The hero in the GIC/Temasek Saga (Source:NTU)
Sometime ago, I wrote two posts arguing for the importance of parliamentary accountability in the Temasek and GIC deal. Apparently, MP Inderjit Singh raised the question of the deal in parliament. As other bloggers have pointed out, the reply by Tharman was basically
1) I can’t comment cos is their business
2) We have full trust in Temasek and GIC
Asking Singaporeans to have blind faith in Temasek and GIC instead of having an informed faith is quite troubling. Informed faith suggest that Singaporeans don’t have to know everything, but for us to be reassured that the government has indeed consulted with Temasek and GIC on the deals and has good reasons for their faith and trust in the latter institutions. If the PAP government can give detail replies on sensitive issues such as income gap, Internal security department arrests, health care issues, defense issues etc etc, is giving more information on the GIC/Temasek deal so difficult? Even if the GIC and Temasek have little to do with the operations of the government, was it impossible for the PAP government to comment constructively on them, given that they comment on things ranging from spitting in toilets to the election of new leaders in South Africa. More importantly, is the PAP creating a bad precedent for parliamentary accountability? If the deal is so good, why hide the information from the people?
Why do Singaporeans elect parliamentarians? For them to represent the people.
And when they ask questions in parliament, what do we hope for? At least some basic responses from the Minister.
What if the minister does not response satisfactory? The media will report and analysis it.
What happens if the latter two fail to materalize? A loss of faith for parliamentary procedures and media accountability.
What happens then? Will people support extra-parliamentary measures (as Chua Ti Lik calls for in a recent SDP sponsered forum) to find answers?
Caveat: I still have a lot of faith for the parliamentary procedures in Singapore because of great men and women in parliament such as Inderjit Singh, Halimah Yaacob, Baey Yam Keng, Sylvia Lim, Siew Kum Hong, Low Thia Khiang and Charles Chong. Also, some ministers are really pretty open and honest in their answers - such as Wong Kan Seng and George Yeo. In addition, this reply of a non-reply is an exception rather than the norm. But how long will these good men and women keep their perseverance ? Will they give up in parliament? Will Singapore be a better off country then?
5 responses so far ↓
speedster // January 27, 2008 at 8:57 am
Is it because the skeletons are far too many? Remember that famous quote from our esteemed minister:
“The relationship is not so simple.”
The Truth // January 27, 2008 at 11:13 am
There ARE too many skeletons. That’s why they demand full, untrusting, BLIND faith, although GIC has ‘Government’ inside. It’s just that such things are not reported, so most people are not really inclined to think about it, anyway.
EDB // January 27, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Remember - EDB was not audited for 40 years. We may have Tharksin shares, Baring and Enron and Societe Generale Barclays in Singapore, and we still will not be wiser cos Tharman says, ‘don’t ask”
SGDaily Roundup: Week 5 « The Singapore Daily // February 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm
[...] Denies Hand in State Fund Investments - The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist: Did Tharman put an egg on the parliament’s face? - Singapore Angle: Privacy for Ah Kong, Privacy for Ah Kow - The Void Deck: Just Can’t Get Enough [...]
Expected Analysis // February 16, 2008 at 4:15 am
Tharman’s reply was as good as admitting that all is not well. It’s better not to go into details because he’s not in a position to give clear answers as he probably only knows as much as the general public.
The head hunting process for DBS’s top position is a good example of how different the practice was carried out over at Temasek in appointing Ho Ching years back. Suddenly, out of the blue then, she was touted as the best candidate for a position that is meant for an established veteran.
Isn’t it easy to be put into the spotlight being labelled as among the most powerful women in the world, even when she had made some costly blunders before? Or is it because she was
‘forced’ to sit there in the first place?
This is typical Singapore “alumni” politics - key appointments via association only.
Leave a Comment