whistle blowers
I found this article in the Straits Times to be most interesting. I totally am in support of whistle blowers. You hear something going wrong in the company, you should be able to report it and have protection under areas. Similiar to the witness protection program. Not many people would testify against top drug/crime lords if all the police and courts did was say "great, you testified and put a crime lord in jail for 2 years, thanks for your help. Now, go home and rest easy knowing he is behind bars" when you know full well the gang is still out there with a vengence for you and might come after your friends, family or you.
Then of course my conspiracy mind goes rampant, being as I was not raised in Singapore with the unconditional love and respect for the PAP as Singaporeans are raised to have since I was raised in Canada where we know that our political leaders are human and not demi-gods sent to Earth to show us the way to everlasting prosperity, and I wonder if the PAP or country wide gov't run corporations have such governance and if someone knew would they actually tell? Now, of course, I have to make some wild, far distant accusations and connections and, as LKY loves to say, "compare apples to oranges". I remember reading in a book about Singapore's political past where I believe JBJ was being sued for defamation against the Lee's (like always) and one judge actually found in favor of JBJ, and within I believe 4 months that judge found himself demoted down to a lower position due to 'internal transition'. Of course when JBJ called for minutes of that meeting to find out why the judge was demoted, it took a few weeks to produce said documents and witnesses, JBJ was sued again for defamation of that statement and lost the battle against LKY. So, if a judge, seeing some form of behind the scenes dealings, has some evidence of the said dealing, would he be protected if he came forward and actually slammed the PAP? would a judge, being on the receiving end ("you call cases in favor of the PAP supporters, you keep your job") of the slight favoritism be willing to actually say something and lose the perks? Not as if someone that has made it to a high paying position as judge (with the respect and money it holds) actually want to bite the hand that feeds them.
But then again, I must bow down to the evidence that Singapore gov't has total transparency because:
1) LKY and the PAP says that there is total transparency;
2) there has been no actual proof of gov't run political people being caught in scandals (I am sure NKF scandal, Youth Challenge scandal and Temasek Holdings in Thailand were either the opposition party's attempts to slander the good name of the existing Singapore gov't, or the perpetrators were rogue business-people with no connection to the PAP whatsoever that really havent grasped the Singaporean gov't philosophy of equality, fairness and transparency)
3) the price to build and sell the HDB units are on public record for all Singaporeans to see to show that it truely is housing for the good of the people (you just can't read about the price and all because the evil opposition party keeps such information from the public, again in an attempt to sully the good name of the PAP because the PAP is transparent, the opposition parties are liars, cheats and theives as the Lee's often say).
With this logic of transparency, obviously the Singaporean gov't obviously has the whistle-blowing policy in place and it just doesnt happen because there is no wrongdoing in the Singaporean gov't circle. Though, with the whistle-blowing policy in the PAP, it does lead the question of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who will guard the guards?). Sort of like a snake eating it's own tail, wouldnt you say? The gov't creates a board of people to watch out and protect whistle-blowers and bring companies with wrongdoings and white collar crime to the public eye and justice BUT what happens if the white collar crime is commited by those people that put the committee into power? Though I am sure that if the judges can stand up and be totally unbiased in relation to cases heard before them involving the PAP; if Ministers can hold jobs as top CEOs or managers in big business or spouces of top politicians can hold those positions as well and not show bias to laws or things that they have the power to pass legislation on, then obviously the committee can not show bias when having to deal with any problems that arise in the gov't.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_167072.html
Whistle-blowing policy: 36% of listed firms practise it now
This compares with 5% in 2005, disclosure practices screening finds
By Lee Su Shyan, Assistant Money Editor
MORE WHISTLE-BLOWING: An encouraging sign is that more companies are disclosing their process for finding, nominating and selecting new directors - another of the code's proposals.
SINGAPORE companies used to be wary of the whole idea of whistle- blowing but striking numbers of them have recently put policies in place to support staff exposing wrongdoing.
Just over a third - 36 per cent - of all listed companies now have such policies compared with just 5 per cent in 2005.
The new attitude towards whistle- blowing was highlighted during a screening of disclosure practices.
It was part of the selection process for companies vying for the recent Singapore Corporate Governance Awards organised by the Securities Investors Association of Singapore (Sias).
Keppel Corp came in tops.
Whistle-blowing had become a hot topic after the bankruptcy of United States energy trader Enron. Corporate scandals in Singapore such as those involving Citiraya Industries led to questions about whether whistle-blowing policies would help in the detection of white-collar crime.
Singapore's updated code of corporate governance, which is voluntary, includes a call for listed companies to set up a whistle-blowing policy.
This gives employees who want to report on wrongdoing a channel to make their claims. An independent director should also follow up on the claims.
Another encouraging trend is that more companies are disclosing their process for finding, nominating and selecting new directors - another of the code's proposals.
About 20 per cent of firms gave details, up from 4 per cent in the previous year.
This suggests that more companies are giving more thought to how the new directors will contribute to the board, instead of just picking familiar faces.
A committee including Sias and the National University of Singapore's Corporate Governance & Financial Reporting Centre examined the annual reports of companies for the year ended May 31, 2006 up to those with the financial year ended April 30 this year.
Companies were assessed using a scorecard which covers the code and its recommendations and how the annual report measures up.
For example, the code says that the chairman should be independent. If the annual report discloses that a company's chairman is independent, the company will score one point.
There were 115 points up for grabs.
After companies were shortlisted, a judging panel then performed a more in-depth assessment to identify the eventual winners.
Associate Professor Mak Yuen Teen from the centre said: 'We take the perspective of an investor looking at what the company has reported. If a company is unclear, it would be unclear to the investors.'
Many companies lost points because they merely stated the terms of reference of their various board committees instead of saying if the committees met those terms.
A company might, for example, have said that its nominating committee, which assesses potential new directors, is supposed to conduct an annual check to see if their directors are independent. But it is not clear if the committee did the check that year.
No points would be awarded in this case.
The top 25 per cent had scores that ranged from as low as 65 to as high as 93.
Not surprisingly, companies such as Keppel Corp and SMRT were in the top 25 per cent. But there were also less well-known ones such as Youcan Foods and Sinopipe.
Surprisingly, falling into the next band were companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Group Holdings. According to the committee, one reason could be that these companies did not give many details of how their directors were appraised.
Prof Mak said that the scores were only a preliminary check as 'disclosure is not the same as good governance. However, we believe that disclosure is necessary for investors to understand how a company practises governance'.
Organisations supporting the Singapore Corporate Governance Awards include The Business Times, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Then of course my conspiracy mind goes rampant, being as I was not raised in Singapore with the unconditional love and respect for the PAP as Singaporeans are raised to have since I was raised in Canada where we know that our political leaders are human and not demi-gods sent to Earth to show us the way to everlasting prosperity, and I wonder if the PAP or country wide gov't run corporations have such governance and if someone knew would they actually tell? Now, of course, I have to make some wild, far distant accusations and connections and, as LKY loves to say, "compare apples to oranges". I remember reading in a book about Singapore's political past where I believe JBJ was being sued for defamation against the Lee's (like always) and one judge actually found in favor of JBJ, and within I believe 4 months that judge found himself demoted down to a lower position due to 'internal transition'. Of course when JBJ called for minutes of that meeting to find out why the judge was demoted, it took a few weeks to produce said documents and witnesses, JBJ was sued again for defamation of that statement and lost the battle against LKY. So, if a judge, seeing some form of behind the scenes dealings, has some evidence of the said dealing, would he be protected if he came forward and actually slammed the PAP? would a judge, being on the receiving end ("you call cases in favor of the PAP supporters, you keep your job") of the slight favoritism be willing to actually say something and lose the perks? Not as if someone that has made it to a high paying position as judge (with the respect and money it holds) actually want to bite the hand that feeds them.
But then again, I must bow down to the evidence that Singapore gov't has total transparency because:
1) LKY and the PAP says that there is total transparency;
2) there has been no actual proof of gov't run political people being caught in scandals (I am sure NKF scandal, Youth Challenge scandal and Temasek Holdings in Thailand were either the opposition party's attempts to slander the good name of the existing Singapore gov't, or the perpetrators were rogue business-people with no connection to the PAP whatsoever that really havent grasped the Singaporean gov't philosophy of equality, fairness and transparency)
3) the price to build and sell the HDB units are on public record for all Singaporeans to see to show that it truely is housing for the good of the people (you just can't read about the price and all because the evil opposition party keeps such information from the public, again in an attempt to sully the good name of the PAP because the PAP is transparent, the opposition parties are liars, cheats and theives as the Lee's often say).
With this logic of transparency, obviously the Singaporean gov't obviously has the whistle-blowing policy in place and it just doesnt happen because there is no wrongdoing in the Singaporean gov't circle. Though, with the whistle-blowing policy in the PAP, it does lead the question of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who will guard the guards?). Sort of like a snake eating it's own tail, wouldnt you say? The gov't creates a board of people to watch out and protect whistle-blowers and bring companies with wrongdoings and white collar crime to the public eye and justice BUT what happens if the white collar crime is commited by those people that put the committee into power? Though I am sure that if the judges can stand up and be totally unbiased in relation to cases heard before them involving the PAP; if Ministers can hold jobs as top CEOs or managers in big business or spouces of top politicians can hold those positions as well and not show bias to laws or things that they have the power to pass legislation on, then obviously the committee can not show bias when having to deal with any problems that arise in the gov't.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_167072.html
Whistle-blowing policy: 36% of listed firms practise it now
This compares with 5% in 2005, disclosure practices screening finds
By Lee Su Shyan, Assistant Money Editor
MORE WHISTLE-BLOWING: An encouraging sign is that more companies are disclosing their process for finding, nominating and selecting new directors - another of the code's proposals.
SINGAPORE companies used to be wary of the whole idea of whistle- blowing but striking numbers of them have recently put policies in place to support staff exposing wrongdoing.
Just over a third - 36 per cent - of all listed companies now have such policies compared with just 5 per cent in 2005.
The new attitude towards whistle- blowing was highlighted during a screening of disclosure practices.
It was part of the selection process for companies vying for the recent Singapore Corporate Governance Awards organised by the Securities Investors Association of Singapore (Sias).
Keppel Corp came in tops.
Whistle-blowing had become a hot topic after the bankruptcy of United States energy trader Enron. Corporate scandals in Singapore such as those involving Citiraya Industries led to questions about whether whistle-blowing policies would help in the detection of white-collar crime.
Singapore's updated code of corporate governance, which is voluntary, includes a call for listed companies to set up a whistle-blowing policy.
This gives employees who want to report on wrongdoing a channel to make their claims. An independent director should also follow up on the claims.
Another encouraging trend is that more companies are disclosing their process for finding, nominating and selecting new directors - another of the code's proposals.
About 20 per cent of firms gave details, up from 4 per cent in the previous year.
This suggests that more companies are giving more thought to how the new directors will contribute to the board, instead of just picking familiar faces.
A committee including Sias and the National University of Singapore's Corporate Governance & Financial Reporting Centre examined the annual reports of companies for the year ended May 31, 2006 up to those with the financial year ended April 30 this year.
Companies were assessed using a scorecard which covers the code and its recommendations and how the annual report measures up.
For example, the code says that the chairman should be independent. If the annual report discloses that a company's chairman is independent, the company will score one point.
There were 115 points up for grabs.
After companies were shortlisted, a judging panel then performed a more in-depth assessment to identify the eventual winners.
Associate Professor Mak Yuen Teen from the centre said: 'We take the perspective of an investor looking at what the company has reported. If a company is unclear, it would be unclear to the investors.'
Many companies lost points because they merely stated the terms of reference of their various board committees instead of saying if the committees met those terms.
A company might, for example, have said that its nominating committee, which assesses potential new directors, is supposed to conduct an annual check to see if their directors are independent. But it is not clear if the committee did the check that year.
No points would be awarded in this case.
The top 25 per cent had scores that ranged from as low as 65 to as high as 93.
Not surprisingly, companies such as Keppel Corp and SMRT were in the top 25 per cent. But there were also less well-known ones such as Youcan Foods and Sinopipe.
Surprisingly, falling into the next band were companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Group Holdings. According to the committee, one reason could be that these companies did not give many details of how their directors were appraised.
Prof Mak said that the scores were only a preliminary check as 'disclosure is not the same as good governance. However, we believe that disclosure is necessary for investors to understand how a company practises governance'.
Organisations supporting the Singapore Corporate Governance Awards include The Business Times, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 7:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home