-
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.
The #RidoutGate Mega-Thread!
- Thread starter Balls2U
- Start date
Lo, 60.% sinkies like it ,dumb,lol
Who.say no corruption in sg,lol ,it's everywhere 8nxluding keppel
FB
@Goh Meng Seng
Now the plot thickens!
There was INDEED CONFLICT OF INTERESTS when the wife of Shanmugam negotiated DIRECTLY with SLA officials!
Adding this to Shanmugam telling SLA about clearing the vegetation of the land directly, the whole deal was indeed done with full Conflicts of Interests!
Yet both CPIB & TCH don't recognize such instances of blatant conflict of interests?!
I am TOTALLY UNCONVINCED!
(Forwarded as received)
The CPIB and TCH Reports raise some issues.
SLA on 12 May 2023 had said in a statement that Mr Shanmugam was “the only bidder”, and Dr Vivian the “highest bidder”.
Now we know better.
Based on the CPIB and SM Teo Chee Hean reports, there were in fact no bidding exercises. The two had instead “negotiated” with SLA.
SLA had been misleading, but it can redeem its integrity by answering these questions arising from the Reports:
1. What were the criteria for establishing “low in demand”?
2. How could the demand for No 26 be deemed low when its availability was advertised only with a sign “displayed prominently at the gate” (Ref para 31 of TCH Report)?
For No 26, the rental offer was made by the “property agent” of Mr Shanmugam (para 40 and 41 of the TCH Report). This minimally ensures an arms-length dealing in an otherwise outright conflict of interest situation.
But the TCH Report, in para 97, also states that “even though SLA had appointed an MA (managing agent) to market the site, SLA had directly engaged with Mrs Shanmugam, in negotiating matters relating to the property at No 26 Ridout Road”.
This demolishes the arm’s length dealing. It brings back to the fore an outright conflict of interest situation.
How can a civil servant possibly be impartial, or seen as such, when he directly deals with the wife of his minister on a matter of personal financial interest to the minister?
How could the then CE/SLA make a declaration to the PS of MinLaw the “rental transaction was properly done with no conflict of interest” (para 50 of the TCH Report), when there was in fact conflict of interest?
The current Board chair or CE of SLA should comment on this.
This episode of the Ridout bungalows should be a case study mandated by the Head of Public Service for the education of public officers on how to deal properly and courageously with various forms of conflict of interests situation involving political leaders.
BSPL
29 June 2023
@Goh Meng Seng
Now the plot thickens!
There was INDEED CONFLICT OF INTERESTS when the wife of Shanmugam negotiated DIRECTLY with SLA officials!
Adding this to Shanmugam telling SLA about clearing the vegetation of the land directly, the whole deal was indeed done with full Conflicts of Interests!
Yet both CPIB & TCH don't recognize such instances of blatant conflict of interests?!
I am TOTALLY UNCONVINCED!
(Forwarded as received)
The CPIB and TCH Reports raise some issues.
SLA on 12 May 2023 had said in a statement that Mr Shanmugam was “the only bidder”, and Dr Vivian the “highest bidder”.
Now we know better.
Based on the CPIB and SM Teo Chee Hean reports, there were in fact no bidding exercises. The two had instead “negotiated” with SLA.
SLA had been misleading, but it can redeem its integrity by answering these questions arising from the Reports:
1. What were the criteria for establishing “low in demand”?
2. How could the demand for No 26 be deemed low when its availability was advertised only with a sign “displayed prominently at the gate” (Ref para 31 of TCH Report)?
For No 26, the rental offer was made by the “property agent” of Mr Shanmugam (para 40 and 41 of the TCH Report). This minimally ensures an arms-length dealing in an otherwise outright conflict of interest situation.
But the TCH Report, in para 97, also states that “even though SLA had appointed an MA (managing agent) to market the site, SLA had directly engaged with Mrs Shanmugam, in negotiating matters relating to the property at No 26 Ridout Road”.
This demolishes the arm’s length dealing. It brings back to the fore an outright conflict of interest situation.
How can a civil servant possibly be impartial, or seen as such, when he directly deals with the wife of his minister on a matter of personal financial interest to the minister?
How could the then CE/SLA make a declaration to the PS of MinLaw the “rental transaction was properly done with no conflict of interest” (para 50 of the TCH Report), when there was in fact conflict of interest?
The current Board chair or CE of SLA should comment on this.
This episode of the Ridout bungalows should be a case study mandated by the Head of Public Service for the education of public officers on how to deal properly and courageously with various forms of conflict of interests situation involving political leaders.
BSPL
29 June 2023
The ministers will move out if there is a better offer to rent out the premise. You all want , go rent it!
What is the difference? C Pee IB. TCH, Shamugam, Vivan are the same team with the same master. You cover me, I pat your back and then staged a well made collective show to smoke the public. In the end, this is what you get from the main stream new - everything is above board and dandy. Very independent indeed.
Yeah,u can get a better rental offer if u are connected to the SLA.
But if u are a minister,u can get special rates.
if there is no corruption in peesai then i worry.......
HDB still collect money from HOME IMPROVEMENT SCHEME from poor sinkies. But SLA spend million renovating Ridout for FREE in order to make the two VIP SHITS feel comfortable?
Sounds pretty shit if u ask me. Lol
The two VIP shits have SLA backing to spend taxpayers money on renovation. No stone left unturn including the mice holes. That is how living like a king looks like and well approved by the state. No conflict of interest? You got to be kidding me.
The best part is what was originally 9,000 + sqm was merged with the adjacent land forest measuring 13,000 + sqm, and tenant only need to pay some $172,000 for clearance of the vegetation. No need to pay rent for the adjacent land which has since been merged.
Why not convert the adjacent land forest into a golf course and open to public ? SLA can collect money for the country.
That money from renovations of prime gomen owned heritage bungalows comes from its revenue and rents.
Similar threads
