TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent The state media has once again blamed Singaporeans for being selective about jobs in another biased and one-sided article. According to a report from the Straits Times, hotels and transportation commpanies are feeling the squeeze from recent government moves to restrict the inflow of foreign workers (read report here) The companies claimed that they encountered difficulties employing locals and even Malaysians are hard to come by. The Shangri-La Hotel recently recruited a dozen retrenched factory workers to be room attendants, but none stayed. Most quit in a week due to the strenuous work. Instead of pointing fingers directly at Singaporeans, the state media should investigate why these jobs are shunned by Singaporeans. Conrad Centennial Singapore's director of human resources, Mr Andy Khor, said: 'It's a back-breaking job. Consider doing one bed a day in your own home versus 13 times every day.' Unlike foreigners who are living here alone with no families to take care of, few Singaporeans are able to work for long hours for a stretch for a low pay. Furthermore, they have no choice but to bear with the arduous working conditions because many of them has paid large amounts of money to middlemen to come to Singapore and they will be mired in debts if they do not work hard to repay them. It was not mentioned in the report the starting pay of room attendants, but they are likely to be in the range of $900 to $1,200 from previous figures which is hardly enough to survive in Singapore, let alone support a family. The authorities should be exploring ways to increase the salary of locals and improve working conditions which may make these jobs more attractive to them. For example, subsidies can be given to companies for each local on their payroll which will go directly into supplementing their wages. Instead of 12 hour shifts, the working hours can be shortened to eight with the company being compensated for the additional labor cost by the government in the form of direct subsidy or tax rebates. While it is true that many jobs in the service sector are shunned by Singaporeans, the real danger lies in the relentless influx of semi-skilled and skilled foreigners like IT engineers, technicians and administrators who are  competing directly with locals for limited vacancies and helping to bring down the median wages in the process. The rising number of foreigners in Singapore has become a point of contention for many citizens. Despite widespread concern, the government has chosen to turn a blind eye to the problem, urging Singaporeans to "embrace foreigners" because they are "vital" to the economy.   Related articles: >> Are low wage workers really better off? by Edmund Khor >> Are locals shunning jobs at Tze Char stalls? >> Jobs for Singaporeans or foreigners? by Jeremy Koh  Read More →

By Ian Johnson from Wall Street Journal China condemned a planned visit by the Dalai Lama to Taiwan but stopped short of attacking the island's president, suggesting that Beijing and Taipei might find a way to avoid letting the sensitive trip damage a recent improvement in ties. Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou announced the approval of a request by local officials of the opposition party for the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader -- who is reviled by Beijing but popular in Taiwan -- to visit next week areas stricken by a recent typhoon. The move appeared to be a delicate balancing act by Mr. Ma: Showing that he is independent enough to go against Beijing without jeopardizing a détente between the two longtime rivals that he has engineered since taking office in May 2008. Mr. Ma has come under heavy criticism this month for the government's allegedly slow response to Typhoon Morakot, which struck Taiwan on the weekend of Aug. 8, leaving 461 people dead and 192 missing, according to the latest tally. In response to the decision, China said it was "resolutely opposed" to the visit, adding that the Dalai Lama "is not a pure religious figure, but uses the banner of religion to engage in activities to split the nation." But Beijing appeared sensitive to Mr. Ma's predicament, casting blame for the plan on the Dalai Lama and on Taiwan's opposition Democratic Progressive Party. The invitation came at the request of local DPP politicians. "When people from all sectors on the mainland are lending a hand to help Taiwan reconstruct and overcome the typhoon disaster quickly, some DPP members have taken the chance to plot the Dalai Lama's visit to Taiwan," said a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's cabinet carried by the state-run Xinhua news agency. "It's an attempt to sabotage the hard-earned good situation in cross-Strait relations." Mr. Ma has faced criticism for the government's response to Typhoon Morakot, which struck Taiwan on the weekend of Aug. 8, triggering landslides that buried mountain villages and leaving 463 people dead and 190 missing, according to the latest tally. His approval rating has plunged to below 30% amid complaints that the government acted too slowly and initially rejected foreign aid. Mr. Ma needs to rebuild his political base if he wants to push ahead with plans to end 60 years of hostility between Taiwan and China, analysts say. "Mr. Ma wants to erase his image of being indecisive, as well as the impression that he listens to China on everything," said George Tsai, a political-science professor at National Chengchi University. "So when he reviewed the case, his immediate concern was how to rescue his reputation." The move was difficult for China to criticize directly, analysts say. China opposes efforts by the Dalai Lama to gain publicity and regularly condemns states that allow the Dalai Lama to visit, saying he foments independence among Tibetans. But China is also eager to support Mr. Ma's efforts at reconciliation. Wang Jianming, a researcher in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Taiwan institute, said China also didn't want to appear insensitive to the victims, for whom the Dalai Lama is to hold a prayer service. "It is really a puzzle for the mainland," Mr. Wang said. "It is not that easy or appropriate for the mainland to show strong objections." As a sign of how ties are improving, Taiwanese officials confirmed on Thursday that top negotiators from Taiwan and China will meet in December to discuss a free-trade deal. The proposed deal would cut tariffs and allow a freer flow of goods between Taiwan, which has been hit by the global recession, and economic powerhouse China. In July, Taiwan allowed some mainland investment on the island for the first time. Taiwan's government will consider a further opening next year, Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Hwang Jung-Chiou said after a meeting with the chief executive of Beijing-based China Mobile Ltd. Taiwan excluded the more sensitive telecommunications sector and its crown-jewel chip industries from the 100 sectors that it opened up to Chinese investments in July, about two months after China Mobile said it planned to acquire 12% of the Taiwan's Far EasTone Telecommunications Co. According to local government plans, the Dalai Lama will arrive late Sunday night and depart early Friday morning. He will spend three days in the southern part of Taiwan, especially Shiao Lin village, the center of the mudslide. Before his departure, the Dalai Lama will hold a news conference, officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Ma, Wang Yu-chi, said the Dalai Lama's visit is a religious issue. The Taiwan-China relationship has "improved significantly and at this point we don't think a religious event will damage it," Mr. Wang said. Asked whether Taipei had consulted Beijing on the visit, Mr. Wang said no, adding that it was "solely an internal decision." He declined to say if Mr. Ma might meet the Dalai Lama. Source: Wall Street Journal   EDITORS' NOTE: Temasek Review is a paid subscriber of the Wall Street Journal  Read More →

From our Correspondent The Ministry of Finance's reply to a Wall Street Journal editorial on Temasek is nothing more than a rehash of the official standard answers to confound its critics. (read letter here). Press Secretary to the Minister of Finance Chin Sau Ho wrote Temasek "discloses all relevant information that Singaporeans need to judge its performance as a long-term investor, favorable or otherwise." Unfortunately, the information it has revealed so far remains insufficient for Singaporeans to assess its performance. Temasek has always proclaimed itself to be a "long-term" investor and it should be judged on its performance in terms of 10, 20 or 3 years. It therefore perplexing that it chose to sell of its stakes in Bank of American and Barclays Bank in less than a year, resulting in gigantic losses which was made more glaring by the profits reaped by an Abu Dhabi fund when it sold off its Barclays shares at a high three months later than Temasek. How much money did Temasek actually lose? Who makes the decision to purchase and sell the stocks? These questions are unanswered to this day despite widespread public interest and concern. Ms Chin claimed that the government "does not believe that either it or parliament should become engaged in Temasek’s investment strategies or internal governance. This would politicize Temasek’s operations and prevent it from managing its portfolio professionally and sustaining good, long-term performance." This is no more than a lame excuse to allow Temasek complete autonomy to manage public funds with no accountability or transparency. The government has been engaged in Temasek's internal governance all along. Who appointed Ho Ching and Dhanabalan, an ex-Minister, both with no finance background or experience to its Board of Directors? Again, Ms Chin did not offer a satisfactory explanation as to why public or parliamentary scrutiny of Temasek's operations will compromise its performance. Ms Chin defended Temasek's transparency record by stating that "it publishes annually its total shareholder returns over various time horizons from one to 30 years and since its inception in 1974, as well as the value of its portfolio for each year since inception." While it is commendable that Temasek discloses well beyond what it is required under the law, it reveals only general figures without accounting for the profits made or losses incurred for specific investments such as Shin Corp, ABC Learning and Merill Lynch to which we can only make a wild guess. Being a sovereign wealth fund tasked to manage Singapore's budget surpluses, where does Temasek obtain its funds from? Does it receive regular cash injections from the Ministry of Finance? Should proceeds from sale of national assets such as power stations be categorized as profits? Chin's argument that the "mutual agreement not to proceed with the planned CEO succession is no different from typical disclosure by large companies which make senior management changes." does not excuse Temasek from its responsibility to be accountable to the public. In the first place, large public-listed companies will have to reveal the reasons for such major leadership reshuffles to its shareholders though it may not be made public. Furthermore, Temasek Holdings is not a commercial company, but a sovereign wealth fund belonging to Singaporeans. As the Finance Minister admitted himself, Chip Goodyear's departure is a matter of "great public interest". Being an ex-CEO of a mining giant, Mr Chip Goodyear's service does not come cheap. How much was he paid in total during his short five month stint? Was there any severance package given to him? How exactly can "strategic differences" arise when Temasek has said earlier it has scouted Mr Chip Goodyear in 2007? What are the real reasons for his departure? And why did the Board reappoint Ho Ching again when it has initially supported the leadership transition as part of its "renewal"? Regardless of what it tries to protray itself as, it is an undeniable fact that Temasek Holdings is no ordinary commercial company or entity. It is funded by public monies and therefore it rightly has to put up with intense public scrutiny. Singaporeans deserve to know what is going on inside Temasek. Unless Temasek becomes privatized or stop using public funds altogether, it will never be exempted from the accountability and transparency which comes along with its status as Singapore's sovereign wealth fund. Instead of making unsubstantiated and flawed claims to wriggle itself out of the quandrary, the Ministry of Finance should consider strengthening the internal organization and operations of Temasek and make it more accountable and transparent to the public.   EDITORS' NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!  Read More →