Ms Ho kicked-in-the-shin Ching so very graciously attended the recent Morgan Stanley annual Asia Pacific Summit, even after some dude at Morgan Stanley said some nasty untruths about her husband being a prince or what nots. Oh, they fired the bozo? Ah well. All is sunny then.

Anyway, the normally dour and grim Ms Ho attempted humour! Wittiness!

Attempt at wry humour:

“Maybe I didn’t do anything controversial enough”

Attempt at spinning:

“Temasek Holdings is different from most state-owned enterprises in other
countries because the Government does not interfere in its commercial decisions.
…. “But the biggest difference between Temasek and most state-owned
enterprises is how the Singapore Government deliberately refrains from
interfering in commercial decisions and operations.”

Both attempts, very sadly, fail dismally and spectacularly.

The lame attempt at spinning however, had achieved an accidental result of amusement.

Essentially, Ms Ho Ching is trying to put across the point that the Singapore Government was not responsible for the major screw up in the now possibly illegal buy out of Shin Corp.

Secondly, the Singapore Government will deliberately not remove Ms Ho from the helm of Temasek, as it “deliberately refrains from interfering in commercial decisions and operations.”

Note that it is a matter of integrity and principles that the Singapore Government takes such a strong stance on this at this point of time.

Meanwhile excuse me while I refrain from laughing out too loud.

***

TODAY - 15 November 2006
Risk, reward and Shin
Minister tells House why Govt didn’t
meddle with the deal
Loh Chee Kongcheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

DID the Government of Singapore agree with Temasek’s investment in Shin Corp? .Was the “political risk” factored in, especially since sentiment was already brewing against former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra when the deal was done with his family? .Was it wise to do deals with families of regional political leaders in the first place?

The questions flew in quick succession, no less than 15 of them, as Members of Parliament put Temasek’s controversial $3-billion-deal under the microscope yesterday. .Patiently, Second Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam
answered every one of them and made two clear points. .Firstly, the Government
was not in the business of micro-managing its investment vehicle’s commercial
decisions and it would continue to abide by this policy.

Secondly, while Temasek went with what it thought was the best possible advice on this particular transaction — Thai experts included — high returns invariably came with risk. “Asia is where the returns are highest, (but) we’ve got to be willing to take the risk. Occasionally your heart skips a beat, but that’s how you will achieve good long-term returns on our reserves, which is in the interest of Singaporeans,” said Mr Shanmugaratnam.

Mr Inderjit Singh from Ang Mo Kio GRC and Mr Alvin Yeo from Hong Kah GRC had set the ball rolling by asking whether the Government agreed with Temasek’s move to acquire such a large stake in another country’s strategic assets.

To this, Mr Shanmugaratnam spelt out the relationship between Temasek and the Singapore Government — a point he was to revisit several times. .As a shareholder, the Government’s role is to appoint a competent board for Temasek, make sure that
its investments are made with due rigour and care and then hold the company
responsible for good long-term returns on its overall portfolio, not individual
deals.

“The approach applies to the Shin transaction,” said Mr Shanmugaratnam. “The Government played no part in Temasek’s decision to invest in Shin Corp.
Temasek made its own commercial decision.” .Temasek did not make the decision lightly, either. It studied the possible risk and reward, conferred with Thai and
international advisers and made sure, to the best of its abilities, that no laws
were being broken.

“It was not a reckless investment,” Mr Shanmugaratnam. .He also spelt out the basic difference between the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, which
invests in less risky public markets, and Temasek, which goes in for private equity investments:

“The risks will be higher. And we’ll also expect the returns of the Temasek portfolio to be higher over time.” .The proof? Historically, Temasek had delivered an 18 per cent total shareholder return by market value. GIC’s returns were 8 per cent.

Nor was the Government keen to introduce new guidelines, he said, in reference to the suggestion to stay away from dealings with leaders’ families. “It’s hard to know
when to draw the line. Is it families of Prime Ministers? Ministers? Former
ministers? Their siblings? Soon you will be wiping out a substantial part of the
investment opportunities in Asia.”

So far, Temasek had been riding the risk well and its
returns since 2002, when it started investing more actively in Asian markets,
were well above 18 per cent, he told Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang

Mr Low also asked how political risk in the case of the Shin Corp deal had
been worked out, especially since Temasek was no ordinary
company and it was dealing with Mr Thaksin’s family.

Mr Shanmugaratnam said that Temasek understood its role as a “commercial company with a close link to the Singapore Government” but that the Government would not vet deals on the basis of possible political sensitivities.

In the end, he stressed that the so-called losses on this deal were only on paper and not realised losses. “Temasek went into Shin as a long-term investor. Time will tell how this investment will fare,” he said.

Meanwhile, he said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had clarified to his Thai counterpart Surayud Chulalont that Temasek’s investment had been commercial and independent of Government. “Premier Surayud told Mr Lee that the Thai Government also regarded Temasek’s investment as a commercial deal and that the current investigations would not be politicised,” he said.

Away from the clamour in Parliament, Temasek Holdings’ chief executive Ho Ching was speaking to a group of bankers yesterday at Morgan Stanley’s Asia-Pacific Summit when she was asked about the Shin deal. She was asked how the “controversial” issue was being resolved. .”At the moment your guess is as good as mine,” she said. “We are cautiously optimistic.”

Why am I reminded of Suzhou Park?