When debate around the proposed fake news bill was starting to gain more and more traction with various experts and members of the public loudly voicing their concerns over the overarching powers that the bill would afford to ministers, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugan gave an interview with Channel NewsAsia (CNA) to clarify certain points of concerns.

He has said, “The people who need to be concerned are the people who profit from and peddle in falsehoods,” adding that “99% of the people don’t have to worry about what they do 99% of the time.”

The article was then shared by the Prime Minister’s wife, Ho Ching on 15 April on her Facebook page who added the comment, “Of course, the purveyors of fake news will object, right?” So Ho Ching is saying that only those who are guilty will object to this law, fearing that the law would be used to prosecute them.

Now, can we use that same logic over questions of transparency when it comes to Temasek Holdings, the company in which Ho Ching is a CEO? For years the public have been trying to figure out the specifics of how much Ho Ching and other top Temasek leadership makes but that detail is still being withheld.

Back in June 2018, blogger Phillip Ang speculated that it could be somewhere around $100 million a year. Others were speculating as well, guessing at perhaps $24 million or even $1 billion. Unfortunately, no one can be certain of the actual figure because Temasek doesn’t reveal its financial statements.

In fact, Temasek Holding is an exempt private company under the Singapore Companies Act which means the company isn’t required to publish audited statutory consolidated financial statements. It’s even stated on the Temasek website:

Screenshot of Group Financial Summary from Temasek’s website.

So going by the same argument used by Ho Ching that only ‘purveyors of fake news’ would object to the propose fake news law, then only those who have something to hide would be against transparency, right?

Wouldn’t public companies that have nothing to hide not fear revealing their records and or fear calls for transparency?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

余振忠:一根手指指责别人 三指指向自己

“新加坡政治分析员暨香港教育大学助理教授胡君杰认为,上周二的国会动议表明,大部分议员和他们所代表的公民,都表达对阿裕尼-后港市镇会当前安排的不满。” 英语媒体《今日报》在本月7日发表一篇专题报导,采访学者分析上周二副总理王瑞杰,在国会对工人党议员提出“诚信动议”的影响。 不过前非选区议员余振忠不认同胡君杰的观点,后者的说法似乎意指,赞同动议的行动党议员,就反映了大部分国人的观点。 对此余振忠反问,议员受委托管理选区,难道就一定能代表居民的意见?他直言,本地的选举仍首先考量政党(品牌、宣言、过往政绩乃至他们他们如何运用恐惧和媒体),之后才是候选人对选区的承诺。 “无论如何,阿裕尼和后港的居民在来届大选才有最终的话事权。” 余振忠在上周五在脸书发表长文,点评对国会诚信动议的看法。他直言当副总理和其他行动党部长、议员在国会上演的“大龙凤”,不要忘了:当你一只食指指责别人,有三根手指头正好指向自己。 他列举了行动党政府的一些财务事务: 总审计署对人协财务提”否定意见“ 其一,向总理公署报告的人民协会,每年处理约10亿元的预算,当他们被总审计署提出”否定意见“(adverse opinion)时,理应能立即改善。 但在2015年,在91个民众俱乐部管理委员会(CCMC)中,有35个被发现未经相关单位的批准下,签下了53份总值1778万元的租赁合同。 林瑞生:出于好意…

Suspect arrested for “intentionally causing fire” at St Hilda Church charged in court

The 60-year-old man who was arrested in suspicion of intentionally causing the…

Manpower director makes incredible claims about how well migrant workers are treated by ministry

On 18 March 2014, Mr Kevin Teoh, the Divisional director of MOM’s…

#SGBudget2019: Merdeka Generation Package merely a rebranding of Pioneer Generation Package, opines educator and politician Mohd Nassir Ismail

The Merdeka Generation Package (MGP) offered by the Government in Budget 2019…