-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Dont anyhow said Temasek CEO Remuneration
- Thread starter CPTMiller
- Start date
What's the reason for keeping her salary a TOP SECRET?
not so simple lah ...let me elaborate ...if the government lose the election and oppie sits in power than one of the first thing they do is hunt for unaccounted ex ministers wealth ...exactly as Najib of malaysia going through ...how to account all that wealth on a PM salary or ministers salary ...if the wives are not working their goose is pretty much cooked but not if your Wifu earning a few millions since that millions can be accounted to have earned billions ....remember once LKY himself clainmed that he was kept man ,meaning his wify earned and brought the bread on the table..
POFMA you.
Najib story is totally difference story.
Please go read up.
Ho Ching is appointed by the board as CEO with an in house remuneration package approve by the board.
There is no doubt.
PM and Minister salary is contested at Cabinet and approved
There is no doubt.
Does your Private company boss need to tell you how much he earn or tell your family in public?So how much?
The board approve your boss salary and thats final.
That would be acceptable if real and truly Temasek is a PRIVATE COMPANY.
LOL!
Temasek manages state funds. Who owns Temasek then? PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS?
I think it says owned by Singapore.
So there's that difference.
If I am not wrong,Temasek,a private company that is wholly owned by the government,may become an exempt private company if the Minister for Finance,in the
national interest,declares it to be such by a Gazette notification. An exempt private company is not required to file accounts with the Registrar.
Yes the government can write the laws however they want.
How is a company that is WHOLLY OWNED by the government and only invests STATE FUNDS ie the money of the country ie the people's money be a 100% private entity?
If you are a shareholder of a company you should be able to know what the company is paying the CEO.
I mean even private companies like Ferrero Roche or IKEA......you think the people who own the company are not privvy to what the CEO earns?
If Temasek is owned by Singapore, then the people of Singapore have a right to know how much the CEO is paid.
This is principle.
Unless they are saying that the information would be so destructive it would affect the ability of the company to function?
Look.....if the CEO of Temasek is paid a normal industry standard wage I see no problem with that information being made public. Or if the wage is less than industry standard. In fact it would be a plus point to say Temasek is being run well and the CEO is being paid less! Value for money! Excellent!
Ho Ching should feel proud to share her Salary. What's there to lose?
Last edited:
Trust in the PAP ...just a simple request, sinkees also cannot follow?
Compliance reporting: disclosure on remuneration of directors (salary bands)
http://www.eguide.sid.org.sg/index..../practice-guidance/disclosure-on-remuneration
Disclosure on Remuneration
A company’s annual remuneration report should form part of, or be annexed to, the company’s annual report. It should be the main means through which the company reports to shareholders on all forms of remuneration and other payments and benefits, for directors and key management personnel (KMP), from itself and its subsidiaries.
Remuneration disclosures for individual directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should specify the names, amounts and breakdown of remuneration.
Remuneration disclosures for at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should specify the names, amounts and breakdown of remuneration in bands no wider than S$250,000 (refer to illustrative examples below).
A breakdown (in percentage terms) of the remuneration earned by each director, the CEO and each of at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should include base/fixed salary, variable or performance-related income/bonuses, benefits in kind, stock options granted, share-based incentives and awards, and other long-term incentives. The disclosures on employee share schemes should cover the important terms such as the potential size of grants, methodology of valuing stock options, exercise price of options that were granted as well as outstanding, whether the exercise price was at the market or otherwise on the date of grant, market price on the date of exercise, the vesting schedule, and the justifications for the terms adopted.
In addition to the disclosure in aggregate of the total remuneration paid to at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO), the aggregate amount of any termination, retirement and post-employment benefits that may be granted to directors, the CEO and at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should be separately disclosed.
For administrative convenience, the company may round off the disclosed figures to the nearest thousand dollars. The disclosure of remuneration may be in bands no wider than S$250,000 for at least top five KMPs; and no wider than S$100,000 for employees who are substantial shareholders, or are immediate family members of a director, the CEO or a substantial shareholder.
Illustrative Examples of Banding:
A company has five KMP: V, W, X, Y and Z. The KMPs’ remuneration are as follows:
V is paid S$300,000; W is paid SS300,000; X is paid S$540,000; Y is paid S$650,000; and Z is paid S$1,005,000.
Disclosure of Relationships between Remuneration, Performance and Value Creation
To facilitate better understanding of the relationships between remuneration, performance and value creation, companies should adopt and disclose the following information:
http://www.eguide.sid.org.sg/index..../practice-guidance/disclosure-on-remuneration
Disclosure on Remuneration
A company’s annual remuneration report should form part of, or be annexed to, the company’s annual report. It should be the main means through which the company reports to shareholders on all forms of remuneration and other payments and benefits, for directors and key management personnel (KMP), from itself and its subsidiaries.
Remuneration disclosures for individual directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should specify the names, amounts and breakdown of remuneration.
Remuneration disclosures for at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should specify the names, amounts and breakdown of remuneration in bands no wider than S$250,000 (refer to illustrative examples below).
A breakdown (in percentage terms) of the remuneration earned by each director, the CEO and each of at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should include base/fixed salary, variable or performance-related income/bonuses, benefits in kind, stock options granted, share-based incentives and awards, and other long-term incentives. The disclosures on employee share schemes should cover the important terms such as the potential size of grants, methodology of valuing stock options, exercise price of options that were granted as well as outstanding, whether the exercise price was at the market or otherwise on the date of grant, market price on the date of exercise, the vesting schedule, and the justifications for the terms adopted.
In addition to the disclosure in aggregate of the total remuneration paid to at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO), the aggregate amount of any termination, retirement and post-employment benefits that may be granted to directors, the CEO and at least the top five KMP (who are not directors or the CEO) should be separately disclosed.
For administrative convenience, the company may round off the disclosed figures to the nearest thousand dollars. The disclosure of remuneration may be in bands no wider than S$250,000 for at least top five KMPs; and no wider than S$100,000 for employees who are substantial shareholders, or are immediate family members of a director, the CEO or a substantial shareholder.
Illustrative Examples of Banding:
A company has five KMP: V, W, X, Y and Z. The KMPs’ remuneration are as follows:
V is paid S$300,000; W is paid SS300,000; X is paid S$540,000; Y is paid S$650,000; and Z is paid S$1,005,000.
| Applicable bands | Top 5 KMP |
| ≥S$1,000,001 – S$1,250,000 | Z |
| ≥S$500,001 – S$750,000 | X, Y |
| ≥S$250,000 – S$500,000 | V, W |
Disclosure of Relationships between Remuneration, Performance and Value Creation
To facilitate better understanding of the relationships between remuneration, performance and value creation, companies should adopt and disclose the following information:
- the company’s definition of value creation for its stakeholders (including shareholders and other material stakeholders) and how it is measured;
- the process for formulating the remuneration policies, including the governance of the process;
- the way that remuneration is designed to drive corporate performance, including a description of why the indicators chosen are relevant to the company in the context of their strategy, or their desire to create value and generate shareholder returns;
- the way that remuneration is used to manage risk (e.g. remuneration that does not generate excessive risk taking and envisages reductions to remuneration for exceeding agreed risk limits);
- the way that performance is measured, including the types of financial and non-financial metrics adopted (e.g. Earnings Per Share (EPS), Total Shareholder Returns (TSR), Return On Equity (ROE), customer metrics, operational metrics, safety metrics);
- the way that personal performance is assessed and taken into account (e.g. the way that the officers create an appropriate work culture in the company, and the contributions of such officers to succession planning, and engagement with the regulatory authorities in the relevant industries in which the company operates in);
- the breakdown of those metrics as part of variable remuneration (e.g. 80% financial metrics split across 33% EPS, 33% TSR and 33% ROE; 20% non-financial metrics split across 40% Customer Satisfaction, 40% Safety Performance and 20% Employee Engagement);
- the metrics used, and why the metrics are appropriate (e.g. EPS growth of 6% compound, TSR of top quartile, ROE of 8%, zero Lost Time Injuries, 90% On Time Performance), including whether relative performance is measured against peers;
- the periods over which performance is assessed (e.g. three year performance period), including justification for why a shorter-term performance period is used for a long-term incentive plan, in instances where this is the case;
- payouts that can be achieved for hitting or exceeding these targets (e.g. 100% payout for median performance, 150% payout for top quartile, 50% payout for 90-percentile performance);
- the form of the payout, (e.g. whether in the form of shares or cash), along with holding periods, if any, for shares;
- the breakdown in company and individual performance outcomes and actual remuneration paid, including explanations where company and/or individual performance outcomes were not achieved yet remuneration was not adjusted in line with the remuneration policy;
- where discretion can be exercised by the Board and/or Remuneration Committee in determining the relationship between remuneration, performance and value creation;
- the existence of any gateways (or negative indicators) to pay-outs (e.g. whether, if the company received a highly critical regulatory report, long term incentives would nevertheless be fully payable because of achievement of profitability metrics); and
- the existence and structure of any clawbacks for malfeasance.
If anything else...this will once again bring to the fore front the conflict of interest with the husband PM and wife CEO of Temasek.
If she had done a better job in investing, kept quiet, less vengeful, forgiving and not make stupid remarks on sensitive matters unnecessarily, the public would have been more forgiving too.
i say ,good man lah lu....know some accounting basis eh ...wkattch ye been doing moonlighting in some seedy buisnees har ?
anyway ,glad you know the differences in technicalities and the spirit of a law generally framed
the question of whether a private limited or public limited being limited to the liablities of a company from its creditors ..as simple as that ...a private limited company can be traded publicly in the share market whereas a private limited cannot do that that is the main difference
but accounts must be filed usually audited by a third party like a qualified chartered or certified accountants, so that the general public knows what is going on with the company since it involves creditors too ...a bank that lends to such companies demands such balance sheet comes every year
now ,why does the government gets into a private company thingy ? ...simply because the government cannot allow the general commercial public or even foreigners trading or getting into the management of its companies ...e.g.,if Tamasek Holdings shares are publicly traded in stock market ,and if Warren Buffett knows that this company has a perennial cash cow ,he can than buy say 30% of its shares and gain controls of the management of Temasek Holdings ..the rule of the thump is 30% minimum share holding to control public limited companies
now ,to the spirit of the such limited companies ...supposing if you operate a private companies entirely owned by your family and all your directors are refugees from Syria but you call the shots exporting arms to Afganistan ...than there are laws to put you as the director of the company and charge you
similarly ,just because the government owns a private company it cannot hides from its responsiblity of public scrutiny...even if owned privately ..e.g..if a private company borrows billions and losing money but the director pays themselves a half a billion each year ,than that must be accounted to all
so being a private company is an excuse to hide the directors remuneration is quite bull particularly if government owned since ultimate share holders are the general public
We don't own Singapore.
We choose a person representative us rule the country.
So this person or his appointed persons is the board of Temasek.
The rest has been mentioned in earlier reply.
Can we change all this .
Yes. But the representative person must be replaced first.
Is it going to happen soon.
NO
both the assumption and presumption are wrong yes ! we do own singapore ,collectively that is
we chose our representatives on vote basis as simply Trustees and not our replacement owners and most importantly they are accountable to the public at large ...simply ,put there is no blank cheque here for our voted representatives to commit treason and sell the country wholesale...even a infant knows that
can we change all this ,so you ask ? ...what if we change the entire lot and they behave worse than now ?...it's not hypothetical, it has happened and happening...take 2 parlimentarian system of governance like Singapore as an example ..Malaysia and India ..both had chage of regime overthrowing the past government for an unmitigated corruptions...but both could not govern and were leaning towards facism ,just like how the Nazis came to power through a democratic process
so,what floats the boat if changing the government itself is not enough ? ...the other pillars of democracy such as free press ,an independent judiciary and divorcing executive power from political power ...and also limiting the position of the PM to 2 terms and so on
now,the question how do we do that ?.. by bi partition politics ...in short ,there must be sufficient oppies in the parliment to question governments every move and deny a two third majority so constitution will stay intact and not changed suka suria
Last edited:
Please don't says things it not going to happen eg. Opposition numbers checking on ruling party.
No majority people are taking it seriously to question Ho Ching income.
There is only a small percentage asking and it can be handle with POFMA.
Who actually you mean own Singapore?
Is the majority interested ?
NO
I suspect it is not clean. LHL is worried Singaporeans know too much inside the dirty laundry.
Similar threads
