~~~~ CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ~~~~

whO  wIll  pay  fOr  the hUge  fIne ? ? ? ?

dIrectOrs  themselves ? ? ? ?

dIrectOrs  and  management  tOgether ? ? ? ?

If payment by  cOmpany  ? ? ? ?

InnOcent  sharehOlders  are  penalIsed  fOr  nOthIng  ? ? ? ?

whIle  cUlprIt[s]  gO[es]  FREE  ? ? ? ?

verY  damagIng  tO  sharehOlders  ? ? ? ? 

are  sharehOlders  at  faUlt ? ? ? ?

mOst  prObably ?

dIrectOrs  and  management  are  respOnsIble  ?

A bIgger stIck for errant telcos

Alicia Wong

alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

SINGAPORE

On Friday, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) proposed sweeping changes to the Telecommunications Act — last amended in 2005 — to ensure it “remains relevant and sufficient to regulate a fast-changing telecoms sector”.

The key proposals: Increasing the $1-million penalty cap; empowering IDA to revoke the licence of an errant telco that fail to pay its fine in time; and giving powers to the Mica Minister to direct the takeover of a licensee’s operations and assets to safeguard public interests and to order a telco to separate its operations.

Between 2001 and last year, the infocomm industry doubled its revenue from $30.7 billion to $62.7 billion — and Mica believes the existing penalty cap “may not be adequate”.

In its public consultation paper, Mica said it wants to revise the penalty cap to 10 per cent of the annual business turnover for licensable services, or $1 million, whichever is higher.

For FY2009, SingTel — the biggest player among the three telcos here - recorded almost $4.6 billion in annual turnover for its telecommunications services.

Gartner research director Foong King Yew noted that the revised cap was a “very significant and sizable increase”. “It sends a very serious message to service providers,” said the technology analyst.

Currently, an errant licensee can be taken to court if it fails to pay the penalty — a process that was “both inefficient and uneconomical, especially for small amounts”, Mica noted.

It proposes to grant IDA the power to “be able to suspend or cancel the whole or part of a licence, or to reduce the period for which a licence is to be in force, on a case-by-case basis” — should a telco fail or refuse to pay the penalty within a specified period.

Mica also wants to address the future possible scenario where services “will be carried over one or a very small number of wireline telecom networks, controlled by one or a few operators”.

In spite of its efforts to remove barriers to entry, Mica noted there have been “little investments by new entrants” to build an alternative nationwide wired network.

To ensure the continuation of a key telecom network or service, the Mica Minister would be empowered to “direct the takeover of control of a licensee’s affairs, business and property by another person”.

[nOte: aLL  three  telcOs  belOng tO gOvernment ? ? ? ?  hInt ?]

Applying only to operators controlling nationwide networks or essential infrastructure, the Minister can only exercise such powers under limited circumstances — for instance, when a network that serves the public interest is no longer commercially viable [hInt ?], and there are no reasonable substitutes.

The Minister can also order a vertically- integrated network operator to separate its businesses, subject to certain conditions.

He could act, for example, when an operator has the ability to negatively influence competition in the downstream markets [hInt ?] and separation is necessary to preserve competition and efficiency.

Mica aims to table the amendments in Parliament by early next year.— The explosion of growth in the telecommunications industry over the last five years; its increasing convergence with IT and broadcasting; and the fact that these services are concentrated in the hands of just a few players here have prompted the regulators to act.

Failure often better for success in long run: Study

This is  truly  very  TRUE!

We used to have flood  many years back, and this had led us to become 'very successful'  in flood control, and now, the flood comes back again, it is signaling that we are going to be even more successful than before to counter the flood problems.  We will soon be World Number 1  country in flood control. Even 1000 Hipoppotamus' waste cannot choke up our rivers.....

A BCA senior executive engineer had testified that there were “too many” errant farms in Kranji. The hearing will resume next month.— What happens when the authorities go after one offender but not others who run afoul of the law?

MERITOCRACY  retaIns  mIndset  and  remaIns  Imperfect ?

MEDIOCRACY  CHANGES mIndset  and  attaIns  PERFECTION ?

In  the  lOng  term ?

MEDIOCRACY  beats   MERITOCRACY  ? 

Failure often better for success in long run: Study

COLORADO

That is because they gain more knowledge from their failures than their successes and the lessons are more likely to stay with them.

Professor Vinit Desai, who led the study at the University of Colorado Denver Business School, based his research on companies and organisations that launch satellites, rockets and shuttles into space.

Prof Desai compared the flights of the space shuttles

During the 2002 Atlantis flight, a piece of insulation broke off and damaged the left solid rocket booster but did not impede the mission or the programme. There was little follow-up or investigation.Challenger was launched next and another piece of insulation broke off. This time the shuttle and its seven-person crew were destroyed.Atlantis was considered a success and the Challenger a failure.The Academy of Management Journal.

The

The disaster prompted the suspension of shuttle flights and it led to a major investigation, resulting in 29 recommended changes to prevent future calamities.

The difference came down to this: The

“Whenever you have a failure, it causes a company to search for solutions and when you search for solutions, it puts you as an executive in a different mindset, a more open mindset,” said Prof Desai.

The professor, however, does not recommend seeking out failure in order to learn. The advice is for organisations to analyse small failures and near misses to glean useful information rather than wait for major failures.

“The most significant implication of this study ... is that organisational leaders should neither ignore failures nor stigmatise those involved with them,” he concluded.

The study was published in

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH— Researchers have found that people and organisations that disastrously miss their goals perform much better in the long run.Atlantis and Challenger.

fInancIal  prOducts  ? ? ? ?

nEEd  tO  bE  ? ? ? ?

CERTIFIED  ? ? ? ?

FORTIFIED  ? ? ? ?

by  MAS  ? ? ? ?

prOtect  InvestOrs ? ? ? ?

There is a LEGISLATION for children to take CARE of PARENTS ?

MAS  is  fInancIal  GUARDIAN  ? ? ? ?

LEGILATE  for  MAS  tO  take  CARE  Of  fInancIal  InvestOrs  ? ? ? ?

whOever  aUthOrises  the  prOducts  must  Undertake  DUE  CARE  and  FULL  RESPOSIBILITY  tO  prOtect  the  INVESTORS  whOm  they  INTENDED  tO  ATTRACT  and  ATTRACTED  Or  CORNERED  ? ? ? ?

STRUCTURED  PRODUCTS

WHOLLY MAN-MADE  ? ? ? ?

SPECIFICALLY TAILORED tO ACHIEVE  CERTAIN OBJECTIVES ? ? ? ?

WHY STRUCTURE  ONLY  BAD  TAINTED  PRODUCTS  which cause  CLIENTS  TO  LOSE  THEIR  PANTS ? ? ? ?

STRUCTURE the ONLY  GOOD  PRODUCTS  with  INTEGRITY and GUARANTEE  CLIENTS with PROFITS ? ? ? ?

LEADERS ALWAYS PROMISE  WIN-WIN-WIN ? ? ? ?

WALK THE TALK  WIN-WIN-WIN ? ? ? ?

SELL ONLY ALL WIN-WIN-WIN STRUCTURED PRODUCTS ? ? ? ? 

SO  SIMPLE  ? ? ? ?

WIN-WIN-WIN

i  was approached by one of them,,,,,,,,,,the land they wanted me to buy  is  somewhere in Canada or UK (i cant remember that),  a mere S$10,000 can buy a small fraction of land.......or may be   a   small sand pitt where i can find in Sentosa..........hahaha!

cannOt  UNderstand ? ? ? ?

WHY  ? ? ? ?

STRUCTUROR[S]  nOt  JAILED  ? ? ? ?

TAINTOR[S]  nOt  HUNG  ? ? ? ?

FRAUD  INTENT  PRESENT  ? ? ? ?

TOO  POWERFUL  ? ? ? ?

UNprOsecUtable  ? ? ? ?

Structured products to be simpler

SINGAPORE

To date, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has allowed nine out of the 10 financial institutions concerned to resume selling structured products after a ban of between six months and one year. Observers say institutions will now tread carefully when offering structured products.

“You’re not going to see a very difficult-to-understand product. It will not have many layers of opacity where people can never comprehend what the underlying risks are,” said Associate Professor Annie Koh, Dean at the office of Executive and Professional Education at Singapore Management University.

She said these products may likely be structured as more equity- and currencylinked or as dual deposit and dual-currency deposit going forward.

Many investors who bought structured notes lost money when Lehman Brothers collapsed about two years ago. After the incident, financial institutions strengthened processes and improved policies.

Despite simpler products, observers said investors should not be too quick to sign up for them.

According to Mr David Gerald, president and chief executive officer of the Securities Investors Association (Singapore), investors should not assume there would be no more cases of tainted financial products in future.

“It may happen because you don’t understand the nature of the product.

In a structured product, there are many layers of complexities,” he added, citing the need for customers to ascertain their risk appetite before making their investment decisions.

— Following the Lehman Brothers minibond scandal, structured products offered in future will be simple and less sophisticated, according to industry watchers interviewed by MediaCorp.May Wong

mOst ImpOrtant FAIRNESS ELEMENTS:

1.  BAN  CAVEAT EMPTOR CLAUSE

2.  BAN  fIne  prInts  In  ALL  legal  dOcuments

3.  cOmpulsOry  CAVEAT  VENDOR  CLAUSE

4.  cOmpulsOry  VENDOR  SALE INTEGRITY  AFFIDAVIT

5.  cOmpulsOry  VENDOR  TRUTH, FALSE  and  RISK DECLARATION

6.  cOmpulsOry 100%  mOney back  GUARANTEE

The six financial institutions have publicly pledged their commitment to implement measures to deliver fair dealing outcomes to customers. These include stepping up staff training and supervision and enhancing the policies and procedures on their sales and advisory processes.

They are also taking steps to incorporate the proposals in MAS’ Consultation Paper on Regulatory Regime for Listed and Unlisted Investment Products issued in January.

MAS lifts notes ban on six institutions

Julie Quek

juliequek@mediacorp.com.sg

SINGAPORE

In a statement, the MAS said the financial institutions — CIMB Securities, DMG and Partners Securities, Kim Eng Securities, OCBC Securities, UOB Kay Hian and Phillip Securities — had made efforts to rectify their weaknesses identified in its investigation.

The six are among 10 institutions that were barred by the MAS from selling structured products in July last year amid a public outcry over losses in minibonds amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Following the Lehman fiasco in 2008, the MAS conducted a seven month investigation into the sale and marketing of investment products by financial institutions. It found specific failings by the institutions, including the failure to ensure that their financial advisory representatives were properly trained before they marketed and sold the products.

Some financial institutions had also assigned risk ratings to the products that were inconsistent with risk warnings stated in the prospectus and pricing statement, the regulator noted.

Last February, MAS lifted a similar ban on DBS Bank, Maybank and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Hong Leong Finance, which was slapped with the most severe ban of two years, has voluntarily opted out on the provision of new financial advisory services and the selling of structured products.

On the lifting of the ban, the MAS said yesterday the financial institutions had reviewed and strengthened their internal processes and procedures for the provision of financial advisory services across all investment products.

It said the appointed external parties had completed their review and were satisfied with the action plans and their implementation by the financial institutions.

“We have no immediate plans to issue structured notes but will certainly assess the market and risk appetites before we make a decision,” said Ms Carol Fong, chief executive officer of CIMB Securities, Singapore.

She added that the brokerage firm had enhanced its policies and procedures to comply with the authority’s recommendations, including documenting staff attendance at training and understanding the risk appetites of clients.

OCBC Securities also said that it had reviewed and enhanced its sales and distribution processes to strengthen its internal framework and offer the appropriate products and services to customers.

The six financial institutions have publicly pledged their commitment to implement measures to deliver fair dealing outcomes to customers. These include stepping up staff training and supervision and enhancing the policies and procedures on their sales and advisory processes.

They are also taking steps to incorporate the proposals in MAS’ Consultation Paper on Regulatory Regime for Listed and Unlisted Investment Products issued in January.

Despite the lifting of the ban, analysts said the sale of structured notes was unlikely to pick up.

Mr Wong Sui Jau, general manager at Fundsupermart.com, said: “I think investors are still a little weary. As a result, it may take a while before the demand or popularity of structured products goes back to what they were like pre-Lehman.”

However, Mr Wong expects financial institutions here to roll out new structured products in two to three years, saying such products are still an important business model for banks.

I think investors are still a little weary. As a result, it may take a while before the demand or popularity of structured products goes back to what they were like pre-Lehman.

Fundsupermart.com general manager Wong Sui Jau— The remaining six financial institutions prohibited from selling structured products following the Lehman minibond saga two years ago are now able to do so, after the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced the lifting of the ban yesterday.

‘Doing the right thing’ isn’t so simple

How should Singapore companies do business in countries where corruption is the norm?

mak yuen teen

Each year, the international non governmental organisation, Transparency International, publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures the levels of public sector corruption around the world. It also publishes a map of the world which is coloured according to the levels of corruption.

In previous years, this map was colour coded such that the darker the shade of red, the higher the level of corruption indicated.

Countries with low levels of corruption were represented by shades of yellow. The most striking thing about the map was how much of the world was in different shades of red and therefore, had relatively high levels of corruption as measured by the CPI.

The other striking thing was that Singapore was actually a little yellow dot surrounded by masses of red. On these old maps, we were not the little red dot that we are often referred to as. We were a little yellow dot — and that’s good. Last year, Singapore ranked joint third with Sweden out of 180 countries on the CPI.

It is actually quite remarkable that Singapore has managed to stay “yellow” when it is surrounded by “red” countries.

It is very easy to do what others do especially when we are so small. For this, the Government deserves credit for a low tolerance towards corruption here. Institutions such as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the Auditor-General’s Office have all contributed to ensuring that we have one of the cleanest public sectors in the world.

The level of private sector corruption here is relatively low too. However, as our government-linked companies and small-to-medium enterprises increasingly venture overseas into “red” countries, the issue they must all face is how to do business in countries where corruption is the norm.

While we may be able to continue to manage our corruption at home, the behaviour of our companies overseas can ultimately damage our reputation as being one of the cleanest countries in the world.

Over time, this may also creep into business practices in Singapore and destroy our hard-earned reputation.

At an anti-corruption conference here last year, a participant asked our Minister for Law this question: How would Singapore maintain its high standards of integrity and ethics in light of our open immigration policy?

I thought the minister’s answer was honest and perceptive. The gist of what he said was this: Singaporeans are not inherently more honest than our neighbours because we come from the same roots.

However, our strict rules against corruption and strong enforcement keep everyone honest — and will also keep our immigrants honest.As this great nation of ours turns 45 and we celebrate the progress we have made, we should do some soul searching and ask ourselves this: What will become of us in 10 or 20 years’ time?

WILLING TO BRIBE ABROAD

During the panel discussion, I asked one of the panellists the corollary to that question:

If Singaporeans are not inherently more honest and it is our strict rules and enforcement here that keep us honest, does this not mean that when our companies venture abroad and the rules and enforcement are less strict, they will pay bribes like others?

Transparency International produces another index, called the Bribe Payers Index, which measures the propensity of firms from leading export economies to bribe abroad. On this index, Singapore is ranked joint ninth out of 22 countries.

This suggests that our while our internal corruption is low, our firms appear more willing to pay bribes when they do business abroad. When we look at the masses of “red” around us, this should not surprise us.

I have spoken to a number of businessmen and I can see the constant struggles they face in trying to “do the right thing” and also trying to survive and grow the business.

One businessman talked about having to add a 10-per-cent “facilitation” fee when bidding for public sector projects in a neighbouring country. Another said that he uses third parties so that he is not directly involved in paying bribes. The anecdotal evidence supports the data that corruption in some form by our companies operating overseas is not as uncommon as we would like to believe.

There may also be differences between how our laws define corruption and what our businessmen perceive as corruption.

Take the example of companies paying the media in some countries to cover their events — a not uncommon practice in countries like China and Vietnam.

If payment is not made, the media will not cover the events. Some companies use third parties to do so, and many probably do not see this as corruption. Yet, I have been told by a senior regulator that paying the media is a form of corruption.

I think we are faced with a difficult dilemma of sustaining growth while maintaining our pristine reputation. I hope that we will look into the challenges faced by our businesses in doing the right thing and making money at the same time.

Just telling them “not to do it” may not be a helpful answer. They need to have a better understanding of how to manage corruption risks when they venture abroad because if we lose our hard-earned reputation as we regionalise and globalise, we may never get it back.

This may cause us great harm in the long term as global companies are increasingly concerned about the impact of corruption risks in overseas countries on their legal liability and reputation. It is troubling to think we might truly turn into a little red dot.

The writer is an associate professor at the NUS Business School. He serves on the boards of two large charities in Singapore and is a member of the Charity Council.