims to ensure ethical standards in the use of AI within the media.

Additionally, Bruttin introduced RSF’s Propaganda Monitor, a project that tracks and counters propaganda and disinformation worldwide, including efforts by state actors.

Bruttin stressed that implementing these initiatives could help Taiwan build a more transparent and trusted media sector, crucial for democratic stability. He also addressed the role of international platforms, which often dominate local media landscapes, posing a long-term threat to the viability of independent journalism.

Bruttin’s visit coincided with two significant events for RSF in Taiwan.

Firstly, the organisation held its inaugural Asia-Pacific Correspondents Seminar, which gathered regional representatives from RSF for internal discussions on the state of press freedom across Asia.

Secondly, RSF celebrated the seventh anniversary of its Taipei Bureau, which was opened in 2017 to strengthen RSF’s presence in the region. The anniversary reception saw over 200 prominent figures from the media and academic spheres attend, highlighting the increasing significance of RSF’s work in Asia.

Taiwan’s media landscape has long been under pressure due to aggressive efforts by the People’s Republic of China to assert sovereignty over the island. China’s state-sponsored disinformation campaigns are frequently aimed at destabilising Taiwan’s democratic institutions.

These efforts have exacerbated divisions within Taiwan’s media sector, which is already fragmented and prone to sensationalist reporting. Bruttin’s recommendations reflect a broader push to enhance Taiwan’s ability to resist such external interference through robust media governance and public trust-building measures.

Bruttin’s discussions with President Lai follow a similar visit by RSF’s previous Director General, Christophe Deloire, in 2017, when he met with then-President Tsai Ing-wen. RSF has consistently praised Taiwan for its commitment to press freedom but continues to advocate for further regulatory improvements.

Continue Reading

Civil Society

Meta and X served targeted POFMA order after activist’s non-compliance

Meta and X received targeted correction directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act on 11 Oct after activist Kokila Annamalai failed to comply with a correction order. The Ministry of Home Affairs stated her misleading posts claimed the government executes arbitrarily without due legal process and will refer her to the POFMA Office for investigation.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Two social media platforms have been served with targeted correction directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) on Friday (11 October), after activist Kokila Annamalai failed to comply with a correction order issued to her last week.

Ms Annamalai received the order on 5 October for misleading posts made on Facebook and X.

In a statement, The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said the posts falsely claimed that “the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily and without regard for due legal process, and that the State does not bear the legal burden of proving a drug trafficking charge against the accused person.”

MHA noted that an article on the government fact-checking website Factually elaborated on why Ms Annamalai’s assertions were false.

The order mandated that she post a correction notice on the two posts; however, she has not complied.

In light of this non-compliance, the Minister for Home Affairs has directed the POFMA Office to issue a targeted correction direction to Meta Platforms and X.

This order requires the platforms to notify users who have seen the posts that they contain false statements and to provide a link to the Factually article explaining the inaccuracies.

MHA also announced that it would refer Ms Annamalai to the POFMA Office for investigations regarding her failure to comply with the correction direction issued on 5 October.

Earlier, the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), an organisation advocating for the abolition of the death penalty in the Asia-Pacific region, was also served with a correction order by the Singapore government under POFMA.

This order, initiated by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam, was in response to alleged false claims made by ADPAN in social media posts on 3 October 2024.

The posts, which were circulated on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, related to Singapore’s legal processes for death row prisoners and the treatment of activists opposing the death penalty.

They were released just before the scheduled execution of Mohammad Azwan Bohari, a drug trafficking convict sentenced to death for possessing over 26.5 grammes of pure heroin.

While ADPAN has since complied with the correction order by adding a notice to the original posts across its social media accounts, the group has expressed its intention to engage further with the order.

ADPAN reiterated its commitment to its statements and opinions, which it asserts are protected by international human rights law and standards, and expressed solidarity with human rights defenders and groups on the ground.

The organisation also reserved the right to issue additional statements on the matter.

Continue Reading

Trending