Monday, December 01, 2008

Singapore : No pain, no change.....

....how to get the govt to relax...

A Sg_Review Exclusive; Special Focus on GLC=TLC=GIC
By: Mellanie Hewlitt
9 Oct 2003
Singapore Review

There's a new buzzword in town - TLC. Until recently, I always thought
that  the acronym "TLC" referred to Tender Loving Care. But the
Singapore Government  has now coined a new phrase in a bid to distance
itself (in the eyes of the  public) from state runned and state funded
corporate entities.

Like it or not, Temasek Linked Companies, or TLCs, fall within the
larger subset of "GLCs" which are viewed suspiciously by the general
public. Many old hands in the industry will recognize this as basically
old wine repackaged in a  new bottle. On the surface, these entities
look and sound like bonafide  business concerns. Many are listed on the
Singapore Stock Exchange. But this is  a skin deep appearnce which ends
when one peers into the internal management of these companies.

Peering beyond the cosmetic acronyms, the discerning observer will note
that in reality, little has changed as regards management of
Singapore's GLCs/TLCs/GICs (or whatever fancy new terms the authorities
wish to coin) and the old issues concerning TRANSPARENCY,
ACCOUNTABILITY, NEPOTISM and PERFORMANCE still remain.

Deep pockets into public funds, operating in heavily regulated and
protected markets and managed by retired Brigadiers, senior civil
servants, ex-Ministers and other members of Singapore's Ruling Elite,
these lumbering government vehicles are also known as scholar havens
and double as "retirement homes" for Singapore's Ministers and senior
civil servants. All this at tax payers expense.

It is small wonder why GLC/TLC/GIC and other state owned entities in
Singapore are regarded with a degree of suspicion and wariness by
bankers and professionals within the financial industry. Many within
Singapore's well heeled financial circles affectionately referr to GLCs
(Government Linked Companies) as Giant Loss Making Entities or Giant
Lee Companies.

Ever wonder what happens to your CPF moneys and Tax Dollars?Look no
further.In a paper published in 2000, Morgan Stanley's Singapore office
estimated the size of Singapore's external economy at S$395 billion
against the governments figure of S$339 billion at the end of 1999 or
2.4 times GDP. That was 3years ago and today in year 2003, this figure
is probably much larger.

The investment is held in the form of direct equity, portfolio
investment and other foreign assets. Morgan Stanley's Daniel Lian says
the Singapore government owns more than 50 per cent of the external
economy through GLCs (government-linked corporations) which control
about 60 per cent of offshore investment.

As Morgan Stanley's research paper says: "The external economy needs to
secure a minimum eight per cent nominal return to avoid dragging down
the overall economy from achieving its long-term growth potential of
6.5 per cent. The task of raising returns lies in the hands of the
government and the GLCs."

Offshore return has been declining as GLCs step up their investment.
One probable cause, says Morgan Stanley, is poor investment judgment.
Singapore wants to move into new high-tech industries, including
biotechnology areas requiring high human and intellectual capital. But
in an economy essentially driven by government policies, Singapore
lacks a crucial ingredient - entrepreneurship.

It is also noteworthy that frank and open coverage of GLCs/TLCs/GIC
usually originate from the international press. Locally, within
Singapore's heavily regulated media industry (until recently) there is
scant mention of these government owned corporate entities which
usually operate behind a veilof
secrecy. And where there is occasional mention of these elusive and
painfully shy corporate creatures by the local media, Singapore Press
Holdings (which has a virtual monopoly on Singapore's print media
scene), these are usually adoring letters of admiration. This is hardly
surprising given that SPH is itself a TLC.

But the harsh economic reality today is that far from adding value to
Singapore's bruised and battered economy, GLCs, TLCs and GICs are a
real drag on the economy. The time is long overdue to retire these loss
making relics and allow private sector economics to take its natural
and inevitable course.

In this Sg Review exclusive, we append below some of the many articles
from various foreign publications, which shed further light into the
camera shy and elusive corporate entities that are Singapore's GLCs,
TLCs and GICs.

------------------------------�------------------------------�--------------

Sat Mar 15, 2003  9:24 pm
Subject:  Investment Singapore style

Investment Singapore style
Asia Times
By Lynette Ong

THE Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has enjoyed
much publicity as the tightly-controlled press in Singapore sings
praises for the secret investment society's 20th anniversary this
year.

"The story of the GIC combines all the ingredients of a best-selling
textbook on best business practice - and a bit of a financial
thriller too", says the editorial of the island's business daily.
How much does the cheerleader know about the team it is betting on?
Not a great deal, apart from what is officially released. The GIC was
set up in 1981 to manage the country's foreign reserves which are
said to exceed S$181 billion (US$100 billion) July 19 - one of the
highest in the world - thanks to the country's high savings rates. It
is a private limited company (PLC), wholly owned by the government,
and comes under the purview of the Ministry of Finance.

But it is no ordinary PLC. The law exempts it from filing balance
sheets, profit-and-loss statements, publish annual reports or report
to parliament. It is only accountable to the accountant-general,
auditor-general and the president, to whom it submits its financial
statements and proposed budgets. The special PLC is chaired by the
elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew, while his son, the deputy premier, Lee
Hsien Loong, is the second-in-charge. The GIC's website provides no
clue on its asset allocation or investment returns and only contains
what-an-exciting-organization stuff aiming at attracting young
talents to join the team.

The GIC invests half of its funds in global equities, 30 percent in
bonds, 10 percent in real estate, 5 percent in venture capital funds
and 5 percent in cash instruments. In terms of geographical
distribution, the United States accounts for the bulk of its
investments, while Europe and Asia each takes up a quarter of the
share.

The GIC claims its funds not only outperform global benchmarks such
as the Morgan Stanley Capital World Equities Index, but its real rate
of return always exceeds the G3's (US, Japan and Germany) average
inflation rate of 5 percent. But this still begs the question, why
does it refuse to disclose its returns if the performance is so
spectacular?

The senior minister says the secrecy is to ward off potential
speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar because the foreign
reserves are often used to stabilize the national currency. Or
perhaps the GIC's track record is not all that impressive - for as
much as we know. The GIC was said to be one of the single largest
creditors of China's Guangdong International Trust & Investment
Corporation (GITIC) and it lost about S$200 million when GITIC
collapsed in 1999 with about US$3 billion of debt. In 1996, a GIC
officer was involved in a scandal for accepting S$2.4 million in
bribes offered by a US fund manager to buy shares in various public-
listed companies, although he was later acquitted on appeal. The GIC
was also rumored to be involved in tie-ups with hedge-fund manager
Long-Term Capital Management before its collapse in late 1998.

The GIC's discretion might be for political purposes. It is, after
all, one of the region's largest property owners with assets
including the AT&T Corporate Center in Chicago, 70 Grosvenor Street
in London, the Grand Millennium Plaza in Hong Kong and the
International Broadcast Center in Sydney - home of the Sydney
Olympics. GIC Real Estate - the company's property-investment arm -
is said to have invested in 120 properties in more than 25 countries
worldwide. But the total asset value has not been revealed.

The GIC might be inviting political resistance if it bangs the gong
every time a deal is sealed. Not least in neighboring Malaysia where
it is said to own M$870 million (US$230 million) worth of listed
assets and properties. This is despite its recent disposal of stakes
in Malaysia Pacific Industries (MPI) - part of the Hong Leong
Industries, and Mesiniaga - the distributor of IBM products in the
country. Its largest investment in Malaysia is believed to be the 362
million ringgit stake in Sunway City, a popular theme park and
shopping mall located on the outskirts of the capital Kuala Lumpur.

The GIC is also reported to have stakes in at least another 11
companies listed on the KLSE, including KFC Holdings Malaysia, Star
Publications, the New Straits Times Press, Tanjong, Resorts World,
Berjaya Sports Toto, Public Bank and AMMB Holdings. Have you noticed
the common threads in these investments? The hiccups in Malaysia-
Singapore bilateral relations have been largely over some trivial
matters or sibling rivalries - except the touchy racial issue. It is
no wonder that expansion of Singapore's business empire into these
Chinese-owned companies in Malaysia has gone largely unnoticed.

The GIC is also one of Asia's largest private equity investors, with
an estimated S$9.1 billion-S$18.2 billion invested in 150 private
equity funds worldwide, reports the Straits Times. The company is
said to have scaled down its investments in venture capital funds and
moved into buy-out funds which finance companies undergoing
restructuring to improve performance. This is a high-risk, high-
return category as private-equity investors typically aim for 20
percent annual returns when they sell off stakes in the restructured
companies, says the president of GIC's private equity arm.

The returns of these high-risk investments are as big a mystery as
the organization itself

------------------------------�------------------------------�---------------

Fateha
Date:  Sat Mar 1, 2003  7:16 pm
Subject:  More on GLCs; Singapore's "Giant Loss Making Companies"

NORFOLK (Conneticut): You have to love the sound of SembCorp
Industries Ltd in Singapore. It owns shipyards, an enginnering
company and a net provider called Pacific internet.

It's also a zoo-management company which presumably means it see that
the monkeys and alligators get fed at the island's only zoo - a good
one, actually, and also owned by the Government.

SembCorp is one of about 40 large companies controlled by Temasek
Holdings Pte, which is in turn controlled by the Singapore Government.

The seven biggest of these companies -- telecoms to shipping lines to
the national airline -- account for about a fifth of the Stock
Exchange of Singapore's market capitalisation.

There's a little bit of India in this, with its sprawling state
sector born of the old ideals of Fabian socialism, and there's a
little bit of the old Japan Inc, too.

The main point is there's a lot of Singapore tied up in Temasek -- 60
per cent of the island nation's economy, by the US embassy's count, a
lot less according to Singapore's officials.

Talk of reforming Temasek and getting the government out of business
has been common in Singapore for years. The management is sluggish,
critics say, some bad deals have been made, and it suffers that
distinctly Singaporean malaise, a paucity of imagination and new
thinking that reflects a certain culture of caution and even fear
that anyone who has lived in Singapore knows all about.

Not until lately, however, would anyone dare raise the problem of
conflict of interest at Temasek and its various government-linked
companies, or GLCs, as they are called locally.

Mention of that "N" word was further out of the question. Lately,
however, even Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is happy to discuss
nepotism, conflicting responsiblities among GLC executives, poor
returns, and all the other problems associated with Temasek.

What jarred the critical stones loose in the wall? It seems to have
been the appointment in May of 49-year-old Ho Ching as Temasek's
executive director. Ho also happens to be the wife of Lee Hsien
Loong, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and that
makes her the daughter-in-law of Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

We can avoid the topic of nepotism now the way one ignores an
elephant in the living room - that seems to have been the calculation
in high places.

The most significant airing of the subject has come by way of a long
story and an interview with Goh by Business Week's Michael Shari.

"Can Singapore Inc fix Singapore Inc?" Shari asks. "Many analysts
insist that only an outsider can break up the cozy corporate culture
of patronage widely blamed for the lethargy of the GLCs.

"Critics note that Temasek directors sit on the boards of
corporations Temasek owns, and that board members of those GLCs sit
on the boards of other GLCs."

It is indeed a tangled web. A well-established corporate executive
named Tan Boon Seng published a comprehensive list of who runs which
GLC and who sits on which board and who is whose cousin or uncle or
brother earlier this year.

The people at {Singapore Window}, a Web site that made the document
public, report only one minor inaccuracy - apparently an error of
omission.

"The story is, we need to expand the pool of people," PM Goh told
Shari in his interview. That's for sure. When Ho was named executive
director, Temasek had to rejig its management structure so she
wouldn't be reporting directly to her husband.

Ho also stepped down as chief executive of Singapore Technologies, a
defence contrator, so she wouldn't in that case be reporting directly
to herself.

There are problems in Temasek, clearly. Nepotism is one, the
interests of Singapore's first family are another, efficiency is a
third, and the role of the government in the economy is the fourth,
and largest.

Two months into Ho's term as executive director, we've already got
some answers.

Nepotism, it seems, is not a problem, or is a problem Singaporeans
must accept, because the Lees are a family whose talents Singapore
cannot do without.

"The perception is there, I concede," Goh told Michael Shari.

"But what do you do? Because of the perception, you don't appoint Lee
Hsien Yang (the deputy PM's brother and chief executive at SingTel,
among other posts)? You don't appoint Ho Ching, and any number of
their relatives in high positions?"

As to conflict of interest, Goh's thought is one articulated often
enough in other circumstances. "It's awkward, we know that," he
said. "There is some conflict of interest, but you know, we work for
the common good."

One must leave these questions to Singaporeans and their political
process, such as it may be. Indeed, Singapore begins to look like a
textbook example of how healthy, balanced development cannot be
understood separately from healthy, balanced democratic
institutions.

The questions of true import, however, are the last two: the
efficiency or otherwise of Singapore's GLCs and the right place for
the state in the island's economy.

On these points, Singapore is in a tough spot. For one thing, the
true change to be effected is in the island's psychology, the way it
stifles creativity and original ideas. For another, it needs to tread
carefully now as it eases out of business - to the extent it intends
to do so, that is.

S. Dhanabalan, a former Foreign Minister and now chairman of Temasek,
has already signalled that, while it might bail out of such things as
zoo management, if anything it is likely to strengthen its hand in
industries judged either strategic, such as banking or telecoms,
perhaps, and those judged risky, such as biotechnology.

I see nothing wrong with this per se. The wreckage of hasty
privatisations is apparent from Mumbai eastward to Jakarta. In every
such failure, the lesson is the same: Ownership is not the core
issue, it's a secondary issue.

The core issues are accountability, effective oversight, and sound
regulation.

Singapore's approach to state control of industry is, by any
reasonable measure, yesterday's thinking, a hangover from another era.

And the question of nepotism, or its perception, as the problem is
now described, cannot be explained away.

But the island-nation should take its time about it.

------------------------------�------------------------------�---------

From:   Henny Sender
Date:  Sat Apr 12, 2003  12:51 am
Subject:  Singapore Invests Globally at a Premium, with No Results

By Henny Sender
The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

SINGAPORE -- When government-linked Singapore Telecommunications Ltd.
reached an agreement in March to buy Cable & Wireless Optus of
Australia for $7 billion, the news was greeted with relief at home
and derision elsewhere: Investors decided Singapore had paid too
much, and SingTel's stock plunged.

The same was true this year when Development Bank of Singapore
purchased Dao Heng Bank Group in Hong Kong, shelling out more than
three times book value for a mature, well-run bank. Singapore Inc .
was finally closing deals in its desire to expand beyond the confines
of its 208-square-mile home, but only by laying out substantially
more than others were willing to spend.

The "Singapore premium," as it is now being called, is well
established. For those who believe Singapore is paying too much for
what it is buying, the comparison that comes to mind is the "dumb
money" shelled out by the Japanese in the 1980s. Then, companies
around the world licked their lips when they saw Japanese buyers
coming along with fistfuls of cash.

To judge Singapore Inc .'s investment performance on the basis of
what it pays is to miss the point, some Singaporeans argue. "High-
tech investment is our future," declares Soo Boon Koh, founder of
iglobe Partners, a local venture-capital fund seeded with money from
the Economic Development Board's Technopreneurship Investment
Fund. "We are driven by a sense that we are small and vulnerable,"
says Teo Ming Kian, chairman of the Economic Development Board. "Our
challenge is to figure out how we can be value-added."

Whatever the returns, the scale of Singapore's investments is
certainly of Japanese tsunami proportions. Singapore's government
reserves of $120 billion make it one of the deepest pools of capital
in the world -- and tens of billions of dollars of its money now
sloshes around the world. Both its property arm and its private-
equity arm are among the world's largest.

Singapore has taken stakes in everything from Cisco Systems Inc. and
Citigroup Inc. in the U.S. (in which it is one of the largest
shareholders) to investment bank China International Capital Corp. in
China. It controls real estate from the center of Chicago to the
heart of Tokyo.

Singapore also was part of every one of the three bids when
Indonesia's chief automobile assembler, PT Astra International, was
up for grabs last year; it was an investor in the first U.S. buyout
fund established by Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts in the mid-1980s.

No question, Singapore is in the big leagues of world investment. As
for performance, though, the record is mixed, with frequent missteps
in timing and in targets. Such fears that Singapore may have trouble
managing what it has bought can cost the country big. Last year, for
example, a 50% stake in ASAT Ltd. of Hong Kong was up for sale by its
parent, QPL International Holdings Ltd., which is listed in Hong
Kong. Chase Asia Equity Partners submitted a bid that valued ASAT at
$400 million, while the government-linked Singapore Technologies
group made an offer that valued ASAT at 16% more than Chase's bid.

Yet, the board of QPL rejected the Singaporean offer, fearing slow
decision making and bureaucratic meddling, according to its chairman,
Tong Lok Li.

As for practical shortcomings, consider SingTel's all-cash offer last
year for Cable & Wireless HKT, made after insufficient consultation
with the authorities in either Beijing or Hong Kong. That led to an
embarrassing rejection in favor of Pacific Century CyberWorks Ltd.:
Singapore offered cash instead of PCCW's mixture of cash and high-
priced stock, but lost anyway. Other rejections have been far less
public but no less embarrassing.

"Singapore companies have made decisions that are commercially and
strategically smart," says Michael Berchtold, head of Asian
investment banking for Morgan Stanley & Co. in Hong Kong. "Execution,
though, will determine whether they are winners.


------------------------------�------------------------------�---------

http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/2005/07/singapore-review-legitimized.html

Thursday, July 21, 2005
Asean News Network: Legitimized Corruption Understood
From: Carl Kapeland
To: Mellanie Hewlitt
#Article posted by Wolfgang Holzem / Erwan Shah @ 10:47 AM

Dear Mellanie

In the latest developments the entire National Kidney Foundation
Board of Singapore and its CEO have taken the easy route out and
resigned. That's leadership for you, when things get messy, just get
up and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

But I don't think the new CEO or Board will do much cleaning up.
Looks like they are replacing one bunch of rotten apples with another
bunch of potentially more rotten apples. It does not address the real
problem.

WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM?
There are several recurrent issues here. Singapore is in this current
mess because Lee's PAP Government has forgotten that not everything
can be reduced to money. You cannot throw money at all your problems
and expect it to magically disappear.

The material base that motivates Singapore's "leaders" is only too
evident when the NKF's transit CEO (Gerald Ee) hinted
that "SGD600,000/- may not be sufficient for the new replacement to
take office"!!! Money is the only motivating factor and if they have
elected a leader and a board who is motivated only by money, its only
a natural and unavoidable result that they will end up with an
organization which has forgotten its once noble purpose and replaced
it with more materialistic pursuits.

Have they (Singapore) appointed a Wolf in sheep's clothing to guard
their precious flock? For positions like these in charity
organizations, THE CHIEF MOTIVATING FACTOR CANNOT BE MONEY! as they
are not running an investment bank.

The same applies senior public service positions and for ministerial
positions. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO MONEY. But Lee's PAP
Ministers have used this holistic approach to address any and all
issues under the sun.

Lee and his ministers simply CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY THE SAME WAY THEY
RUN A COMPANY. Why? Because a country comprises of flesh and blood
and spirit. A company is merely a corporate vehicle that is often set-
up for the sole purpose of reaping a monetary profit.

SINGAPORE AS A COUNTRY, IS NOT SINGAPORE INC!!!! And even if it is,
its directors (and that means Lee and his million dollar cabinet)
have to remain accountable to the shareholders (Singapore citizens).
Singapore MINISTERS have to be transparent, and they are not
especially as regards their salaries and the management of the
country's reserves.

Consider this, the NKF was originally set up as a supposedly
charitable organization. In form and function it appeared above board
and reputable. But in actual practice it had a hidden agenda to
siphon wealth from the public into state coffers. And what happens to
all this money (all SGD200 million of it?) No body knows.

These same similarities in the NKF saga are reproduced on a grander
scale in overall state administration in Singapore. Whether its the
CPF, LTA, GLCs, Temasek etc they all relate to the same basic
issue. It goes back to the same bunch of corrupt leaders paying
themselves and their cronies humongous ridiculous salaries, approved
and legitimized under a set of bogus laws that they legislated in the
first place.

But even before this NKF scam, transparency issues have dogged
Singapore's state administration for decades and repeated requests by
the World Bank, IMF, FTA and other NGOs for greater accountability
and transparency have basically fallen on deaf ears.

These are basic transparency issues which plaque management of public
moneys by all state entities (whether its the CPF Board, GLCs,
Temasek, LTA etc). There is massive deception on a grand scale and I
suspect the latest NKF debacle only surfaced due to internal friction
within Singapore's "inner-circle of elite politicians." Perhaps
someone amongst Singapore's Ruling Elite wanted a bigger portion of
the loot.

Think about it. Durai commenced his latest law suite on the confident
assumption that it would be a "no contest" walk-over like his two
previous suites. But whilst the Singapore sham courts had no problems
finding in his favor in the 2 previous suites (which were taken
against private individuals and a volunteer who correctly questioned
his lavish spending), the latest suite was against another state
bureaucracy.

And it was inevitable that the sham court found in favor of the
bigger devil. So even amongst the thieves there is a power struggle
over who gets a bigger piece of the loot.

So this then is justice ala Singapore styled. Who you are and who you
are connected with ultimately decides the outcome of the law suite.

The material facts of the case (and legal premise) have little
relevance in the kangaroo court's final assessment.

But by far the most troubling problem is that of Legitimized
Corruption. You (Mellanie) have used the term "Legitimized
Corruption" very accurately, but failed to elaborate on its true
meaning and implications.

Legitimized Corruption means essentially that the corrupt act itself
is made perfectly legal. That is why there is a possibility that the
external audit on NKF may turn out nothing because Durai and his
actions may have been all perfectly legitimate and authorized
according to the internal constitution of the Board.

In a normal organization with bona fide controls in place, the Board
would not have approved and allowed such unreasonable and lavish
expenditures. However, in Singapore's setting where "anything goes"
it is possible that the board were within their discretionary powers
to authorize such lavish expenditures. Mind you these are
expenditures which (by any ordinary definition) would have amounted
to an immoral mis-management of public moneys for unauthorized
applications. But if the internal rules of conduct of NKF allowed the
Board to act in this manner, it would then be an authorized and
legitimate act.

So even after the process of audit has concluded it is perfectly
possible for the auditors to conclude that the use of donor funds for;

a) Durai's pay of SGD600,000 and his salary of SGD1.8 million;

b) All expenses and application of donor funds used for purchase of
SGD990/- god taps;

c) All expenses for first class air travel;

d) The levying of a 30% Admin Fee;

e) The hiring of personal drivers and limos.

All of the above are authorized and legitimate.

Anyway we all know that the so called "audit" of the NKF accounts is
merely a publicity stunt to show case to the world that the current
government and the new board is taking steps to remain accountable.

But does this make the above acts any more acceptable and morally
correct. NO! Of cause not. An atrocity is still an atrocity even
though it is legitimized.

One clear example is prostitution in Singapore. It is legal and the
fact that it is legal does not detract one iota from the fact that it
is still immoral, depraved and inhuman.

Of cause there are critics who will argue that moral values are to
subjective concepts and we cannot always use these imprecise measures
to define what is right or wrong. And I concede that there is some
truth in this as we live in a world coloured in gray.

However, there will always remain some acts which are so blatantly
wrong that they remain morally objectionable and immoral by any
standard and yardstick. And the NKF scam (as well as Singapore
ministerial salaries) fall within this category. It is morally wrong
by any measure and this is not a gray area at all.

This same logic applies on a larger scale as regards ministerial
salaries and the process that is orchestrated to "approve" such
unreasonable and lavish salaries (amounting to millions of dollars
per minister).

Legitimized Corruption works much like Money Laundering, but is
worse. In essence Legitimized Corruption is corruption which is made
legal. These perpetrators attempt to do what drug cartels and money
launderers do;- basically "launder" the money (or the dishonest act)
and make the final product appear nice and clean.

But senior politicians differ from your average drug lord or mafia
boss in one important respect;- these ministers are much more
sophisticated. They know the system (and probably designed it) and
know how to manipulate and tweak the system so that they can have
access to the ill-gotten gains without getting their hands dirty.

Next to them, Gordon Gecko and the God-Father look like novices and
vestal virgins.

However make no mistake the underlying act itself remains wrong,
dishonest and morally objectionable but is hidden under a cloak of
legitimacy. Drug money (and money from dishonest trades) is still ill-
gotten loot. Behind this elaborate sham are a host of corporate and
state entities (GLCs, state owned entities and yes, charitable
organizations) which are set-up to place a corporate veil between the
real perpetrators and the morally objectionable and dishonest
transaction.

The fact that it is perfectly legitimate does not itself make it
MORALLY CORRECT.

This is especially the case when you have a legislature that is
totally removed (and remains out of touch) with the moral values and
aspirations of the people it is supposed to serve and protect.

In fact, this kind of legitimized corruption is the worst possible
kind as it means the corruption has infiltrated the most senior ranks
of management (and the political leaders).

Compared to this elaborate deceit, the more obvious corruption in
Indonesia are crude by comparison and far easier to identify and
correct as it is acknowledged that such objectionable acts itself are
WRONG and are not endorsed by the country's laws.

How do you ask a cop to catch a thief when the cop himself is a
thief?

Legitimized Corruption by its very nature is more sinister and
difficult to identify. For instance, a government official who
accepts bribes worth $1.6 million a year is guilty of corruption. But
what happens if this same official or minister receives this money as
part of his "LEGITIMATE" salary.

In both cases the act itself is the same unconscionable and immoral
act. But in the later case, there is no need for the official to hide
his ill-gotten gains as it is
formally endorsed by an equally corrupt legislature/parliament who
has a hand in the ill gotten gains.

The definition of a Parasitic Leech is as follows: "leech: a follower
who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain
or advantage"

The kind of legitimized corruption already endorsed and prevalent in
Singapore's state machinery is far worse. It is a cancerous malice
which is more surreptitious and insidious.

The festering rot is not immediately apparent to an external casual
observer but is eating away the core of the its host. Left unchecked,
such parasites will consume a once healthy body before discarding the
empty shell and relocating to another unwary host.

Legitimized Corruption is also like cancer. It is a chronic ailment
which rooted itself very deeply within the host (and the state
machinery). Such a chronic ailment did not occur over night but took
place over decades of accumulated unchecked accesses.

Durai himself was in the NKF for over 30 years and it is no mere
coincidence that
Singapore has been under the same government (and people and family)
for over 30 years.

This is precisely the reason why in the US and other bona fide
democracies there is a mandatory change in administration every 4-8
years. A new administration brings forth a completely new government
which will was away unchecked accesses and commence things tabula
rasa.

But somehow in Singapore it appears that only families starting with
the Lee surname or who are closely affiliated with this first family
are the only candidates who qualify for election.

What a quaint and family friendly arrangement! Its just too bad that
the average
Singaporean is excluded from this elitist inner-circle.

However, Singapore's Ruling Elite also have to be wary of the
accompanying dangers of in-breeding which can occur from a small and
exclusive gene pool. Cancerous deformities can result after
generations of in-breeding.

And the Cancer has many signs and symptoms. There have already been
many evident tell tale signs of the internal rot and its accompanying
putrid stench. However, Singaporeans in their numbed state of
awareness may be mistaking the over-powering stench of decay for
sweet perfume.

The entire state machinery is orchestrated to maintain this state of
illusion and deception.

In the normal mechanics of an open and transparent state legislature
and government, the moral values of the mans on the street is
reflected (although not perfectly) in the policy formulation process.

This is not the case in Singapore and your "leaders" know it. Just
challenge them to run a referendum regarding their salaries and it
will be evident that 90% of the population are totally disgusted by
such blatant acts of greed.

Of cause the local state owned media will somehow always paint the
picture of an adoring and obedient public as part of an elaborate
charade. So the truth never ever gets out.

Corruption of this scale starts form the top and slowly works its way
down the ranks to pollute every senior arm of the state machinery
from the Judiciary to Legislature to the Executive and especially to
a docile and compliant state managed local press.

It cannot be stopped easily without external intervention.

Slowly but surely what started off as a morally unacceptable issue
becomes part and parcel of "accepted norm" which is disguised behind
a pile of state endorsed laws and bills.

Even the once sacred document, the Constitution, is not spared and is
re-written to the whims and fancies of those they serve. How many
Singaporeans are aware of the fact that the country's Constitution has
been amended to allow state owned entities and GLCs easier access
directly to the country's reserves?

And it also does not take a genius to work out that it is the close
affiliates of the Ruling Elite who sit on the management boards of
these state owned entities and GLCs.

The following is a fascinating observation. The exact size of
Singapore's foreign exchange reserves and the management of those
funds is designated as a STATE SECURITY FOR INTERNAL SECURITY REASONS.

Is it mere co-incidence that the conservative ball park estimate of
the net worth of the Lee family is roughly equivalent to your
country's reserves? (USD130-140 billion?)

What you have in Singapore are a bunch of hired mercenaries who are
ripping off the very people they are supposed to look after.

Singaporeans. This is your country and your life. If you continue in
this state of drugged apathy, you will cease to have any control over
your own faith and destiny.

Do you really want to hand over your life to the devil?

Do you want to have a Singapore with No Singaporeans?

Its time to wake up from your state of denial and confront the harsh
reality before your very eyes.

Yours faithfully
Carl Kapeland
Ohio State

#Article posted by Wolfgang Holzem / Erwan Shah @ 10:47 AM
http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/2005/07/singapore-review-legitimized.html

The Economic recession has hit one and all, salary cuts and pink slips have taken their toll on the common man. Presidents, Prime Ministers are no exception. Most of the heads have cut down on their salaries or are planning to do so in the near future. Lets take a look at what the heads of top nations are earning.

Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore
(Country GDP: $235.6 billion - 2008)

Politicians in Singapore are amongst the most highly paid government officials in the world. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore earns five times more than the American President. Lee Hsien Loong takes an annual salary of $2.46 million.

Barack Obama, USA
(Country GDP: $13.81 trillion - 2007)

Second on the list is the President of the biggest economy of the world with a GDP of $13.81 trillion (2007). President Elect, Barack Obama will be getting an annual salary of $400,000 when he joins office next year.

Kevin Rudd, Australia
(Country GDP: $773 billion - 2007)

Third on the list is the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd with an annual salary of $330,300.

Angela Merkel, Germany
(Country GDP: $2.585 trillion - 2006)

The first lady chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel receives an annual salary of � 242,000 (� 22000 bonus included) ~ $ 307,340.

Nicolas Sarkozy, France
(Country GDP: $1.871 trillion - 2006)

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy gets an annual salary of � 240,000 ~ $ 304,800. This is after he doubled his salary earlier this year.

Stephen Harper, Canada
(Country GDP: $1.274 trillion - 2007)

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of the seventh largest economy of the world, Canada recieves an annual salary of $280,000.

Gordon Brown, UK
(Country GDP: $2.772 trillion - 2007)

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the second biggest economy in Europe and fifth largest in the world receives an annual salary of � 187611 ~ $238,266.

Vladimir Putin, Russia

(Country GDP: $2.076 trillion -2007)

The Russian Prime Minister recieve an annual salary of $81,190, which is significantly less than his counterparts.

The graph below shows a comparison between GDP and Salaries of heads of Top Nations.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Why we cannot respect human rights in Singapore...

SIA Unit To Buy Singapore Food Industries

Sunday, December 07, 2008

HDB : More subprime than subprime USA.....

Saturday, December 06, 2008

HK minibond investors consider suit in US