Temasek with 400 employees spend $8 billion on adminstration expense

Leepotism

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
4,480
Points
113
NSP's secretary-general Hazel Poa calls for more transparency from S'pore's sovereign wealth funds. …

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is calling for Singapore's next elected President to champion for more transparency from Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds, Temasek Holdings and Government Investment Corporation (GIC), as this relates to "the management of our reserves".
NSP's secretary-general Hazel Poa noted in a press statement on Monday, "It is a disturbing state of affairs when Temasek with about 400 employees can report an $8 billion administrative expense without incurring significant public scrutiny."
"$8 billion is more than one-sixth of our national budget," she said.
According to Temasek Holdings' group income statement, its administrative expense was $8 billion in 2009, $8.7 billion in 2010 and $7.3 billion in 2011.
Its revenue was $79.6 billion (2009), $76.7 billion (2010) and $83.5 billion (2011), while its total profit was $9.0 billion (2009), $6.8 billion (2010) and $15.8 billion (2011)
Poa also compared Temasek's and GIC's rates of return per annum with rates from the Central Provident Fund (CPF). She argued while Temasek Holdings claims yearly returns of 15 per cent over 20 years, CPF only pays out 2.5 per cent.
"We can see from the paltry interest rates offered by CPF, Singapore taxpayers neither enjoy full disclosure nor noticeably remarkable returns," said Poa.
Poa called for greater public awareness of relevant benchmarks such as Malaysia's Employees Provident Fund, which guarantees a minimum return of 2.5 per cent and delivered a 4 to 8 per cent return annually since 1960.
Poa also pointed to Norway's sovereign wealth fund as being successful and yet transparent with its citizens.
"There is a world of difference between GIC being transparent to stakeholders on one hand, and foolishly telegraphing its investment strategy to competitors," she said.
While the party acknowledged the ministerial salary review is a step in the right direction, it also asked Members of Parliament and their immediate relatives to disclose compensation they might be receiving from Temasek, GIC or similar organization.
"With so many PAP MPs also juggling multiple, sometimes dozens, of directorships and consultancies, it is clearly in the public interest to know who else is paying their MPs and for what purposes," said Poa.
She believes better finanicial transparency is the best way to serve Singaporeans.
When asked on Monday, Presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock said he supports having more transparency financially. He could promote this through his proposed annual statement from the President, he said
 
Or average of $20M per pax. Possibly corruption at level that is unprecedented in human history.
 
This kinda financial statement is really crappy. It makes no sense that whilst listed company are subjected to a whole list of disclosure requirement by LAW and by accounting standards... Temasek and GIC which are the largest entities in Singapore only needs to make O'level standard financial accounting report
 
The issue is the lack of disclosure, but one should not draw premature conclusion. Almost every expense can be grouped under administrative expense including goodwill write-off, building depreciation, all sorts of overheads... it is not indicative of payroll costs.
 
The issue is the lack of disclosure, but one should not draw premature conclusion. Almost every expense can be grouped under administrative expense including goodwill write-off, building depreciation, all sorts of overheads... it is not indicative of payroll costs.

Including under-table money.
 
This is a very serious charge, You got to back it up.
 
SGD8billion is from "The Group" which is consolidated accounts.

Four hunderd employees is from "The company" which is HQ only.

Akin to taking whole company expenses and divide by only one dept head count :o

I didnt see the financial statements she is referring to, but like that tio bo :confused:


Temasek with about 400 employees can report an $8 billion administrative expense without incurring significant public scrutiny.
 
NSP's secretary-general Hazel Poa calls for more transparency from S'pore's sovereign wealth funds. …

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is calling for Singapore's next elected President to champion for more transparency from Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds, Temasek Holdings and Government Investment Corporation (GIC), as this relates to "the management of our reserves".
NSP's secretary-general Hazel Poa noted in a press statement on Monday, "It is a disturbing state of affairs when Temasek with about 400 employees can report an $8 billion administrative expense without incurring significant public scrutiny."
"$8 billion is more than one-sixth of our national budget," she said.
According to Temasek Holdings' group income statement, its administrative expense was $8 billion in 2009, $8.7 billion in 2010 and $7.3 billion in 2011.
Its revenue was $79.6 billion (2009), $76.7 billion (2010) and $83.5 billion (2011), while its total profit was $9.0 billion (2009), $6.8 billion (2010) and $15.8 billion (2011)
Poa also compared Temasek's and GIC's rates of return per annum with rates from the Central Provident Fund (CPF). She argued while Temasek Holdings claims yearly returns of 15 per cent over 20 years, CPF only pays out 2.5 per cent.
"We can see from the paltry interest rates offered by CPF, Singapore taxpayers neither enjoy full disclosure nor noticeably remarkable returns," said Poa.
Poa called for greater public awareness of relevant benchmarks such as Malaysia's Employees Provident Fund, which guarantees a minimum return of 2.5 per cent and delivered a 4 to 8 per cent return annually since 1960.
Poa also pointed to Norway's sovereign wealth fund as being successful and yet transparent with its citizens.
"There is a world of difference between GIC being transparent to stakeholders on one hand, and foolishly telegraphing its investment strategy to competitors," she said.
While the party acknowledged the ministerial salary review is a step in the right direction, it also asked Members of Parliament and their immediate relatives to disclose compensation they might be receiving from Temasek, GIC or similar organization.
"With so many PAP MPs also juggling multiple, sometimes dozens, of directorships and consultancies, it is clearly in the public interest to know who else is paying their MPs and for what purposes," said Poa.
She believes better finanicial transparency is the best way to serve Singaporeans.
When asked on Monday, Presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock said he supports having more transparency financially. He could promote this through his proposed annual statement from the President, he said

Wah lau, now than Hazel Poa notice this? Next time, ask her to read my thread from December last year.

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?51549-Temasek-101-What-PAP-does-not-want-you-to-know.
 
Well, er, there's my bulletproof limo, my 30 all-gals security detail from Blackwater, the gold hub caps, the sat dish, the sat phones used in my closed circle and for contact with my FIL and hubby, the vacation villas on the Black sea, mediterranean, and riviera et al, the private jets, the family ferraris for my key staff, the chinaware for our tea and birthday parties, teh svarovski crystals souvenirs for clients and suppliers, to name a few...
 
It's incredible. If it's not corruption, I don't know what it is.

It is no corruption, you can't prove that, may take 52 man years to uncover or not, at all. They will reply, that all is accountable to their steakholders! (oops!), but who are their stakeholders?, you or me, them or us, they or we?

They have changed their charter, after getting a lot of scrutiny from the netizens, some time back, anyone have their old charter & compare with the current?

It is not corruption, never!, it is kuanxi..oops!, again...guanxi!, guanxi! ni!:rolleyes:
 
It is no corruption, you can't prove that, may take 52 man years to uncover or not, at all. They will reply, that all is accountable to their steakholders! (oops!), but who are their stakeholders?, you or me, them or us, they or we?

They have changed their charter, after getting a lot of scrutiny from the netizens, some time back, anyone have their old charter & compare with the current?

It is not corruption, never!, it is kuanxi..oops!, again...guanxi!, guanxi! ni!:rolleyes:

In China, its guanxi. In Sg it's kuanxi or Leeruption.:D
 
It is no corruption, you can't prove that, may take 52 man years to uncover or not, at all. They will reply, that all is accountable to their steakholders! (oops!), but who are their stakeholders?, you or me, them or us, they or we?

They have changed their charter, after getting a lot of scrutiny from the netizens, some time back, anyone have their old charter & compare with the current?

It is not corruption, never!, it is kuanxi..oops!, again...guanxi!, guanxi! ni!:rolleyes:

OTC was not very smart mah. If the PAP tells u it will take 52 man years, than u order them to hire 104 accountants and give you the answer in months.
 
In China, its guanxi. In Sg it's kuanxi or Leeruption.:D

Got corruption in Spore:confused:

Maybe someone should tell LKY or LHL :rolleyes:
The costs in Spore is very high compared to other countries in this neighbourhood. That is a give away that something is fishy;)
 
Got corruption in Spore:confused:

Maybe someone should tell LKY or LHL :rolleyes:
The costs in Spore is very high compared to other countries in this neighbourhood. That is a give away that something is fishy;)

There's no corruption in Singapore or to put in plainly, no corruption has been detected so far. Not that there's is none. Lol.
 
hi there



1. aiyoh!
2. not surprising leh.
3. world-crass admin expenses for world-crass entities mah.
4. well done,sheep!
 
Back
Top