After a hiatus from blogspot to this web address, under the willow tree is moving back to its original blogspot address, HERE

pls update your bookmarks and feeds as this blogsite will be deleted in due course.

the posts on this blog have been archived at the original blog

thank you

Nobody can sing and dance like MJ. Not Justin T, not Usher… Nobody.

When put MJ and Britney Spears together, and you realise that Britney can’t sing or dance. MJ makes Britney look like a backup girl

This blog is a continuation of Under The Willow Tree @ Blogspot. Enjoy !

Business Times – 26 May 2009

MPs seek clarity on Temasek’s sale of BOA stake

They also seek more scrutiny of GIC, Temasek actions

By LEE U-WEN

(SINGAPORE) The recent news that Temasek Holdings had sold its entire stake in Bank of America (BOA) – at an estimated loss of up to US$4.6 billion – caused much murmuring among Singaporeans from all walks of life.

Their main beef? A lack of information on the reasons behind the decision, as well as the sale price, MP Michael Palmer said yesterday. He was the first of more than 50 politicians slated to speak as the second session of the eleventh Parliament of Singapore opened.

On May 15, it was reported that Temasek had sold all its shares in the US bank in the first quarter of this year, resulting in an estimated loss of between US$2.3 billion and US$4.6 billion.

The investment agency stayed silent for a week before it released a statement saying its ‘investment thesis’ had changed after its holding in Merrill Lynch was converted in BOA shares following Merrill’s takeover by the bank.

Mr Palmer, an MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol Group Representation Constituency (GRC), said yesterday that as Singaporeans become more outspoken, the government has to do its part by encouraging openness and transparency where possible.

The fact that Temasek took so long to give a response resulted in many newspaper articles ‘trying to second-guess’ the answers surrounding the sale, he said.

‘Online chatrooms were abuzz, with many vociferous views on the losses. Ordinary Singaporeans were discussing the issue, analysts speculated on the sale, and the public wanted to know about the decision to sell something that was supposed to be for the long- term,’ said Mr Palmer, who is also chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Affairs and Defence.

While he is glad that Temasek ‘finally’ issued a statement explaining its rationale, many questions remain unanswered, ’such as those relating to the timing of the sale and the actual sale price’, he said.

Also making a pitch for greater transparency – this time in terms of government spending – Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC) suggested there should be ‘greater scrutiny’ of investments by Temasek and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC).

‘Our reserves involve our savings for the future. While we trust commercial professionals to do their job, they are investing Singapore’s money and we deserve greater clarity on how our money is spent,’ he said.

He added that it is important to address how to match the commercial objectives of Temasek and GIC to the social objectives of the reserves they both invest in.

‘Should greater transparency also be given to the public on the bonuses and performance of their staff, in return for the rate of return of investments over the years?’ he said. ‘We ask the same of our investment fund managers and commercial banks, why not those who manage our reserves too?’

Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) called for a look at how Singapore’s reserves should be managed and invested, given the fact that the investment strategies of both Temasek and GIC have changed since their inception.

GIC, he said, used to focus on long-term investments, taking a ’somewhat conservative’ approach that delivered good returns. In its infancy, Temasek used to invest in Singapore or government- linked firms, grooming them to be MNCs.

‘Temasek was not seen to be a fund investor like GIC. But over the years, both have converged on their investment philosophies and are starting to look almost alike,’ Mr Singh said.

‘Is it appropriate for them to continue investing the way they have done in recent years, making somewhat speculative investments in certain cases. Is this the right thing for our reserves?’

He went on to question if it is wise to put such a large chunk of the reserves in the hands of Temasek and GIC, as opposed to placing them in ’safer investments managed by people who understand that these are meant for long-term investments and as a shelter for Singapore’.

Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Time for a review

MPs call for greater openness from Temasek and GIC

Tuesday • May 26, 2009

Alicia Wong

alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

AS THE world economy took one knock after another in the past year, Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp’s (GIC’s) investment decisions have also come in for some hard questions inside and outside of Parliament.

Yesterday, in their debate on the President’s May 18 address, Members of Parliament (MPs) added their voices to the call for more openness from the two investment companies in matters of public interest, as they homed in on Temasek’s recent divestment of its stake in Bank of America (BofA).

MP Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio) called for a complete review on the management and investment of Singapore’s reserves, given how Temasek and GIC had deviated from what they were chartered to do. While GIC once followed conservative principles in long-term investments that delivered good returns, it has recently been investing in “more risky investments,” said Mr Singh.

Meanwhile, Temasek, which used to invest in Singapore or Government-linked companies in their early stages of development, “in fact moved more into what GIC used to do”, so that the two are “starting to look almost similar”.

A complete review of how Singapore’s reserves are managed from now on, would “require top-levelpolicy thinking on what the core objectives are, that these two funds should serve and how they should be managed,” said Mr Singh.

With Singapore’s reserves meant as “long-term shelter” for its citizens, “is it appropriate to allow GIC and Temasek to continue investing the way they have done in recent years, make somewhat speculative investments, like the way private wealth is shown to have been managed?” he questioned.

If Temasek does not return to its original investment roots, should there be another entity to invest and bring up Singapore-based companies, asked Mr Singh, “and most importantly, should we allow so much of our reserves to be placed with GIC and Temasek, or … managed by people who understand these are meant to be long-term investments”?

On the BofA stake sale, Temasek had on May 15confirmed it sold its 3-per-cent shareholding through a series of sales in the first quarter — but kept mum on its reasons up till a week later, when it said that its “investment thesis” as well as the “risk-return environment” had changed. Still, it did not disclose the loss incurred on the deal, which stemmed from its 2007 US$5.9-billion investment in Merrill Lynch ($8.5 billion) that was later taken over by BofA.

Temasek’s reticence on the matter spawned even more speculation over the size of the loss, with some estimates hitting as high as US$4.6 billion.

MP Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Ponggol) highlighted how citizens speculated — online and offline — on Temasek’s reasons for divesting the BofA stake and the loss incurred. “Clearly, the public wanted to know the rationale and reasons behind the decision to sell what was originally meant to be a long term investment made with public funds,” he said.

“Unfortunately, due to the lack of information, speculation and discontent were rife,” he added.

While Temasek’s statement last Thursday was a “step in the right direction”, said Mr Palmer, “questions still remain”. While it is not expected to give detailed investment strategies, “answers to pertinent questions given after the fact, which will not impact investment outcome, would appear to be another matter”.

MP Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah) said: “We lost money that took generations and many good years to create. They are investing Singaporeans’ money and Singaporeans deserve greater accountability in how our money is being spent.”

Mr Zaqy highlighted the need to address issues such as matching the commercial objectives of the investment funds to the social objectives of the reserves. He also asked if there should be greater transparency “given to the public of the bonuses and performance of its staff”?

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.