Mr Pek Beng Choon, Director(Budget), Ministry of Finance, in his letter "No need for separate staff for President", (ST Jun 2), claimed that the Auditor-General "audits" the accounts of GIC.

Yet in his Ministerial statement in Parliament on May 16, DPM BG Lee Hsien Loong, who is also MAS Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of GIC said "The accounts of the GIC are checked by the Accountant-General, Auditor-General and examined by the Council of Presidential Advisers." (Business Times, May 17).

The difference between the term 'audit' and 'check' is very significant in accounting terms. I do not for one moment believe that either SM Lee, see below, BG Lee or Mr Pek had problem in distinguishing such differences in meaning.

Even then BG Lee's statement that the accounts of GIC, inter alia, are "examined" by the Council of Advisers is slightly different from that stated by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the Chairman of GIC, who said in his interview with the Asian Wall Street Journal, and as reported in the Business Times (April 24), that "GIC's accounts are checked by the Accountant General, Auditor-General and the Council of Presidential Advisers.

Could the relevant authority elaborate on why there are such discrepancies and which is the official and correct version?

As for BG Lee's statement that the GIC maintains secrecy to make it more difficult for "would-be speculators to assess their chances and plan their attacks", I would like to say that the nature of the hedge fund industry, which had been blamed for speculative attacks on currencies in the past, has changed.

The world's biggest hedge fund, Tiger, has been voluntarily wound up. Soros's Quantum Fund, the second biggest fund, has changed tack.

In any case, speculative attack on currencies is not a one-way bet, as demonstrated by the Hong Kong Government making a huge profit at the expense of the international speculators during the height of the Asian financial crisis. Even our own MAS, then under the Chairmanship of Dr Goh Keng Swee, had dealt such speculators a bloody nose when they had targeted the Singapore dollar during the recession in the mid-1980's.

As for the possibility of speculative attacks, it is ultimately the economic fundamentals of the country that will determine the value of our currency. Events in the past, such as the recent false claim of achievements by the Chief Operating Officer and a founder partner of a Singapore Technologies telemedia company shows that the unexpected can happen. (It is significant in this case that the fraud is discovered by the Business Times and not by the company, the parent company, nor his peers.)

If I am not mistaken, in a Parliamentary democracy system as practiced in Singapore, Parliament is supreme. I therefore find it odd that the GIC is not accountable to Parliament.

Bin Hee Heng

18 Jun 2001

Mr Yeong Ah Seng
Forum Editor
The Straits Times
390 Kim Seng Road
Singapore BY E-MAIL: yeong@sph.com.sg

Dear Mr Yeong

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF SINGAPORE

I sent an e-mail letter on the above subject last Thursday evening but so far I have not seen it published in the Straits Times.

I've checked with your Forum desk telephone number 7305454 and the lady answering the call, Laura had confirmed receipt of my letter. I am however surprised that it has still not been considered for publication.

I've complied with your requirements for publishing the letter: I've given my name, address and telephone contact number. Beside you should be familiar with my identity, as you have selected some of my letters for publication in the past.

I've also made it as concise as possible to reduce the need for editing to meet the demand for space to a minimum. (In fact I could elaborate more in the said letter if you could spare me the space.)

My letter is of general national interest and is based on information available to the public. It is neither libellous nor defamatory in any way.

I hope you would publish my letter for the reason just given.

If you choose not to publish it, please let me know the reason. I am fully aware that it is your perogative whether to publish my letter or not wihtout assigning the reason.

For you convenience I am re-sending my original letter on the subject.

Sincerely,