Skip to main content

Departure of Saw and Ng is a surprise yet not so surprise when comes to money and shareholdings



The resignation of Saw Phaik Hwa as CEO of SMRT and the ousting of Ng Ser Miang as Chairman of WBL have no relation except one is making good money and the other is not making enough money for their companies respectively.

Either making more money or not making enough money both have to go.  SMRT is making too much money but the larger population is not happy. WBL is not making enough money so the shareholders are not happy, even though Ng has a strong political connection in Singapore.

The greater surprise is Ng due also to his international standing as the Vice-President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) while Saw’s resignation is expected and her leaving is only a question of timing.

For profit maximization and return on investment principles, the ousting of Ng is correct as the Company Board is responsible for the business performance to the shareholders.  If the shareholders are not happy, not making enough money, not getting better returns, even how strong your political connection is, you will have to go.

In this way, Saw is lucky or perhaps her political connection is even more ‘powerful’ than Ng and she can take her own time to resign and not to be ousted by the Board or shareholders but by the general public.

SMRT vs. WBL: Different structure of shareholding

When we look further to the share structure of the 2 companies we will see the difference. One is under the control of the government and the other is private owned and managed. 

SMRT is in fact a GLC that Temasek is the biggest shareholder; indirectly this is a government controlled company.  If the government is happy with your performance, you can keep your job, especially the ROI is good and there is good reason to keep the CEO.

However, WBL is very different.  The shareholders are private companies that they are keen to have higher returns. According to The Business Times (BT), while fund managers Third Avenue Management LLC and Aberdeen Asset Management voted against Ng, WBL's largest shareholders OCBC and its subsidiary Great Eastern supported him. At the end, Ng was ousted out by 54.64% of the shareholders.

It is not clear why SMRT wants to keep Saw even after major disruptions and delays of SMRT trains. Perhaps, Temasek sees it as a small matter in view of the profit that Saw has generated in the past few years. The more profit SMRT makes, the more Temasek will have the share of the profit.   It seems to be a cash cow for Temasek as its other investments can not guarantee such a stable and good return. 

However, this is a very short-sighed decision.  Train disruptions and delays will affect SMRT performance as it is the core business of the company.  In the longer run, SMRT will have to come out with higher maintenance cost, penalty, damages or even claims of liability. 

<A few shops here, a bazaar there and, in 2008, the first mini mall in an MRT station outside the city opened up. By the close of FY2011, SMRT posted almost $57 million in operating profit from rental income, up from an insignificant amount before 2003.>
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20120107-320465.html

No matter how good is the sale of the retail space, it is always a non-core business unless SMRT wants to go into property development with the help of Temasek, CapitaLand etc. Then it should not be awarded the licence to operate the train services.  

Value of political connected persons


For the WBL case, it seems that the private businesses are looking at performance. You keep your post if you keep up with the company expectation demanded by the shareholders. 


<In a recent interview, Straits Trading's executive chairman Ms Chew told The Straits Times: “WBL’s business is not a bad business but it could do much better."
WBL's key businesses span technology, automotive, property, and engineering & distribution. In Singapore, it distributes upmarket car brands such as Bentley, Bugatti, Jaguar, Land Rover, McLaren, Renault, Volvo. It has a substantial landbank in China with its business consisting of property development, property management and property investment.
It reported a 10.6 per cent decline in full-year net earnings to $89.1 million in its last financial year ending Sept 30.> http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/SME%2BCentral/Story/A1Story20120111-321146.html

We used to have a lot of PAP MPs sit in the Board of Directors in SGX listed companies.  It is time to judge these MPs by performance rather than their PAP connection.  Their usefulness is limited and may only be applicable to GLC controlled companies but in private business it is better to practice the business way.   


Further to the high pay of ministers, these MPs are also over paid in their director’s fees.  Companies should judge the performance of these MPs like what the shareholders of WBL did to Ng.



It does make a difference whether it is a GLC or private business. It helps us to see the difference.
  

Comments

  1. Perhaps thw ousting of NSM (one-term NMP and found of TIBS [later SMRT Bus]) signals that there no smooth political career (MP level at least) of anybody in SG. And furthermore there's higher risk of "parachuting the talents" - no guarantee of securing the seats.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...