11/03/2010
Why can’t the Australians understand?
‘Temasek is a tax-paying investment company which was incorporated in 1974. Our board and management make our investment, divestment and other company decisions on a commercial basis, independently of our shareholder, the Singapore government. The board comprises a majority of non-executive independent private-sector business leaders. A third of our staff, including senior management, are non-Singaporeans from 20 countries. Our CEO was appointed by the board with the independent concurrence of the President of Singapore....
Temasek plays no part in the governance, operations or investment decisions of the Singapore Exchange.
Simon Israel, Executive Director and President, Temasek Holdings’
The above is quoted from The Australian.
The relationship between the Singapore Govt and Temasek or between Temasek and the SGX is strictly business done with a ten foot pole apart. Temasek is independent of the Govt and the SGX is independent of Temasek. Is this so difficult to comprehend? Every Singaporean understands this logic and is very clear that they are all separate entities and operate independently with only making money as their main objectives.
Why are the Australians trying to mix everything together as one rojak dish, that SGX is Temasek, and Temasek is the Singapore Govt? Singaporeans are very familiar with the Govt’s logic and way of explaining things and have no problem understanding the official logic. For foreigners, maybe it is a little different. They don’t think like us and they don’t want to understand our logic. They may think that we are weird or trying to hoodwink them. We shall forgive them for their unwillingness to see our point of view and their stubbornness to resist our takeover of the ASX.
They did not know that we are doing it for their own good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
If Ah Hen conducted a survey..95% of Singaporean will understood it...
Dear Sir,
Sorry to go off-topic. Last night there was another blog-tv program on CNA and again the station brought in the younger bloggers for the show. Years ago, they had even younger one in one Gayle Goh who was only about 17 year old then.
Greald Giam and some other youngish ones were also showcased before.
Sir, what is your take on why CNA has not invited bloggers of your generation, of which there are quite many, who have lived through the pre-independent era ? The living experiences and knowledges of local affairs that You people have would be much more enlightening than even the presenters and academics invited. Will You agree ?
Do You think that the producers of those programs are chicken out by older Singaporeans ? If seems that the leaders themselves are also picking students and youths to drill and grill, agreeable ?
The participating academics seemed liked lawyers in their presentations and also claimed that their own opinions are liked gospel truths. Though many of their forecasts and theories failed in accuracies and realisations, no apology were made. Should it not their Professorships and Phds be revoke like those of lawyers malpractising and medical doctors found guilty of negligences ?
Sorry for the many questions and hope You will be obliging. Thank You very much in advance.
I think they are trying to cast their net as wide as they could. Not everyone wants to be on TV. I was invited to one of the sessions but declined.
Oh, got to spend money on petrol and time as well. I am more comfortable sitting in front of my PC and do as I please.
Can you guys imagine Mr. Bean nodding his head up and down and concurring with everything youngsters half his age is spouting?
No way man.
I also agree that thinking independently and writing what he wants without acting in a rehearsed stage play is what this blog is all about.
The Aussies cannot understand because they are as dumb as Crocodile Dundee.
I am back in the comfort of my home from the beach. That was a nice drive on a bright sunny day.
Hehe.
My aggregated news feed on the SGX-ASX merger Add it to your RSS aggregator - the list updates automatically.
Of course there is going to be a lot of commentary, opinion, hysteria, anticipation and plain old apathy.
I can assure you many (so-called) "Australians" do indeed get it and understand very well. It isn't a matter of "Australians" although a race/ nationalist slant doesn't tend to excite the emotions more than cold hard facts.
As a business proposition my feel is that it is good on paper, and there are a lot of plus points for both sides.
Big is good is the principle behind this merger. But big has big problems too.
But that is the beauty of capitalism: problems. Capitalism depends SOLELY on solving problems.
Often, increased complexity and size of the problem-solving enterprise creates more "problems". You can't get big without getting bigger problems. But if you stay "small" you'll still have problems. If you don't do anything at all and try to run on love and fresh air alone -- you'll have nothing but on-going problems -- like starvation and threats to staying alive.
Basically these are the points:
1. There'll be more integration of bourses due to increased competition for attracting capital, and there is more and more "capital" in the world all looking for a "place to go" (where it can make more capital). Also the use of cutting-edge technology makes the integrated bourses much more competitive and efficient.
2. Australia is an over-taxed and heavily regulated welfare state -- which means people save less and therefore the only place to go for capital is beyond the borders. A merger would definitely make Aussies IPO's better "exposed" to more delicious capital.
The easiest money to get in Australia is "free money". All you have to do is prove to the govt how really fucked up you are. The more fucked up you appear to be, the better your chances in getting free goodies. No wonder working folks find it difficult to save: they kena tax terok-terbokok so the govt can "help" "others" with "needs".
with the influx of foreign money, the xenophobes will be crying about "foreign ownership", but just like the xenophobes in other countries like Singaporeans complaining about FT's and foreigner owned real estate, we can just ignore these cry-baby idiots.
3. The SGX is well-tapped into the "savings markets" of not only Singapore but China and India as well.
4. The reason capital is more "efficient" in place like Singapore is that the tax regime is better, regulations more conducive to commerce and a high rate of savings because unlike Australia the govt over there has a greater "belief" in FREE MARKETS. In Australia "free markets" are dirty words and usage invariably ends up in passionate arguments (by idiot, tree-hugging, bone-lazy welfare bitches).
The deal is win-win all around: The SGX gets bigger and thus more competitive, the ASX - same reason and better "connects" Australian business (already well-connected) to the capital well-springs.
Hi Sir,
disappointing that You and other big boys are shunned the limelights of appearing on television.
Now I must make an apology to CNA for thinking that It does not invite the older bloggers to their programs.
May I hereby sincerely apologise to the Producers of CNA for my mistake, hope You will forgive.
Anon 03, 2010 2:39 PM
No need to apologise lah. It is just an innocent comment. The new media will grow and eventually stand on its own and carve out its own niche in telling the news as it is. The rate of its growth depends on the new generation who are more literate and knowledgeable and do not want to be spoon fed by one sided news.
The apology is in order and duly tendered.
Post a Comment