PAP designed TC saga to damage WP
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/02/14/report-from-gallery-entire-saga-designed-to-damage-wp/
To me, the error as listed above was so obvious but Mr Shanmugam was adamant on his accuracy.
Only later did he admit he was only told that the figures were correct and did not check them himself. On the second day of the debate, he did not address or correct this issue and no longer did.
The above incident brought a few points to my mind. Firstly, if I were shown a table where two columns were the same figures except for the one for AHPETC, I would instinctively check if the figures were correct before presenting them in Parliament. Secondly, Mr Shanmugam had only to produce three appendices on a town council matter and one was already wrong. How would he expect AHPETC with several fronts to take care of to avoid even one mistake? Thirdly, I noticed the MSM had downplayed or blotted out this incident.
On another point, Mr Pritam made a casual remark about answering to his residents. Mr Shanmugam and Mr Sam Tan jumped to the simplistic conclusion that WP wanted to account to residents but not to Parliament. I wonder why it didn’t cross their minds that Mr Pritam could have been referring to both.
Second Day
I did not attend the second day’s debate but drew opinions based on video footages by the online channels of the MSM.
PAP MPs Liang Eng Hwa and Hri Kumar
Both PAP MPs had one common thrust in their speeches. The PAP had taken WP to task despite serving to “help” WP in the end or “reduce” PAP’s “standing” through this unpopular move. I wondered if they really believed in what they said or was this reverse psychology. By now, much of me believed that the entire episode was designed to damage the WP instead and the two gentlemen cannot be incognizant about this.
WP MP Pritam Singh
Mr Pritam’s “general defence” speech shed light on the large figures that came under the spotlight of the MSM some months ago. He pointed out that some errors were actually joint errors by AHPETC and HDB. Finally, he said FMSS was kept out of certain decisions if a conflict of interest potentially arose.
Minister Heng Swee Keat
His was the only speech that contained absolutely nothing that hasn’t been said. All the points were so rehashed that I wondered why he bothered to deliver it after more than 10 MPs from both sides have spoken. Later, it dawned on me that it was again the strategy of repetition to drive home a certain message, except that this time, a different person is used.
The only thing that stood out, and bizarrely so to speak, was his reference to WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong walking away from a resident who asked about AHPETC matters. How did Mr Heng know about such a matter? I am not sure Mr Heng knows that citing from unverified sources without giving more details is unparliamentary behaviour, which PAP MP Lim Wee Kiak and WP MP Faisal had apologized for before. A minister should least display unparliamentary behaviour. We should await his apology in Parliament with bated breath.
WP MP Png Eng Huat
Mr Png made the second fiery speech after Mr Low and he was the only WP MP who pointed out PAP’s own discrepancies. I felt having only one MP tackle this angle was good moderation in order to avoid the “you can do it, so can I” syndrome.
Mr Png’s primary point made sense to me. As long as the AGO audits something, it would surely be able to uncover some faults. It is like a teacher telling a student “you have room to improve”. No teacher would tell the student that he is already perfect. The difference is if a party is found to have intentionally and exorbitantly benefited, such as in the cases of NKF, Ren Ci or Father Kang. Nothing was uncovered from either AHPETC or the government departments to be the case, despite Mr Shanmugam trying to paint a stigma on AHPETC.
In return, Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo asked Mr Png if the AGO found these government departments to be guilty of the same as AHPETC. Unfortunately for Ms Teo, the answer is yes, at least in some areas. If she had been listening, Mr Png spoke about 10 statutory boards not submitting annual reports on time, which was the same accusation Mr Khaw heaped on AHPETC. True, conflict of interest wasn’t an aspect, but the AGO uncovered discrepancies in some government departments not guilty by AHPETC.
WP MP Lee Li Lian
Ms Lee’s speech was a good reminder that the fear factor has to be examined at a deeper level. At a basic level, the fear of voting for an opposition candidate has significantly eroded over the years. We thought we could now rest easy and forgot about the next level. For businessmen in the service industries, voting for the opposition is a different scale from doing business with the opposition. Removing the fear of offering contracts with opposition town councils should be tackled next. Otherwise, the opposition could screw up town management with limited quality choices and once again lose the confidence of the electorate.
Minister Khaw’s closing statement
Mr Khaw closed the debate by regurgitating whatever that has been said. What I was waiting for finally came when, while explaining the original intent of town councils, he said that if WP could not run a town council well, how they can be entrusted to run the whole country. I get the feeling this was the ultimate theme, intention and the picture the PAP wants to paint of the WP all this while, because WP (and the opposition) had been closer to capturing power than ever before.
One of his final sentences was that “this motion is not about PAP versus WP”. It sounded out-of-place when the whole debate appeared to be about this to the man-on-the-street.
Major difference of opinion
A major difference of opinion came in the form of Mr Shanmugam asking why AHPETC had allowed CPG to be released from an iron-clad contract. Ms Lim replied that CPG requested to be released and AHPETC was unwilling to retain a reluctant managing agent. Both sides of the argument have their validity, although in this context, I would go with Ms Lim’s point because if CPG were to do a bad job, would PAP accuse AHPETC of landing in this state because they had refused to release their managing agent? Then it becomes damn if you do, damn if you don’t.
Two different stories
According to the PAP, FMSS had approved payments to themselves. WP said all cheques used to pay service providers have to be signed by the AHPETC chairman and one of the vice chairman. So who is accurate? Again, I would go with WP’s explanation because I am aware that in MCST buildings, the signatories come from key council members of the management corporation. The condo manager or managing agent staffs are never made signatories.
An unanswered question
I also felt that in the course of the whole debate, a question did not come up. Was the remuneration of the FMSS directors, who were AHPETC employees, at market rates? Not withstanding any conflict of interest, this question was important because if there was any attempt by any persons to benefit financially, they would have financially benefitted by this time. Perhaps the PAP wasn’t too interested to question this point because there was nothing much to dig here, although they did question the managing agent fees.
Conclusion
On the whole, the PAP made their position too absolute, which was risky. With two prime ministers in history being father-son and the head of the government has a spouse heading the government’s investment body, I remain unconvinced that the PAP could take a moral high ground without really standing stability on this ground and fire all that salvo without compunction. Even though there is no impropriety, not all the PAP speakers were faulting the impropriety in AHPETC or FMSS but on the conflict of interest, links and manner of declaration, which PAP was guilty of.
We have all seen some observers claiming to be neutral criticizing WP over this episode. Ironically, I think they have more grounds to criticize the WP than the PAP itself. The problem in this case is that PAP had done most and the loudest of the criticizing.
WP, on the other hand, took the approach of “you have your position, I am here to explain mine”. It did not portray this matter as an “angel vs devil” showdown by painting themselves as an angel and the other as a devil, although they may be accused of trying to milk sympathy votes. And based on all the WP MPs speeches, it seems like most of the problems had already been rectified and furthermore, WP turned the tables on PAP by actually supporting PAP’s motion. According to the final tally, all 82 MPs who were present in the house supported the motion.
My conclusion, with biased pleasure or otherwise, is that WP has won this round. Not hands down, but with a noticeable advantage.
Melvin Tan