Temasek - A house of cards

[Papsmearer]

Billions lost, old man explained, so case closed and lets move on so simple?


Dunno head or tail or whether money really lost or kena makan .....wtf?

Here is your answer.


Singapore Industrial Park Flounders : A Deal Sours in China
By Michael Richardson
Published: October 1, 1999

It seemed like a fine idea when Singapore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world's most populous nation.

Five years later, the venture is heavily in debt — undermined by local officials who set up a rival park close by, forcing Singapore to cut its interests in the original project, Singapore officials say.

Singapore's senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew — who played a leading role in the effort to replicate the island-state's capitalist-style efficiency in the industrial heartland of China — conceded this week that the project had not turned out as planned and had made him more cautious about investments in China.

He pointed to the difficulties that arose in signing agreements with the central government that were then implemented by local officials who "have their own imperatives."

The China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park, which was intended eventually to become a self-contained manufacturing, urban and high-technology center covering 70 square kilometers (27 square miles), was a joint project with the Chinese central government in Beijing. But it ran into trouble when local officials began a rival operation, the Suzhou New District industrial park.

Mr. Lee said the city government was "using us to get investors in, and when investors came in, they said: 'You come to my park, it's cheaper."'

The Singaporean chief executive officer of the China-Singapore park said recently that the park had lost an average of $23.5 million a year since 1994 and that its loss would reach $90 million by the end of 2000

The project was supposed to transfer Singapore's management skills to Chinese bureaucrats and to teach China how to build and run "business-friendly" commercial parks.

But it ended up straining the close relations between Singapore and China and bringing home to Singaporeans the often unpredictable, and sometimes underhand, business culture of the Communist mainland.

In June, after it failed to persuade Suzhou officials to throw their weight behind the Singapore-built park, Singapore signed a memorandum of understanding with the government in Beijing under which the majority stake and management control over the park would be transferred from the Singaporean to the Chinese side Jan. 1, 2001.

As a result of this face-saving exercise, Singapore's share in the venture will be reduced to 35 percent from 65 percent, with Beijing becoming the dominant partner.

Singapore says it tried the get authorities in Suzhou to suspend marketing of their industrial park for five years, making the Singapore-built park the only focus of development for the city for that period. But the officials refused.

Suzhou officials are putting a rosy gloss on the affair, which has reportedly embarrassed the central government. Indeed, the Chinese side reports that the project is profitable, despite the Singaporean claims of losses.

The official China Daily on Tuesday quoted Chen Ming, the Chinese deputy director of the park's administrative committee, as saying it was expected to earn a profit of 600 million yuan ($72 million) in 1999, rising to 800 million yuan in 2000. The paper said the park had attracted foreign-investment commitments totaling $6.4 billion by August.

"The success should be credited to the smooth cooperation between the Chinese and Singaporean partners," the China Daily quoted Xie Jiabin, director of the administrative committee, as saying.

But Mr. Lee, on a visit to the park a couple of days earlier, told local officials that he would invite President Jiang Zemin of China to visit it by the end of 2000 so that he could officially hand over the completed first eight square kilometers of the venture to the Chinese leader.

"Both sides will have to work hard to make it a real success, not a window-dressing exercise," Mr. Lee said. "Now, the initiative, the impetus, must come from you."

He said it was still possible to make the park a success under the new arrangements reached in June, adding that such success would be evident when investors said the Chinese side was running the park better than the Singaporean team.

"They are the ones who will decide if foreign investments will continue to come into the SIP," Mr. Lee said. He added that it was essential that the Chinese side find the best managers to run the park after Singapore transferred the majority stake and management control at the start of 2001.

 

[virus]

What about that huge chunk of Standard Chartered Bank shares that she had the Khoo sisters at ransom for......


Heard that there was another story at play whereby Davinder Singh was involved. Anyone here can shed light on the "other" story????

followed by prestige goodwood hotel

 

[Merl Haggard]

I am surprise people have forgotten about Suzhou. It was rumoured that the PAP lost billions of tax payers money on that project


Why do we need a sovereign fund at all
Unlike Norway or the Gulf States we do not have revenue from oil. Spore's sovereign funds have made the PAP millionaires but for the "lesser mortals" it represents hardship.

In my case the CPF deductions represent a lost in opportunity cost. With all the money tied in my CPF I could have invested more $$$ & made more millions
Instead we have a large & expensive bureaucracy in place i.e ponzi machine.

Besides unlimited cheap supply of CPF money she also sold the State's two crown jewels; two power stations at the trough of the market in 2009 after she bought Merrill Lynch at US$50 per share.

Within 6 months after she bought, ML went under and got taken over by Bank of America. Blardy shameless bitch sold BAC at US$3.5 per share.

For all the billions the bitch loses she draws between $12m to $18m per annum for her remuneration.

 

[GoldenDragon]

The rumours I heard was 20 to 30 billions lost in Suzhou?

Hope to find out the real truth in my lifetime. However I doubt it will come out as long as LKY is around because of the fear that exists. That is why I wish LKY will up the lorry so that we can all move on.

Not sure if this could be the reason. The person calling the shots in Suzhou made it impossible for it to succeed. A friend of mine told me this chap was with a visiting delegation that came to visit S'pore before Suzhou project. He left S'pore an upset man as no one gave him the attention he craved. Attention was given to some others but none
of them was subsequently appointed.

 

[johnny333]

In Spore many of the GLCs have gotten themselves into trouble because they have over reached themselves. Look at what happened when SBS a bus company tried to become a property developer Just look at the problems that was created at SMRT when they got a sales person to manage SMRT

Just look at Ho Ching. A housewife who is supposedly an engineer looking after our billions $$$$$....$$$
Sporeans really screwed themselves when they gave LKY carte blanche to impoverish us.

You just can't trust politicians with your life & this is especially true with an opportunist like LKY.

Here is your answer.


Singapore Industrial Park Flounders : A Deal Sours in China
By Michael Richardson
Published: October 1, 1999

It seemed like a fine idea when Singapore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world's most populous nation.

........
...

"They are the ones who will decide if foreign investments will continue to come into the SIP," Mr. Lee said. He added that it was essential that the Chinese side find the best managers to run the park after Singapore transferred the majority stake and management control at the start of 2001.

 

[scroobal]

Not many people are aware that Temasek is not the long term investor that makes it out to be. They typically pick between 15m to 20 m in investments each year and also unload 10 to 15 million again each year. So the long term outlook excuse is not exactly right. When you buy and sell at these levels there are lot of fees that go to some interesting characters. Are these being looked at.

Someone should do a proper vintage analysis of their portfolio and this must not include gifts given by the State at interesting prices such those mentioned by Merle. They were given Pulau Seraya and it did not take long before they sold it to YTL who now employs her brother.

I am really worried after the Stat Board Audit affair and Temasek is exempt private company and disclosure are no where near what other state are required to have.

Lim Boon Heng is also not the sharpest tool in any shed so his appointment as Chairman is even more intriguing.

 

[scroobal]

GLCs like SBS and SPH did not go into property development as a long term business strategy. It was done so that their executives and their families can enjoy soft launch prices and flip properties. This sector was getting overcrowded so the invitations for the first round were limited. After using GLC funds to feather their nest, they conveniently claimed that property development was not their strength and withdraw.

Suzhou losses were not as high as $20B, it was much lower. However the bigger lesson is that old man found that his influence was not as he thought it was and secondly you do not dictate terms in another country. Interestingly it was not the Chinese that came up with their own Industrial Park across the river but EDB was also tapping the same investor pool for their Industrial Park in Southern China.

He also realised that civil servants and scholars are not the same as a businessman. If they had gone in with a few businessmen from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, they would have been in a better place. These guys can smell a rat long before the scholar can.

In Spore many of the GLCs have gotten themselves into trouble because they have over reached themselves. Look at what happened when SBS a bus company tried to become a property developer Just look at the problems that was created at SMRT when they got a sales person to manage SMRT
]

 

[AungSanSuShi]

But with just a few months to go until Goodyear was due to take the helm, it had become increasingly clear that Ho Ching had no plans to leave her post, and that her stance was supported by government.

A little bird told me that it was LKY who preferred to have a family member to be the CEO of Temasick. Ho Jinx was only carrying out LKY's instruction.

 

[Papsmearer]

GLCs like SBS and SPH did not go into property development as a long term business strategy. It was done so that their executives and their families can enjoy soft launch prices and flip properties. This sector was getting overcrowded so the invitations for the first round were limited. After using GLC funds to feather their nest, they conveniently claimed that property development was not their strength and withdraw.

Suzhou losses were not as high as $20B, it was much lower. However the bigger lesson is that old man found that his influence was not as he thought it was and secondly you do not dictate terms in another country. Interestingly it was not the Chinese that came up with their own Industrial Park across the river but EDB was also tapping the same investor pool for their Industrial Park in Southern China.

He also realised that civil servants and scholars are not the same as a businessman. If they had gone in with a few businessmen from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, they would have been in a better place. These guys can smell a rat long before the scholar can.

This article from the Economist confirms some of what you say. the last para is an interesting read. Seems like its not the first time sinkies got taken to the cleaners in China.

The trouble with Singapore’s clone
Jan 1st 1998 | SUZHOU | From the print edition

FIVE years ago, the city-state of Singapore, a dot on the end of a not entirely friendly pensinsula, set out in search of a hinterland. This was in the heady days of the “China boom”, when China's success—and much of East Asia's for that matter—seemed to be teaching the rest of the world a thing or two. In turn, Singapore's leaders, never short of self-regard, thought they had something to teach the Chinese about running society. The result was a $20 billion plan to create Singapore's graven image on some 70 square kilometres (27 square miles) outside Suzhou, an ancient merchant town to the west of Shanghai. On this field of dreams the Singaporeans would build a super-city for 600,000 contented people who would enjoy first-world infrastructure, clean government and low taxes.

From the beginning, Singapore's leaders said they would arrange things in the “Asian way”; this was not the table-thumping style of westerners, but a quiet, behind-the-scenes approach based on mutual trust and understanding. The prospect of part of unruly China being placed under Singaporean management seemed irresistible—until, that is, the region's financial troubles made it plain Asian values can work no greater magic than anyone else's. Rather, Singapore, like some other foreign investors in China, has got its fingers burnt by being over-ambitious.

After a visit to Suzhou in December, Singapore's elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, made an unprecedented attack on Chinese officialdom and problems at the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP). Mr Lee's comments suggest his government's commitment to Suzhou may be in doubt. “This matter has to be clarified,” he said, “because our credibility is at stake, and the credibility of the Chinese government as well in endorsing the SIP at a very high level.”
In this section

Mr Lee's gripe is that the authorities are developing a rival economic zone, the Suzhou New District, to the west of the town. This is supposedly at the expense of the SIP, which is to the east. The result, he claims, is a contest for investments by multinationals, which has cost the SIP dear.

Mr Lee criticised local officials for persuading foreign investors to come to the New District, not the SIP. He also attacked the central government, for failing to spot “municipal shenanigans”. And for good measure he threw in criticism of flip-flops in central-government policy, notably an imminent about-turn on tax exemptions for imported machinery. “In a period of less than one year,” remonstrated Mr Lee, “you turn left, and then you turn right.” Singapore, runs the undercurrent of Mr Lee's comments, did not prosper by doing things so inconsistently.

At first sight, a visitor to Suzhou might be tempted to believe Mr Lee's charge of municipal favouritism. The 90-minute drive from Shanghai is lined with billboards advertising the New District, with not a placard for Singapore's pet project in sight. The expressway sliproad for the industrial park is blocked, with no explanation. And the New District itself is chock-a-block with factories where the SIP is notable for its vast tracts of wasteland.

Closer inspection, however, reveals holes in Mr Lee's charges. The New District began fully three years before the SIP, as a way to move 130 or so industries out of Suzhou's city centre. It is hardly an upstart. Indeed, Singapore chose not to join forces with the New District, deeming it to be too small for the Lion City's ambitions. Moreover, the favouritism runs resoundingly the SIP's way. It has political support from the Chinese president down. It has freedoms, such as autonomy over planning and land use, which are unheard of elsewhere in China. And tax revenues that accrue to the park do not have to be handed up to the provincial and central authorities.

The New District, on the other hand, cannot rely upon political powers to help persuade multinationals to set up shop, and it has fewer tax advantages. So it must fend for itself. That “commercial” attitude, as Suzhou's new mayor, Chen Deming, puts it, makes its marketing more effective. The SIP, meanwhile, may be tempted to bask in a state of government grace. In this light, many of Mr Lee's charges of chicanery—he says, for instance, that the New District's website address looks damagingly like the SIP's—appear petty.

Still, China's leadership has rushed to smooth Mr Lee's feathers. President Jiang Zemin says the SIP is China's most important example of bilateral economic co-operation. Officials promise that they will carry out “deep research” into Mr Lee's remarks.

Though multinationals are investing in the SIP, they are not coming fast enough. Foreign investment is slowing in China, as in other parts of East Asia. The Singaporean shareholders in the project hoped by now to be earning a return on their investments, but they are not, and may not for several years. In the meantime, it is not clear how much more the Chinese can offer the Singaporeans, beyond perhaps new tax concessions.

Nor is Suzhou the only place where Singaporean initiatives have stumbled. Ambitions at another government-sponsored zone in Wuxi (like Suzhou, in Jiangsu province) are likely to be scaled back. And a Singaporean company that contracted in 1995 to build the “Friendship” bridge across the Yangzi River at Chongqing, in Sichuan province, recently pulled out, citing too much red tape. It is all evidence that the infatuation between Singapore and China, based on a belief that they hold cultural and political values in common, cannot survive the grubby necessity to make money in what is still a difficult land.

 

[JHolmesJr]

China played us like a fiddle.

 

[chonburifc]

This article from the Economist confirms some of what you say. the last para is an interesting read. Seems like its not the first time sinkies got taken to the cleaners in China.

The trouble with Singapore’s clone
Jan 1st 1998 | SUZHOU | From the print edition

FIVE years ago, the city-state of Singapore, a dot on the end of a not entirely friendly pensinsula, set out in search of a hinterland. This was in the heady days of the “China boom”, when China's success—and much of East Asia's for that matter—seemed to be teaching the rest of the world a thing or two. In turn, Singapore's leaders, never short of self-regard, thought they had something to teach the Chinese about running society. The result was a $20 billion plan to create Singapore's graven image on some 70 square kilometres (27 square miles) outside Suzhou, an ancient merchant town to the west of Shanghai. On this field of dreams the Singaporeans would build a super-city for 600,000 contented people who would enjoy first-world infrastructure, clean government and low taxes.

From the beginning, Singapore's leaders said they would arrange things in the “Asian way”; this was not the table-thumping style of westerners, but a quiet, behind-the-scenes approach based on mutual trust and understanding. The prospect of part of unruly China being placed under Singaporean management seemed irresistible—until, that is, the region's financial troubles made it plain Asian values can work no greater magic than anyone else's. Rather, Singapore, like some other foreign investors in China, has got its fingers burnt by being over-ambitious.

After a visit to Suzhou in December, Singapore's elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, made an unprecedented attack on Chinese officialdom and problems at the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP). Mr Lee's comments suggest his government's commitment to Suzhou may be in doubt. “This matter has to be clarified,” he said, “because our credibility is at stake, and the credibility of the Chinese government as well in endorsing the SIP at a very high level.”
In this section

Mr Lee's gripe is that the authorities are developing a rival economic zone, the Suzhou New District, to the west of the town. This is supposedly at the expense of the SIP, which is to the east. The result, he claims, is a contest for investments by multinationals, which has cost the SIP dear.

Mr Lee criticised local officials for persuading foreign investors to come to the New District, not the SIP. He also attacked the central government, for failing to spot “municipal shenanigans”. And for good measure he threw in criticism of flip-flops in central-government policy, notably an imminent about-turn on tax exemptions for imported machinery. “In a period of less than one year,” remonstrated Mr Lee, “you turn left, and then you turn right.” Singapore, runs the undercurrent of Mr Lee's comments, did not prosper by doing things so inconsistently.

At first sight, a visitor to Suzhou might be tempted to believe Mr Lee's charge of municipal favouritism. The 90-minute drive from Shanghai is lined with billboards advertising the New District, with not a placard for Singapore's pet project in sight. The expressway sliproad for the industrial park is blocked, with no explanation. And the New District itself is chock-a-block with factories where the SIP is notable for its vast tracts of wasteland.

Closer inspection, however, reveals holes in Mr Lee's charges. The New District began fully three years before the SIP, as a way to move 130 or so industries out of Suzhou's city centre. It is hardly an upstart. Indeed, Singapore chose not to join forces with the New District, deeming it to be too small for the Lion City's ambitions. Moreover, the favouritism runs resoundingly the SIP's way. It has political support from the Chinese president down. It has freedoms, such as autonomy over planning and land use, which are unheard of elsewhere in China. And tax revenues that accrue to the park do not have to be handed up to the provincial and central authorities.

The New District, on the other hand, cannot rely upon political powers to help persuade multinationals to set up shop, and it has fewer tax advantages. So it must fend for itself. That “commercial” attitude, as Suzhou's new mayor, Chen Deming, puts it, makes its marketing more effective. The SIP, meanwhile, may be tempted to bask in a state of government grace. In this light, many of Mr Lee's charges of chicanery—he says, for instance, that the New District's website address looks damagingly like the SIP's—appear petty.

Still, China's leadership has rushed to smooth Mr Lee's feathers. President Jiang Zemin says the SIP is China's most important example of bilateral economic co-operation. Officials promise that they will carry out “deep research” into Mr Lee's remarks.

Though multinationals are investing in the SIP, they are not coming fast enough. Foreign investment is slowing in China, as in other parts of East Asia. The Singaporean shareholders in the project hoped by now to be earning a return on their investments, but they are not, and may not for several years. In the meantime, it is not clear how much more the Chinese can offer the Singaporeans, beyond perhaps new tax concessions.

Nor is Suzhou the only place where Singaporean initiatives have stumbled. Ambitions at another government-sponsored zone in Wuxi (like Suzhou, in Jiangsu province) are likely to be scaled back. And a Singaporean company that contracted in 1995 to build the “Friendship” bridge across the Yangzi River at Chongqing, in Sichuan province, recently pulled out, citing too much red tape. It is all evidence that the infatuation between Singapore and China, based on a belief that they hold cultural and political values in common, cannot survive the grubby necessity to make money in what is still a difficult land.

The truth is LKY use scholars to deal with the PRCs. Results would have been totally opposites if he uses chow bengs. Come on lah, scholars can do what?

 

[johnny333]

Not many people are aware that Temasek is not the long term investor that makes it out to be. They typically pick between 15m to 20 m in investments each year and also unload 10 to 15 million again each year. So the long term outlook excuse is not exactly right. When you buy and sell at these levels there are lot of fees that go to some interesting characters. Are these being looked at........

If what you claim is true then Temasek has a high turnover of investments.
Then why are they claiming that they need the secrecy to protect their investment strategies

Just look at Buffet & Berkshire. No one complains about secrecy. You will only find happy & wealthy investors.

 

[bhoven]

Not many people are aware that Temasek is not the long term investor that makes it out to be. They typically pick between 15m to 20 m in investments each year and also unload 10 to 15 million again each year. So the long term outlook excuse is not exactly right. When you buy and sell at these levels there are lot of fees that go to some interesting characters. Are these being looked at.

Someone should do a proper vintage analysis of their portfolio and this must not include gifts given by the State at interesting prices such those mentioned by Merle. They were given Pulau Seraya and it did not take long before they sold it to YTL who now employs her brother.

I am really worried after the Stat Board Audit affair and Temasek is exempt private company and disclosure are no where near what other state are required to have.

Lim Boon Heng is also not the sharpest tool in any shed so his appointment as Chairman is even more intriguing.

Red flags were raised even as early as 2009 altho Balding is the most recent one to do so. See article in Asian Sentinel:

Singapore’s Goodbye Guy
Written by Our Correspondent
THU,23 JULY 2009
Print Friendly




Temasek's ex-New Boss is Out the Door

The resignation of Charles "Chip" Goodyear halfway through the period between his appointment in March as chief executive designate of Temasek and his assumption of the post in October is yet another illustration of a long established principle: never disagree with a member of the ruling family.

Whether or not he was a good choice for the job, the appointment of this investment banker and former boss of BHP-Billiton was hailed as a sincere effort to bring fresh thinking to the management of a massive fund which had suffered badly from Ho Ching's overenthusiasm for financial sector – particularly western financial sector – assets. Not only were many of these acquired at high prices, some such as Barclays and Bank of America (which had acquired the bankrupt Merrill Lynch) were sold off near the bottom of the market earlier this year while with UBS Temasek had to help out with rescue packages. Ho Ching herself seemed to recognize that someone with wider experience of the world might be needed to run a fund which now has two-thirds of its assets outside Singapore.

But acceptance in theory and practice can be very different. Exactly what Goodyear was proposing to do when he became actual chief executive is not clear. Some suggest he wanted to move into resources, others that he wanted to shake up the managements of the local state owned entities which are a major part of his portfolio but also the holy of holies for the small group of top bureaucrats who run things on behalf of the Lees.

But one thing is clear: there is no such thing as being chief executive of one of the myriad state enterprises in Singapore if a Lee family member, naturally supported by the cohorts of intelligent yes-men, has a different view. That has now been shown to be as much the case with Temasek as it was when Lee Kuan Yew's daughter Lee Wei Ling had a policy dispute with a distinguished UK neurologist, Simon Shorvon, hired to head up Singapore's National Neuroscience Institute of which she was a director.

She of course knew far more about neurology than he did and he was hounded out of Singapore and subject to the usual travesty of justice handed out by Singapore authorities in cases involving the Lees. Investigations by the UK's General Medical Council, later endorsed by the High Court, cleared Shorvon of any misconduct. He is now a professor at University College London.

Foreign media continue to lap up Temasek's propaganda about its longer-term performance. One that surely ought to know better is the Lex column in the Financial Times which like to think of itself as rigorously analytical. It simply repeats the claim that Temasek's total return has averaged 18 percent since inception and 9 percent over the past decade. No attempt there to analyze Temasek's skimpy accounts -- for example to query the prices at which state assets were injected into it, or to ask about unconsolidated, unlisted subsidiaries such as Astrea which borrowed US$810 million to invest in private equity funds at the height of the fund bubble. A real story about Temasek might earn a writ, or the expulsion of the correspondent, or a quiet ban on Singaporean companies advertising in the paper.

Quite how badly Temasek has done is hard to figure out because the data presented is scanty and unconsolidated. For example, in 2007-08 the value of its portfolio increased by 13 percent to S$185 billion but it is unsure how much of that was simply a capital injection from the government. Meanwhile Temasek's local portfolio has been persistently trimmed and now represents only 33 percent of assets. Of course it may make more sense to invest in faster-growing countries rather than in low-growth Singapore where there are few new opportunities for a company which already controls so much. Nevertheless it hard not to conclude that some of these sales, such as the December 2008 sale of PowerSeraya to Malaysia's YTL for S$3.8 billion are not partly designed to generate capital profits readily available from long-held local assets.

The kid-gloves approach by the FT to Temasek is in keeping with its past groveling behavior. following comments on Temasek, Remember this from September 29, 2007, which Asia Sentinel reported on October 17 of that year:

"Last week Jimmy Phoon, Temasek's chief investment officer, announced he was leaving ‘to take a break and spend some time with the family'. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the reasons. Singapore, after all, is built on strong family values. Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of the city-state, must be proud to see Lee Hsien Loong, his son, occupy the role of prime minister.

"Mr Lee (Jnr) himself will be pleased Ho Ching, his wife, has helped turn round the performance of Temasek after being appointed chief executive in 2002. "The rumour mill now suggests Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother, could replace Mr Tai at DBS. The younger Mr Lee earned his spurs as chief executive of SingTel, also part of the Temasek firmament."

This innocuous comment produced the following absurd apology and yet more libel proceeds for the Lees.

"We recognize that the article meant or was understood to mean: that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as Prime Minister, for nepotistic motives; that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his wife, Ms Ho Ching, as the Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited for nepotistic motives; and, that Ms Ho Ching is promoting her brother-in-law Lee Hsien Yang's interests by securing or helping to secure his appointment as Mr Jackson Tai's replacement at DBS Bank for nepotistic motives.

"…We admit and acknowledge that these allegations are false and completely without foundation. We unreservedly apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching for the distress and embarrassment caused to them by these allegations. We undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect.

"…We have agreed to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching damages, by way of compensation, and costs incurred by them in connection with this matter."

Doubtless the FT will apologize in a similar way to Kim Jong Il if the North Koreans can afford to buy enough ads in the pink paper.

 

[escher]

A total cleansing of PAP corruption and filth must be done for Singaporeans to regain their own country.

Hang those PAP bastards and their collaborators with piano wires and see those bastards dance under the lamp posts

 

[Leepotism]

Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching must die if Singaporeans want to get back their CPF money in one lump sum.

 

[beteljuice]

In Spore many of the GLCs have gotten themselves into trouble because they have over reached themselves. Look at what happened when SBS a bus company tried to become a property developer Just look at the problems that was created at SMRT when they got a sales person to manage SMRT

Just look at Ho Ching. A housewife who is supposedly an engineer looking after our billions $$$$$....$$$
Sporeans really screwed themselves when they gave LKY carte blanche to impoverish us.

You just can't trust politicians with your life & this is especially true with an opportunist like LKY.




Singaporeans get what they deserved.
Why on hell do Singaporeans voted and voted for LKY when time and time again LKY lied and lied to all of us.

And like clowns, Singaporeans voted for him again and again.

LKY must be laughing like crazy each time he saw the stupid Singaporeans voting and voting for him so he can continue to cheat and steal all our money

 

[johnny333]

Besides unlimited cheap supply of CPF money she also sold the State's two crown jewels; two power stations at the trough of the market in 2009 after she bought Merrill Lynch at US$50 per share.

Within 6 months after she bought, ML went under and got taken over by Bank of America. Blardy shameless bitch sold BAC at US$3.5 per share.

For all the billions the bitch loses she draws between $12m to $18m per annum for her remuneration.

If the PAP has lost so much $$$ I doubt there is a future for the PAP. No wonder they are selling everything that is not nailed down. It's like a moving out sale.

If the PAP ever loses the ability to hide the books of Temasek/CPF I can imagine the 60% getting a rude wake up call. If that happens there will be no place for the PAP, even as a minority gov't.
Die, die, they will keep on fixing the opposition until they are run out of town.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

The pap has dug a hole so deep they can't get out of....
So the only way is to keep digging.....

They have to remain in power by any means possible so that their vile deeds do not see the light of day.

 

[hurley]

which is why nobody wants to join temasek! takes dirty to a whole new level

The pap has dug a hole so deep they can't get out of....
So the only way is to keep digging.....

They have to remain in power by any means possible so that their vile deeds do not see the light of day.

 

[winnipegjets]

Suzhou losses were not as high as $20B, it was much lower. However the bigger lesson is that old man found that his influence was not as he thought it was and secondly you do not dictate terms in another country. Interestingly it was not the Chinese that came up with their own Industrial Park across the river but EDB was also tapping the same investor pool for their Industrial Park in Southern China.

He also realised that civil servants and scholars are not the same as a businessman. If they had gone in with a few businessmen from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, they would have been in a better place. These guys can smell a rat long before the scholar can.

Shows how stupid Old Fart is ...if he really understood China, as he has portrayed himself to be a China expert, he would have known that the local governments have more sway their own backyard than the central government. The Suzhou investment was for him to win favours with the Chinese leaders but it hurt his reputation instead.