TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent NUS Law Professor and former NMP Thio Li-Ann has called off her teaching stint at the New York University (NYU) following opposition from the student population and low enrolment for her classes. Dr Thio said during a Parliament session in 2007 that “repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.” She also made headlines for her infamous remarks about homosexuality being a “gender identity disorder” and that anal sex was akin to “shoving a straw up your nose to drink.” Thio's mother, Thio Su Mien, was the alleged mastermind behind the recent takeover of secular feminist NGO AWARE by a group of women belonging to her Church to counter its "pro-homosexuality" stance. They were eventually ousted in an EGM called by the founding members of AWARE. In the last few weeks, news of Thio's impending appointment had drawn attention and opposition from NYU's vocal students. Emails were sent to NYU officials asking for her appointment to be rescinded. An online petition was launched to "express deep dissatisfaction with New York University School of Law’s appointment of Dr. Thio Li-Ann as a Global Visiting Professor of Law. " It has garnered 860 signatures so far. (read petition here) The petitioners argued that "by bringing Dr. Thio to NYU, the Law School is acting in opposition to its own policy of nondiscrimination and undermining its commitment to advancing human rights world-wide." The controversy took a turn when Prof Thio, in an e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed, an online publication about college and university issues, said it is 'moral imperialism' to suggest there is a universal consensus on gay rights which sparked a furore amongst NYU's staff and students. Mr Malik Graves-Pryor, an IT professional who works for NYU Law while also taking law classes, urged Mr Revesz to terminate her appointment. Prof Thio responded with an 18-point memo to the law faculty, saying she was 'deeply offended' by his characterisation of her and her views as immoral. She also wrote: 'If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so... perhaps (many faculty members) are regretting their original invitation.' In a statement released on Wednesday night, Richard L. Revesz, the N.Y.U. law school’s dean, said that Dr. Thio had changed her mind about teaching because of “the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes.” As a result, “The law school will therefore cancel the course on ‘Human Rights in Asia’ and the seminar on ‘Constitutionalism in Asia,’ which she had been scheduled to teach.” Dr Thio's human rights class for 45 students received 12 bids after the first round of bidding, while her seminar class, with a capacity of 25, had six. An atheist-turned Christian, Dr Thio is one of the most ferocious proponents against the repealing of Section 377A which criminalizes consensual anal sex between men in Singapore.  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo The search for Ho Ching's successor at Temasek Holdings was supposed to begin as early as 2007 which was spear-headed by the CEO herself. Many prospective candidates, both local and overseas, were shortlisted and interviewed. MM Lee Kuan Yew proclaimed that only the "best" is selected and Chip Goodyear is the "best" the Temasek Board was able to find. Chip Goodyear's appointment to Temasek Board as a director on 1st February 2009 and CEO-designate on 1st March 2009 was announced with great funfare to the media. Temasek Chairman, Mr Dhanabalan said, “Ho Ching has been instrumental in bringing Chip on board. We have been working on this appointment for more than a year.” Mr Dhanabalan added that Mr Goodyear shares the vision and values that underpin Temasek as a key Singapore institution and an international investment company. “Chip presents a rare and unusual combination of investment and operational experience that can support the continued transformation of Temasek,” he said. “Chip’s leadership and business experience, and his demonstrated capability in developing strong management teams give us the confidence that he will make a difference to Temasek just as Ho Ching and her predecessors have done over the last three decades.” [Source: Temasek Holdings] Added Ho Ching: “Chip brings capabilities that I don’t have. I don’t see myself as needing to direct it in any way.” [Source: IHT] Less than half a year later, even before Chip took over from Ho Ching, the "transition" plan was in disarray. Both have "mutually" agreed to part ways due to "strategic differences". To put it bluntly, Chip was ousted, or rather, sacked from Temasek as a director. Now Chip Goodyear comes with an impressive C.V., being a Wall Street Veteran and a former CEO of mining giant BHP-Bilton. His services will not come cheap. Temasek must have offered him an attractive renumeration, perhaps more than he had received at BHP, to entice him to come on board. How much was Chip Goodyear's monthly salary? Was he due a 'severance package' now that he is leaving Temasek prematurely? How much did his short stay at Temasek cost Singapore taxpayers? After all, let us not forget the very fact that Temasek is not a private commercial company. It is funded entirely by the Ministry of Finance which of course belong to the government of Singapore. Chip's clumsy attempts to mould the ethos and modus operandi of Temasek in line with a major corporation may be the cause of his downfall. There were unconfirmed rumors that he tried too hard to remove certain deadwoods from Temasek who are deemed "irreplaceable" by those above. Nevertheless, the expected clash in managerial styles should have been expected way before Chip was appointed to the Temasek's Board. Since Dhanabalan claimed that Chip "shares the same vision and values" as Temasek, he must have spoken extensively with Chip about his plans for the organization as a potential CEO. Surely he would have been aware of the "strategic differences" which may have arisen in the course. Were there any lapses of judgement on the part of those who interviewed Chip Goodyear? Why wasn't Chip's deficiencies discovered before he joined Temasek? Temasek's latest boo-boo will cost taxpayers perhaps only a couple of ten or hundred of thousands which is minuscule in comparison to the billion of dollars lost so far under Ho Ching's watch. Singaporeans should not be too harsh on the Temasek executives. I am pretty sure none of them intended or expected this embarrassing outcome. In other words, the mistake is a "honest" one and therefore nobody should be held accountable for it. After, it matters little if Chip, Ho Ching or a monkey is appointed as Temasek's CEO for Singaporeans will never know what is going on in the organization. Neither will they be interested to find out. In the meantime, we should be contented depleting our meagre CPF savings on inflated public housing for many "good years" to come.  Read More →

From The Asian Sentinel The resignation of Charles "Chip" Goodyear halfway through the period between his appointment in March as chief executive designate of Temasek and his assumption of the post in October is yet another illustration of a long established principle: never disagree with a member of the ruling family. Whether or not he was a good choice for the job, the appointment of this investment banker and former boss of BHP-Billiton was hailed as a sincere effort to bring fresh thinking to the management of a massive fund which had suffered badly from Ho Ching's overenthusiasm for financial sector – particularly western financial sector – assets. Not only were many of these acquired at high prices, some such as Barclays and Bank of America (which had acquired the bankrupt Merrill Lynch) were sold off near the bottom of the market earlier this year while with UBS Temasek had to help out with rescue packages. Ho Ching herself seemed to recognize that someone with wider experience of the world might be needed to run a fund which now has two-thirds of its assets outside Singapore. But acceptance in theory and practice can be very different. Exactly what Goodyear was proposing to do when he became actual chief executive is not clear. Some suggest he wanted to move into resources, others that he wanted to shake up the managements of the local state owned entities which are a major part of his portfolio but also the holy of holies for the small group of top bureaucrats who run things on behalf of the Lees. But one thing is clear: there is no such thing as being chief executive of one of the myriad state enterprises in Singapore if a Lee family member, naturally supported by the cohorts of intelligent yes-men, has a different view. That has now been shown to be as much the case with Temasek as it was when Lee Kuan Yew's daughter Lee Wei Ling had a policy dispute with a distinguished UK neurologist, Simon Shorvon, hired to head up Singapore's National Neuroscience Institute of which she was a director. She of course knew far more about neurology than he did and he was hounded out of Singapore and subject to the usual travesty of justice handed out by Singapore authorities in cases involving the Lees. Investigations by the UK's General Medical Council, later endorsed by the High Court, cleared Shorvon of any misconduct. He is now a professor at University College London. Foreign media continue to lap up Temasek's propaganda about its longer-term performance. One that surely ought to know better is the Lex column in the Financial Times which like to think of itself as rigorously analytical. It simply repeats the claim that Temasek's total return has averaged 18 percent since inception and 9 percent over the past decade. No attempt there to analyze Temasek's skimpy accounts -- for example to query the prices at which state assets were injected into it, or to ask about unconsolidated, unlisted subsidiaries such as Astrea which borrowed US$810 million to invest in private equity funds at the height of the fund bubble. A real story about Temasek might earn a writ, or the expulsion of the correspondent, or a quiet ban on Singaporean companies advertising in the paper. Quite how badly Temasek has done is hard to figure out because the data presented is scanty and unconsolidated. For example, in 2007-08 the value of its portfolio increased by 13 percent to S$185 billion but it is unsure how much of that was simply a capital injection from the government. Meanwhile Temasek's local portfolio has been persistently trimmed and now represents only 33 percent of assets. Of course it may make more sense to invest in faster-growing countries rather than in low-growth Singapore where there are few new opportunities for a company which already controls so much. Nevertheless it hard not to conclude that some of these sales, such as the December 2008 sale of PowerSeraya to Malaysia's YTL for S$3.8 billion are not partly designed to generate capital profits readily available from long-held local assets. The kid-gloves approach by the FT to Temasek is in keeping with its past groveling behavior. following comments on Temasek, Remember this from September 29, 2007, which Asia Sentinel reported on October 17 of that year: "Last week Jimmy Phoon, Temasek's chief investment officer, announced he was leaving ‘to take a break and spend some time with the family'. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the reasons. Singapore, after all, is built on strong family values. Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of the city-state, must be proud to see Lee Hsien Loong, his son, occupy the role of prime minister. "Mr Lee (Jnr) himself will be pleased Ho Ching, his wife, has helped turn round the performance of Temasek after being appointed chief executive in 2002. "The rumour mill now suggests Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother, could replace Mr Tai at DBS. The younger Mr Lee earned his spurs as chief executive of SingTel, also part of the Temasek firmament." This innocuous comment produced the following absurd apology and yet more libel proceeds for the Lees. "We recognize that the article meant or was understood to mean: that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as Prime Minister, for nepotistic motives; that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his wife, Ms Ho Ching, as the Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited for nepotistic motives; and, that Ms Ho Ching is promoting her brother-in-law Lee Hsien Yang's interests by securing or helping to secure his appointment as Mr Jackson Tai's replacement at DBS Bank for nepotistic motives. "…We admit and acknowledge that these allegations are false and completely without foundation. We unreservedly apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching for the distress and embarrassment caused to them by these allegations. We undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect. "…We have agreed to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching damages, by way of compensation, and costs incurred by them in connection with this matter."   Doubtless the FT will apologize in a similar way to Kim Jong Il if the North Koreans can afford to buy enough ads in the pink paper. Source: Asian Sentinel  Read More →