Singapore's Temasek sold Barclays stake-sources

UPDATE 2-Singapore's Temasek sold Barclays stake-sources

Wed Jun 3, 2009 10:01am EDT

* Near 2 pct Barclays stake sold in Dec/Jan -sources

* Temasek likely to have lost over 800 mln stg on investment

* Barclays shares down 5 pct as European banks fall

(Adds details)

By Steve Slater and Saeed Azhar

LONDON/SINGAPORE, June 3 (Reuters) - Singapore state investor Temasek [TEM.UL] sold its stake in British bank Barclays Plc (BARC.L) several months ago at a big loss, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

After spending over 1 billion pounds ($1.7 billion) on shares in Britain's second-biggest bank in the last two years, unlisted Temasek may have lost over 800 million pounds on the investment, according to calculations by Reuters.

Temasek's loss is in sharp contrast to Abu Dhabi which sold more than 11 percent of the bank's shares on Tuesday, making a $2.5 billion profit in just seven months. [ID:nL2185843]

Temasek sold its near 2 percent stake in December and January, two of the sources said. The sources asked not to be named due to the confidential nature of the investment.

"It's true that they sold in December/January," a person familiar with the deal told Reuters.

It is further evidence that Temasek is shifting away from banks, after it lost about $3 billion on an ill-timed investment in Merrill Lynch.

The fund's incoming CEO Charles Goodyear may cut its large holdings in banks to allocate money to energy and consumer sectors, analysts at Nomura said on Tuesday. [ID:nSIN472073]

By 1357 GMT Barclays shares were down 4.4 percent at 261.5 pence. The European bank sector .SX7P was down 2.4 percent.

Tuesday's placing of shares worth 3.5 billion pounds at 265p each had sated demand among investors and raised concern Abu Dhabi's sale marked the top of the recent rally, dealers said.

Investors are also expected to get the option to buy plenty more stock in the coming months as banks replenish capital or investors cash in on the strong recent run.

U.S. lenders Morgan Stanley (MS.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and American Express (AXP.N) have all said this week they plan to sell shares. [ID:nN02496921]

BANK EXIT

Temasek and Barclays declined to comment, and details of the price it sold at were not known.

Temasek paid 975 million pounds buying Barclays shares at 720 pence apiece in July 2007. It pledged to spend up to 200 million pounds last July to buy more shares at 282p each as part of bigger fundraising, but it never disclosed how many it bought. It would have spent about 90 million pounds to maintain its holding at around 2 percent, giving it 167 million shares. [ID:nL21007909]

Only investors with more than 3 percent need to disclose changes in their holdings.

Barclays shares traded between 136p and 167.8p in December and between 47.3p and 190.6p in January, when the shares crashed to a 24-year low on fears Britain's government would need to inject funds to boost its capital. The weighted average for the shares was 148p in December and 105p in January.

Based on the average of those prices, Temasek would have lost about 850 million pounds ($1.4 billion) on its investment.

Barclays shares have soared more than five-fold from its January low after Britain's regulator said its capital was adequate and business and sentiment across the sector improved.

Temasek owns stakes in a number of financial firms, and losses in several of them last year hit the value of its portfolio.

It invested over $5 billion in Merrill Lynch in late 2007 and took a hit of at least $3 billion when it sold its stake in Merrill's new parent Bank of America (BAC.N) in the first quarter. [ID:nSP484090].

It still holds large stakes in banks such as DBS (DBSM.SI), Standard Chartered (STAN.L) and India's ICICI (ICBK.BO).

(Editing by Erica Billingham and David Cowell)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30346.3

Mutual respect key to peace in pluralistic society

Mutual respect key to peace in pluralistic society

I REFER to Monday's letter by Dr Thio Su Mien, "Militant religionism? It's family values", in which she states that my letter - "Militant religionism the real threat to social harmony" last Saturday - "incites anti-religious hostility, threatening social disharmony".

This is a serious allegation.

First and foremost, let me state that I have nothing against Christianity or Christian values. I am a committed Christian who went through a few years of full-time theological education to secure a Master of Divinity. A fair-minded reader should notice that nothing in my letter was written against Christianity or any religion. I specifically mentioned that "militant Christians" are only a minority among the broader Christian community and therefore, I am not criticising the Christian community as a whole.

My letter also did not demonise Christian values and mainstream values. It was targeted not at religions in general but at "militant religionism", which refers to a type of religious position that does not respect the freedom of others to have the space to speak out and live out their different moral values in our pluralistic society.

Let us all adopt an attitude of mutual respect and mutual understanding because these are important ingredients for peace and harmony in our pluralistic society and secular state.

John Hui Yip Khiong

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.570

The case of PoThePanda – Update

The case of PoThePanda – Update

This morning was PoThePanda Gary Tan Yeong Hong’s scheduled trial.

I was ill and on medical leave. As the case was a pro bono matter, Gary bravely offered to do the trial himself. We then readied ourselves for a discharge application to be made at Court this morning.

I arrived in Court to find out that the DPP John Loo had instructions to apply for Gary to be remanded in the IMH for 3 weeks on the basis that he is delusional in his blog postings and that he had been allegedly remanded in IMH before in 2006.

The DPP and myself met the Judge in Chambers and the above was intimated to the Judge. I requested for the documentary proof so that i could take my client’s instructions.

Outside chambers i was shown a faxed letter of 2nd June 2009 [yes today] from Bedok Police Division to the IMH asking for tracing of Gary. The reply from IMH was a handwritten endorsement and fax back of the police letter stating that Gary was “traced, admitted in 2006″.

I verified with Gary that the police had on a previous occasion put him into IMH for an examination but he was cleared of any mental illness. He does not recall that to be in 2006 as he is unable to recall exactly when it occurred.

Together with this information the DPP and myself met the Judge in Chambers. We told the Judge the current position.

DJ Soh Tze Bian recorded in the file that the accused admitted to being admitted to IMH before. I clarified to the DJ that my client instructs that upon that examination he was cleared by IMH to be not suffering from any mental illness.

I asked that the trial be allowed to proceed as Gary was ready to take on the charges even if i was supposed to be discharged. DPP insisted that this was not possible as Gary’s fitness to plead was suspect. I clarified that I cannot proceed to discharge myself given the latest development and I asked for an adjournment to prepare for the DPP’s remand application under Section 308 CPC given the short notice of the application.

The District Judge stood the matter down to 230pm.

Gary and I arrived in Court at about 238pm. There had been a bad jam at Havelock Square. I found out from the DPP that there was no further documentary proof of his admission to IMH we then proceeded to meet the Judge in chambers.

Inside chambers, I informed the Court of Gary’s instructions for me to challenge the Remand application. I had prepared for the remand application throughout the time for lunch [Gary now owes me a big and expensive lunch]. The DPP was minded to proceed to ask for the remand order forthwith. As i had asked for the IMH’s report, the District Judge was minded to adjourn the hearing of the application until the IMH report was made available to both parties. According to the DPP, it was only after the remand application was dealt with and the would be remand allowed to run its course and with the consequent report from the Medical Superintendent would Gary’s fitness to plead for the case be clear. It was only then that the trial could be proceeded with proper.

The topic of discussion then went towards the possibility of the matter getting resolved in a less wasteful manner. Whether or not Gary could consider making representations to the AGC for the charges to be reduced so that he could plead guilty to an acceptable charge and the need to send him to IMH be dispensed with. The DPP at first instance seemed insistent that the remand application had to be made to ensure that Gary was assessed to be fit to plead. District Judge Soh Tze Bian was more decisive, to avoid the convoluted course the matter was now currently on track to take, his Honour stated that if Gary makes the representations and pleads guilty to the offences, there would be no need at all to do whatever remand at IMH. Furthermore the nature of the charge does not necessarily warrant a jail term and that further should not end up with a trial and what remand application.

The indication was that if Gary were to plead guilty he would most probably be let off with a fine. Unless Gary still insisted on a trial then he would need to have his fitness to plead assessed.

I took the opportunity to check with Gary and persuade him and I managed to get him to agree to make representations. This was then intimated to the Judge and the DPP.

The District Judge then gave the following directions: Defence Counsel to make representations to the AGC 2 weeks from today i.e. 17th June 2009. The AGC to reply by 26th June 2009 and to obtain the 2006 IMH report and submit to the Court and Defence Counsel as soon as it is available. PTC is fixed for 30th June 2009 at 230pm. Bail is extended.

The DPP then informed the court that the latest information from the IMH is that Gary had self-admitted himself into the IMH on 29th November 2006 and he was discharged on 1st December 2006. Gary failed to follow up on the treatment prescribed for him. Interestingly the DPP insisted that Gary was never arrested before by the Police. There was no record that the Police arrested him and took him to the IMH.

This case reminds me strongly of another case which i dealt with in the past. The manner in which sometimes such admissions into IMH are processed leaves much to be desired. From experience, there is indeed arbitrariness by the Police and the IMH in dealing with persons brought in for assessment at the IMH and the level of professionalism and transparency leaves much to be desired.

This makes me more keen to look into Gary’s admission into IMH and also my other client’s case.

http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/the-case-of-pothepanda-update/

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30184.4