A week has passed and there are still no details on the co-sharing arrangement of the costs. SMRT Corp is a listed company that pays dividends to its shareholders. Though owned by Temasek in the main, its construct is that of a private entity. It is also a private company that has been proud to publicise its profit making prowess and the dividends it has delivered to shareholders until the recent spate of incidents over the last few months.
When it was listed, the financial arrangements placed the responsibility of infrastructure on LTA and the operating assets on SMRT Corp. In 2010, there was change in arrangements and the details are not clear.
The Govt has a duty to reveal in detail the co-sharing of costs arrangement on the $0.9B that is scheduled to be spent over 8 years. More importantly it has to explain the mechanics and rationale for this construct and the benefits it provides to taxpayers. It needs to make it clear that SMRT is not enjoying subsidies or grants from the State while its shareholders are getting dividends.
The big picture is the continous conflict of interest when the PM's wife is the Head of Temasek and holds the majority share in SMRT Corp. Is the cost-sharing arrangement making her look good. Is the State propping up the share value of SMRT Corp.
Thus far the listing of SMRT Corp ostensibly to gain from the well known values of privatisation does not make sense if the State is actually carrying this baby for all intents and purposes.
It is also odd that it was SMRT Corp that released the co-funding arrangement and not the Govt. Was it to avoid the elephant in the room which is the conitnuing political damage incurred by the husband from the claws that do not hold to passengers engaged in skaywalking with the grocery bags in both hands.
Lastly, time for Parliament to have good hard look at Temasek and its present management. SIA under the old regime became the worlds most profitable airline with a pint sized civil servant helming it. It did not come back to seek help from the state coffers after the initial seed funding. Its main operational costs is also engineering related and it is also in the transport sector. How did it pay for "renewal and replacement". Its operatings assets ie planes and equipment need to be serviced and replaced. Where did the funds come from? Was cost co-sharing in play or needed? Did the passengers engage in skywalking.
When it was listed, the financial arrangements placed the responsibility of infrastructure on LTA and the operating assets on SMRT Corp. In 2010, there was change in arrangements and the details are not clear.
The Govt has a duty to reveal in detail the co-sharing of costs arrangement on the $0.9B that is scheduled to be spent over 8 years. More importantly it has to explain the mechanics and rationale for this construct and the benefits it provides to taxpayers. It needs to make it clear that SMRT is not enjoying subsidies or grants from the State while its shareholders are getting dividends.
The big picture is the continous conflict of interest when the PM's wife is the Head of Temasek and holds the majority share in SMRT Corp. Is the cost-sharing arrangement making her look good. Is the State propping up the share value of SMRT Corp.
Thus far the listing of SMRT Corp ostensibly to gain from the well known values of privatisation does not make sense if the State is actually carrying this baby for all intents and purposes.
It is also odd that it was SMRT Corp that released the co-funding arrangement and not the Govt. Was it to avoid the elephant in the room which is the conitnuing political damage incurred by the husband from the claws that do not hold to passengers engaged in skaywalking with the grocery bags in both hands.
Lastly, time for Parliament to have good hard look at Temasek and its present management. SIA under the old regime became the worlds most profitable airline with a pint sized civil servant helming it. It did not come back to seek help from the state coffers after the initial seed funding. Its main operational costs is also engineering related and it is also in the transport sector. How did it pay for "renewal and replacement". Its operatings assets ie planes and equipment need to be serviced and replaced. Where did the funds come from? Was cost co-sharing in play or needed? Did the passengers engage in skywalking.
