10 ways of doing without FDI

A Question of Business
By P. GUNASEGARAM

A STIR of sorts has been caused by the story that foreign direct investment (FDI) into the country for 2009 fell 81% to US$1.4bil (about RM4.5bil) from US$7.3bil (RM24bil).

But really it should not. If we want higher value-added, then labour-intensive industries are not our target. This is the area which many foreign investors like because they can get tremendous cost savings by using cheap labour in places like China, Vietnam etc.

If greater value-added is what we are after, then increasingly more investments have to be made in the services area – think tourism or education for instance. That does not necessarily need foreign investment – we can use local money.

We have plenty of money in Malaysia – as much as RM250bil at last count. That’s roughly the excess of deposits over loans sitting with the banks throughout the country.

All that money and nowhere to go within the country, is our problem. The money is not chasing investments in the country. And that can mean only one thing – there is a lack of opportunity here.

The question then is what is it that is reducing business opportunities in Malaysia? Is there too much red tape? Are approvals not forthcoming? Are there too many equity strictures? Do we have sufficient workers?

FDI flows in any particular year into Malaysia pales in comparison to the amount of idle money in the system. What we have to do is to find ways to use that and we will more than mitigate the effects of reduced FDI. Here are 10 ways we can do that.

1) Shift from manufacturing to services. This is inevitable if you want to move towards higher income. Our manufacturing is low value-added. Much of it is low-end assembly. Things like tourism and education offer so much more opportunities and are already large contributors to foreign exchange savings;

2) Reduce export dependence. Old habits die hard and we must realise that we cannot continue to export ourselves out of trouble all the time. What we must do is create a market for ourselves right here. Get our consumers, who seem to have a lot of money, to spend – think restaurants, entertainment, lifestyle etc;

3) Identify and target the high growth areas. Old-style low-cost manufacturing is out. We need to identify some areas for good growth in the future and focus on this. We could easily become a quality education hub for the region for instance and benefit ourselves in the process. We could set aside areas for international universities to be set up;

4) Make incentives the same for both domestic and foreign investors. The days of giving more incentives, latitude and preference to foreign investors must end once and for all and the playing field levelled. In fact, greater encouragement and incentives must be given for the development of local enterprises based on the simple premise that we must help ourselves more;

5) Cut tariffs and taxes. Tariffs are non-competitive and cutting them increases competitiveness of all industries as they are able to source supplies and services which are the cheapest and of the best quality. Cutting taxes provides incentives for making money. Our taxes are still relatively high;

6) Do away with equity targets altogether. With bumiputra equity targets probably already met if we measure using the right techniques, there is no need to force non-bumiputra industries to continue to enter Ali Baba-style partnerships to do this, a highly inefficient process that benefits very few bumiputras in any case;

7) Cut red tape. For all the lip service made to cutting red tape over the years, this is still very much with us. As long as officialdom puts all kinds of barriers in the way of genuine enterprise, expect enterprise to be hobbled;

8) Do away with yearly renewal of licences. If you already have a licence, why renew it yearly? Why can’t it be given to you indefinitely unless you flout licence requirements? Doing away with licence approvals on a yearly basis helps cut bureaucracy;

9) Improve educational standards. We can’t emphasise this enough and the steady decline in educational standards both at schools and universities has not, so far, elicited a strong enough response from the Government which will stop the slide; and

10) Cut corruption. This insidious, widespread problem is eventually the cause for much bottleneck, inefficiency, higher costs and a downright hindrance to improving productivity at all levels. It’s incredible how little we have done to stop this scourge.

Yes, FDI has dropped and it may continue to drop. But really, that’s not the end of the world. Anyway, it’s high time we reduced dependence on FDI and did something to pump up domestic investment instead. And there are many more imaginative ways to do that.

·Managing editor P. Gunasegaram is amazed that some foreign companies are taxed by their home countries for the taxes they don’t pay here; in other words, the tax incentives given to them here goes to a foreign country instead.

Corporate governance and doing it right

What Are We To Do
By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

OF late, the issue of governance has been in the limelight. I have just returned from the Asian Shadow Financial Regulation Committee (ASFRC) meeting, held in conjunction with the Asian Financial Management Conference in Singapore.

Corporate governance (CG) was the sole preoccupation of the 10 ASFRC members present. To better cope with the unique characteristics of corporate Asia, its communiqué emphasised that real improvements in governance have become ever more urgent and critical.

Furthermore, new recognition that financial institutions should “assist in protecting taxpayers... creates new challenges” for their boards of directors. This realisation can result in a “potential dilemma” which requires a new mindset to resolve.

The big picture 

The recent financial crisis, triggered by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, raised serious issues on governance of SIFIs (systemically important financial institutions) and how they are regulated and supervised.
The massive injection of public monies in the United States and Europe – estimated at up to 25% of gross domestic product – raised a huge outcry among taxpayers about the moral hazard and the diminished responsibility of private stakeholders.

The European Commission’s Larosière report highlighted three crucial gaps: Boards of directors (BoDs) and supervisory and regulatory authorities (SRAs) failed to understand the nature and scale of risks taken, shareholders failed to effectively perform their role; and lack of effective control mechanisms led to excessive risk-taking.

What’s most worrying is that CG determines and regulates business life, which raises the question: Is existing CG deficient or at best, badly implemented?

Traditionally, CG is relied upon to chart the relationship among senior management, BoDs, shareholders and other stakeholders (e.g. employees, society at large, creditors), and to determine the organisation and means used to meet goals and monitor their implementation.

But interdependence and connectivity among fast growing SIFIs can lead to systemic risks. In the recent crises, this led governments to shore-up bad large banks with public funds. Consequently, taxpayers have since become reluctant stakeholders – adding a new dimension of CG.

At the heart of it all, as I see it, is greed, mostly at the expense of the innocent, perpetuated within organisations supposedly well-run by professionals with business acumen.

In reality, key management were lying, living-it-up and cheating, or just being downright suckered by liars and cheats around them. Those charged to notice didn’t do so, or failed to raise their hands.

To reform, an effective CG system (based on smart control mechanisms with checks and balances) must make the main stakeholders (BoDs, owners, senior management) assume greater responsibility with transparency.

Bear in mind rule-based supervision focused on internal control, risk management, audit and compliance structures could not prevent excessive risk taking by SIFIs. To restore confidence, a number of critical issues have to be addressed.

Conflict of interest

The model of shareholder-owner who looks to long-term business viability has since been severely shaken. The emergence of new shareholders with little long-term interest have amplified risk-taking for short-term gains (and contributed to excessive remuneration).

This is reminiscent of the old Jack Welch adage that a firm’s sole aim is to maximise shareholders’ return, which dominated US business for the past 25 years.

With the crisis, even “Neutron Jack” had since retracted: “(Maximising) shareholders value is the dumbest idea...” he said last year. Traditionalists in the US and UK showed disdain for “stakeholder capitalism” practised in Europe where interests of employees, creditors and society at large are taken seriously.

Such conflict came to the fore in the recent BP US oil spill – many BP shareholders were eyeing hefty dividends and didn’t pay enough attention to environmental risks.

Given systemic risk and the high volume, diversity and complexities of SIFIs’ business, conflicts of interest can arise in a variety of situations, ranging from exercising incompatible roles and activities to clash on performance measurement between management and shareholders/investors.

The current travails of Goldman Sachs epitomises the conflict. When it went public in 1999, Goldman embraced the axiom of maximisation of shareholders’ value.

As wooing sustainable customers became increasingly important, concentration on maximisation over the short-term put at risk building stable relationships that rely on long-term success.

Or, when US Senators questioned Goldman on their fiduciary duty to clients when selling them sophisticated products, it admitted caveat emptor is the only rule.

To improve CG, perhaps long-term shareholders (LTShs) should be given more clout. In the US, shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange changed hands every three years on the average in the 1980s. Today, the average tenure is less than a year (10 months).

Last year, a taskforce comprising seasoned investors (Warren Buffett, Peter Peterson, Felix Rohatyn, et.al) advocated in a report “Overcoming Short-Termism” measures to encourage LTShs, including withholding voting rights for new shareholders for a year.

Netherlands is considering loyalty bonuses for LTShs. Roger Carr (Cadbury’s ex-chairman) suggested that investors who bought shares in a takeover bid should not be allowed to vote on the offer.

Would these work? As I see it, the real issue is not the length of time investors hold on to shares, but how to encourage them to take their duties as owners more seriously.

One hat is enough

The US is unusual in lavishing power on chief executive officers (CEOs) who also act as chairman of BoDs (chairman).

Splitting the job is commonplace in the UK, Canada, Australia, and much of Europe and Asia. In the UK, 95% of FTSE companies have an outside chairman.

In contrast, 53% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) top companies combine the two jobs. Activists in the US have since been up in arms against these “imperial bosses.”

In April 2009, they forced Ken Lewis to surrender his second hat (chairman) at Bank of America. The case for “two” lies in the basic principle of separation of powers.

How to monitor the boss when he sits at the head of the table? It conjures images of CEOs writing their own performance reviews and determining their own salaries.

One of the notable steps taken by troubled US banks (Citigroup, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo) when the crises hit was to separate the two jobs. No doubt, the arguments are compelling.

Empirical evidence is not conclusive. Enron and World Com both split the jobs as did Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock.

Separation has its problems – it’s harder for CEOs to make quick decisions, ego-driven CEOs and chairmen do squabble over who’s in charge, and shortage of talent makes separation sub-optimal.

Be that as it may, BoDs have since become more independent; 90% of the US S&P companies now have a “lead” or “presiding” director to act as counterweight.

Indeed, recent changes make the old-style strongman an anachronism. However, I see no one-size-fits-all solution. Best way has to be evolutionary: split or explain-why-not (comply, or explain).

Independent directors

Independent non-executive directors (or indies) are at the apex of CG. Widely criticised during the crisis, indies failed to foresee troubles ahead or push management to find solutions.

They are usually well connected and often sit on several boards as companies seek their experience and connections. SRAs now want them to be more diverse.

Traditionally, when appointing new indies, existing BoDs are inclined to look in the mirror – appoint in their image rather than look through the window and recognise diversity.

This “old school tie” approach is too cosy. Also, BoDs need to be more transparent in recruitment. In the UK, the Financial Reporting Council code now requires firms to explain if indies are not put up for re-election.

More controversial is the annual election of chairman and other board members in an attempt to promote the best long-term performance in an intensively competitive environment.

However, says its critics, this promotes a focus on short-term results, makes boards less stable, and discourage robust challenges in boardrooms.

Good CG relies on indies to set smart checks and balances, and fix the boundaries of organisational behaviour. They hold the key to maintain confidence in the company’s integrity.

To do their job well, indies need to be independent from management, business relationships and substantial shareholders.

In practice, they ensure that internal and external rules of conduct are applied, risks taken are commercially sound and consistent with the board’s risk appetite, and future success of the business is reasonably assured.
This is an onerous task. To succeed, its best practices code needs to operate under well-defined core values which the board and management are committed.

A true indie knows how much work he can take on and still be effective. He needs no code on age, maximum appointments or terms served or time spent to bind him.

Integrity demands he will not accept a role he can’t fulfil, unlike many who comply on paper. Companies and stakeholders cannot be readily protected from the vagaries of human frailty.

Like it or not, their behaviour reflects the ethics and mores of society. What is really needed is to rediscover moral values. SRAs just can’t regulate for ethics and common sense.

 Asia on the go

Asian economies encounter two rather unique limitations in CG. First, cultural differences and being more “tradition-bound” place less emphasis on formal contacts but face greater subservience to authority and age.

Second, Asia has a limited pool of qualified and experienced indies since CG is a relatively new phenomenon.
While it is desirable for Asia to recognise and learn from new codes of conduct being proposed in the US and Europe, these need to be adapted and modified to fit local culture and experiences.

In Asia, while CG sets the tone, it is imperative that indies take individual responsibility not only to do the right thing by the firm they serve, but also as individuals when it comes to ethical behaviour. After all, Asia has 5,000 years of history, diversity, culture and tradition.

An evolutionary approach towards excellence in CG is what’s really needed. Best practices work best in an ecosystem of “comply or explain.”

Augmented critically by purposeful continuing education to develop and improve skills and expertise. Building, in the process, a culture of strict compliance, rigorous risk assessment and common-sense ethical behaviour. To succeed, CG and ethics must go hand-in-hand.

·Former banker Dr Lin is a Harvard-educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome at
starbiz@thestar.com.my.

Parkway – an expensive investment with good potential, Fortis continues to look for growth in the region

Parkway – an expensive investment with good potential

By RISEN JAYASEELAN
risen@thestar.com.my

WITH Khazanah Nasional Bhd potentially forking out a whopping S$3.5bil (RM8.2bil) to acquire all the shares in Singapore’s Parkway Holdings Ltd they don’t already own, is it getting its money’s worth?

On the face of it, one could argue that Khazanah is overpaying. The S$3.95 price per Parkway share is above all analysts’ target prices and a price earnings (PE) ratio of 39 times FY2009 earnings.

Still, Khazanah could be the one laughing all the way to the bank if a few years down the road, Parkway is re-floated on the stock exchange or sold to another party at a much higher valuation.

Parkway is not only Singapore’s premier healthcare provider, it is also Southeast Asia’s largest private healthcare group and has even ventured into India and China.

No wonder then that most analysts had Parkway on a buy call even before this tussle broke out over the last few months.

Parkway’s promise is best surmised by analyst Jaj Singh of UBS. In a February 2010 report, Jaj pointed out that Parkway is in a “sweet spot” as it stands to gain from a number of factors. These are: Asia’s increasingly aging population and the growth in purchasing power of Asian economies.

“Parkway’s expertise, reputation and growing regional footprint puts it in a good position to capture the secular growth of the Asian healthcare market,” Jaj wrote.

That’s a view shared by Winston Lum of AmFraser Singapore, “As Singapore’s premier healthcare player, we remain bullish on Parkway’s long-term fundamentals”.

Singapore itself is Parkway’s key market. Analysts point out that Singapore has the fastest ageing population in Asia. “This would form the backbone of Parkway’s patients,” said a Singapore-based analyst.

It is estimated that currently only about 10% of Singapore’s population is over the age of 60. Analysts estimate that by 2020 that would rise to 30%.

Parkway, which ventured from property development into healthcare in 1987 with the purchase of Singapore’s Gleneagles Hospital Pte Ltd, today operates 16 hospitals in four countries across Asia. It also has a network of general-practitioner clinics, health-screening and professional radiology and laboratory services in Singapore and a few in China.

It operates hub hospitals in Singapore, Malaysia and India, with satellite hospitals or specialist clinics and medical centres that provide intermediate health services. These centres potentially refer patients that need more intensive care or specialist attention back to the hub hospitals, where specialists are based in clusters.

In Malaysia, Parkway operates through two brands, Gleneagles (one in Kuala Lumpur and another in Penang) and Pantai. Parkway owns 40% of Pantai Holdings, which operates nine hospitals in the country.

Singapore remains the key market

In Singapore, where Parkway derives the bulk of its earnings, it operates the Mount Elizabeth, Gleneagles and East Shore hospitals, which have 1,008 beds in total.

Singaporeans make up the bulk of the patients of these hospitals. Analysts put this down to a few factors.
“Singapore has one of the highest GDP per capitas in Asia, which means its citizens have the means to patronise private facilities such as those owned by Parkway,” explains a Singapore based analyst.

He adds that while the Singapore government provides an impressive level of healthcare facilities and services, private hospitals provide the additional attraction of patients being able to choose their own doctors or specialists. Private healthcare also offers better service standards such as shorter waits, he points out.

According to UBS, private healthcare for the wealthy costs only around 28% higher that the fees charged by government hospitals. “This is not a very significant difference for the well-heeled, especially if Parkway continues to provide differentiated services,” says Jaj.

But there is also a significant number of foreigners from neighbouring countries who are flocking to Singapore for their medical treatment. It is estimated that 35% of patients of Parkway’s Singapore hospitals are foreigners. Of this, about 65% are Indonesians, followed by Malaysians at 25%, says one analyst.

Indeed, Singapore’s push for medical tourism is well known, and so is the fact that foreigners who go to Singapore for healthcare because of the high quality of medical facilities and specialists.

And as the wealth of neighbouring countries grow, so too will the fortunes of Parkway’s hospitals in Singapore, analysts say.

The Singapore government is targeting 3% market share of the Asian healthcare market by 2012, up from its 1% share it held in 2000.

Another gem – Novena

Enter Parkway Novena Hospital. This being-built S$1.5bil hospital is one of Parkway’s prized assets. It is coming up on Irrawaddy Road, not far from the upmarket Orchard Road in Singapore and is slated to commence operations next year or by 2012.

It is designed as a luxurious hospital and the first private hospital to offer only single beds. It will have 333 beds.

But it wasn’t too long ago when analysts downgraded Parkway because of its costly venture to start Novena.
In 2008, Parkway had paid a whopping S$1.25bil for the land on which it is now putting up Novena. The price was about two times higher than what the next nearest bidder had offered to pay.

Since then the critics have been silenced. In March, Parkway said all of the 100 units of the first phase of its Novena Medical Suites were sold out at S$3,588 psf, exceeding market expectations.

In a report dated March 29, Lim & Tan Securities said: “The strong response (for its suites) has vindicated Parkway’s aggressive bidding for the Novena site in February 2008 that sent its share price 15% lower to S$2.48.”

The sale of the 100 units, which measured 452 to 1,431 sq ft, is expected to bring in more than S$200mil in revenue in progressive payments, of which 5% is paid upfront as booking fee.

JPMorgan says stronger demand and pricing for the medical suites mean more refinancing options for the S$500mil loan due in July 2011. Parkway has another S$560mil loan due in July 2013.

“A lowering of the cost of capital for the project and the group could result in an accelerated return to restoring Parkway Holdings’ historically higher dividend payouts of 89.3% from FY2003 to FY2007,” says JPMorgan.

Kim Eng Research Singapore says that the sale of half of the medical suites will take care of the entire construction cost.

Deutsche Bank expects Parkway to sell the remaining 159 suites at a higher price of S$3,900 psf in FY2011 and S$4,100 psf in FY2012 versus the average price of S$3,708 psf in phase one.

Overseas expansion

Aside from Malaysia and Singapore, Parkway has also ventured into the burgeoning private healthcare market of India, tying up with Apollo Hospitals, which is India’s largest private hospital group. Parkway owns 49% in the joint venture that runs Apollo Gleneagles in Kolkata, India, which is a 425-bedded multi-specialty hospital.

Interestingly, Khazanah has a 12.2% stake in Apollo Hospitals, which means it is likely that under Khazanah, Parkway should be able to work more closely with Apollo.

Parkway is also building a new hospital in Mumbai. This is a joint venture with a local businessman who is supplying the land while Parkway will do the construction. This is a 500-bed facility in the heart of India’s financial and commerce capital. Analysts expect this venture to do well given the strong demand from one of the largest developing markets with a population of over 1.1 billion.

Parkway also has a small presence in China with six medical and specialist centres with 14 beds. Analysts say that while Parkway is keen to expand its presence in China, getting a licence for a new facility is challenging and attracting local patients, who are used to traditional Chinese medicine, to western medicine remains an uphill task.

Asset light strategy

Another positive aspect of Parkway, say analysts, is the group’s asset light strategy, whereby since 2007, it has injected its Singapore hospitals into a separate listed entity, Parkway Life Real Estate (Preit). The hospitals were leased back on a long-term lease. Parkway owns 35% of the Parkway Life Reit and also receives fees as the manager of the REIT.

The REIT has subsequently acquired nine nursing homes and one healthcare products distribution and manufacturing facility in Japan.

UBS’ Jaj says this strategy enables Parkway to expand without having to leverage up. “In areas where it still needs to take a stake such as in India, it has roped in local partners.”

“We believe management plans to use this asset light framework for most of its future expansion. The proposed sale of the Novena Medical Suites is part of this strategy,” Jaj says.

Interestingly, Singapore-based DMG & Partners Research says that Khazanah’s takeover of Parkway will be positive for Parkway Life Reit. “Parkway Life has indicated that it will be focusing part of its acquisition strategies on Malaysia, which could possibly include the Pantai hospitals. Hence, with Khazanah in control of Parkway (which in turn owns 35.8% of the REIT), we think it will be a positive for the healthcare trust,” DMG’s Lynette Tan wrote in a note this week, recommending a buy on Parkway Life Reit.

Khazanah’s plans for Parkway

According to reliable sources, Khazanah is excited about its impending takeover of Parkway. The sovereign wealth fund, apparently, has moved beyond “a deal mode” and into firming up plans of growing its regional healthcare platform and garnering more synergies from all its healthcare assets. Khazanah has already indicated that if it were to gain control over Parkway that the path would be clear for the creation of Asia’s premium regional healthcare platform via the consolidation of Parkway, Pantai, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and IMU Health Sdn Bhd (the latter runs the International Medical University at Bukit Jalil).

Indeed, medical education will be one of the focus areas for Khazanah. “There are education units in all the healthcare assets in the group, which gives them the ability to come up with an attractive value proposition for training of healthcare professionals, from nurses right up to specialist doctors,” says the source. He adds that since the hospitals cover a wide range of countries and levels of specialisation, the ability to move personnel around within the group also gives them an advantage over other standalone operators.

Other synergies should flow from global procurement and developing a team that specialising in putting up new hospitals.

“With control (over Parkway), a lot of these initiatives can be carried out quicker as Khazanah now will have less to contend with other shareholders that have diverse interests in terms of how capital should be deployed for example,” notes an analyst.

While the stage has been set for Khazanah to grow its healthcare business by leaps and bounds with the likely takeover of Parkway, the fund has its work cut out. “There is always the execution risk. Lets see if Khazanah is able to rope in the right expertise and make the right business decisions,” points out the head of research of an investment firm.

In May this year, JP Morgan’s Christopher Gee had written in a report that the risks associated with Parkway related to execution. In particular, the building of Novena Hospital could suffer from cost-overruns and potential delays to completion. He also highlighted operational risks such as lower-than-expected revenues or higher-than-expected costs that limit the group’s growth trajectory.

Fortis continues to look for growth in the region

By RISEN JAYASEELAN
risen@thestar.com.my

THE vehicle (Parkway) may have changed but not the vision, according to Malvinder Mohan Singh recently in an interview with India’s Business Standard newspaper.

Malvinder was talking about Fortis Healthcare’s decision to cede control over Singapore’s Parkway Holdings Ltd to Khazanah Nasional Bhd, by accepting the latter’s general offer of S$3.95.

The tussle for Parkway has put Malvinder (right) and Shivinder Singh into the spotlight.

 

The tussle for Parkway had put Malvinder and his brother Shivinder into the spotlight after they had emerged to take control of Parkway by buying a 23.9% block from TGP Capital in March, which they subsequently increased to 25.3%.

The Singh brothers had said that they had wanted to make Parkway their vehicle to build a global healthcare chain.

It is understood that the brothers had also intended to inject Fortis Healthcare, their Indian healthcare vehicle, into Parkway.

The 30-somethings brothers had in 2008 sold their family’s 35% in Ranbaxy Laboratories to Daiichi Sankyo, Japan’s third largest drug maker, for about US$2.1bil. They used some of that money to buy hospitals in India and then proceeded to buy into Parkway.

In India, Fortis operates 48 hospitals and would build 10 more in the country in the next two years, adding about 2,500 beds.

Besides investments in India, Fortis has a hospital in Mauritius and one in Afghanistan, ‘’but that will change soon,’’ Malvinder said recently. ‘’Our growth in this region will be a mix of organic, inorganic and managing facilities,’’ he said.

Shivinder and Malvinder have a net worth of US$3.2bil, ranking them at 297 in the list of the world’s richest people and among the 20 wealthiest in India, according to Forbes magazine. They also own the Religare group whose operations include wealth management, investment banking and life insurance.

Soon after they bought into Parkway, the brothers set out to gain control of the company, getting four board seats and making Malvinder the chairman.

The brothers stand to gain a gross profit of some S$116.7mil from the sale of their Parkway shares into Khazanah’s general offer. That money, they say, will be used to look for other opportunities.

Shivinder said the group now has between US$800mil and US$900mil in cash and a well-established credit line which could be used for one or more acquisitions, adding that Singapore remained a base for them to grow in Asia.

“For the next five years, Asia is the story,” he is reported to have said.
In the interview with Business Standard, Malvinder said that beyond the S$3.80 price they had bid for Parkway, “it didn’t make any financial sense” for them to raise the price.

“It was a collective decision in the best interest of our shareholders. We are not emotional about our decisions. There is a price point for everything,” he said in the interview.

Malvinder also said that Fortis was not a financial investor and would only wish to drive the businesses that they invest in. He added that selling out to Khazanah has not been a setback as the whole episode was a valuable learning experience. “One would have never understood the business environment, the geo-political issues, competition in other Asian markets by remaining in India,” he said in a media conference.

Fortis officials also recently said they plan to list their pathology unit in India next year and will continue to use Singapore as a base to become a “pan-Asia healthcare leader’’ and has a team scouting for opportunities in the region.