from wayang party
More questions raised over PAP MP Dr Ong Seh Hong’s explanation of the $60,000 Ren Ci loan and GIC housing loan
April 17, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings
Leave a comment
From Wayang Party:
In a letter sent to the media today, Dr Ong Seh Hong wrote:
“I was an employee of GIC in 1999. I was offered by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical & Paramedical Services in January 2000.
“However to leave GIC, I had to pay S$560,000 to settle my outstanding staff housing loan. I agreed to join Ren Ci on condition that I received a loan of S$60,000, to pay off in part the amount of S$560,000 and I paid the remaining S$500,000 from bank loan.
We find Dr Ong’s explanation most unusual and disingenuous which appear to give the impression that Ren Ci was sort of “blackmailed” by his demands into giving him the loan. (read article here)
It does not make any difference if Dr Ong was a PAP MP then. As a medical doctor, he should be aware that Ren Ci is a charitable organization supported solely by funds from well-wishers.
The $60,000 loan made to him for his own personal purpose would deprive needy patients of the necessary funds thereby mandating Ren Ci to raise more from the public.
Dr Ong could have borrowed the remaining $60,000 from another bank or delayed joining Ren Ci till he had the means to pay off his outstanding staff housing loan.
While ex Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi should shoulder the bulk of the blame for giving out unapproved loans liberally to his staff, that does not excuse Dr Ong from not doing a meticulous review of the offer first before taking up the job.
Is it technically and morally correct for him to accept the $60,000 loan from Ren Ci? How can he not be alerted to the possible conflicts of interest in this case?
Is the loan interest-free? And how long did Dr Ong take to repay the loan? Why is he reluctant to answer these relevant and pressing questions?
Lastly, but most importantly, Dr Ong’s testimony raised serious questions about the role of GIC, a government-owned sovereign wealth fund as a moneylender.
Is it a common practice for GIC or any other statutory boards to give out housing loans to their staff? What are the interest rates if there are any? Who else has benefitted from GIC’s generosity?
GIC is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Is it fair for us to subsidize the personal expenses of its staff? What other hidden perks are GIC’s staff entitled too?
It is time for GIC to come clean with us. In view of its dismal performance lately, the public has every right to know about the salaries, bonuses and benefits of all its staff, especially the top honchos.
More questions raised over PAP MP Dr Ong Seh Hong’s explanation of the $60,000 Ren Ci loan and GIC housing loan
April 17, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings
Leave a comment
From Wayang Party:
In a letter sent to the media today, Dr Ong Seh Hong wrote:
“I was an employee of GIC in 1999. I was offered by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical & Paramedical Services in January 2000.
“However to leave GIC, I had to pay S$560,000 to settle my outstanding staff housing loan. I agreed to join Ren Ci on condition that I received a loan of S$60,000, to pay off in part the amount of S$560,000 and I paid the remaining S$500,000 from bank loan.
We find Dr Ong’s explanation most unusual and disingenuous which appear to give the impression that Ren Ci was sort of “blackmailed” by his demands into giving him the loan. (read article here)
It does not make any difference if Dr Ong was a PAP MP then. As a medical doctor, he should be aware that Ren Ci is a charitable organization supported solely by funds from well-wishers.
The $60,000 loan made to him for his own personal purpose would deprive needy patients of the necessary funds thereby mandating Ren Ci to raise more from the public.
Dr Ong could have borrowed the remaining $60,000 from another bank or delayed joining Ren Ci till he had the means to pay off his outstanding staff housing loan.
While ex Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi should shoulder the bulk of the blame for giving out unapproved loans liberally to his staff, that does not excuse Dr Ong from not doing a meticulous review of the offer first before taking up the job.
Is it technically and morally correct for him to accept the $60,000 loan from Ren Ci? How can he not be alerted to the possible conflicts of interest in this case?
Is the loan interest-free? And how long did Dr Ong take to repay the loan? Why is he reluctant to answer these relevant and pressing questions?
Lastly, but most importantly, Dr Ong’s testimony raised serious questions about the role of GIC, a government-owned sovereign wealth fund as a moneylender.
Is it a common practice for GIC or any other statutory boards to give out housing loans to their staff? What are the interest rates if there are any? Who else has benefitted from GIC’s generosity?
GIC is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Is it fair for us to subsidize the personal expenses of its staff? What other hidden perks are GIC’s staff entitled too?
It is time for GIC to come clean with us. In view of its dismal performance lately, the public has every right to know about the salaries, bonuses and benefits of all its staff, especially the top honchos.
