I quote you back la. You initially say Temasek >>> Khazanah. I showed you it's not, their average TSR over 20 years is around 7%, which is lower than the S&P500 index. Their fund grew because the Singapore government makes money. Singapore government =/= Temasek.

Then when I showed the data, you suddenly switch to say Singapore government is good, which I never disputed. But Singapore > Malaysia is not the same as Temasek > Khazanah.

I know we like to bash Malaysia, I also think FV was seriously stupid investment but holding another poor example as a shining example of "good" doesn't work when that example is also poor.

No need to white wash Khazanah

Failed means failed

Good means good