Dude! Killer title! LOL

Yeah, there should be transparency up to a point. It ain't that all red or white, only shades of pink.

There could be some sort of "declassification" of GIC and Temasek investments. Since it is supposed to be secretive and to protect Singapore's investments from nasty gwai loh speculative attacks, maybe publish details of investments X years ago. So it is something not that current to the point that GIC and Temasek becomes helplessly vulnerable, but yet people know what the hell went on X years ago and there is still some degree of transparency, accountability and other things furry and nice. That is for the consumption of the masses so that they can work on "informed faith" as our homey Wayne puts it across nicely. So there is some transparency on the type of information.

In the meantime for greater transparency for the Spore's elected reps, at the parliament level, there should not be any Tharman-ish dismissal. That reply is soooo lame. MPs etc should be allowed to question GIC and Temasek in this case (hell, in any case!) and answers for supposed national security, can be behind closed for all parliament, PAP, non-PAP or NMP, to scrutinise and debate. But nooooooooo, that is not the MIW way.

Hey ringisei, the distinction between West and us, foreign and domestic may not, and I argue IS NOT, as clear in this case as you make it out to be. Domestic democratic accountability, and I must emphasize that 'democratic' here means parliamentary oversight not merely executive check and balances, gives foreign governments and publics confidence that Singapore's Sovereign Wealth Funds are not up to any shady business or politics and that their investing activities are all about the bottom line. Besides, transparency is an international standard not a Western one. The Westerners may be complaining, but the Thais and Indonesians are the ones using the opacity as the excuse to act against Singapore's SWF. And per my previous debates with KTM on democracy, when I favor using the Scandinavian states for comparison because of their political and economic similarities to Singapore, Norway's model is the one to follow on SWF policy: IHT article on Norway's SWF.

Ringisei and TVD,

A very smart way of taking the privacy of GIC and Temasek and try to start a conversation on privacy of Singaporean citizens.

I was telling Dan over that night of beer at Brewerkz that it will take the magnitude of a Wall Street Crash (multiply by 10) to create enough speculative attacks on our funds. It will be even harder if they know that we have a large fund size. I read once from FT that they speculate that the lower bounds for the funds:

GIC - US$250B
Temasek - US$120B (2 times more of Bill Gates' net worth)

Seriously, if these numbers are right, seriously putting a few billion here and there, don't make any difference to their overall investment strategy, because both funds have hedged enough to ensure that they are correctly leveraged.

"A lack of transparency is also needed to protect commercial secrets," I am very sorry, but I don't believe you were wearing your thinking cap on when you wrote this. I believe you simply sat down in front of the TV and someone peeled off your brain and inserted this piece of nonsense into your head only for you to regurgitate it here - there is no way to be nice abt it. If you spent time thinking and it doesn't even have to be the 'real hard' variety. You would eventually have to draw the opposite conclusion; lack of transparency dramatically increasing the commercial risk to ANY firm. Conversely, adopting a strategy of being as transparent as possible has the reverse effect. Why? Because as the term 'speculation' implies, people make a run on a currency based on certain expectations i.e incomplete information, which they believe to be true of a case / the key word here is 'expectation' not 'believe' - but if they their 'beliefs' are formed from veritas standard 'truths' i.e there is a big war chest out there; what then is there to 'speculate' on? It's not even an issue; the logic of deterrence renders the whole idea of speculation economically unviable - Do you see the logic?

There is a good reason why the CIA maintains a fact book and why the US military regularly supplies Jane defense with very accurate numerical assets of their military capabilities. I wonder why?

Having said that there is no competitive advantage in adopting a position of lack of transparency for SWF - There is however; an advantage to adopt a position of lack of transparency, if for instance I was let's say investing your pension funds - but that is another issue left to another forum. That incidentally could also be; the real motivation for the apparent lack of transparency, but regrettably that is another story. Darkness 2008.

TVD, glad you liked the title; that was probably the best bit of my whole post. :)

WRT to Tharman's answer, I agree that it is really so lame they win already; I don't know whether to be more frustrated over how they say they so powderful then now say not their pasal or that they think we are so dumb as to expect us to just Ok loh.

dansong, my anecdotal impressions are that Norwegian and Swedish society/politics is really much more liberal and egalitarian than Singapore but I agree that the Norwegian oil fund is probably the gold standard.

Against your point that transparency is an international standard, I would argue that transparency is an internationalized standard with Western socio-political assumptions built into it; I would also argue that the Westerners are just more skillful in being less blatant about their interests compared to the Thais or the Indonesians. Or the Sg gahmen, for that matter.

I also agree that parliamentary oversight is needed, not just executive checks and balances. However, in Sg, this kinda seems like more of the same - that's why I proposed the inclusion of opposition and NMP into a parliamentary committee. Do you think (1) such a committee is good enough or scrutiny by the full parliament is needed? (2) for such sessions, should they be closed (e.g. US Senate Armed Services or Intelligence committee 'black' hearings?)

BL, there is, of course, a 'level of analysis' error in my simile relating GIC/Temasek to an individual consumer-citizen but I do think that the gahmen's own stout defence for GIC/T should apply to individuals too. Justice as fairness perhaps? ;) You're right that the actual sums don't create systemic risk but, due to its newsworthiness, is a good opportunity to raise public debate about it.

Darkness, yes, that was a very poorly phrased sentence on my part. Nonetheless I do think that there are situations that the trade-off between secrecy and transparency can be justified; protection of confidential commercial/trade information being one and military operational security being another.

I also take your point (also raised by dansong) that a *relative* lack of transparency for SWF can actually be a competitive disadvantage esp in terms of reputational and governance risks. That said, I still like Sir Humphrey Appleby's quip from the 'Open Government' episode of Yes, Minister: 'Open, Yes but not gaping!'

LOL 'Open, Yes but not gaping!' fair enough. Excellent write up - darkness 2008

ringisei,

I agree with MOF that there's no need for GIC to tell Singaporeans what they are doing. Tell them for what? :-)

With regards to accountability, the only thing that needs to be made clear is the aggregate ROI on an annualized basis. If GIC does badly, sack the Board loh and try again.

Main reason: which hedge fund tells other people what they are doing? Well, they tell you only enough to get you to cough up money, but no more. Why not? 'cos you dun make money by telling people what you do. GIC has no need to raise equity.

Also, most Singaporeans have no idea what finance is about anyway, so what good does it do to tell them? I roll my eyes every time I read a letter in the Forum page claiming that GIC's investment in UBS/Citibank is a lousy deal. From the way they write, it's quite clear that they know jack.

Not like I know better lah, but I know enough to not open my gap when I dunno what I'm saying. It's quite clear to me that GIC pays well enough to have people who know what they are doing evaluate the deals. Of course, sometimes shit happens (c.f. Temasek in Shin Corp), but that's what risk is all about.

Thought experiment: suppose they tell you what GIC is doing: do you think you will know whether it's doing the right thing? The fact that people think they are damn smart and they know is not the same as they really know. There are not very many who really know. Those who do will not have time on their hands to blog or read blogs. :-P

Of course, you will ask: if GIC doesn't tell you what they are doing, what if we have another Societe Generale case? Fair enough. But will telling more actually help? How often do you expect to be told? Annually? In between, there's definitely enough time for shit to happen. The problem with Societe Generale is not about whether they tell people what they are doing, but a matter of whether the systems are there to prevent a rogue trader from taking positions he/she is not empowered to take.

In summary, you are conflating issues. GIC not telling is not in the same the individual right to privacy. It's a matter of good business sense -- and it also saves the Govt trouble from having to deal with these kay pohs who think they are damn smart but know jack and want to make a lot of noise.

KTM, re: Bottom line on accountability. Unlike hedge funds, GIC/Temasek are state institutions and, on that basis, should be subject to some form of democratic scrutiny - dun have to tell everyone but at least some parliamentary closed door scrutiny.

Of course more scrutiny doesn't guarantee that a SocGen won't happen but if a company didn't have at least some system checks in place, they'd be lagi sued until jia lat jia lat for gross neglience. The kind of scrutiny that I (and others) are advocating isn't even particularly open or onerous what.

re: conflating issues with personal privacy. Need some poetic license what. You dun like to have some right to privacy meh? ;)

Ringisei,

KTM, re: Bottom line on accountability. Unlike hedge funds, GIC/Temasek are state institutions and, on that basis, should be subject to some form of democratic scrutiny - dun have to tell everyone but at least some parliamentary closed door scrutiny.

Suppose we had some sort of closed door scrutiny not unlike some Congressional hearing on defence matters. How different would it be from the present? :-)

Another thing, I really don't think that this regard for GIC/Temasek as some sort of state institution is a good thing. Not like we can help it, but I believe that we're better off if they can be regarded some sort of apolitical investment vehicle, not unlike a hedge fund, i.e. we just park our money there and let the experts figure out how to make the money grow.

KTM, Ringsei and all,

Moving away from the democratic-therefore we need to know paradigm, how about looking at this issue from a global ethical angle? Take the concept of endowment funds in American universities. (Harvard just reported a record $34,634,906.00 for their 2006-2007 fiscal year, an increase of 20% from last year, scary).

Most endowment funds have an higher than average returns, largely due to their diversified base as well as extremely competent and fund managers.

However in many colleges, college students (gasp, what do these kids know) and sometimes faculty have a say in the companies in which these endowment funds invest in. Historically, students have managed to stop their schools from investing in companies involved in human rights abuses, such as those companies investing in Darfur, sweatshops in Southeast Asia and Latin America and contributing to civil war in Africa. Some are even calling for boycott of companies working in Iraq.

However the endowment funds of these colleges are not shrinking despite these decisions by college students , the administration and their endowment fund managers. Students clearly know that expert fund managers are hired full time to deal with their endowment, but it is not wrong for them to also have a say in specific decisions because ultimately they believe how the fund invests reflect the values of the college. A college endowment fund ultimately reflects the values and mission of the institution.

Even if we delink the analogy of endowment funds with sovereign funds, can we really think that state-linked investments companies primary role is to make profits only? Even this argument actually wouldn't really fly in global economic-ethical-advocacy realities. All global MNCs in the world, from Coke to Nike to Wal-mart have to deal with environmental, safety and human rights issues. They have to deal with (gasp, pesky) global consumer, environmental, labour, women, homosexual, democratic rights activists on a daily basis, either in London, Washington or in Brussels.

It appears strange to me that investment banks are somehow less complicit in their financial decisions on their impact of the world. Worse still, the framing of the economic discourse of "sovereign funds" somehow elevates the funds above these everyday global discourse on accountability and responsible investing. What I dislike is the apparent impunity in which some sovereign funds advocates claim irresponsibility from dealing with the realities of other MNCs in the world. What makes this situation more unique is that some sovereign funds are investing in banks, which are not that known for transparency and response to global advocates very well. Just speak to the World Bank and IMF's dealing with global advocacy networks.

In addition, if we believe that actions of sovereign funds reflect somewhat on their own citizens, then what kind of values are we projecting in the ongoing discourse? Does the sovereign funds of today have the rights to elevate themselves above the political and ethical frays of todays?

KTM,

re: How different would it be from the present?

An important difference is that such scrutiny would be institutionalized rather than ad hoc and informal.

I really don't think that this regard for GIC/Temasek as some sort of state institution is a good thing.

I agree. But GIC/Temasek don't help themselves PR/image-wise by having MM Lee and PM Lee in charge of GIC and Mr Dhanabalan and Mdm Ho Ching in charge of Temasek. Ball is in their court rather than those of the critics IMHO.

Wayne,

Though I am extremely sceptical of global advocacy networks, global ethics and esp of corporate social responsibility, I think the comparison is very worthwhile esp when taking into the size of the Ivy League endowments. The question then occurs to me why no one is making a great fuss about college endowment fund investment activity as opposed to SWF and you've pointed out how college funds offer some examples of best practice that SWF can select from.

However, given that SWFs tend not to come from liberal democracies, their behaviour can be more said to reflect the character of their ruling regimes rather than their populations. There seems to be an unfortunate consistency in the correlation between the lack of transparency overseas and transparency domestically.

Also, most Singaporeans have no idea what finance is about anyway, so what good does it do to tell them?

Ouch! LOL sounds like what a MIW politician would say! Moi, I'm clueless about how cool or catastrophic for GIC to sweep into UBS at that moment, but some appreciation would gush forth if the govt tries to either explain to the hoi polloi or at least the elected reps on what is going down. They should at least try rather than dumb as out. Would I be the wiser after they try to explain? Hmmmm It is all about PR and wooing us, besides the transparency thingy, and the MIW doesn't give a rat's ass on it so far in the GIC (caveat, they are trying with Temasek tho).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha So if you go to a doctor and you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he doesn't need to explain what it all means, because you don't have the brains to understand how cells misbehave under a given set of conditions?

I think you have spouted enough shit here that in it'self is a very good reason for advocating more transparency with this sort of pariah third world mentality, no wonder there is no incentive to institute more transparency and accountability.

Ringisei,

I agree. But GIC/Temasek don't help themselves PR/image-wise by having MM Lee and PM Lee in charge of GIC and Mr Dhanabalan and Mdm Ho Ching in charge of Temasek. Ball is in their court rather than those of the critics IMHO.

If you agree with me, then perhaps the solution is to have these folks excuse themselves from the Boards of GIC and Temasek? :-P

pubdek,

So if you go to a doctor and you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he doesn't need to explain what it all means, because you don't have the brains to understand how cells misbehave under a given set of conditions?

Frankly, if you got pancreatic cancer, you are better off preparing for your own funeral than sitting there and having the doctor explain to you the biology of cancer, don't you think? :-P Explain to you, your cancer will go away huh? :-)

TVD,

Moi, I'm clueless about how cool or catastrophic for GIC to sweep into UBS at that moment, but some appreciation would gush forth if the govt tries to either explain to the hoi polloi or at least the elected reps on what is going down. They should at least try rather than dumb as out.

The govt is in the business of governing, not in the business of making money out of investments (or at least that should be the case, even if reality doesn't seem to be like that). So the govt should not be expected to know and therefore explain. Explain what? The detailed analysis of why GIC's acquisition of UBS is a good deal?? That to me is not the Govt's job - but of course people may not think so 'cos they can't tell the difference between a government and a fund manager (and that's the way it is in Singapore -- everything also govt what. :-P), but heck do I have to agree with them?

How many people really know what their fund managers do to their money? Do they really care if the money is making good money?

A govt should just focus on what it's supposed to be doing: governing and leave investments to the experts. Ideally what should happen is that the govt should just do its governing (whatever that means). Got excess cash? Hand the extra cash to some third party fund manager that has a proven track record and leave the investing to the fund manager. Fund manager laupok, sack him and switch to another one.

Why does it have to care what the heck is going on as long as the returns are good (and nothing illegal is taking place)? But of course, the fact that this fund manager is GIC and chaired by the MM confuses everything.

Quote; "The Government is in the business of governing, not in the business of making money.....", unquote. Then why did the Government put the money into investments?

Quote; "Why does it have to care what the heck is going on as long as the returns are good....", unquote. And 'the returns' are profits that go to the Governments' Investments? Profits equal making money, no?

I post here just to learn a little logics.

saintmoron,

Then why did the Government put the money into investments?

Because there's spare cash?

Government budgetting is not an exact science and a Government doesn't know in advance exactly how much it will collect in taxes at the onset of a Financial year. If the tax revenues exceed the spending, then we have a surplus loh. If not, there's what you call a deficit. Simple?

And 'the returns' are profits that go to the Governments' Investments? Profits equal making money, no?

Some of the returns gets plowed back into the investments. Some of it supposedly gets spent as "investment income" in the annual Budget.

Hello KTM,

"Government budgetting is not an exact science and a Government doesn't know in advance exactly how much it will collect in taxes at the onset of a Financial year."

I don't believe you know what you are talking abt. Seriously.

Now that they even coined a term for this called SWF, "Sovereign Wealth Fund", we can now analyze the important conditions for an SWF to be optimal.

First, the country should not be a "democracy", in the sense that the press must be muzzled and opposition should be fairly weak.

Because politically, it is really hard to justify the existence of such a fund or when the fund makes wrong decisions. We cannot have Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman, all these educated and smart folks, taking pot shots at our foreign investments.

Next, we should have the philosophy that the government knows better than the private sector. Budget surpluses should be seen as a good thing.

Because in more free market economies like US, private sector should be the ones channeling funds into investments. Since Thomas Jefferson et al, they generally don't trust the govt to do what is best for the people.

Seems that Singapore fufills all these conditions, and perhaps that is why we have such a large SWF and why Singaporeans should just trust the GIC and not bother too much, for we can't handle the truth.

Hi!KTM;
thanks very much for your response, very much appreciated. Your simple explanation somehow is quite factual, however, I was intriqued by their logics.

Another area where I did not touch on was why You said that the Government does not know in advance how much taxes it would be collecting. An estimate(not guesstimate) is likely most possible. And when You said that the Government cares not about its' investments so long as returns are good is truly unacceptable because of its' unreasonability.

Any investor(individuals, business houses and regimes etc) will definitely monitors his money though it is entrusted to others. Let us see if there are others with better opinions.

saintmoron, re: budgeting is an inexact science, my two cents: because (1) uncertainty in possible fluctuations over revenue and expenditure in the course of the coming financial year, (2) the large size of the budget itself which magnifies these uncertainties (e.g. a 1% variance of SGD 30 billion is lagi a lot more money than a 1% variance in my personal budget).

Let's take a hypothetical personal example. 'I' know how much 'I' earn a year, I also roughly know how much I spend a year on the big items like rent/mortgage, insurance, transport, food, entertainment, income tax etc. But I did not expect the increases in food cost, petrol/public transport, my accident / hospitalization insurance premium or that injury or car accident. I also did not expect my boss not to award anything more than the 13th month bonus. So I ended up not saving anything last year, despite my initial budgeting estimating that I should have saved at least 15% of my last year's income.

If we scale this up to the government level which has to take into account the aggregated decisions of many individuals like the fictional 'I' above and corporations as well as possible large movements in the prices of commodities like fuel, food as well as the possible impact on 'sentiment' due to large movements on the stock market and property market, I'd agree with KTM in saying that budgeting is not an exact science, like say, calculating the energy required to boil 1 litre of water. There are a large element of contingency (chance), uncertainty over how individuals and companies will react to policies as well as unforeseen events (which the economists call exogenous shocks).

Seriously, it looks like the whole discussion is moving somewhere else. GIC is set up to invest for the future of the country and initially built on the retirement funds of our forefathers. It does mean that everyone has a stake.

Even if there is a closed door hearing made up of NMPs and opposition MPs with the officers who managed it, the people won't be so emotive because some forms of checks and balances are in place. GIC makes so much money and take US$2B to feed or help the lower classes with household income less than S$800 also cannot.

Either KTM is suggesting that we should give a blank cheque and demand no accountability or he is asking people to have a leap of faith on our government. Or is he also forgetting the job of the government is to serve the people?

Let me give you some free advice: If you want to debate learn to stick to one line and stop going here and there.

Can someone please tell me is this one of the 11 blogs NLB considered to be popular, great and worthy of archiving?

I wonder why?

Citizen, I'm glad to see that you agree the idea of a closed door committee can provide some form of checks and balances. But I am also grateful that KTM has asked some hard questions to push me into thinking about: (1) what's the rationale for increased scrutiny? and (2) will it make a substantive difference?

Apologies that the discussion seems to wandered into cognate territory but at least saintmoron and KTM seems to have enjoyed their conversation. ;)

y, err... perhaps you should ask NLB? Because I certainly don't have the answer. And thank you for your free advice, perhaps I should, henceforth, start deleting/editing comments not directly related to the main ideas/arguments of the post...

Ringisei, thank You for the enlightenment; sincerely speaking, I concur very much with Citizens' post above.
Allow me to take this opportunity to wish everyone many good years ahead as tomorrow will be our Chinese Lunar New Year.

saintmoron, best wishes to you too. Happy New Lunar Year!

"Why? Because as the term 'speculation' implies, people make a run on a currency based on certain expectations i.e incomplete information, which they believe to be true of a case / the key word here is 'expectation' not 'believe' - but if they their 'beliefs' are formed from veritas standard 'truths' i.e there is a big war chest out there; what then is there to 'speculate' on? It's not even an issue; the logic of deterrence renders the whole idea of speculation economically unviable - Do you understand?"

Posted by Darkness | January 28, 2008 4:40 PM

--------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

I wish to take issue with the above statement: it is clear to me, the gentlemen in question still hasn't quiet grasp the belief that a process of globalization is underway in earnest.

I wish to say the above statement is very misleading as it implies there is still;

(a) An ongoing vision of conflict that even requires such a thing as "deterrence" and a "war chest." I especially take exception to the usage of these martial terms as it implies globalization is throwing up dilemmas that have no satisfactory solution, except perhaps those rooted in war making.

This I believe is what the above writer suggest unequivocally when he uses the term,""deterrence." I don't doubt for one moment globalization has brought about dramatic socioeconomic change on the scale that occured in let's say post-communist Russia and it even produces political aftershocks. However, that does not mean they cannot be more or less intelligently managed, but what is needed of course is to move away from the childish idea of linking war making with the whole idea of globalization.

Fact remains; globalization whether in the form of SWF's or extending the reach of free trade is an empowering tool that has brought collective good to the economies of China and India. For some strange reason, this empirical proposition is elided by the author - who continues to insist that these liberating forces should be still subject to the old rules of war mongering (eyes roll up)

A question: in what way do SWF's threaten a country's interest? No way is the answer as one can claim this is a natural extension of the whole process of globalization. Another question Sir, over the last 50 or so years, the whole idea of globalization has brought us an unprecedented level of peace and with it most of the ingredients that make for a free and humanly fulfiiling society. Yet what I find most inconsistent with the authors use of war making adjectives, is his indefatigable creed to propogate no end the idea it still requires "deterence." So may I very politely ask, are you saying that SWF's represent the biggest source of friction in global markets that needs to be mitigated with war thoughtware? If that is the case, then how do you continue to explain the allure of globalization the whole idea of the free market that is associated with it? How do you then deny that with technological changes, where information can no longer rest in the hands of a few, it has led to the collapse of the USSR? Finally, how do you reconcile the proposition that there is even such a thing as a nationalistic vein that runs throughout the course of the whole idea of globalization? Would I wonder be inconsistent with the whole idea of SWF's?

Thank You. I dont need a reply thank you very much.
My only wish is to set the record straight on the issue of globalization in the context of SWF's.

Hello Cheng Cheng,

It remains curious to be that there are at least 20 post here which you could have rightly taken issue with in this thread. Yet for some strange reason known only to yourself and presumably your erudite colleagues - you have singled me out for special attack. I shall leave it at that.

Allow me to be candid; everything that you have said concerning SWF's in the context of globalization is wrong; conceptually, contextually and contrapuntally. And guess what? I can even prove it, point by point.

Firstly, where did you get the idea that there is even a systematic connection between globalization and the concept of the free market? Cite your attribution. I am challenging you. There is no connection. Globalization as a concept is no more friendlier to liberal capitalism than to soviet style central planning. You seem to have conveniently elided this distinction; where it is necessary and even vital to distinguish between globalization - the ongoing worldwide industrialization and the various economic systems in which this process has occurred. Globalization as a school of thought did NOT begin with free market anything; that unfortunately is a common misconception. Granted trade may have provided the impetus, but globalization as a concept is inextricably tied with technological advancement and occurred largely as a function of increments in tech reach i.e sail power>steam power>internal combustion engine etc thereby increasing the footprint. So again, I am asking you where did you get the idea that globalization is linked to free trade?

Secondly, your contention by coupling globalization with free trade suggest in your own words, "...over the last 50 or so years, the whole idea of globalization has brought us an unprecedented level of peace and with it most of the ingredients that make for a free and humanly fulfiiling society." Did you get that from the NLB archive? Granted globalization may make the world a smaller place. It may even confer wealth and advantage to certain sections of it - but it certainly does not make it a more peaceful place. Neither does it necessary make it a more liberal and tolerant place either. Look around you Cheng Cheng; what do most netizens talks about here? Are they ruminating over the great renaissance, nope, they are still in first base squaring off nationalistic interest over the rights of foreigners, be it FT's or whatever - my point is simply this; the problems associated of globalization are more intractable than what we are often led to believe and understand. I gathered this first hand, some two years ago when I tried to bankrupt the virtual bank of Monte Carlo in a game only to give up the plan because I soon realized there were real people who would put me in a pine box just for stealing virtual money! - it is a violent process Cheng Cheng. For lack of a better word, "war" would do just as well to describe it only because it is in essence a continuation of politics by another means albeit in this case economic warfare and it is every sense the Clausewitz dogma that it is i.e war is a continuation of politics by other means. Make no doubt Cheng Cheng, globalization as the term implies suggest shifts in wealth and power and it would be naïve to assume such competing interest will not be fiercely contested at every turn and opportunity; as territory, influence and reach is at stake. The fact that it resides in the economic realm does not diminish it capacity to cripple as the Asian Economic Crisis in the 90's showed so clearly to be true. Neither is globalization your fairytale nirvana happyville as you so choose to describe - I for one cannot think of another construct that is more feral and brings with it revolutionary change in the form of inflaming nationalist and religious passions and triggering a struggle for ever diminishing resources.

We would be better off accepting this as fact, and doing what we can to cope with it rather than fooling ourselves that we even have the capacity to modulate an outcome whose future course can never ever be known. Do you want me to continue Cheng Cheng? As I have barely scratched the surface, but this will perhaps give you an understanding of how misplaced you are in assuming that I have been libertarian and reductive as globalization can be nothing other than a form of war. Hence, it should be treated as such, nothing more or less. The rest is just commentary. Darkness 2008

[Comment has been removed.

Ringisei: This comment is clearly off topic. Please do not use my thread in this manner.]

Cheng Cheng and friends remove all discussion from here - I am not welcomed here - darkness 2008

These ppl need to learn the meaning of the what it means to be truthful.

...and to think, it was just starting to heat up a little and get terrribly interesting..... then *puff* *splutter*....

Hi Singapore Angle,

To be fair to Bambi Darkness Bad Boy, I think he was obliquely trying to show Miss Lee by way of example. The down side of pursuing a strategy of NOT being transparent by specifically highlighting the TOC issue. He may have also tried to show how many of the sentiments are as he described irrational and are even partisan based, "I for one cannot think of another construct that is more feral and brings with it revolutionary change in the form of inflaming nationalist and religious passions and triggering a struggle for ever diminishing resources."

In truth, the issues that TOC is facing is a mini version of the problems SWF's will have to deal with as time goes by.

Have a nice day :)

Well that's one sure way to kill a good discussion. Pity. I agree it was just starting to warm up quiet nicely.

This whole TOC saga and the issue of SWF's along with the overviews abt transparency, certainly bares true, there are many similarities and one can even say analogies to learn from.

Thanks

You might say 'oblique', I opine 'clearly off-topic'; that it was exactly the same as the comment in Sg Daily didn't help.

And I'd like to shout this out from the rooftops once more - this is my thread and I am the one solely responsible for it; Singapore Angle contributors have a vague set of commmon SOPs when writing on this site but there's no 'Singapore Angle' to address as a collective actor. My apologies to the other SA contributors for any negative externalities resulting from my duh-ness.

I removed *one* comment from Darkness that I deemed to be off-topic but I have not removed his other comments in this thread. If you are interested in discussing the TOC issue, there are many other great posts and comment threads where you can have a much more direct discussion on the issue.

I'm happy to entertain further views on how I manage comments VIA EMAIL and dun say earlier I never tell u (twice already) - further off-topic comments will be removed.

Perhaps Ringisei, you should speak to the Loy and the rest to see as to whether they agree with you? There are so many ways to skin a cat, but why choose the most confrontational way?

Do have a productive day and very nice read. Pls try to take this constructively, I mean well.

passerby, I appreciate your civil tone but whether Loy and the rest agree, or not, with me is immaterial. The comment policy is explicit that 'each writer on Singapore Angle is in control over the comment threads associated with his own posts, to edit or delete individual comments, or to close the thread as he pleases.'

I've already stated the rationale for my decision to remove one off-topic comment and stated that further comments on this would be removed. I was also still open to a further avenue for discussion on my comment thread management VIA EMAIL - I tried to email you with this answer but the email bounced.

I would like to reiterate, for a third time, that further off-topic comments will removed. Cheers.

If you say SWF's have nothing to do with globalisation as Miss Lee Cheng Cheng asserts and it has more to do with technological advancement, presumably because the latter has the capacity of spawning interconnectivity', isn't that the same thing?

I can for example using your example say that the soviet union may not have been brought down by the forces of globalisation i.e free trade, but even you cannot deny as a matter of historical axiom what eventually led to it's relegation was the result of information seeping through the iron curtain via fax machines and computers. Thus breaching the monopoly of information which all authoritarian regimes rely on as a precondition for establishing control, do you deny this reality Bambi?

Tell me, where is the systematic flaw in Miss Lee Cheng Cheng claim? I can see none. I find you are quick to dismiss her claims only because you continue to insist free trade has absolutely nothing to do with globalisation, but all of us here are well aware free trade and globalisation since time in memorial have always been regarded as one of the same reality.

OK ringisie, you have made your point. I apologize for side lining. You have my word in future, I will not abuse your thread again. I am at fault entirely. I promise. Now you must stand down, there is no loss of face, I assure you, besides I have already apologized unconditionally before everyone here any more and I would have to run around the padang naked in a bra - I did not reach where I am today, by fighting every battle that came my way, I picked and choose them like chess pieces and trust me when I tell you this, I want your respect, not your ire. Besides even if I had your head, no one here will regard it as a trophy - they would probably accuse me of bullying and they will be right - do you now see my dilemma? Now you must simply stand down for my sake and never yours.

I don't want to fight you, if anything your behavior is the product of lousy stewardship from those who would have been in a better position to advice you as a wiser brother. But they kept silent, silence is silence, there is no dignity in silence, that all it is, now stand down as I said, I have apologized and I undertake unreservedly to abide to your terms - Darkness 2008

Good now that's sorted out can we please move on to the first order of business?

I have a right not to respond here. I may have apologized, but that does not diminish my right.

"I can for example using your example say that the soviet union may not have been brought down by the forces of globalisation i.e free trade, but even you cannot deny as a matter of historical axiom what eventually led to it's relegation was the result of information seeping through the iron curtain via fax machines and computers. Thus breaching the monopoly of information which all authoritarian regimes rely on as a precondition for establishing control, do you deny this reality Bambi?"

Very good point. How does one really separate information and the whole idea of free trade? Doesn't one preceed the other?

Hey Ringsei and all,

You might be interested in MP Inderjit Singh's speech in parliament on the Temasek /GIc issue. The speech is available on the Channelnewsasia video. He made several excellent points and suggestions on the issue. I am waiting for Hansard report to come out (I could transcribe but work is just overwhelming right now) or someone to actually youtube it. Does anyone know how to youtube a CNA video?

Cheers!

Wayne, thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the specific video. And in any case I'm getting lots of lag which makes the whole lot unwatchable for me anyway.

Looking forward to the Hansard transcript; also will be interested to read your take on his speech. ;)

Ringsei,

The video is located on the fourth page (1st video of March 3rd with the description of "Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) were held up for scrutiny during the debate on the Finance Ministry's estimates.")
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/sgbudget08/videoarchives.htm

Hope it helps! Cheers!