Since getting onto the 'net in 96, I've come across a lot of excellent articles both on the web and via e-mail. I've decided to post them here so I can go back to them again later. All the materials here are the work of their individual authors or creators and copyrighted by them. Only the comments are mine.
I thought this was a great post by a GP teacher amid all the stupid chatter by parents who should know better that their kids are much smarter and resourceful than they give them credit for.
11 May 2009 I TEACH GENERAL PAPER, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY Lisa Li
With all due respect to the well-meaning "concerned parents" out there, this is starting to sound like a dodgy GP essay to me.
Apparently, because my students and I "discuss topics such as the legalisation of gay marriage and parents of the same sex forming families through adoption" in class, I am guilty of promoting homosexuality.*
Right.
But never mind. MOE has already come to the rescue with their statement that "GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking" and GP teachers "should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society".*
Oh yes, apparently one can facilitate critical thinking, that is, the reasoned questioning of assumptions, norms and values AND fully reinforce and adhere to social norms at the same time.
And wait, I see this again, in the debate on sexuality education and just what should be said about homosexuality:
1. Homosexuality is against the social norms and values of mainstream society. 2. Homosexuality is illegal and considered unnatural under Singapore law.
The first thing any student of GP (or indeed, any human being who knows anything about world history) will realise, is that social norms change.
Secondly, if you insist on going by "mainstream" values and beliefs, you may like to follow 43% of Singaporeans and look to Buddhism, which views homosexuality on neutral grounds, as opposed to Christianity (15%) and Islam (15%).
In any case, the legal argument will only hold as long as homosexual acts are considered illegal in Singapore.... and judging from the force of change in the world, frankly my dear, you can't hold the dam for much longer.
Singapore's law criminalising homosexual acts is based on British law - which decriminalised this in 1967.
Other countries which have decriminalised homosexuality include France (1791), The Netherlands (1811), Brazil (1830), Ottoman Empire (1858), Germany (1871), Japan (1880), Italy (1889), USSR (1922), Denmark (1930), Iceland (1940), Switzerland (1942), Sweden (1944), Greece (1951), Thailand (1956), Israel (1963), Chad (1967), Canada (1969), Kosovo (1970), Australia (1981), South Africa (1994), China (1997) etc.
This shows an increasing acceptance that personal preferences that do not harm anyone else should not be governed (in this case, criminalised) by the state. As with the wearing away of all other forms of inequality, I believe this discrimination of homosexuals cannot last.
So what are we left with?
Are we justifying a brand of education with reasons that won't hold weight for much longer?
You may argue that making something legal doesn't make it right, and you have a point.
But then that would depend on what you consider "right", which really is a moral issue and one that concerns personal belief.
So I have two points for you:
1. Personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - should not influence the laws of a secular society. The onus is on parents and preachers to educate their children in these beliefs. Say what you want at the pulpit, not in Parliament, and certainly, do not foist this responsibility onto your child's teachers in secular schools.
2. It is unfair, impractical and dangerous to insist that youths be given only the old rules when they live in a completely different world. Parents, if you insist on a black-and-white moral education for your children, you only drive them into secrecy when they need you most. If teachers cannot teach openly and factually, rest assured that the internet will.
As an educator and maybe future parent, I admit I am less concerned about whether my children are homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) or not, and more concerned that they should always respect others and themselves, never discriminate, always critically examine issues, always feel free to share their thoughts with me without fear of condemnation, always love and always be loved no matter what.
This is my hope.
PS. If you think your children will rush to become homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) because of my words, I THANK YOU for crediting me with such influence! By the way, your children are smarter than you think....
IF THE police, on a tip-off, raid a flat for suspected drug offenders and discover no drugs but gay sex instead, would they prosecute?
NUS law don Michael Hor says this scenario could arise from the government's stand that it would not be proactive in enforcing S377A.
'Does the non-enforcement policy cover this, for it might be argued that the police were not 'pro-active'?' he wrote in a new book of essays launched on Tuesday.
He cites a similar example in Texas, the United States, where the US Supreme Court had struck down a sodomy statute.
The book, titled 'Lives in the Law', honours three luminaries in Singapore's legal academia - Mr Peter Ellinger, Ms Koh Kheng Lian and Mrs Tan Sook Yee -who recently retired from full-time appointments at the National University of Singapore's Law Faculty.
Jointly published by Academy Publishing and the NUS, the trio are described as 'Singapore's foremost experts in their specialised fields of study and teaching,' by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in his foreword to the book.
In his essay on the recent changes to the Penal Code, Professor Hor further argues there is also no indication that the policy of not prosecuting under the 377A will not change overnight and without prior notice.
After heated debate in and out of Parliament over changes to the Penal Code last week, Parliament retained 377A which outlaws homosexuality.
The government also indicated then it will not proactively enforce the section.
But Professor Hor notes that it is 'impossible to tell' if the courts are willing to hold the government from prosecuting against this declared policy.
Separately, another NUS law don has called for the courts to review aspects of entrapment in an essay on the issue of consent as interpreted under the Penal Code.
Professor Stanley Yeo plumbed for a practical approach to the issue of consent in cases involving entrapment, citing Professor Koh Kheng Lian, one of the three honorees of the book.
Prof Koh had said the law should be guided by 'what is fair or unfair conduct on the part of the entrapper in his efforts to entrap the defendant.'
Prof Yeo said it would be unfair to prosecute a homosexual, for example, if he was enticed by a police officer posing as a gay, since it was the latter who freely gave his consent to the former's advances.
'Instead of imposing a blanket rule that consent is irrelevant whenever it is secured by entrapment, fairness to the accused requires the courts' to study the facts of a particular case to see if consent had been freely given, he said.
10 August 2007 | Wall Street Journal Online SINGAPORE SWING The City's Gay Balancing Act By Cris Prystay
SINGAPORE -- In a play about gay life in Singapore staged here last month, one character asks a homosexual-rights activist why a gay teacher had departed so quietly after being fired from a government school. He adds, "I thought the prime minister said they allow gays in the civil service." The rights activist replies: "That was 2003 -- and that was the ex-PM."
The point of the dialogue was that in real life, Singapore's leaders have sent mixed signals over the past five years on how the city-state would deal with its gay community -- on the one hand allowing such things as plays with homosexual themes, yet on the other hand keeping a law on the books that makes consensual sex between men a crime punishable by a prison sentence. And while various leaders have tried to play down that threat, the gay community remains uneasy.
During the first half of this decade, homosexuals in Singapore saw clear signs that attitudes were changing. In 2003, the then prime minister Goh Chok Tong said that homosexuals "are like you and me" and shouldn't face discrimination in Singapore's civil service. After his comments, the gay community flourished; about a dozen gay clubs, bars and saunas sprang up. The Nation party, an annual gay rave that began in 2001, soon grew into the region's biggest such party outside Sydney's Mardi Gras.
But Mr. Goh stepped aside in 2004 to make way for Lee Hsien Loong, the son of modern Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew. Mr. Goh was viewed as being more relaxed and liberal than the Lees. By 2005, a chill had set in. The junior minister for health stood up in Parliament and said the Nation party could be responsible for a rise in HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in Singapore's gay community. The police that year denied Nation party-organizer Fridae.com, a company that also runs a gay Web site, a license to hold the annual rave because it was "contrary to public interest," according to a police statement issued at the time.
Then, in another apparent zag, the elder Mr. Lee, who is still a senior government member with the title of minister mentor, said in April that homosexuality is genetic, and "we should not go around like this moral police, barging into people's bedrooms. That's not our business." Later that month, Mr. Lee elaborated by stating that the law would eventually have to be changed to keep step with the rest of the world -- but not yet. "We are not going to allow Singapore to become the vanguard of Southeast Asia," he said. "We will follow the world. A few respectable steps behind."
Singapore's stop-and-go approach on gay rights reflects the balancing act between the leadership's desire to appeal to what it views as a deeply conservative society, and its bid to diversify the island-nation's economy away from its core manufacturing base and turn it into a modern, global metropolis. Singapore wants to position itself as a major finance, science and arts hub in the Asian-Pacific region; yet activists contend that gay foreign professionals -- including bankers and actors -- won't want to come if they could be branded as criminals, and some homosexual Singaporeans may opt to pursue their professions elsewhere. The city-state also wants to be seen as the kind of tolerant, vibrant, forward-thinking place that is attractive to professionals and entrepreneurs, regardless of their sexual preference, but, activists contend, its stance on gay sex sends a signal that it is a stilted environment.
The Talent Pool
Exactly what effect Singapore's stance toward gay people is having on its ability to attract and retain talent is hard to quantify. Certainly, Singapore is viewed as more tolerant toward homosexuality than its closest neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, and it has an active gay community. Fridae.com maintains that of Singapore's total population of 4.5 million, about 400,000 are gay. But the city-state is considered to be less gay-friendly than Thailand, which became host to the Nation party in 2005 and 2006 after it was banned in Singapore. (The organizer has called the party off this year, saying that as a Singapore company it prefers to hold the event at home or not at all.)
"I've dealt with openly gay (job) candidates -- people working in banking, IT, finance, sales and marketing -- and it's never been an issue" in Singapore, says Mark Ellwood, managing director of recruitment company Robert Walters Singapore. "I don't remember anyone ever being prosecuted; it's in writing, but practically nothing ever happens," Mr. Ellwood adds.
Still, the spectre of the law -- even if it isn't used -- is affecting some people's decision to work in Singapore. For instance, Fabien Ho, the creative director of Juniper Brands, an advertising and brand consultancy in the U.K., turned down an offer last year to move to Singapore from London to start up a branch. "It would have been a big pay rise and an amazing promotion," says Mr. Ho, 31 years old, but he felt he would have to go back into the closet in Singapore. Plus, like many countries, Singapore doesn't issue dependent visas to gay partners. That was the "real roadblock," says Mr. Ho, a French citizen whose father is Singaporean and mother French, and who lived in Singapore between the ages of 6 and 20. "I resented having to choose between (my) relationship and this great job in Singapore."
American Eric Feltin, co-founder of London-based Switchfire Ltd., a technology company that provides mobile-phone dating and chat services to companies catering to straight consumers, axed a plan to use Singapore as a base for the company's Asian expansion because he felt the antigay law was a sign of Singapore's restrictiveness.
In 2004, one of Mr. Feltin's business partners, who is straight, suggested the company set up an Asian branch in Singapore to develop a Chinese-language SMS dating product that could later be rolled out in China. Mr. Feltin, who is gay, made several trips to Singapore that year to check it out. "At first blush, it looked like a very good opportunity: Singapore was a market in its own right, it was also a stepping stone to China, and there were lots of good technology partners there with new applications we could take world-wide. But the more time I spent there, the more uneasy I got," he says now. "It's hard to define, but the anti-gay law contributed to my impression that it wouldn't be a good place to do business."
Michael King, a 58-year-old program manager at Cisco Systems Inc. in San Francisco, arrived in Singapore in 2002 to take on the role of operations manager for Asia, but he asked for a transfer after the first year. "I was completely out as a gay man in California, but when I got to Singapore I was extremely uncomfortable with being openly gay and felt forced back into the closet...and felt like a criminal whenever I socialized with gay friends," Mr. King says.
Singapore's stance also is causing it to lose out on the lucrative so-called pink-dollar travel market. According to a 2003 study by the Singapore Tourism Board, the three-day Nation party, which was held annually between 2001 and 2004, brought in an estimated US$6 million a year in tourism revenue. The tourism body says it no longer tracks pink-dollar tourism.
Gay tourists like Dave Tussey, 59, a retired San Francisco police officer, says he and his partner of 18 years won't come to Singapore until the antigay law is changed. Mr. Tussey and his partner travel to Asia frequently for holidays, and have visited Thailand, Hong Kong and Laos in the past few years, spending thousands of dollars each trip on hotels, tours and food. But, Mr. Tussey says, "we won't go (to Singapore) until the politics change in our favour. I vote with my dollars."
Singapore is in the midst of overhauling its penal code, inherited from British colonial rulers, and some advocates see it as a prime opportunity to tackle the part that pertains to homosexuality. Section 377A of the code states that any male person who commits "gross indecency" with another male is subject to up to two years in prison. As part of the revamp, the government now proposes to axe a colonial-era law that deems oral sex between anyone, gay or straight, a crime, and legalize anal sex between consenting adult heterosexuals -- but not between gay men. Britain legalized consensual homosexual sex in 1967.
Many other Asian countries whose laws are modelled on British jurisprudence deem homosexual sex a crime, including Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, according to a 2007 report by the Brussels-based International Gay and Lesbian Association. One Indonesian state, Aceh, that has a Shariah court system based on Islamic law, also outlaws gay sex among Muslims, the report says. Singapore's economic rival, Hong Kong, decriminalized gay sex in 1991, although the former British colony added a law that made buggery in public places a crime. Last month, however, Hong Kong's highest court acquitted two men convicted of having sex in a car and ruled that law unconstitutional.
Over the years, discussions within the Singapore government on gay rights have centred on the economic impact. "It's about creating a global city that's attractive to all kinds of talent as well as retaining the talent we have. It's about tolerance -- it's about creating a more inclusive society," says Gillian Koh, an analyst at the Institute of Policy Studies who specializes in the relationship between the state and civil society in Singapore.
As for the re-emergence of the current debate, "I speculate there are ministers in the cabinet who think" the law needs to be abolished soon, says Alex Au, founder of People Like Us, a gay activist group in Singapore. "I think they are trying to encourage a debate in order to get Singaporeans to think more progressively about the issue," adds Mr. Au, who says that in June, he was denied a permit to hold a photo exhibition of gay couples kissing because it promoted a homosexual lifestyle.
Meantime, the city-state's goal to become an arts hub remains at risk, contend members of Singapore's theatre community. British actor Ian McKellen says he was horrified to learn about Singapore's antigay law when he arrived here last month to perform in the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of "King Lear."
"Had I known what the law was, I would have said to the Royal Shakespeare Company, 'What are you doing sending me to a country that thinks my private behaviour is a criminal activity?'" Sir Ian, who is a gay activist in the U.K., said in an interview. "I think the RSC should make a disclaimer -- and they will the next time it happens, because the RSC has a policy of nondiscrimination among its employees. And in a sense, sending its employee to a country, where if they had sex, they would be breaking the law, is not a responsible thing for a company to do," he added.
Responding to Sir Ian's remarks, the Royal Shakespeare Company said in a statement that it is "committed to the safety and welfare of our staff wherever they may be in the world."
Playing Russian Roulette
In fact, the antisodomy law hasn't been used to prosecute adult men engaging in consensual sex in Singapore for many years. Still, "why have a law you don't want to enforce? Don't have it, otherwise it's like Russian roulette," says Glen Goei, a noted Singaporean director of theatre and film who spent 18 years in London and moved back to Singapore five years ago. "You're pointing a gun to my head but saying I'm not going to use it. Please take away the gun," says Mr. Goei, who starred opposite Anthony Hopkins in the Tony award-winning play "M. Butterfly" in London in 1987; his hit film, "Forever Fever," premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 1999.
"When I came back, I thought, 'wow, it's very refreshing' because it was a different Singapore than I had left in the '80s, and I thought 'yes, there's a renaissance going on here and I'm accepted and appreciated: I can make this my home.' But suddenly I'm thinking 'wow, I'm not that welcome. Maybe I should think about leaving again.'"
Indeed, there is a steady drain of young gay Singaporean men who leave and never come home, Mr. Au says. That takes an economic toll that's difficult to measure, he adds.
One is Keo Lin. Mr. Lin, 25, applied for a government scholarship in 2004 to do a teaching degree at Singapore's National Institute of Education. He got the scholarship, which leads to a guaranteed job once the degree is complete. Mr. Lin, however, had second thoughts: Worried he would have to hide his sexual preference during his entire teaching career or risk getting sacked, he turned down the offer and enrolled in a bachelor of arts degree program at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Mr. Lin kept his sexuality private while he was growing up, and when he told his mother in 2005, he says it broke her heart. He still plans to become a teacher, but not in Singapore, where he says his personal life would basically be against the law.
"There's this view, 'you've got your gay clubs, your gay saunas, and your plays are allowed to happen' -- but so what? This law is hanging there," says Ivan Heng, founder of Wild Rice, the theatre company that last month staged "Happy Endings, Asian Boys Vol. 3," the play involving the firing of a gay teacher in Singapore. "The tide keeps coming in and going out for gay rights" in Singapore, adds Mr. Heng, who is gay. "We have to keep pushing."
Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the "African" beads around her wrists.
"Save Darfur!" she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!
My aversion to college kids jumping onto fashionable social causes nearly caused me to walk on, but her next shout stopped me.
"Don't you want to help us save Africa?" she yelled.
It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succour to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.
Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/" I am African" ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, "help us stop the dying."
Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child labourers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.
Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned? How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last month the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
Uzodinma Iweala is the author of "Beasts of No Nation," a novel about child soldiers.
CHENGMAI COUNTY, HAINAN, CHINA - MADAM Sun Qingrong was on her way to a market 19 years ago when a chance encounter changed her life forever. Her family would never be the same again either.
A hospital worker carrying an infant came up, thrust 20 yuan (S$4 at current rates) at her and told her to find a way to get rid of the day-old baby girl.
Madam Sun, now 56, recalls the incident like it happened yesterday.
'The woman told me the baby's parents didn't want her because she was their second daughter. She said I could adopt the baby if I wanted to, give her away to someone else or throw her away,' she said.
'I was horrified. A baby is not a chicken or a dog, how can we just throw it away?'
She turned down the money, but took the baby home.
It did not matter that she already had five children of her own - two sons and three daughters. Nor did she care that life was a struggle, as the family lived from hand-to-mouth on her husband's meagre income as a rag-and-bone man.
Mr Yao Yide, 54, earns just 800 to 1,000 yuan a month from collecting and selling discarded items and taking on odd jobs.
The couple named the baby Mingli, which means bright and beautiful. She was to be the first of many more abandoned girls the couple would take in - 14 in all - since that day in 1988.
Mr Yao remembers everything he felt on the day Mingli arrived.
'When my wife brought our first baby girl home, I thought to myself, even if we had to eat less, we would raise her,' he said. 'Even if we had to beg, we would find money to send her to school.'
Mingli is now 19 and working in a Shenzhen factory. The younger ones are aged between two and 17.
Most were abandoned at birth, left behind in hospital. Others were found in various places, including the toilet at the local bus station and a rubbish dump.
After the couple took Mingli home, hospital workers kept turning to them when other baby girls were abandoned. Neighbours would also alert them if they knew of a dumped infant.
Once, a fairly well-off couple asked them to adopt their third daughter, because they wanted to try for a son. The Yaos took the girl.
Over the years, their expanding brood of adopted girls proved a strain on the couple. Money was always tight, they had to be frugal, and new clothes were a rare luxury.
Sometimes, the adults would get by on two meals a day, usually plain noodles or buns, but the girls would get three meals of rice and other cooked dishes. Fish and meat appeared only on special occasions.
Once, one of the older girls wanted to quit school to work and boost the family finances, but Mr Yao said no.
'My wife and I are illiterate, so our lives are hard,' he said. 'Our children must be educated.'
Along the way, the couple had their share of heartbreak and crises.
Three of the girls died of heart problems before their first birthdays. One of them, found with 50 yuan attached to her birth certificate, died on the first day of the Chinese New Year.
Another almost did not make it. She fell gravely ill at seven months and was warded in hospital for 10 days.
Said Madam Sun: 'My neighbours told me I should give her away because she was so sickly, but I couldn't bear to do that.'
The baby recovered and Mr Yao found himself in debt, settling the medical bills. Over the years, he and his wife have had to borrow over 20,000 yuan from relatives and friends to tide over tough times.
The Yaos now live with five of their adopted daughters in a small town in Chengmai county, about an hour's drive from Haikou, Hainan's capital.
To ease their financial burden, some friends and relatives have either adopted or are helping to take care of six of the girls.
Home is a rented dilapidated two-room brick house strewn with wooden planks, plastic bottles and other junk.
Madam Sun cooks using firewood in soot-blackened pots, and there is neither toilet nor tap in their house.
The couple's own children, now aged between 23 and 30, live in the family's ancestral village in the central Chinese province of Henan.
They can barely make ends meet raising their own families, let alone help support their parents, said Mr Yao.
In their small community, the Yaos are well known for their open hearts and home and how they have valued daughters in a society where sons are prized.
'Boys and girls are the same. Both are lives,' said Mr Yao. 'And if families don't want their daughters, there will be no wives for their sons in the future.'
After the couple's story was reported in the local newspapers last year, the county government decided to build them a new two-storey house. Some people sent them money.
During their three-hour interview with The Straits Times, the couple's bond with their girls shone through clearly.
Baby No. 12, four-year-old Mingyu, kept going to kiss and play with Mr Yao. Mingyu was found in a rubbish dump and Mr Yao's neighbours alerted the police to the abandoned baby.
'The policeman asked me to care for Mingyu since there is no orphanage in town,' said Mr Yao.
Mingyang, 17, who topped her mid-year examinations, said she would never be able to thank her mum and dad enough for rescuing and loving her.
'I regard them as my real parents. And I feel that my adopted sisters and I are bound by the same fate,' she said, breaking down in tears.
Mr Yao became emotional himself when he described the day he left Mingli in Shenzhen last year.
He had taken her to the city to find work, and when it was time for him to return home, it was wrenching for both.
Trying to hold back his tears, he said: 'Mingli was crying and crying when I got on the bus headed back to Hainan. She had never been away from me for even one day in her life.
'I was crying on the bus as I missed her too, but she has better job prospects in Shenzhen.'
He let on proudly that Mingli offered them 1,000 yuan to celebrate Chinese New Year this year, but he refused to take it.
He said: 'We didn't bring up our children so that they can earn money for us. We just hope they are happy.'
Monday, April 23 2007 | The Straits Times HOMOSEXUALITY: GOVT NOT MORAL POLICE BUT IT'S MINDFUL OF PEOPLE'S CONCERN By Zakir Hussain
THE Government is not the moral police on the issue of homosexuality here - but it cannot at the same time ignore the concerns of conservative citizens. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew addressed the issue in his reply to a question from Young PAP activist Loretta Chen, who has asked where censorship was headed in the next two decades. Having related the issue on how the topless revue Crazy Horse was allowed to operate here, he turned to the question of homosexuality. It was an issue that "raises tempers all over the world, and even in America". "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?" But Mr Lee also noted that there was a strong inhibition towards it in all societies - be they Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Chinese. Singapore, too, was confronted "with a persisting aberration". "But is it an aberration?" he asked. "It's a genetic variation." "So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people...don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong. "But at the same time let's not go around like this moral police...barging into people's rooms. That's not our business. "So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstances". When the Home Affairs Ministry announced changes to the Penal Code on a range of offences last year, it said it would retain the ban on acts of "gross indecency" between men. The penalty remains a maximum of two years in jail. The ministry said homosexuality was not widely accepted here, but added that it would be not be "proactive" in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.
Another link for that Reuters story in SPH's AsiaOne.
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's powerful former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, acknowledging the view that some people are genetically destined to be homosexual, has questioned the city-state's ban on sex between men.
"If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it?" Monday's Straits Times, a pro-government daily, quoted Lee as saying.
Under Singapore law, a man who is found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man can be jailed for up to two years, though prosecutions are rare.
But Lee -- who remains the most powerful minister in the cabinet of his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- said Singapore should not actively pursue homosexuals who engage in sex.
Lee said that while homosexuality was not widely accepted in Singapore, authorities must take a pragmatic approach.
"Let's not go around like this moral police ... barging into people's rooms. That's not our business," he told a weekend meeting with the youth wing of the People's Action Party, Singapore's ruling political party.
In November, the Ministry of Home Affairs said it was considering decriminalizing oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual adults, but not between homosexuals.
The authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle. But, despite the official ban on gay sex, Singapore has a thriving gay scene.
Lee's comments come at a time when many groups, such as Singapore's Law Society, are clamoring for a review of the laws against homosexual sex, which they view as outdated and archaic.
A revealing Temasek document with 59 questions and answers outlines its position on the acquisition of the Khoo family stake in Standard Chartered and related issues about the government-owned agency.
A Temasek document, entitled "2006-03 Taurus Q&As" - which was designed to help its executives answer media enquiries on its 12% stake in Standard Chartered - was yesterday sent as an email attachment to some journalists instead of another file. The document contains 59 questions and answers and was prepared by staff to anticipate questions that might arise from the acquisition. Given that Temasek has rarely done Q&As with the media, the exercise represents a somewhat unique insight into what the Singapore state investment agency currently perceives its perceptional issues are and its own stance on these issues. In what follows we have reproduced the entire Q&A section. It is unedited, except to state in square brackets where answers were left blank:
Q&As
On rationale for investment and plans for Standard Chartered
1. Why have you invested [x] % stake in Standard Chartered? What is Temasek's ultimate objective?
Investing in Standard Chartered is consistent with our focus on Asia and on its financial services sector. Standard Chartered will add to our portfolio of investments, and will be an important part of our portfolio.
We are also impressed with Standard Chartered' Board and professional management team. They have successfully developed a distinctive strategy, delivered a growth record and created shareholder value.
2. How much did you pay for the [x]% stake?
The terms of this transaction are private.
3. Why did you take a [x]% stake and not less?
We evaluate each opportunity on its merits. We are prepared to buy, sell or hold, depending on the relative merits of the various investments and opportunities.
4. Do you intend to take over Standard Chartered/ make a bid? [Answer left blank]
5. Does Temasek intend to increase its stake in Standard Chartered?
It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.
6. Standard Chartered has always been a potential takeover target. Do you think Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered would trigger a competitive bid for Standard Chartered?
That possibility is a matter for others to evaluate (the merits of a competitive bid).
It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.
7. Do you intend to counter bid if there is a bid by another party?
It is not appropriate for us to comment on this. As a financial investor, we keep all our options open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.
8. We understand that you have gotten in touch with Standard Chartered Board and management. Was that a preliminary approach to the company on a possible bid?
It was a simple matter of courtesy to inform the Board and management of our investment.
9. Why is Standard Chartered not under Asia Financial Holdings, which you have said is your financial services investment holding company?
Decisions regarding structuring of our investments are internal arrangements.
10. DBS has not been very successful in its overseas acquisitions, and so far Temasek has not been able to take significant controlling stakes in banks outside Singapore. Are you investing in Standard Chartered with the intention of merging it with DBS?
Both DBS and Standard Chartered are listed companies with significant minority interests. All investment and business decisions of either of the banks are taken independently by their respective Board and management with the aim of maximizing value for all shareholders. We play no part in their investment decisions or commercial operations. If investments are such that shareholders approvals are required, then the banks will have to convene a shareholders' general meeting. In such a situation, we will exercise our shareholder's rights according to the commercial merits of the case from a shareholder perspective.
As for the Standard Chartered investment, it is consistent with our interest and focus on Asia and the emerging markets.
It has an outstanding management team who are best positioned to continue to drive growth and deliver shareholder value, as they have done the last few years.
11. How about merging Standard Chartered with any of your other banking investments in Asia to form a pan-Asian bank? [Answer left blank]
12. Do you plan to break up Standard Chartered and merge parts of it with your existing banking investments?
This is not an appropriate question. The future of Standard Chartered is in the hands of its Board and management.
We do not involve ourselves in the investment or commercial decisions of our portfolio companies, including Standard Chartered, unless it is an issue in which shareholder approval is specifically required under The Company's Act.
13. You have invested in many financial institutions across Asia. Would this hamper Standard Chartered's ability to expand or continue with its business in some countries?
We do not see this as a problem.
All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.
We do not involve ourselves in the investment or commercial decisions of the companies, unless it is an issue in which shareholder approval is specifically required under The Company's Act.
On Role of Temasek
14. Temasek has always positioned itself as an active shareholder and investor. How will Temasek support Standard Chartered's growth? [Answer left blank]
15. Standard Chartered is already doing very well. How else can Temasek value add to Standard Chartered?
Should Standard Chartered require our support, we will be happy to discuss this matter with the Board and management with an open mind, at the appropriate time.
On the board and management of Standard Chartered
16. Did Temasek discuss this purchase with the board and management of Standard Chartered prior to the investment? If not, why not?
No, it was not appropriate for us to do so prior to the investment.
We informed key members of Standard Chartered's board and management shortly before we made our announcement.
17. Would Temasek seek any representation on Standard Chartered' board?
This is something that we will discuss with the board and management of Standard Chartered when it is appropriate and useful to the company.
18. Do you plan to make any changes to the management of Standard Chartered?
This is for their Board to decide.
Having said that, the management team of Standard Chartered has been instrumental in its success today. We admire their strong capability and keen sense of business.
19. What is Temasek's assessment of the reaction of the management of Standard Chartered to Temasek's purchase of its stake in Standard Chartered?
This question is better answered by Standard Chartered.
20. Standard Chartered' board and management have on many occasions commented publicly that they would like to remain an independent company. What is your reaction to this?
We see ourselves as a stable shareholder, committed to supporting Standard Chartered's continued growth as a unique franchise.
On regulatory approvals
21. Has Temasek consulted the FSA on the purchase of its stake?
We have initiated the process of consultation with the FSA and other regulators to seek the relevant approvals and support.
22. Does Temasek foresee any problems with regulatory approvals in some of the markets which Standard Chartered operate in?
We have taken appropriate advice and will fully cooperate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.
23. When will the conditions be satisfied/ when will you obtain the necessary regulatory approvals?
Timing is for the regulators but we will fully cooperate with them to comply with the regulations and obtain the necessary approvals.
On Funding
24. How is Temasek funding this investment?
We have the necessary funding for this investment.
25. Does Temasek have sufficient funds? Were the proceeds in the recent sale of SingTel shares used to fund this acquisition?
We have the necessary funding for this investment.
26. Does Temasek need to issue another global bond soon to fund its acquisitions? [Answer left blank]
27. Will you be selling down more stakes in your portfolio to fund your acquisitions?
We are satisfied with our liquidity situation.
Others
28. You have invested in many banks in the region. Do you foresee any conflict of interests with Standard Chartered? How do you manage that?
All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams. We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.
In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
29. There is a rise of nationalistic sentiments in some of the recent investments like DPW's acquisition in P&O, and your own investment in Thailand's Shin Corp. How does Temasek plan to minimize the impact of such sentiments on its investments? Are you concerned that Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered will spark off similar sentiments?
Every investment opportunity comes with its own set of risk-reward trade-offs. There may be country, market, political, operational, regulatory, financial or execution risks.
Whether in investments or divestments, we are mindful that there can be social or political sensitivities.
We will do our best to address the various stakeholder concerns where we can, and mitigate these risks appropriately.
[For UK audience - We are just a modest shareholder in Standard Chartered and will play our role as a stable shareholder, committed to supporting Standard Chartered's continued growth as a unique franchise. We have also enjoyed strong relationships between the people of Singapore and UK at many levels, including those between businesses, friends and students in both countries. UK is Singapore's largest investor, with S$45.7 billion from 2000 companies at the end of 2004.]
30. Does Temasek coordinate its investments with GIC?
We operate completely independently from GIC.
We are a shareholder of a globally diversified portfolio of companies, while GIC is a fund management company with focus on the capital markets.
31. The Singapore Government is Temasek's only shareholder. How can Temasek make investments based purely on commercial principles? Surely the shareholder can and do impose its non-commercial agenda onto Temasek?
All our investment and business decisions are taken independently by our own board and management, based on commercial considerations. The Singapore Government is not involved.
A majority of our board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector. We have one nominee director from our shareholder on our Board. He is one amongst a group of very experienced, steady, and thoughtful directors.
All Board decisions are made on a commercial basis.
32. Is this part of Singapore's strategy to extend its influence to UK and globally?
The Singapore Government, as a shareholder, is not involved in our investment decisions and business operations.
All our investment and business decisions are taken independently by our own board and management, based on commercial considerations.
We are guided by an independent board, of which a majority of our board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector.
33. Your CEO is also the PM's wife. The PM is also the Minister for Finance, heading MOF which is your shareholder. Is her appointment politically motivated? Wouldn't there be conflicts of interest?
We are not here to discuss politics since we are not politicians or a political organization.
Our CEO is accountable to the Board of Directors, who is headed by an independent Chairman, just like any other commercial organisation.
Country specific questions
34. What are some of the regulatory issues in each market that you have encountered? How are you dealing with it?
As a Singapore institution, we seek to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in all our investment activities in each of the markets.
We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times.
35. Do you intend to change any branding of Standard Chartered's companies in overseas markets, or their products and services?
We think Standard Chartered is a great brand, but this question should rightly be addressed to their board and management and is not appropriate for us to answer.
36. Would this investment affect any of the operations of your existing banks under your portfolio?
All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams. We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.
37. Please prove to us that the BODs [Boards of directors] of your portfolio companies are independent.
All directors on boards are fully aware of their fiduciary duties.
Out of our 34 significant TLCs, our management staff constitutes only 4% of all directors on the boards of these companies, as of 31 March 2005. Our management nominees are expected to fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their respective companies and all shareholders.
The members on these boards are men and women of experience, integrity and considerable reputation, including 26% who are non-Singaporeans. These would include outstanding business leaders such as Sir Brian Pitman, the former chairman of Lloyds Bank and Mr John Ross, formerly of the Bank of New York and also Deutsche Bank. 68% of these board members are independent.
[As at Mar 2005, the overall composition of directors on these boards was as follows - Independent - 68% Non-Singaporean - 26% Female - 7% Temasek Management - 4%]
38. Please prove to us that the BODs of your portfolio companies in the banking sector are independent.
Appointments to our portfolio companies in the banking sector are governed by the regulatory requirements of the respective jurisdictions.
[To refer to Director list of TH Investee Banks ]
UK/Hong Kong/Australia
39. The Standard Chartered management has indicated that Temasek's investment could pose problems for some of Standard Chartered's operations in Asia, which could impact on Standard Chartered' financial health going forward. What's Temasek's response to that?
We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments. We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times.
As a financially stable AAA shareholder, we can be a reliable institutional investor for our portfolio companies.
All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders. They are also each run by capable management teams and we endeavour to protect commercial secrecy at all times.
40. Temasek's investment in Standard Chartered will effectively turn Standard Chartered into a Singapore government-owned/linked entity. This is not something that is desirable from our perspective. What is Temasek's comment on this?
The Singapore Government, as a shareholder, is not involved in our investment decisions and business operations, much less in the businesses of our portfolio companies
We are guided by an independent board, of which a majority of our board members are prominent business leaders from the private sector. We have one nominee director from our shareholder. He is one amongst a group of very experienced, steady and thoughtful directors.
We are an Asia investment house, with a responsibility of delivering sustainable long term value. About [49]% of our portfolio value is invested in Singapore, with [30]% in the developed or OCED economies, and the balance of [21]% in the rest of Asia and the emerging economies.
About 20% of our staff are non-Singaporeans, coming from countries like Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, South Africa, UK, US and Vietnam.
Our investment in Standard Chartered will not change its position as a unique franchise in Asia and the developing economies.
From Temasek Review 2005, pg 42, 43: Likewise, our companies are managed by their respective management teams and supervised by their boards. We do not involve ourselves in their commercial or operational decisions.
Our key effort to add value to our portfolio companies is to promote good corporate governance by supporting and constituting high quality, commercially experienced, diverse and international boards to complement outstanding business leadership and dedicated staff.
We generally refrain from appointing our management staff onto the boards of our portfolio companies. Instead, we work actively with our companies to identify suitable independent board candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds and nationalities to complement, rejuvenate or expand board capability and quality. Where appropriate, such candidates are introduced to the respective nominating committees of boards for their consideration and decision.
On 31 Mar 2005, our direct and deemed shareholdings in 34 significant Temasek-linked companies ranged from 17% to 100%. The overall composition of directors on these boards was:
Independent - 68%
Non-Singaporean - 26%
Female - 7%
Temasek management - 4%
China
41. Would your investment help Standard Chartered expand further into the China market, especially with your existing relationship with the regulators?
This is not an appropriate question. The future of Standard Chartered is in the hands of its Board and management.
We will support the board and management as a stable shareholder.
42. As part of China's banking reforms, its banks are actively looking at attracting foreign investors. Do you have plans to introduce Standard Chartered to be a strategic investor to the other 3 Chinese banks that you currently have invested?
This is for the Board and management of Standard Chartered to decide.
We will support the board and management as a stable shareholder.
43. How do you plan for Standard Chartered and the 3 banks that you've invested in to leverage on each other's network, knowledge, products?
This will be up to the respective banks to decide if there is value for them to work together.
We do not involve ourselves in the commercial decisions or day-to-day management or operation of the companies.
As with the companies under our portfolio, we will leave it to each company to determine if there are areas of strategic cooperation which may be value-enhancing for the companies involved. All the investment and business decisions are taken independently by the companies' respective boards and management.
44. You have invested in 3 of China's main banks, and now a foreign bank operating in China. Would there be conflicts of interests?
We are a professional and institutional shareholder interested in sustainable returns.
All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.
We are not involved in their commercial or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
45. By taking a stake in Standard Chartered, Temasek would indirectly own another Chinese bank, in addition to Standard Chartered's operations in China. Previously there have been concerns raised that Temasek could threaten China's financial security. What is Temasek's reaction to this and what do you intend to do?
The Chinese government continues to hold significant controlling stakes in the banks in China. We are a small minority shareholder along with other such shareholders in the banks with no commercial conflicts of interest.
Thailand
46. Your investment in Shin Corp is still very much discussed in Thailand and there are still talks about boycotting Singapore companies and goods. Are you concerned that this investment will further fuel criticisms?
Our investment in Shin Corp reflected our confidence in Thailand's long-term growth. Similarly for Standard Chartered, the investment reflects our confidence in Standard Chartered, and Asia as a whole.
47. With your investment in Shin Corp, you are already controlling a strategic asset in telecommunications. Now with Standard Chartered, you are seen as taking over Thailand's financial services sector as well. Isn't this politically motivated?
Our investment in Shin Corp reflected our confidence in Thailand's long-term growth. Similarly for Standard Chartered, the investment reflects our confidence in Standard Chartered, and Asia as a whole.
48. What other sectors are you interested in investing in Thailand?
As an active investor, we are open and will evaluate each opportunity on its merits.
49. Under the Financial Master Plan, which stipulated the "Single Presence Rule" to be observed by foreign banks and foreign investors who own stakes in Thai banks, you are violating the rule given your stake in Standard Chartered and its shareholding in a Thai bank (SCN) and your shareholding in DBS, which has a 16% stake in Thai Military Bank (TMB). Please comment.
We have entered into an agreement to acquire equity in an overseas listed and incorporated entity. We have taken appropriate advice and will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.
Both Standard Chartered and DBS are managed independently and as separate entities, which are the responsibilities of their own boards and management.
Under each entity, they only have one Thai banking operation. In addition, DBS only owns 16% of TMB, a public listed company, and does not have significant influence or control of the bank.
We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments.
We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals.
Indonesia
50. You are already a majority shareholder in 2 major banks in Indonesia. What is your intention with the country's financial services sector, now with your expanded network of banks?
As with our other investments, we will continue to support the board and management as a stable shareholder. At the same time, we hope to participate and contribute to the growth and development of the economy through the financial services sector.
In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
51. As controlling shareholders of Danamon and BII, would this investment affect what you are currently doing in these 2 banks? Would you be restricted and scaling down on your current partnerships in these 2 banks? If not, would there be conflict of interests?
We will work closely with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the laws and regulations in the markets where we have investments.
All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.
We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
We will continue to play our role as a stable shareholder. As with our other investments, we will support the board and management as they seek further growth.
52. The Indonesian government has announced that it plans to implement a "single presence policy" where a foreign investor cannot own substantial stakes in more than one Indonesian bank. What are your comments to this? Do you foresee any problems with your investment in Standard Chartered?
It is not appropriate for us to comment on the proposed "single presence policy" as the details have not been announced.
We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.
All the companies in our portfolio, including Standard Chartered, are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective boards and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.
We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations. In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
Korea
53. Would this investment hamper either your own or your TLCs' efforts to acquire other financial institutions in Korea?
We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.
All the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. They are each run by capable management teams.
We are not involved in their commercial decisions or day-to-day operations.
54. The Financial Supervisory Commission in Korea has said that Temasek is classified as a non-banking group in Korea which means its ownership in any domestic bank is limited to 10%. You already own close to 10% in Hana Bank. Won't this be a problem for Temasek in Korea? Does Temasek need to seek the Korean regulator's approval to invest in Standard Chartered?
We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets for all our investment activities.
As a shareholder, we are not involved in the commercial decisions or day-to-day operations of our companies. They are independent entities guided by their respective boards and management.
55. Temasek is considered an industrial group. According to Korean regulations, "Chaebols" or industrial groups are not allowed to own more than 30% in banks. Do you see a problem arising in future for Temasek?
There are three points we wish to highlight:
i) We are taking a direct minority stake in a PLC (UK) company, which in turn owns the Korean asset. We do not have a direct stake in the Korean asset.
ii) We do not have any board and management influence in Standard Chartered, as well as in the Korean asset.
iii) Our shareholding is below the 30% level stipulated for "Chaebols" or industrial groups under the regulations.
Further, we have always worked with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets in all our investment activities.
We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals. We will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.
56. Are you merging Hana with Standard Chartered's Korean assets?
We do not have any board and management influence in Hana.
Hana is independently managed with responsibilities to their own board and shareholders. The bank is run by a capable management team and we are not involved in the day-to-day operations.
Malaysia
57. Given your existing investment in Alliance bank, are you planning to merge the operations of Alliance bank with Standard Chartered. If not, how would you address any conflict of interests?
As a shareholder, we are not involved in the day-to-day operations of our companies. They are independent entities guided by their own boards and management. Both are public-listed entities and are accountable to all shareholders. Any decision will be made subject to the board's recommendation and shareholders' approval.
In instances where we have stakes and board representatives in two or more competing entities, we will ensure that the commercial confidentiality between the entities is preserved.
58. According to BAFIA, approval from Bank Negara is required to commence negotiations for any takeover of a Malaysian bank. Have you obtained approval to proceed?
We have entered into an agreement to acquire equity in an overseas listed and incorporated entity. We have taken appropriate advice and will fully co-operate with the relevant authorities to comply with the regulations.
We will work with our advisors and the relevant authorities to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the various markets where we have investments.
We abide by each country's laws and regulations at all times and our investment will be subjected to the necessary regulatory approvals.
India
59. You already have an investment in ICICI Bank. Your subsidiary AFH has invested in the majority of the equity of a non Bank Finance Company - First India Credit (formerly Dove Finance). Will these not present any conflict vis a vis Standard Chartered investment?
We are a passive portfolio investor in ICICI Bank, under the FII guidelines of Govt of India. We are not involved in the day-to-day operations of Standard Chartered. We expect Standard Chartered to be governed by its Board and management. We do not see any conflict here with our investment in Standard Chartered.
Copyright FinanceAsia.com Ltd
Too much info right? But the document really shows you what Temasek is really concern about and how those concerns are translated into questions that they are trying to teach their staff to answer.
Whenever I read something like this about Marina Mahathir, I wonder when will Singapore ever get its own "Marina Mahathir". What we need is a child, nephew or niece of a "respected" prime minister or former prime minister who is not afraid to take a different and firm stand on social issues and be vocal about it.
The daughter of Malaysia's former prime minister has launched a scathing attack on the roles and status of Muslim women in the country.
Marina Mahathir, a prominent campaigner for women's rights, compared the lot of women to that of black South Africans under apartheid.
She described Muslim women as second-class citizens who were held back by discrimination.
The comments were written for her regular newspaper column.
The column, which was due to be published in Tuesday's Star newspaper, did not appear.
'Bound and gagged'
Few comparisons could be more hurtful.
Malaysia led by Mahathir Mohamad was in the forefront of the international campaign to end white minority rule in South Africa.
But his daughter Marina has described Muslim women in Malaysia as subject to a form of apartheid - second-class citizens held back by discriminatory rules that do not apply to non-Muslim women.
Her outburst appears to have been prompted by recent changes to Malaysia's Islamic family law that makes it easier for Muslim men to take multiple wives, to divorce them and to take a share of their property.
The women's ministry encouraged female lawmakers to vote for the measures, saying they could be amended later.
That prompted widespread criticism and has led Miss Marina to suggest the ministry be split in two - one to help non-Muslim women fight discrimination, the other to keep Muslim women, in her words, bound and gagged.
However, compared to many other countries both in South East Asia and the wider Muslim world, Malaysian women - Muslims included - play a prominent role both in business and public life.
CURRENT
TOP