- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,908
- Points
- 0
REPORTED in 154th on 7 Feb 2009: "Yesterday's announcement took many by surprise and sparked immediate speculation over the reason for Ms Ho's departure, but Temasek chairman S. Dhanabalan said the change had been in the works for some time.
At a media conference yesterday, he revealed that the investment company had been mulling over the succession question every year since early 2005".
REPORTED in Financial Times on 6 Feb 2009"[Ho Ching] added that her appointment in 2002 was made on the condition that she would remain for at least 10 years to carry out necessary reforms to the once-sleepy state holding company."
So are we taken for fools to believe that on one hand Ho Ching is expected to last 10 years and yet by early 2005 (less than 3 years into her job), Temasek is looking for a new CEO? If she had really sucked in her first three years, why then did it take Temasick to find a replacement only now, in 2009?
At a media conference yesterday, he revealed that the investment company had been mulling over the succession question every year since early 2005".
REPORTED in Financial Times on 6 Feb 2009"[Ho Ching] added that her appointment in 2002 was made on the condition that she would remain for at least 10 years to carry out necessary reforms to the once-sleepy state holding company."
So are we taken for fools to believe that on one hand Ho Ching is expected to last 10 years and yet by early 2005 (less than 3 years into her job), Temasek is looking for a new CEO? If she had really sucked in her first three years, why then did it take Temasick to find a replacement only now, in 2009?
Last edited: