My blog post on my recent visit to the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament was initially written with the intention of telling people that they should take the time off to watch Parliamentary debates in person, rather than rely on media reports on what happened within the chambers.
Interestingly I touched on a topic that many Singaporeans were concerned with, which was at the same time not found to be reported in any mainstream media, thereby proving my point that it is better to be there.
After my reporting, I was also very keenly watching the Singapore Parliament Report (or commonly known as Hansard reports) to see how the episode I witnessed will be recorded. I used a search term of ‘GIC’ and looked at the report dated 2009-02-10, under HEAD M – MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
Here’s an extract of what I see:
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the impact of the current turmoil was to reduce the overall portfolio value of Temasek by about 31%, if I heard her correctly. Can she also tell us by how much the GIC overall portfolio has been reduced in the percentage terms, because I did not quite hear that.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I have given that reply to a previous parliamentary question, that GIC has actually registered a significantly lower reduction in value than the World Equity Index which I believe was 41% – let me just clarify that it is actually in the Hansard*.
*Vol. 85, 4th February 2009.
The Chairman: You want to clarify it some other time, Mrs Lim?
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Yes.
Hmmm… it is definitely not what I witnessed. I am still pretty sure that to the person watching the debate that day, the answer from Mrs Lim Hwee Hua with the 41% figure was NOT referring the World Equity Index. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua’s reply was not so fluent and I remember her sentence structure to be more broken, since she was looking for words to answer Ms Sylvia Lim’s question.
I did a little more digging around and looked for the Vol. 85 Hansard report and the following is the relevant section:
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government’s mandate for GIC is to achieve a reasonable rate of return above global inflation, over a long-term horizon. In the last 20 years to March 2008, the average annual rate of return of the portfolio was 5.8% in Singapore dollar terms. This was 4.5% above global inflation. This data and more information can actually be found in the GIC Report published in September 2008.
GIC has performed well over the long-term, in accordance with its mandate. In the current financial meltdown, GIC’s investments have lost value, just like any other institutional investors. The overall value has, however, fallen by much less than the decline in global equity markets of 42% for 2008, mitigated by GIC’s decision early in the crisis to reduce its equity market exposures, and its portfolio diversification strategy. Further, GIC takes a long-term approach to investment management, which enables it to ride through the cycles, including the current severe downcycle. It is difficult to make meaningful direct comparisons between the performance of GIC and other institutional investors as the investment horizons, objectives and parameters vary widely.
So the number for decline in global equity markets for 2008 is 42%.
A look at the report for 2009-02-10, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua actually re-stated the 42% figure earlier in the same session.
With regard to how the portfolio as a whole has performed, like what I had mentioned in a reply to another Parliamentary Question last week, while GIC’s investments have diminished in value just like any other institutional investors’, it has fallen by much less than the decline in global equity markets indices of 42% for 2008.
If Mrs Lim Hwee Hua had intended to deflect’s Ms Sylvia Lim’s question by giving the same textbook answer given earlier, then it is strange that a Senior Minister of State can forget so quickly a figure that she rattled off earlier in the day (off a written speech) and make a mistake of quoting a different (albeit near) figure of 41%.
In any case, I think I have also said it in one of the replies to comments to my blog, the 41% figure was something that seemed to be plugged out of thin air, but it is definitely obvious to the observer that Mrs Lim Hwee Hua was seemingly trying to grapple with the pointed question from Ms Sylvia Lim, and almost gave away the ‘big national secret’.
Enough of whether GIC loss 41%, or it was just a slip of the tongue of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. The more important thing this episode has taught me is another thing – that the Hansard reports, contrary to popular belief, are not verbatim. This means that the Hansard reports do not necessarily contain word-for-word of what is being said in the Parliament. I did a quick check on the history of Hansard reports, and found that in the parliaments around the world where Hansard reports are kept, it is always stated that it is a near-verbatim record. Meaning, it is as close to verbatim as possible, but never word-for-word.
Looking at the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Singapore, we can also see the section under Official Reports:
29. − (1) An official report of all speeches made in the Chamber and debates on a Bill in Select Committee which shall be as nearly as possible verbatim, shall be prepared in such form as the Speaker may direct.
(2) A first copy of the report shall be sent to each Member as soon as practicable after the conclusion of each sitting. This first copy of the report shall be exclusively for the use of Members in relation to the business of Parliament conducted in the Chamber or in the Select Committee as the case may be, and subject thereto, shall not be for publication.
(3) If no Member in writing addressed to the Chief Reporter and Editor seeks to make any change in the report within seventy-two hours from the time when the first copy of the report was despatched to each Member, the report shall be published without correction.
(4) Any dispute as to the correctness of the report of any speech contained in the first copy of the report and any request for any material change in the report shall be referred to the Speaker who shall rule thereon and shall direct publication of the speech in accordance with his ruling which shall not be called in question.
In other words, it is confirmed that the Singapore Hansard is also near-verbatim, but not verbatim. Also, according to 29(4), the Speaker has the last say in what is published in the Singapore Hansard.
I checked the ChannelNewsAsia videos of the budget debate, but could not find the portion of the debate. I checked a few other day’s vidoes, and realised that although there are many videos of the Parliament debates available, the videos don’t cover every minute of the debates. Now I start to wonder whether the $110 of TV and Radio license should be used in financing the TV stations to ensure that Singaporeans can view every minute of the Parliament debates, rather than sponsor shows like Little Nonya (which I enjoy, but does not really fall under the category of a public broadcasting programme).
So now with the publication of the Hansard and no video from our TV and Radio License funded public broadcasting programmes to back up my narrative of what happened in Parliament on 10 Feb 2009, it is up to you, my readers, to discern whether I was speaking the truth, or I am just another (not faceless, not pseudonym wielding) blogger that spews half-truths or un-truths.