By Ignatius Low, Money Editor

IT HAS been three days now since the sudden announcement that Charles 'Chip' Goodyear won't be taking the reins at Temasek Holdings and that current CEO Ho Ching will be staying on.

People are still reeling from the shock and floating all sorts of theories to explain the development.

What actually happened in the four months since Mr Goodyear joined Temasek as its CEO-designate? Did Temasek find him unsuitable for the job or was it Mr Goodyear who had second thoughts after finding out more about the organisation?

What were the mysterious 'unresolved strategic differences' that led to the break-up of the relationship?

The truth is that we will probably never know the answers to these questions. And at some point, people will tire of trying to find out and they will move on.

What is more interesting, I think, are the implications of this week's events for Temasek going forward. What are the lessons, if any, that the organisation or Singaporeans in general can glean from this episode? Will it affect the way that Temasek is run, or how it is perceived by the outside world? Should it?

Again, without the full facts, it is hard to draw firm conclusions. But at least two things are clear.

The first is that this incident will spark renewed debate over what sort of corporate creature Temasek really is.

In many ways, it behaves like any other top-notch private-sector investment firm. It recruits the best global talent, for example, and adheres to industry-standard corporate governance practices, like publishing frank reviews of its investment strategies and performance every year.

But how 'private sector' can it really be? Can it be led by a pure 'outsider', picked for no other reason than that he is the best man for the job? The 'strategic differences' that felled the Goodyear appointment seem to suggest otherwise.

Like it or not, Temasek cannot get away from the fact that it is inextricably linked to the Singapore Government. It owns some of the nation's most critical assets, including its seaport, airport, water utilities and power grids.

And while it may not manage any part of Singapore's foreign reserves - and therefore is not considered to be a 'sovereign wealth fund' in some quarters - its assets nonetheless form part of the Government's reserves, as defined by the Constitution.

Naturally, every move it makes comes under intense public scrutiny because ordinary Singaporeans believe it is their money that Temasek is managing. Every perceived mistake it makes therefore has political ramifications.

It is perhaps for this reason that Temasek's board of directors is still overwhelmingly local. Excluding Mr Goodyear, who is leaving, there are nine directors. One of them, Mr Marcus Wallenburg, chairman of the SEB Group in Europe, is Swedish. Mr Simon Israel, who like Ms Ho is part of the management team, is a New Zealander and Singapore permanent resident.

All of the remaining six are trusted local luminaries from Singapore's public and corporate sectors. They include chairman S. Dhanabalan, deputy chairman Kwa Chong Seng, and corporate titans Koh Boon Hwee and Kua Hong Pak.

Operating at the intersection of local political pressures and global market volatility can't be easy. In fact, it is a challenge that is probably one-of-a-kind.

Is there a unique Temasek style or set of core values that is key to the smooth running of such an organisation? And does it take some time to develop or master?

If so, then parachuting an external candidate into the position of CEO may not be the best option for Temasek. Perhaps Temasek will have to accept that it is just one of those organisations where a CEO picked from within its ranks - or Singapore Inc - will have a far better chance of success.

This doesn't preclude Temasek from picking an external candidate as its CEO, of course. But it does mean that he or she will probably need to spend some years working in the organisation before moving up to assume the top post.

The second implication that is fairly clear from this week's events is that although the organisation will be able to easily pick up from where it left off, its public image won't stage the same sort of quick recovery.

That is because any prejudices that the outside world may have had about Temasek will now probably deepen after this week's remarkable turn of events.

Ms Ho's return as CEO may revive old concerns about Temasek's lack of independence from the Singapore Government. Cynics may also see it as added proof that the Government never meant to let go.

Those who were disinclined to believe that Temasek has really become more transparent over the years will now have additional fodder in the scanty disclosure of the circumstances surrounding Mr Goodyear's sudden departure.

And critics who think that Temasek's management team has not performed well, particularly in the light of the recent losses it incurred investing in global banks, will need to be persuaded that this incident was not another misstep.

Otherwise, some of the progress that Temasek had made in winning over its doubters - both locally and internationally - may have been lost.

All this may not matter very much in the day-to-day running of the organisation, or affect its ability to meet its targeted returns.

But because it is not an ordinary company, how it is perceived by the public and the confidence they have that it is doing the right thing are as important as its financial bottom line.

On those scores, Temasek has its work cut out for it.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.