The following is a reproduction of the blog article that I found...We pay for Mindef Audi???
http://singaporecitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/taxpayers-paying-for-mindefs-officer
http://singaporecitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/taxpayers-paying-for-mindefs-officer
I’m sure most people will agree that MID-plate vehicles are considered as public resources, given that they are entirely funded by taxpayers’ money. Going by the same line of reasoning, why are MINDEF’s officers driving these public vehicles home?
Not bad eh? Not only do we pay these officers their salaries, we also provide them with public vehicles to drive home! Of course, MINDEF will argue that these are top officials and that the private sector does it with company cars etc. But hey, private sector not funded by public money right?
Of course, I wanted to give MINDEF a chance to explain their policy and rationale behind the policy(shouldn’t be too difficult right?), so I chose to email the MINDEF’s Feedback Channel. I reproduce the entire email here.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear MINDEF officer,
I would like to bring to your attention an example of what I believe is a flagrant abuse of State’s resources. One of your top SAF’s officials has been driving to his condominium home using a MID-plate car. I believe he is of a General-rank although I did not manage to see his rank clearly as he drove past me as he parked his car in the condominium carpark. I believe the identity of the occupant can be easily found out if I divulged the condominium’s address or revealed the exact car plate number.
As a taxpayer of Singapore, I would like to have full clarifications on MINDEF’s policy on the private usage of such public vehicles.
1) Are MID-plate cars considered as public resources, as they are fully paid for via MINDEF’s budget, which is supported by all the taxpayers of Singapore?
2) Are MID-plate cars assigned to each top-ranking officials or they can have different cars on different days based on availability? I believe that is not the case, as I have been seeing the same person drive the same car on different days.
3) Are MID-plate cars allowed for personal use, i.e driving from office to home and vice-versa?I do not believe that travelling from home to office and back again can be considered as “work-related”. I have absolutely no qualms if these officials were driving these cars when they are on official duty but why are they driving the cars home, and parking them in their own condominium’s carpark even on Sundays? Surely Sunday is not considered a working day, and neither is a condominium remotely linked to work?
4) Who pays for the fuel and maintenance of such cars? Do these officials claim such the costs of such fuels as travelling expenses?
5) Under what circumstances are the officials allowed to drive the cars home, and what is the justification for such circumstances?
6) Who grants the permission for any usage of MID-plate cars, or do the officials just do as they please?
I hope you can understand my need for anonymity as MINDEF does have the policy of punishing whistle-blowers. Rest assured that this is a valid case, and I am sure you will be able to verify the case/official if you have the address. I also have the pictorial evidence should you require it. I will be protecting the anonymity of the mentioned official for now because I would like to hear from MINDEF first. If MINDEF chooses to ignore this email and refuses to answer the above-mentioned questions, I believe major blog-sites will be happy to carry this story and I will also go public with the address of the mentioned officer, along with the picture of the MINDEF’s car.
Do feel free to contact me via this email if you need any clarifications, or any assistance in carrying out any investigation and I look forward to hearing from MINDEF soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After reminding them a couple of times that they have the obligation to use humans to reply, other than auto-responders, Ms Vani from MINDEF Feedback Unit had this to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir / Mdm
MINDEF Feedback Unit
Thank you for writing in to MINDEF Feedback Unit. Kindly provide us your full particulars.
Best Regards
Vani
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, they were more interested in finding out the identity of this blogger, rather than answering my question. I’ve absolutely no idea how my identity has anything to do with the questions or aid in the answering of the questions in any way. I sent off an extremely terse reply to MINDEF, which they have yet to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Vani,
This is very disappointing. Firstly, I have yet to hear from MINDEF despite a 6 day gap. I have to remind your people that there is an issue at hand before MINDEF even bothers to reply again. Perhaps MINDEF thinks that this is not a serious issue enough to address?
Secondly, I’ve explained clearly why I do not wish to reveal my identity. I do not believe the revelation of my identity has anything to do with the issue at hand. All I asked for are clear and precise questions, all of which do not involve my identity. If MINDEF still attempts to pursue my identity rather than answer the questions, it is rather obvious MINDEF seeks to silence me, rather than answer me.
If that is the case, I will go public immediately and leave the public to judge the issue at hand. By then, I am afraid I will not be able to protect the identity of your official.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck in trying to defend the policy in public then. I honestly do not believe in any form of justification in providing public transport for the officials’ private business. Surely going home is not considered an official matter?
Now do you wonder why MINDEF’s budget increases year on year? This is where they spend their money on. Vehicles for their officers’ private use.
It isn’t bad to be a public servant in Singapore. 8 months bonuses. “Market-pgged” salaries that only go up their boom years and frozen wages during bad times. Zero retrenchment thus job security. Free Audis to drive to work and back home. What next? Funding their children’s education?
MINDEF seems to have forgotten where their obligations lay to. It’s not to the officers but to the taxpayers. That naturally means that every single cent has to be properly accounted for, and wastage minimised, and I do not believe giving Audis for officers to drive home is in that category.
car so crooked
