Tharman as President will not ensure our reserves are safeguarded, don’t be easily fooled by the PAP government
likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com
Singaporeans have been repeatedly told that the elected/selected/walkover/independent President is a trusted jaga who safeguards our trillion-dollar reserves.
This cannot be further from the truth.
Besides Ong Teng Cheong, no president has raised a single question pertaining to the use of our reserves.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...ewalled-pritam-singh-asked-and-got-an-earful/
President Nathan silent even after Temasek and GIC had incurred billions in losses
In mid 2007, Temasek made a S$3 bil bet on Barclays and lost about S$2.6 bil in less than 2 years. Temasek Holdings Invests in Barclays PLC – Temasek
Not a squeak was heard from Nathan.
In Dec 2007, Temasek made a bigger bet on Merrill Lynch totaling more than S$8 bil and lost about S$6.7 bil in less than 18 months.
Temasek defends BofA stake sale | Financial Times (ft.com)
Temasek lost about US$4.6b on Merrill investment, WSJ says (theedgemalaysia.com)
Nathan was again silent.
About S$9 billion lost on 2 investments within 2 years was of no concern to the reserves jaga.
While Temasek had placed humongous bets on Barclays and Merrill Lynch, GIC decided to risk more – about S$24 bil, mostly CPF monies – on Citigroup (US$6.9 bil) and UBS (US9.75 bil).
Singapore’s GIC says Citi, UBS Investments Unique (cnbc.com)
In 2017, it turned out that the ‘unique’ UBS investment possibly cost Singaporeans US$4 bil (realised and unrealised losses). Singapore’s GIC faces US$4bn loss on UBS bet | Reuters
Fortunately for GIC, Citigroup – unlike UBS – was bailed out by the US government. Citigroup’s initial billion-dollar loss turned into an unexpected profit which offset UBS loss.
The PAP government wasted no time to salvage its reputation by claiming the UBS and Citigroup investments were a “combined strategy”.
GIC pares stake in UBS at a loss; combined strategy with Citigroup sees positive return | The Straits Times
This was an outrageous lie because no sane fund manager would have invested S$24 billion in only 2 financial institutions during a financial crisis, assuming business would be as usual when the crisis blew over.
To put the S$24 bil in perspective, the amount exceeded the total 2009 CPF contribution by $4 bil.
Real reason why Nathan didn’t speak out
To understand why GIC was allowed to be so reckless with our reserves, we only have to look at its Board of Directors.
It is foolish to believe that the guys controlling GIC were not aware or did not give the green light for the $24 bil ‘combined strategy’ investment.
And let’s not kid ourselves. There was no way Nathan could have held GIC chairman Lee Kuan Yew, dy chairman Lee Hsien Loong (his son), CEO Tony Tan (Lee’s distant relative) or Temasek CEO Ho Ching (his daughter-in-law) – the famiLEE – accountable for investing our reserves recklessly.
‘Reserves jaga’ Tony Tan
GIC CEO Tony Tan, a distant relative of LKY, should not have stood for the 2011 presidential election for obvious reasons. Veritas: Tony Tan is related to LKY
As was expected, Nathan’s successor was similarly silent on how reserves were used/invested.
‘Reserves jaga’ Halimah Yacob
Tony’s successor Halimah is the worst president whose fake election has divided Singaporeans.
Halimah is no unifying figure, much less a reserves jaga, and has achieved nothing besides looking like a clown on the world stage. She is best remembered for this piece of advice on beating inflation, years before being installed as President:
Netizens remember her words after Malaysia halt chicken exports – Singapore News
With little knowledge in finance and no private sector experience to boot, Halimah – understandably – did not speak out on Temasek’s US$275 million FTX loss.
Conclusion
Since Nathan, all presidents were PAP-linked/Lee-related and had never raised any issue pertaining to the use/investment of our reserves.
Tharman may be well qualified and respected but no one should expect him – cut from the same PAP cloth – to exercise his ‘independence’ to safeguard our reserves.
Where transparency and accountability are concerned, Tharman and PAP are on the same page: Singaporeans and almost all elected MPs do not deserve to know where GIC invests public/CPF monies.
Let’s not be easily fooled by Tharman’s ‘ideal’ public persona.
https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress....-dont-be-easily-fooled-by-the-pap-government/
likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com
Singaporeans have been repeatedly told that the elected/selected/walkover/independent President is a trusted jaga who safeguards our trillion-dollar reserves.
This cannot be further from the truth.
Besides Ong Teng Cheong, no president has raised a single question pertaining to the use of our reserves.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...ewalled-pritam-singh-asked-and-got-an-earful/
President Nathan silent even after Temasek and GIC had incurred billions in losses
In mid 2007, Temasek made a S$3 bil bet on Barclays and lost about S$2.6 bil in less than 2 years. Temasek Holdings Invests in Barclays PLC – Temasek
Not a squeak was heard from Nathan.
In Dec 2007, Temasek made a bigger bet on Merrill Lynch totaling more than S$8 bil and lost about S$6.7 bil in less than 18 months.
Temasek defends BofA stake sale | Financial Times (ft.com)
Temasek lost about US$4.6b on Merrill investment, WSJ says (theedgemalaysia.com)
Nathan was again silent.
About S$9 billion lost on 2 investments within 2 years was of no concern to the reserves jaga.
While Temasek had placed humongous bets on Barclays and Merrill Lynch, GIC decided to risk more – about S$24 bil, mostly CPF monies – on Citigroup (US$6.9 bil) and UBS (US9.75 bil).
Singapore’s GIC says Citi, UBS Investments Unique (cnbc.com)
In 2017, it turned out that the ‘unique’ UBS investment possibly cost Singaporeans US$4 bil (realised and unrealised losses). Singapore’s GIC faces US$4bn loss on UBS bet | Reuters
Fortunately for GIC, Citigroup – unlike UBS – was bailed out by the US government. Citigroup’s initial billion-dollar loss turned into an unexpected profit which offset UBS loss.
The PAP government wasted no time to salvage its reputation by claiming the UBS and Citigroup investments were a “combined strategy”.
GIC pares stake in UBS at a loss; combined strategy with Citigroup sees positive return | The Straits Times
This was an outrageous lie because no sane fund manager would have invested S$24 billion in only 2 financial institutions during a financial crisis, assuming business would be as usual when the crisis blew over.
To put the S$24 bil in perspective, the amount exceeded the total 2009 CPF contribution by $4 bil.
Real reason why Nathan didn’t speak out
To understand why GIC was allowed to be so reckless with our reserves, we only have to look at its Board of Directors.
It is foolish to believe that the guys controlling GIC were not aware or did not give the green light for the $24 bil ‘combined strategy’ investment.
And let’s not kid ourselves. There was no way Nathan could have held GIC chairman Lee Kuan Yew, dy chairman Lee Hsien Loong (his son), CEO Tony Tan (Lee’s distant relative) or Temasek CEO Ho Ching (his daughter-in-law) – the famiLEE – accountable for investing our reserves recklessly.
‘Reserves jaga’ Tony Tan
GIC CEO Tony Tan, a distant relative of LKY, should not have stood for the 2011 presidential election for obvious reasons. Veritas: Tony Tan is related to LKY
As was expected, Nathan’s successor was similarly silent on how reserves were used/invested.
‘Reserves jaga’ Halimah Yacob
Tony’s successor Halimah is the worst president whose fake election has divided Singaporeans.
Halimah is no unifying figure, much less a reserves jaga, and has achieved nothing besides looking like a clown on the world stage. She is best remembered for this piece of advice on beating inflation, years before being installed as President:
With little knowledge in finance and no private sector experience to boot, Halimah – understandably – did not speak out on Temasek’s US$275 million FTX loss.
Conclusion
Since Nathan, all presidents were PAP-linked/Lee-related and had never raised any issue pertaining to the use/investment of our reserves.
Tharman may be well qualified and respected but no one should expect him – cut from the same PAP cloth – to exercise his ‘independence’ to safeguard our reserves.
Where transparency and accountability are concerned, Tharman and PAP are on the same page: Singaporeans and almost all elected MPs do not deserve to know where GIC invests public/CPF monies.
Let’s not be easily fooled by Tharman’s ‘ideal’ public persona.
https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress....-dont-be-easily-fooled-by-the-pap-government/
