Intellectual dishonesty: SPH did not reveal source of 1986 report in the Yoong Siew Wah fiasco
October 16th, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspondent
After a three-week delay, the editors of SPH have finally decided to publish the letter of Mr Yoong Siew Wah, which was sent to them on 28 September 2009.
Mr Yoong had written to them to protest against the factual inaccuracies found on page 441 of the SPH propagandist book about the PAP – “Men in White”.
Mr Yoong took issue with the disparaging statement that he was asked to resign from CPIB in 1971 when he was in fact promoted to head the Internal Security Department (ISD).
The authors of “Men in White” had initially offered only to insert a note in future editons of the book that Mr Yoong was appointed to become the director of ISD.
Following the public furore over Mr Yoong’s article in his blog, Singapore Recalcitrant and our publicity of his case, SPH has little choice but to resolve the issue to prevent it from snowballing further.
In the editors’ note they inserted below Mr Yoong’s letter in the Straits Times Forum, the authors claimd that what they wrote in the book was based on newspaper reports in 1986, which said that Yoong had been boarded out as a result of the incident with Mr Seow.
Who wrote the report? And what is it based on? These lingering questions were not addressed by SPH.
Any decent news daily will reveal the source of its news to give the public a clearer picture, but not the Straits Times.
In a reply to Mr Yoong, Mr Richard Lim, one of the authors for “Men in White”, wrote that the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986.
Why wasn’t this crucial piece of information included in the editors’ note? Are the editors trying to protect Mr Lee?
It is a shame that the Straits Times chose to publish Mr Lee’s account in 1986 without verifying the facts with both Mr Yoong and Mr Seow.
It is a disaster that the “Men in White” authors simply regurgitate what was published in the news article without confirming its accuracy.
Now, it is an absolute sham for the Straits Times to publish another half-truth to pull a wool over the eyes of Singaporeans.
Is this the kind of journalism we expect from a national English daily? Is SPH staffed by professional journalists or spin doctors of the PAP?
It is incredible that such glaring mistakes were able to escape the eyes of not one, but an entire team of journalists and editors from SPH!
Without the internet to debunk their allegations, this atrocious mistake will probably be covered up again as if nothing has happened.
Posted in Editorial
i say…sue them for defamatory lies!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“…..In a reply to Mr Yoong, Mr Richard Lim, one of the authors for “Men in White”, wrote that the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986…..”
Can someone enlighten me, did LKY take the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before making the speech at the Select Committee Hearing 1986?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Why wasn’t this crucial piece of information included in the editors’ note?” My thoughts exactly.
It’s done to cover MM’s arse. Obviously. You see, the dear leader must be seen as whiter than white.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If LKY’s mistakes were to be compiled and published, I wonder how many glass-eyed admirers will then wake up. I guess not many as one cannot really cure idol-worshipping.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Who wrote the report? And what is it based on? These lingering questions were not addressed by SPH”
“the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986″.
“Why wasn’t this crucial piece of information included in the editors’ note? Are the editors trying to protect Mr Lee?”
“Without the internet to debunk their allegations, this atrocious mistake will probably be covered up again as if nothing has happened”
We are grateful that the blindfolds covering our eyes have been lifted after 44 years of enforced blindness.
Thank you Internet. Thank you TR.
Hopefuly, fellow citizens whose eyes are still blindfolded can be shown the way to the light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill ”
Is it considered perjury to give false information during select hearings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
when there’s one cockroach in the kitchen, you can be sure of finding more.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It seems like Singapore is very different indeed. Usually reporters will question other people, but in Singapore it is the people who question the reporters. No wonder Goh Chok Tong said Singapore is very unique.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
frontman asiked: Is it considered perjury to give false information during select hearings?
Indeed it is but not applicable to MM Lee. He is ABOVE the law and CANNOT be prosecuted, though not technically.
If he has committed any offence, one sitting of parliment and that law which he broke can be amended, changed or discarded so that he stays ‘clean’.
But then why go through all the trouble? He can blatently shoot Chee in the arse infront of millions of Sinkaporeans and the Police nor AG Chambers will DARE NOT ACT, dare they? As for the Sinkaporeans witnesses, they will SEE NOTHING, HEAR NOTHING.
The Shitt Times would probably spring into action and wayang tons of bull story like maybe MM Lee was helping Chee because he saw a cockroach on Chee’s backside and since there was no insecticide available on hand, the pistol was the next better alternative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i’m tempted to go to the national library and look through the microfilms just to find this said article quoted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is perfectly normal not to reveal lky speech.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fwah… b careful what u posting deh. this is a LAWful society, u really dun wish to b hauled up to court to answer for wat you say, shoot here, shoot there.
oh… jialat, ISA got no chance to go court.
relax abit and wat the wayang lor. every month, sure got 1 L337 shoot own foot. standby popcorn and watch show better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yoong Siew Wah is an ex-ISD and CPIB chief. That means he was part of the establishment. Now that he is seeing things the other way because he himself has been attacked, does he have more beans to spill and more scandals to reveal?
Why only half-truths that targeted him? How about half-truths and actions taken others in his capacity as a ISD/CPIB chief? Is he prepared to reveal more? Was everything above board during his tenure or were there other unfair actions he was obliged to carry out on his bosses orders?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The Shitt Times would probably spring into action and wayang tons of bull story”
Singapore hasn’t reached THAT level of Malaysian politics, regardless of party, yet. I sincerely hope that Singaporean opposition will not resort to such tactics as well because A) for all our faults, we are generally honest, B) such tactics are not efficacious for an educated populace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Straits Times is worth less than toilet paper any thinking person should know. At least toilet paper has some use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“When comes light, those who still choose to live in darkness do so at their own peril”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on people, you wanna do action, please participate in a political party, or try to get into the editorial department heads of the SPH. Singaporeans complain too much and don’t take action on what they see is not appropriate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It is a disaster that the “Men in White” authors simply regurgitate what was published in the news article without confirming its accuracy.”
So if you were writing a book, and you referenced an old newspaper you would separately verify those facts? Are you suggesting that all thesis students should verify every source they cite?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Is this the kind of journalism we expect from a national English daily? Is SPH staffed by professional journalists or spin doctors of the PAP?”
I used to work at SPH and quite frankly, it’s not even as sophisticated as imagined here, with no greater strategy at all.
The journalists are spineless overpaid brown-nosers who simply write as instructed or whatever is slated in the sales/marketing plan. Searching for the nest big story? Hardly, it’s mostly spoonfed; and more so now, with the help of public hotlines. And even those tip-offs will get skewed/outright fabricated to commercial premises if sales/marketing says it must be so. What more for political needs? Even non-political “articles” are bullsh!t propaganda fed by PR agencies to fuel their client’s sales/revenue.
The most treasured resource for most MSM “journalists” here is a well-worded press release or speech transcript that they can lift verbatim.
Had a friend whose father worked in MSM around 15 years ago. He lost his job when he wrote an article which put the MIW in a questionable light.
But I beleive, as Bob Dylan sang, “the times, they are a-changin’.” 6 months time, make the right choice if you get the chance to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@evelyn summers
“Come on people, you wanna do action, please participate in a political party, or try to get into the editorial department heads of the SPH. Singaporeans complain too much and don’t take action on what they see is not appropriate.”
good eveening, miss evelyn.
i have to hazard a guess that underlying what you say here is a mindset that does not believe in people power.
am i right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@UD
thanks for writing. it’s good to hear what it’s like on the inside.
please keep posting.
in your last paragraphy, you mentioned ‘ 6 months time’. is that insider info or just general remark?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it ironic that TR is lecturing others on the importance of fact checking. @riiiiiiggggght makes a good point that there is a limit to how much verification can be done.
This is a rare victory for TR. However, TR overplays its hand in its strident tone. The key points could have been stated, and allowed to speak for themselves. The inclusion of disparaging remarks, however, only reveals the writer’s bias and detracts from the argument.
Also, I wonder if TR has any further comments to make on the book now that it has been released, other than those regarding page 441.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi indexer,
No worries, we are currently compiling a series of factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies on the book. They will be released over the next few weeks or so. The “disparaging remarks” were lifted from Mr Yoong’s blog. You may like to read his entry on http://www.singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
adding to my above post
and hopefully all those who keep shouting ‘distraction strategy! distraction strategy!’ can finally rest in silence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indexer, why must the admin spoonfeed you for these information when you yourself can google and read teh book?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If what LKY said at the select committee Hearing is a lie than what he said about his 1 only vote that decide his Premiership is a lie too? Guess got to believe what his old buddy and a fold PAP founder said that he cast his one n only deciding vote that MMLee got the premiership?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@riiiiiiggggght. YOU are WWRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG. Dead WRONG till dead bone dry.
When you write contemporary “history” of living men and women, if you don’t check ALL YOUR FACTS ACCURATELY AND PUBLISH ACCURATELY, you are in fact PUBLISHING RUBBISH which the authors MUST KNOW that in future death of those subject persons of interests, the falsity stays forever in history if faults and untruths are not detected and challenged to correction.
HISTORY AND TRUTH DOES NOT WALK BACKWARD. Errors and falsity can only be detected and corrected when those written on are alive and caught these out for editing.
If you write fiction, it does not matter. BUT IF YOU WRITE CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, YOUR RIGOUR OF ACCURACY OF FACTS AND TRUTH IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND PROFESSIONALISM to not just the living subjects of your writings BUT TO ALL READERS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
Quite simply you cannot falsified data to win a nobel prize like a former Korean professor/researcher is the nearest analogy even if the falsity is due to carelessness.
A patient should NOT have to have his cancer-infected left kidney intact in a properly signed procedure and extracted of a healthy normal right kidney instead by a surgeon. Or can it be?????
If any journalist is unable to provide this integrity of accuracy of facts check on contemporary history, he/she, in my opinion should not write on that subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@XiSd Tay,
I am surprised by how your comment manages to be denigrating, illogical, irrelevant, ungrammatical, and misspelled, all within the space of a single short sentence.
Rather than spoon-feeding you, I will simply point out that you have misconstrued my earlier comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Evelyn Summers .. Funny you should state this
…” please participate in a political party, or try to get into the editorial department heads of the SPH. Singaporeans complain too much …”
If EVERYONE WHO COMPLAINS (allegedly too much) joins a political party, you might have 10,000 political parties contesting the next election, are you helping to count the votes in the next election and declare who is the winner knowing that there may be a lot of “winners” sharing top votes received?? This is almost cockroach brain thinking.
joining the editorial department heads of SPH? they got to choose me, not me choosing them. Are they welcoming of politically dissenting voice to change their well-known editorial preference? Maybe you could give them a call and check it out if they might prefer a new editorial slant to what they are long accustomed to. If there is intense disagreement, the heat of the moment could generate unexpected fistful passion instead of publishing passion, I did be wary of that happening not that it will necessary happen.
Btw, SPH seems to have a slant of interest in certain topics of late – a small Singapore venture interest in North Korea of no even paltry significance to measure any drive for Singapore Inc. International received coverage interests. And today, MSM front-paged regional stock market ebullience of yesterday citing strong recovery over the horizon and quoted comments that stock market rally is in infancy waiting for the big boom next year perhaps.
Funny thing ommitted is the crashing US dollar threatening our economy, not mentioned in the same column. In perverse co-incident, Asian/Pacific stock market today, namely Australia, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Nekkei, ONLY NEKKEI IS UP. The rest retreated as so is virtually the entire European bourses tonight and US market tumbled over 100 points as of this moment. A day’s market of yesterday, it seems makes big news of a recovery sign but one wonder would that view changed in tommorrow’s publishing??
SPH seems to like publishing “good news” of late. Someone outside might disagree strongly, would they welcome a dissenting view to enter its editorial department’s preference, Evelyn Summers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do Singaporeans actually really know what is going on behind the iron curtain? We see only what they want us to see, and we are supposed to know only what they want us to know. Who is the ‘they’?
Do you really think that we are governed collectively by a cabinet ? It has been a fact all along that there is a cabinet within a cabinet. This inner cabinet has been in existence since after 1965 and comprise the PM, his deputy, and a couple of key ministers, .e.g. Defence Minister. It used to be a 5 member team in the past.
These days Singapore is ruled by a triumvirate consisting of the father, the son, and the (holy) Goh. All the other ministers are just excess baggage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Which Member of Parliament questioned our Finance Minister on the apparent lack of due diligence being conducted on Temasek’s investment in Thaksin’s ShinCorp ? Come on, we lost $1.4 bn there immediately after the ink had dried when the post-Thaksin Thai government forced Shincorp to pay up its outstanding tax liabilities of the said amount or face losing its operating licence. After paying Thaksin $1.8 bn for his 49.6 % in Shincorp our very generous government had to stand idly to watch another $1.4 bn from Shincorp evaporate into the hands of the Thai tax authorities. Not one member in our parliament raise a finger on this.
Why the apathy there? You see, our opposition MPs are too busy figuring out what (petty) issues they should bring up in parliament (at least they are doing their job) while our PAP members are too busy with a long list of board meetings of listed companies in which they are members.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evelyn Summers @ Fri, 16th Oct 2009 6:29 pm
I concur with you. Lets all join SDP or RP!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jim,
Regarding your question on which MP raised issues about Shin Corp, I have found the following comment on SDP’s website: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2458-a-credible-and-effective-opposition-part-ii
QUOTE
BryanT – Fri 10 Jul 2009 6:40 PM
Firstly, let me state that I agree with the article’s point that the opposition must ask the hard questions.
Using the example of the Shin Corp saga, the article stated that as “the SDP is not represented in Parliament, [it was] unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much.” The allusion here is that without the SDP in parliament, the government was not properly questioned and held to account. This statement attempts to give the impression that only the SDP is capable of posing the so-called hard-questions.
Let’s just take the Shin Corp example. The Hansard records that in parliament, Inderjit Singh, Alvin Yeoh, Sylvia Lim, Low Thia, Khiang and Cynthia Phua questioned the Finance Minister on the issue. Some may prefer to use the more crude word, “grilled”. Personally, I was satisfied with the high quality and scope of questions posed. But let the fact speak for itself. These were the questions posed:
- Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he will give an update to the House on Temasek Holdings’ acquisition of Shin Corp of Thailand and the resulting problems with the deal; (b) whether the Government agrees with Temasek acquiring such a large percentage, of around 97%, of the strategic asset of another country; (c) whether Temasek abided by all of Thailand’s rules and regulations; and (d) how much money has Temasek lost in the Shin Corp deal.
- Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, would the Minister not agree that in making such acquisition, if Temasek or its companies being Government-linked, and making such strategic investments in countries, particularly in ASEAN neighbours, should they have been more careful and conscious about acquiring more than a certain percentage that will result in a general offer? At the end of the whole exercise with Temasek owning 96% of the strategic asset of Thailand, this seems to have created a lot of sensitivity in Thailand about Singapore Government trying to take control of the strategic asset. Should the Government or Ministry of Finance not give Temasek some guidelines so that in making acquisition, they do not cross the 25%, or any general offer limit, in any country that they make acquisition in?
- Mr Inderjit Singh: While I agree that we should make investments in Asia because there are tremendous opportunities for us to gain from such investments, does the Minister not agree that if you have $2 billion to invest, instead of investing $2 billion of that in 96% in one asset, should we not have invested in four assets of 25% each, diversifying the risks in one country versus $2 billion in one asset in one country and therefore increasing the risks tremendously for Temasek?
- Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister could comment on whether the Government has any concerns about the quality of the advice that Temasek has received, particularly in this Shin deal, in assessing the political risk involved. Sir, even in the recovery phase, when we were told that Temasek will be setting up a representative office in Thailand, it was announced that they would be appointing an army general to work in our representative office only to be followed swiftly by a comment from the Crown Prince Office to say that this person is not a suitable person for such a post. I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether the Government is satisfied with the advice that Temasek has received as far as managing the political risk is concerned.
- Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in relation to Temasek’s investment in Shin Corporation which has caused a considerable stir in Thailand, whether the Government agrees with such an investment and is satisfied that the necessary due diligence was carried out and no laws were broken in respect of the transaction.
- Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Second Minister for Finance always talks about “due process”. Can he elaborate further as to what due process Temasek Holding has gone through in this particular investment, in particular, the political risk assessment, because there were ground sentiments brewing in Thailand before the decision to purchase?
- Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the ground is very concerned about the real loss and not the paper loss. Can the Minister clarify, under the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s rules and regulations, whether Shin Corporation need to sell the shares above the takeover holdings quantum or the company can continue to hold the 97%, because that will affect whether it is a real loss or a paper loss?
The many questions were posed and answers duly given as what we expect to happen in Parliament. Within the confines of a parliament debate, I believe they were comprehensive at both ends, and pretty civil at that too. The last point is semi-important because I would seriously warn against reverting to the antic-filled days of JBJ’s tribulations in parliament.
The questions now is this: Was the quality of parliament debate affected by SDP’s absence? I leave the readers to form their opinions.
Note: the link to the above debate in Hansard is here:
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/parlweb/get_highlighted_content.jsp?docID=40114&hlLevel=Terms&links=SHIN,CORP&hlWords=%20shin%20corps%20&hlTitle=&queryOption=1&ref=http://www.parliament.gov.sg:80/reports/public/hansard/section/20061114/20061114_S0004.html#1
ENDQUOTE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jim,
You are mistaken. The Shin Corp issue was indeed raised in Parliament.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
indexer on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 8:10 pm
Digging up the corpse for autopsy after the coffin has been buried?
Due diligence of the highest order was required BEFORE
the fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indexer
You are grossly mistaken. My question was on whether any due diligence was conducted .. particularly on the aspect whether Temasek was AWARE THAT SHINCORP HAD A TAX LIABILITY OF $1.4BN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE WHICH WAS YET UNPAID AND WHETHER THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID TO THAKSIN TOOK THIS INTO ACCOUNT (i can tell you the answer was an emphatic NO). That was the question. I was NOT deliberating on the political, country, sovereignty and monopoly risks, etc. Those are ephemereal issues that are necessities – if those were not even on the discussion tables in the first place or even afforded a cursory glance the entire Temasek Board should he dumped.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indexer
Nobody is asking about those stupid little things that Inderjit Singh and the other raised in Parliament – those are boys’ talk. We are talking about hidden agenda. And you want to know what was the REAL REASON for paying Thaksin under the guise of buying over his Shincorp. The reasl isse was the proposed canal waterway project at Kra Isthmus that the Thai government (under Thaksin) was planning to carry out.
If this project was carried out and completed, it would mean ships from east going to west and could by-pass Singapore and PSA would be left with scraps. Thats the hidden agenda nobody ask in Parliament.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you really believe Temasek was interested in Shincorp operations ? That’s naive thinking. The telecommunications monopoly licence held by Shincorp had a shelf-life. Would anyone for that matter buy over such monopoly with an expiry due date ? There was no automatic renewal clause. Anybody sinking in $1.8bn would want to have some sort of guarantee on the continued viability of the business, not letting the the fate of their colossal investment in the hands of any future government. So, obviously commercial considerations were NOT THE FACTOR on which the investment was made. Which member of parliament ask this pertinent question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In a one party parliament – parliamentary debates are nothing but a puppet show, a wayang kulit. Why ? Because every MP is from the same party and there’s the party whip (they get caned if they are naughty in the House). In any parliament with some opposition members (to few to form a caucus to mount a srious threat to the ruling party) parliamentary debates are about demolition – demolishing the issues, any issues, raised by the opposition members. Tell me which issue that was proposed by the ruling party, which after having debated in parliament was withdrawn from legislation? NONE.
Our parliamentary debates are nothing but a to regularise decisions aready made by the inner cabinet and to get the rubber stamp as a routine exercise because the constitution says so. Thats all. Its completely different to other parliaments where issues are really debated and, depending on merits, are either approved and supported by the majority of the house, or dumped.
Will we see such a day. Maybe, in the post-you-know-what era. But definitely not now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its sad to see that Singaporeans generally do not look at political events from a wider perspective. Jim, you are right to mention “hidden agenda” being involved in Temasek’s purchase of Shincorp. If we were to study the before and after event, everything becaomes clearer.
Before Event : Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) resigned his positition as CEO of Singtel. Why ? Official reason given by the authorities – to pursue persoanl interests. Really? Where is he now ? Nominal directorships here and there, with SGX board as the highest remunerated one that he is sitting on. The real reason for his quiting ? Singtel was supposed to be the vehicle to buy over Shincorp. LHY, being the person he is – full of conviction and self-righteousness, obviously objected to the proposal because firstly,he could not see any commercial logic in it, and secondly, he did not think that a political agenda should encroach onto commercial interest by adulterating the otherwise healthy Singtel outfit. The vehicle of purpose was then directed to Temasek, but the damage had been done to LHY whose faith was shaken by the earthquake which did not happen.
After Event : The Thaksin government, after having sold his Shincorp stake to Temasek, dropped the proposed Kra of Isthmus Canal Project (much like the Panama Canal). This project died a quiet death, it didn’t even figure in the minds of the anti-Thaksin elements in Thailand when they were looking for scapegoat issues to bring him down.
$1.8bn is s “small amount” to pay if PSA continues reaping in the billions year after year. But if every succeeding Thai government wants to raise the Kra Project from the dead, then it would mean we would have to Pay And Pay, truly living up to the name of the PAP government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indexer
I posted a couple of very pertinent replies to your comments (regarding the matter that certain members of our parliament did raise the issue of Shincorp). However, the admin of Temasek Review had removed them (very interesting).
Anyway, just to recant only on one point (and not the others that I raised to make admin feel more comfortable) – I know that Inderjit Singh and some of the other MPs did raise some questions on the Shincorp saga. But my question was not on those points raised by them, which were very obvious questions that any school boy would have asked and considered before buying anything.
My questions was whether Temasek knew that Shincorp had outstanding and unpaid tax liabilities of $1.4bn owing to the Thai tax authorities which were already due for payment. Please check your Hansard again then tell me which MP raised that issue. Thanks.
I will not be posting any further entries here because I already know who the people are behind this website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Indexer,
You got your reading glasses on I suppose?
Jim’s question was, and the point he was making, was that Did anybody in parliament ask whether Temasek was aware that Shincorp had an outstanding tax liability of $1.4bn that was overdue and still unpaid, for which the Thai tax authorities were closing in. In other words, was Temasek’s share of 49 % equity shaved off from the original purchase price (very unlikely given the already high price of $1.88bn with only a couple of years left to maturity for its telecoms licence).
In other words, we were short-changed. Looks like we don’t have any accountants in Temasek and we also don’t have any accountants in parliament (we got too many lawyers there).
Of course we know a lot of PAP members and a couple of opposition MPs asked some questions, but they were by and large, irrelevant stuff, like what Anonymous said “digging up the corpse after the coffin has been buried”. Jim, and some of us here, are more interested in the BEFORE, that is, the purchase price should have been $1.8bn minus 49 % of $1.4bn, i.e., we should be paying only $1.1bn. So what was that extra $0.7bn “premium” for ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0