TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent The mouth-piece of the ruling party, the Straits Times has declared unilaterally today that the state Sovereign Wealth Fund, Temasek Holdings has "recouped a big part of its portfolio losses since a low point in March". (read full article here) In an lengthy editorial splashed on the front page, the Straits Times tried desperately to exonerate Temasek's beleaguered CEO Ho Ching from any blame in the investment losses by hailing her decisions to purchase  financial heavyweights such as India’s ICICI Bank, China Construction Bank and Standard Chartered Bank. The Straits Times "findings" show that much of Temasek’s gains since the end of March have been driven by its exposure to financial firms: "Take DBS Group Holdings, which has rallied 64.3 per cent during the four-month period. Temasek, which owns 27.8 per cent of the local lender, made a paper gain of more than $2 billion as a result. Then there is Bank of China, which has surged 50.2 per cent and contributed around US$1.7 billion (S$2.4 billion) in gains to Temasek’s portfolio. The Singapore firm has a 13.8 per cent stake in the Chinese bank." However, the Straits Times is surprisingly muted on the share prices of Bank of America and Barclays which have since rebounded. Temasek under Ho Ching bought shares in Merrill Lynch (later sold to Bank of America) and Barclays at a high last year before selling them at a low somewhere in mid-March this year leading to a catastrophic loss of a few billion dollars. Temasek’s loss on BoA alone is estimated around US$4.6 billion, or roughly US$1,000 for every single Singaporean citizen. (Source: Asian Sentinel) Let's take a look at the stock prices of Bank of America and Barclays during the past six months:  A simple calcuation shows that the stock value of Bank of America has increased by more than 200%. Source: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=BAC&CP=0&PT=5 Again, the value of Barclays has also surged more than 300% since Temasek sold off its entire stake in March. Source: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChart.asp?sharechart=BARC The Abu Dhabi government-owned International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), who bought Barclays shares at around the same time as Temasek, made a hefty profit of $USD 2.5 billion dollars when it sold off its stake in June (Source: Reuters)  Temasek's recent gain in its portfolio is due largely to the rebound in the global economy and should not be used to vindicate its over-exposure in the financial markets. [As correctly pointed out by some readers, its "gains" as trumpeted by the Straits Times are unrealized gains while the losses it suffered has crystallized with the untimely sale of BOA and Barclays at a low] Furthermore, it should not be used to excuse the Temasek's Board for blunders such as the ill-timed purchase and sale of BOA and Barclays, the dissolution of Australia's ABC Learning and the investment in the much maligned Shin Corp, none of which it has been held accountable for so far. Had Temasek held on to the BOA and Barclays shares for a few months longer instead of selling them hastily to finance the purchase of stakes in Asian banks such as China Construction Bank, it will definitely have "recouped" a far "bigger" portion of its portfolio losses. Unless the Temasek board comes clean with Singaporeans on its series of questionable investment decisions made in the last few months, it will fail to convince a sceptical public about the competency, experience and leadership of its senior management. After all, Temasek derives its funds entirely from taxpayers' monies. It is neither a "private" investment vehicle or a commercial outfit. It belongs to the people of Singapore and therefore the citizens have a say in the choice of the leadership. Based on Ho Ching's less than stellar performance at the helm of Temasek, a change in leadership is urgently needed to prevent more "negative wealth" from being added to its asset value.   EDITORS' NOTE: Please help counter ST's propaganda by forwarding the URL of this article to everybody you know. [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!]    Related articles: >> China's Sovereign Fund earns $USD 10 billion dollars for 'doing nothing' by Eugene Yeo >> Temasek Outperforms? by Edmund Khor >> More accountability for Singapore's SWFs by Fang Zhi Yuan  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo, Senior Correspondent A day ago, I received an SMS from SingTel asking me to recite the National Pledge at 8.22pm on 9 August. The mainstream media has embarked on a publicity drive to get Singaporeans to recite the pledge together. At exactly 8.22pm, a chime will sound over the national public warning system to signal Singaporeans to recite the pledge. More than 600 locations, including malls, food and beverage outlets here are making the announcement to remind the people to observe the unique moment. Grassroots organizations will also recite the pledge together for the first time in a ceremony at the Floating Platform National Day Parade at 8.22pm. Residents from Bukit Gombak, Canberra, Changi, Simeh, Hong Kah North, Kampong Ubi, Toa Payoh Central, Woodlands and Pasir-Punggol are participating in the event. It has been over 10 years since I last recited the National pledge, the last time was when I was commissioned as a SAF officer in the army. Singapore's National Pledge is recited by every primary school children in the morning assembly before school starts. During the six entire years I was reciting the pledge, I never quite understand the real meaning behind the words: We, the citizens of Singapore Pledge ourselves as one united people Regardless of race, language or religion To build a democratic society Based on justice and equality So as to achieve happiness, prosperity & progress for our nation Initially penned by Mr S Rajaratnam, one of the founders of the PAP in 1966, the Pledge was written against the backdrop of racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s. Mr Rajaratnam revealed that the dream was about building "a Singapore we are proud of". He believed that language, race and religion were divisive factors, but the Pledge emphasises that these differences can be overcome if Singaporeans cared enough about their country. How many of those Singaporeans following the herd blindly to recite the National Pledge on this coming Sunday know exactly what they are reciting? Do the PAP leaders really believe in the National Pledge or are they simply going through the motion like everybody else? In the last few years or so, I have come to the realization that many words in the National Pledge are hollow and bereft of any meaning because they are almost never practised in reality. "To build a democratic society" Are we "democratic" at all? Singapore is a democracy in name only, a facade put up carefully to show the international community. The truth is - we are a one-party state, a police state and a mini-stalinist regime bent on preserving its hegemony and crush any form of political dissent or opposition at all cost even to the extent of trampling on our sacred Constitution. It is true that Singapore holds general elections every five years, but it is also true no other party other than the PAP will win the election because the system is manipulated by the incumbents to perpetuate a one-party state, or in the PAP jargon - a "strong" government. How is it possible that an authentic democracy elect the same party for five consecutive decades in which they occupy more than 95% of the seats in Parliament? This is almost unheard of in the free world when governments come and go in accordance to the wishes of the people. In such an unlevel playing field where the Electoral Boundary committees, Election Commission, mainstream media, civil service, police and grassroots organizations are all under the direct or indirect control of the ruling party, it is impossible for Singaporeans to change the government through the ballot box. Believe me, we can have elections after elections and the end result is still the same: a Parliament full of unthinking robots with one or two "opposition" who dare not speak the truth and ask hard, sensitive and important questions to hold the ruling party accountable on the behalf of the people. Occasionally, we may be lucky to have one or two brave NCMPs or NMPs who dare to take the ruling party to task, but their "contracts" will never be renewed again and the same old status quo will remain. The same scenario has been replaying ad nauseam like an old broken record for far too long. A major screw-up like the escape of Mas Selamat and the Temasek losses happened, triggering a furore from the citizenry; the opposition asked no questions in Parliament; the ministries "tai chi" from one to another; the mainstream media pretends nothing has happened and nobody is held accountable! When the election comes, everything is forgotten, swept under the carpet and the same old people will be "elected" into office either through walkovers or by winning against a weak candidate. And they will be paid astronomical salaries with a guaranteed pension for life from the pockets of you and me because they are the self-proclaimed "A-team" - the best "talents" Singapore can ever find within this 700 sqkm of little red dot and if we do not pay them what they demand, they will be snared away from right under our noses by Citibank, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. "Based on justice and equality" So is there justice, or rather social justice in Singapore? That depends on which side of the political divide you are on. All men are born equal, but some are more equal than others. If you belong to an auxillary organization of the ruling party, you can hold "protests" on any day and time without interference from the police. However, if your party logo does not have the "lightning", no permits will ever be granted for your public events and if you dare try otherwise, you will be prosecuted, fined and jailed. The MPs of the ruling party can make any mistakes and utter any rubbish without ever being made to pay a price for it. They can call the people names like "lesser mortals", insult our intelligence by acting blur about the CDC's 8 months bonuses and threaten to send our aged parents to Malaysia and the mainstream media will not dare to pursue the matter. If you happen to belong to the opposition, your follies, flaws and misfortunes to no fault of yours like when a brother of a opposition candidate was butchered by his wife, the media will magnify them a million times to condemn you as an eternal sinner. When the minibond investors submitted a petition to MAS to seek justice for them, they were told in no uncertain terms by a senior cabinet leader literally to "go and fly kite" because they "went in with their eyes open." However, when the Sovereign Wealth Fund led by this leader lost billions of taxpayers' monies in failed overseas investment, no questions were asked. Her daughter-in-law was re-appointed as the CEO of another SWF in spite of some questionable decisions made when she was in charge leading to a depreciation of more than 40% in the value of its portfolio. This is Singapore's "justice and equality" for you. Therefore, it makes no sense for Singaporeans to recite the National Pledge day in and out like a parrot when the exact opposite is happening without their knowledge! My fellow Singaporeans, do you really know the real meaning behind the words you are uttering? Do you think you are expressing your love for your homeland by doing so without pausing for a second, to think if the government of the day really embody the spirit of the pledge? Some of you may interpret my consistent harsh criticism of Singapore as "unpatriotic", but if I do not care a bit for my nation, I will just shut up and enjoy my good life like many others. The majority of Singaporeans do not care what is happening to their country. One fine day, when they have finally had or made enough, they will simply pack up and leave for greener pastures elsewhere. On the eve of National Day, I am sad to say that we have become a nation without a soul, defined purely by economic indicators and run by a paranoid dictatorship more concerned with ensuring its political longevity than to galvanize the people, our most precious asset, to build a nation of "united people, regardless of race, language or religion." I love Singapore. I was born, bred and educated here all my entire life, but my country is becoming more and more foreign and unrecognizable to me with each passing day.   Other articles by Eugene Yeo: >> Debunking the “constructive opposition” illusion >> How Singapore manage to lose its opposition over the years >> Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press   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 →

From our Correspondent Singapore's foreign minister George Yeo was rapped for a series of "factual inaccuracies" about Myanmar's history in an interview with the pro-government blog, The Online Citizen (TOC). In the interview, Yeo said that Myanmar has been ruled by the military since independence and the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, independence hero General Aung San introduced the present law which forbids a Burmese with a foreign spouse to take political office. Aung San Suu Kyi's deceased husband, Michael Aris is a British citizen. The law was actually created by the military junta after the 1990 elections to prevent her from forming the government. Yeo's remarks were greeted with incredulity and derision by those familiar with the modern history of Myanmar. The Union of Burma, as it was then known, gained its independence from the British in 1947. Its chief architect is General Aung San, the founder of the Burmese army, the Tatmadaw who fought against both the British and Japanese occupation. After the Japanese occupation, Aung San resigned from all positions in the army to become a civilian political leader. He was for all intent and purposes, Burma's future Prime Minister, but his political career was cut short when he was assassinated, together with six cabinet ministers by gunmen hired by his enemies. U Nu became the Prime Minister of Burma and the country was run by a democratic civilian government till it was overthrown in a coup launched by General Ne Win in 1962. Ne Win were to rule Burma with an iron fist till 1988. The present military junta is merely an extension of the army's continued control of the country. Yeo also said that the problems of Burma must not be oversimplified. They were very complex because of ethnic diversity, he said. The ethnic diversity of Burma has often been used by the military junta and its apologists like Yeo to justify military rule. They argued that Burma will disintegrate like Yugoslavia without the strong hand of the military holding the various warring ethnic factions together. Myanmar consists of many ethnic groups of which the main ones are the Burmans, Mons, Shans, Karens, Chins, Kayaks and Arakans. In February 1947, Aung San brought the leaders of Shan, Karen, Chin and other ethnic minority groups together and sign the Panglong agreement in support of the Union of Burma which is ample proof that the country can be governed by a civilian government without interference from the military. Aung San was widely regarded as the only leader who can hold Burma together. Unfortunately, he died prematurely and the country fell into disarray. The Singapore government has often proclaimed its leaders to be the "best talent" the country can find. George Yeo is one of the highest paid foreign ministers in the world. It is a terrible shame and tragedy that the foreign minister of Singapore is not aware of  these basic facts of the history of a neighboring country which is well known to every secondary school student taking history as an 'O' level subject. The interview with TOC is another of the ruling party's plans to reach out to the online community, the majority of which are anti-establishment. George Yeo has turned out to one of the most "IT-savvy" PAP leaders, maintaining a facebook account and blogging with one of TOC's co-founders, YPAP leader Ephraim Loy. Short of being a PR coup, the latest gimmick has proved to be an unmitigated disaster for both George Yeo and his team of "mentee" bloggers.  Read More →