<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - ST cover-up for Tharman</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>teh_si <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>9:02 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 3) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>19455.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>ST edited out "it is a matter of public interest' from Tharman's reply.
==
From the first page of TODAY 19 Aug:
==
From page B6 of Straits Times 19 Aug "Goodyear's departure not due to shared values":
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I'm simply asking information of Temasek: What is the strategic difference, and when (did) it emerge? I'm not asking the Government to intrude.
Mr Tharman: The board together with Mr Goodyear issued a carefully crafted statement. Both sides agreed on the statement. I do not think it's advisable for the Government to comment further on the matter and add grist to the mill. People do want to know. There's curiosity. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest.
This applies to private sector organisations, listed companies. Sometimes they disclose the reasons, sometimes they don't. It depends on the circumstances of departure. Is it mutual, amicable, is there an understanding between the parties as to what should be kept private and what should be made public?
It will not be advisable, nor in the interest of Temasek or Mr Goodyear, for us to comment further. It serves no strategic purpose. I understand the interest but it serves no strategic purpose.
<HR SIZE=1>Edited 8/19/2009 12:10 pm by teh_si</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
==
From the first page of TODAY 19 Aug:
“People do want to know, there is curiosity; it is a matter of public interest. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information,” said Mr Shanmugaratnam...
[URL="http://imcms2.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileserver/documents/006/pdf/20090819/1908FPG001.pdf"]http://imcms2.mediacorp.sg/CMSFileserver/documents/006/pdf/20090819/1908FPG001.pdf[/URL]==
From page B6 of Straits Times 19 Aug "Goodyear's departure not due to shared values":
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I'm simply asking information of Temasek: What is the strategic difference, and when (did) it emerge? I'm not asking the Government to intrude.
Mr Tharman: The board together with Mr Goodyear issued a carefully crafted statement. Both sides agreed on the statement. I do not think it's advisable for the Government to comment further on the matter and add grist to the mill. People do want to know. There's curiosity. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest.
This applies to private sector organisations, listed companies. Sometimes they disclose the reasons, sometimes they don't. It depends on the circumstances of departure. Is it mutual, amicable, is there an understanding between the parties as to what should be kept private and what should be made public?
It will not be advisable, nor in the interest of Temasek or Mr Goodyear, for us to comment further. It serves no strategic purpose. I understand the interest but it serves no strategic purpose.
<HR SIZE=1>Edited 8/19/2009 12:10 pm by teh_si</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
