-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
MSM comes out to defend the 2 black snakes. Poor Sinkies are jealous and no corruption.
- Thread starter A Singaporean
- Start date
Orelse everyone there go sign 3 day weekend guard duty... instana gate... mama snake thamby will never forget them if no support...
Bayi siding with Indians is expected lah. Why does this bayi go after Han? What is the point of it all?
It remains a fact that the two Indian ministars are paying below market rental rate. Is that an issue? It is up to the two greedy Indians to decide. The people of Sinkapore has already formed their opinion. All the attempts at whitewashing cannot bury the numerical fact.
It remains a fact that the two Indian ministars are paying below market rental rate. Is that an issue? It is up to the two greedy Indians to decide. The people of Sinkapore has already formed their opinion. All the attempts at whitewashing cannot bury the numerical fact.
Everyone in SIngapore and the world knew it is conflict of interest and insider information so that the 2 ah nehs can rent at bargain (discount) prices for the 2 colonial bungalows . The MIW and MSM think we are stupid ? This ridout scandal is a laughing stock in Singapore and the world.
They can mobilise all their resources and direct the MSM, use POFMA, FICA, ISA and defamation suits to push their own agenda and say what they want , we just need to tell them what we think by voting these fellas out.
I want to see how arrogant they can be when no longer in political power .
I want to see how arrogant they can be when no longer in political power .
Corruptions when a party rule too long,lol, greed ,PAP high pay n hv lobang using wife name not enough still greed lol
Commentary: Let’s know all the facts when discussing Singapore politics
Wild, false allegations against public officials will be detrimental to Singapore's political culture, says Malminderjit Singh, COO of Asia Pacific at public policy consultancy Speyside.
Commentary: Let’s know all the facts when discussing Singapore politics
File photo of the Parliament House in Singapore. (Photo: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Malminderjit Singh
SINGAPORE: There has been much discussion in the last two weeks about the conduct of political parties and politicians in Singapore.
In a commentary by veteran journalist Han Fook Kwang on Sunday (Jul 23), he points out that after July 2023, “things changed in ways that affect the essence of political life here”.
Advertisement
Mr Han was focusing on the incidences that have surrounded the Members of Parliament (MP) from the People’s Action Party (PAP) - the Ridout Road issue involving ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, Transport Minister S Iswaran being investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), and the affair between former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and fellow MP Cheng Li Hui.
Mr Han draws some conclusions from these episodes, but his conclusions rest on premises that are inaccurate.
For example, in discussing the parliamentary debate on the Ridout Road issue, Mr Han made two points and, unfortunately, they were both inaccurate.
Mr Han agrees that there was no corruption, no conflict of interest, and that due process was followed. He says that the “crux of the matter” was that leaders in Singapore had always been called to maintain high standards of character and integrity - and that ministers living in large houses is at odds with this.
Mr Han says that perhaps “Singaporeans should not expect their ministers to live as frugally as the earlier generation”.
Advertisement
I have a different perspective. The first generation (1G) of Singapore leaders were frugal with government monies. They were men and women of outstanding character and competence. They laid the foundations for Singapore’s success.
But they also chose to live where they could afford, and their houses, and where they lived, was not a bar to them working for Singapore.
THE FIRST GENERATION
Former minister Lim Kim San lived in a 52,059 sq ft good class bungalow (GCB) in Dalvey Road. Mr Lim, who has been widely credited to be the man behind Singapore’s Housing Development Board project, built this home for himself in 1967 - when many Singaporeans lived in rented housing.
Staying in his sprawling bungalow did not stop Mr Lim from making an important and telling contribution to the country and Singaporeans. Having already been a key architect of the success of Singapore’s public housing programme, Mr Lim went on to serve commendably in the finance, interior, defence, communications, education and national development portfolios as well as chairman of the PUB and PSA, reflecting a multi-faceted and long history of contributions to Singapore.
Mr Lim was independently wealthy before he came into politics, and he only did so after then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew persuaded him to give up his business interests to come into government and serve the country. At no point in his political career did Mr Lee require Mr Lim to give up living in a GCB - when many Singaporeans did not even own their homes. Nor was he chided for doing so or accused of not being able to properly serve Singaporeans, or that there would be a disconnect.
Advertisement
Similarly, Singapore’s pioneering law and labour minister E W Barker lived in a GCB in Queen Astrid Park. That did not prevent him from serving Singapore.
Other pioneer leaders and ministers, including Dr Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen also lived in large government bungalows. Dr Goh lived in Goodwood Park, in a black and white bungalow just off Orchard Road. Government housing was part of the scheme of service in those times. Dr Goh was Mr Lee’s right hand man, in the making of modern Singapore and is credited for many of Singapore’s current institutions and policies that have greatly benefited the country.
Singapore’s 1G leaders were unimpeachable in their personal conduct. But where they lived was not an issue, as long as there was no corruption involved. And several lived in large, landed houses - some in GCBs and some in black and white bungalows.
From the start, Mr Lee brought in people to serve if he thought they could do the job - regardless of their background, regardless of whether they were rich or poor. There were unionists, who were not wealthy, but who contributed greatly to nation building, by coming into politics. As was said in parliament during this debate, what matters is not how wealthy or poor a person is. It is the heart and the willingness to serve, and competence that should matter.
I am not seeking to compare the 1G leaders with current leaders. Every generation is different. But Mr Han made a comparison on how the leaders lived to which I have a different point of view.
Advertisement
Related:
Ridout Road review demonstrates 'stringent standards' set by PAP: PM Lee
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
Second, Mr Han says that the Ridout Road issue, at its core, was actually a matter of optics and politics, not of allegations of corruption or wrongdoing.
But the Ridout Road issue did start with serious allegations about conflict of interest, impropriety, misconduct, corruption and abuse of power.
Against the backdrop of these allegations, the CPIB was called in for investigations. It was only after it was established that there was no impropriety, that it then morphed into a matter of optics, by which time the matter had been politicised and it was no longer about what was legally right or wrong.
Nevertheless, the issue of corruption had to be dealt with, front and centre, and that does matter in determining the integrity of the government and the ministers in question.
Allegations that had been made were that the houses were tenanted at below market value, the car porch had been paid for and built by SLA, trees had been illegally felled, the swimming pool had been built without approval, the government had wrongly paid for repairs for the bungalows, there was conflict of interest in granting the tenancy and that SLA gave contracts for the renovations to one of the minister’s sons. All of these allegations were proved to be false.
In fact, data was released to show the amounts spent on other bungalows of similar size, to make them tenantable. That data showed that in some cases even more monies had been spent. It depended on the state of the premises, and the work was for structural matters, like plumbing, piping, wiring and so on based on recommendations made by external consultants.
Mr Han will know that these allegations were being seriously made. If left unanswered, that would seriously erode confidence.
Wild, false allegations against public officials will be detrimental to Singapore's political culture, says Malminderjit Singh, COO of Asia Pacific at public policy consultancy Speyside.
Commentary: Let’s know all the facts when discussing Singapore politics
File photo of the Parliament House in Singapore. (Photo: CNA/Syamil Sapari)
Malminderjit Singh
SINGAPORE: There has been much discussion in the last two weeks about the conduct of political parties and politicians in Singapore.
In a commentary by veteran journalist Han Fook Kwang on Sunday (Jul 23), he points out that after July 2023, “things changed in ways that affect the essence of political life here”.
Advertisement
Mr Han was focusing on the incidences that have surrounded the Members of Parliament (MP) from the People’s Action Party (PAP) - the Ridout Road issue involving ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, Transport Minister S Iswaran being investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), and the affair between former Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and fellow MP Cheng Li Hui.
Mr Han draws some conclusions from these episodes, but his conclusions rest on premises that are inaccurate.
For example, in discussing the parliamentary debate on the Ridout Road issue, Mr Han made two points and, unfortunately, they were both inaccurate.
Mr Han agrees that there was no corruption, no conflict of interest, and that due process was followed. He says that the “crux of the matter” was that leaders in Singapore had always been called to maintain high standards of character and integrity - and that ministers living in large houses is at odds with this.
Mr Han says that perhaps “Singaporeans should not expect their ministers to live as frugally as the earlier generation”.
Advertisement
I have a different perspective. The first generation (1G) of Singapore leaders were frugal with government monies. They were men and women of outstanding character and competence. They laid the foundations for Singapore’s success.
But they also chose to live where they could afford, and their houses, and where they lived, was not a bar to them working for Singapore.
THE FIRST GENERATION
Former minister Lim Kim San lived in a 52,059 sq ft good class bungalow (GCB) in Dalvey Road. Mr Lim, who has been widely credited to be the man behind Singapore’s Housing Development Board project, built this home for himself in 1967 - when many Singaporeans lived in rented housing.
Staying in his sprawling bungalow did not stop Mr Lim from making an important and telling contribution to the country and Singaporeans. Having already been a key architect of the success of Singapore’s public housing programme, Mr Lim went on to serve commendably in the finance, interior, defence, communications, education and national development portfolios as well as chairman of the PUB and PSA, reflecting a multi-faceted and long history of contributions to Singapore.
Mr Lim was independently wealthy before he came into politics, and he only did so after then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew persuaded him to give up his business interests to come into government and serve the country. At no point in his political career did Mr Lee require Mr Lim to give up living in a GCB - when many Singaporeans did not even own their homes. Nor was he chided for doing so or accused of not being able to properly serve Singaporeans, or that there would be a disconnect.
Advertisement
Similarly, Singapore’s pioneering law and labour minister E W Barker lived in a GCB in Queen Astrid Park. That did not prevent him from serving Singapore.
Other pioneer leaders and ministers, including Dr Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen also lived in large government bungalows. Dr Goh lived in Goodwood Park, in a black and white bungalow just off Orchard Road. Government housing was part of the scheme of service in those times. Dr Goh was Mr Lee’s right hand man, in the making of modern Singapore and is credited for many of Singapore’s current institutions and policies that have greatly benefited the country.
Singapore’s 1G leaders were unimpeachable in their personal conduct. But where they lived was not an issue, as long as there was no corruption involved. And several lived in large, landed houses - some in GCBs and some in black and white bungalows.
From the start, Mr Lee brought in people to serve if he thought they could do the job - regardless of their background, regardless of whether they were rich or poor. There were unionists, who were not wealthy, but who contributed greatly to nation building, by coming into politics. As was said in parliament during this debate, what matters is not how wealthy or poor a person is. It is the heart and the willingness to serve, and competence that should matter.
I am not seeking to compare the 1G leaders with current leaders. Every generation is different. But Mr Han made a comparison on how the leaders lived to which I have a different point of view.
Advertisement
Related:
Ridout Road review demonstrates 'stringent standards' set by PAP: PM Lee
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
Second, Mr Han says that the Ridout Road issue, at its core, was actually a matter of optics and politics, not of allegations of corruption or wrongdoing.
But the Ridout Road issue did start with serious allegations about conflict of interest, impropriety, misconduct, corruption and abuse of power.
Against the backdrop of these allegations, the CPIB was called in for investigations. It was only after it was established that there was no impropriety, that it then morphed into a matter of optics, by which time the matter had been politicised and it was no longer about what was legally right or wrong.
Nevertheless, the issue of corruption had to be dealt with, front and centre, and that does matter in determining the integrity of the government and the ministers in question.
Allegations that had been made were that the houses were tenanted at below market value, the car porch had been paid for and built by SLA, trees had been illegally felled, the swimming pool had been built without approval, the government had wrongly paid for repairs for the bungalows, there was conflict of interest in granting the tenancy and that SLA gave contracts for the renovations to one of the minister’s sons. All of these allegations were proved to be false.
In fact, data was released to show the amounts spent on other bungalows of similar size, to make them tenantable. That data showed that in some cases even more monies had been spent. It depended on the state of the premises, and the work was for structural matters, like plumbing, piping, wiring and so on based on recommendations made by external consultants.
Mr Han will know that these allegations were being seriously made. If left unanswered, that would seriously erode confidence.
Similar threads
