Here comes the defamation suits again

And what is new? So some time ago, some of the most prominent bloggers were served the legal letters from some members of the PAP government for defamation. The lack of transparency (like seriously, how much did we have in our national reserves again?) and accountability (like why is Mr Mah Bow Tan fired only after a drop in votes despite years of complaints from the public on housing prices?) of the ruling party is the sole reason why people loves to speculate. Because information is controlled by the government, it is a no brainer that the government always holds the upper hand (legally) in refuting any forms of speculation.

While the government can continue to assert their rights, they are unable to stop people from taking among themselves. Simply taking on defamation suit without a corresponding transparency might stop the rumors (online at least) for a while but it’s the after math of doing so that is more damaging. Those people who might have forgotten about the issue might take a renew interest into the matter.

Take for example the issue of nepotism. One blogger accused the reason Ho Ching was CEO of Temasek Holdings is simply because she is the Prime Minister’s wife. Of course, that accusation was refuted and it was stated (quote from ChannelNewsAsia):

“This is a false and baseless allegation. As is publicly known, Mdm Ho Ching was appointed on merit and through proper process.”

Publicly known?? Like how? I never knew the process of selecting a CEO for Temasek Holdings was ever disclosed. Is it even possible to prove whether nepotism took or never took place especially when Temasek Holdings is such a secretive organization (the financial statements don’t tell much)? While I think anyone with any background can take on a job in finance, it is not unreasonable to expect raised eyebrows when someone who had been an engineer for more than 2 decades could take on the complex job of leading and managing a company dealing with investing hundreds of billions of dollars within a couple of years. The fact that she was appointed CEO in the same year Lee Hsien Long was appointed Prime Minister also does not help in quelling more rumors of nepotism.

More money lost via Temasek

Temasek Holdings has once again taken huge money losing positions (via many sub-hedge funds) in ‘they think it’s stable stocks to ride on China’s economic growth’:

Source: Bloomberg

Temasek Holdings Pte, the Singapore state-owned investment company, is seeking to raise about HK$28 billion ($3.6 billion) by selling stakes in China Construction Bank Corp. (939) and Bank of China Ltd. (3988), two of the country’s three biggest banks.

The Singapore-based investment company is selling about HK$18.7 billion of shares in Bank of China and about HK$9.3 billion in an offering of China Construction Bank stock, according to term sheets obtained by Bloomberg News.

Shares of China’s four biggest banks fell in Hong Kong trading today after Moody’s Investors Service said banks’ loans to local governments may exceed official estimates by more than 3.5 trillion yuan ($540 billion) more than official estimates and the credit outlook for the industry could decline.

The extra liabilities, coming on top of the national audit office’s findings last week of 10.7 trillion yuan in local government debt, may fuel concern that banks will be unable to absorb losses on defaults should property prices drop.

Bank of China shares slid 0.3 percent to HK$3.86 in Hong Kong today while China Construction Bank dropped 1.2 percent to HK$6.48. Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (1398) Ltd., the world’s most profitable bank, fell 0.5 percent to HK$5.93.

Morgan Stanley (MS) is managing both sales, the terms show. Jeffrey Fang, a spokesman for Temasek, declined to comment.

2006 Investment

Temasek’s Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd. unit is offering about 5.2 billion shares in Bank of China for HK$3.60 to HK$3.67 each, according to a term sheet. That’s as much as 6.7 percent less than today’s closing price.

Temasek owned about 10.5 billion shares, or 12.5 percent, of Hong Kong-listed Bank of China, according to a Dec. 31 filing. The fund paid about $1.5 billion for a five percent stake in the lender in 2006.

Cairnhill Investments (Mauritius) Pte. Ltd. and Crescent Investments (Mauritius) Pte. Ltd., both controlled by Temasek, are also selling about 1.5 billion shares in China Construction Bank for HK$6.22 to HK$6.35 each. The Singapore fund holds seven percent, or 16.9 billion shares, of China Construction Bank, according to company filings.

Temasek, set up in 1974, bought $1 billion of stock in China Construction Bank’s initial public offering in 2005. It also purchased an undisclosed stake in the Chinese lender from China SAFE Investment Ltd. the same year.

To contact the reporter on this story: Zijing Wu in London at zwu17@bloomberg.net Cathy Chan in Hong Kong at kchan14@bloomberg.net.

***********************

This is obviously a desperate move to dispose off questionable chinese national banks with high links with a corrupt chinese government. It’s appalling how the Financial Crisis had not taught the two megamoths GIC and Temasek that bank stocks are not exactly the best stocks to own. And they obviously takes up very risky positions (looking at how Temasek can be purchasing the same stocks via 2 other hedge funds). So who are the management of Temasek accountable to at the end of the day? The citizens deserve a clear answer and some responsibilities taken.

Dangling Carrots: Upgrading

The usual tactic PAP used to instill fear and reluctance for citizens to vote for opposition. Is it fair to use tax-payers money to threaten tax payers? I leave it to you to decide.

Where does the ruling party get their funds from to upgrade their estates? Please don’t tell me you raise the funds yourself ( Mr Desmond Choo might want to reveal who are his ‘donors’ if he dares). The PAP government can easily bank roll the funds. With so much of taxpayers’ money, it is unfair for the ruling party to keep questioning the opposition parties’ capabilities to raise funds to maintain the estates. If the opposition has no access to government funds, the ruling party should not have access to government funds as well.

When it is a well known fact that the ruling party can prioritize upgrading for their own constituents as the opposing wards are small, Singaporeans need to understand that when the number and size of opposing wards gets larger, the PAP will loss the ability to dangle this carrot. If the opposing wards grow to 40%, do you think the ruling party can still afford to not give equal upgrading to all estates? The political repercussions will only spread and the ruling party will have no choice but to be, for once, fair and square in distributing public funds. In any case, estate upgrading is simply the basics of what the government is elected to do. Why else are we paying taxes??

The GRC system allows the PAP to retain control over an obscenely large part of Singapore. But it is a double-edged sword. Should a critical mass of GRCs be won over by the opposition party, the reverse will be true. The PAP will loss all means of threats in future elections. So you see, there is a lot more benefits if more opposition parties be elected into Parliament.

So do you want a fairer, more equitable government? Or do you want to continue another 5 years of increasing inflation, foreigners influx, and ultimately local genocide as the government tactically replaces the Singaporean population with PRs and new citizens?

P.S.: An admirable comment from a Potong Pasir resident on Facebook: Click here.

Reserves

Reserves? What reserves? Nobody (except maybe the prime minister) ever saw that mysterious ‘reserve’.  The ‘reserve’ has been so sacred that it has been used as the ultimate reason is everything ranging from tax spending to housing policies.  PAP has been using the scare tactic about prudence in maintaining our ‘reserves’ so that we can deal with ‘difficult times’.

Since independence, who else, apart from the Prime Minister and maybe the Minister of Finance knows how much wealth the country has? When the first and only people elected President Ong Teng Cheong made the rare move in demanding how much reserves the country had, the reply the President got is it’ll take more than 56 man years to calculate the massive wealth of the country! WHAT RUBBISH!?? Is Singapore so rich? Or rather, is the PAP so obscenely rich? So you mean the reserves were never audited? Who manages the reserves? Who is accountable for our reserves? How much is our reserves? WHERE is our reserves?? Simple questions on transparency that was never answered. The reserves belongs to the nation, it belongs to Singaporeans, it DOES NOT BELONGS TO THE PAP!

And after the poor President did what he was supposed to do (how the heck do you expect him to guard something he don’t even know where is it and how much?), he was never given an answer, black listed by the PAP and rewarded with a non-state burial when he passed away even though he was the President. If a President does not deserve a state burial ceremony, who does? Maybe only Lee Kwan Yew and his offspring. What kind of logic is that?

1. If Singapore has so much reserves, why does the PAP government fear spending them? Do you know how hard it is to spend something that takes more than 56 man years to calculate?
2. If Singapore has so much reserves, does not the citizen deserve to be allocated some to help them in difficult times such as ever increasing inflation (such as NOW)? A one off payment of $4-800 hardly covers the increase in cost over 5 years.
3. How much reserve is enough? The nation has been increasing our reserves over 45 years. So are the reserves invested? If yes, what are the returns and shouldn’t the returns be returned back to society leaving the principle unchanged? If the reserves are not invested, then why keep accumulating losing out on all the opportunity cost?

Can the PAP answer the above questions? If not, it is simply not accountable.

Conclusion: The PAP is deliberately hiding important reserves away from the citizens, and hiding away from the important questions, making absolutely no attempt to answer basic questions illustrated above. The wealth is not attributed to the citizens. The wealth is only accumulated for the sake of the ruling party. As such, it is an act of betrayal of the citizen’s trust, and with no intent to be accountable, it is therefore, corrupt.

If they are not corrupt, why can’t the PAP government be answerable to us on OUR reserves?