In Politics – a matter of whiter than white

I had a few minutes of watching In Parliament on the telly last night and saw the expected fireworks on display. Though I did not want to waste my time going through the drag, I still could figure out what were the main issues and points in discussion. Going forward, I hope all the opposition political parties will review the sessions over and over again as a lot of lessons could be learnt from it. From the administrative point of view I would hazard to offer a few suggestions to the opposition political parties so that they would avoid the treacherous path ahead.
 
The situation, the opposition parties must know that the realities are not as simple and straight forward as they thought it to be. They cannot take things likely and easily as they are dealing with a team of politicians that are white, flawless, spot less and god like. This is the starting point. To stand a chance of surviving the ordeal, they need to be whiter than white. Just being white or blue but with some spot is not enough. Every spot would be put under the magnifying glass to check the details, for the little blemishes and hair if any.
 
Administrative procedures and process cannot be slipshod. The rules cannot be compromised. And having husband and wife team, with one with the authority to approve what the other is doing is a big no no. And when money is concerned, it is worst. It demands the highest level of integrity, transparency and accountability. There cannot be any room for conflict of interest. This is basic, fundamental in administration and accounting. Even a schoolboy would know. Do not think other people can do it so you can also. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. Period. There is no exception, no otherwise.
 
And here there is public money involved. A lot of public money is involved, millions. And I would like to quote Shanmugam, ‘The rhetoric from the Workers’ Party (WP) is always about helping the poor man. The reality is that the WP took money from the man in the street and gave it to FMSS. Maybe thee was no one taking the money, through the back door in the dark of the night, because the money was going out in broad daylight, through the front door.’
 
I hope this is not too difficult to understand. No political party should go around talking about helping the poor man and then ended up taking their money from them and gave it to some other organizations or to themselves. This is the first cardinal sin. Cheating the poor man! Don’t ever be accused of cheating the poor man. You cannot cheat a poor man. They know. How can anyone or party does this and get away with it? The second point, even if it is approved legally or officially, it is still theft in a way, like money going through the front door. Yes, how can people do such a thing and think they can get away with it?
 
All opposition parties must learnt these rules from the PAP, be very careful with the people’s money, the public money. The PAP has done this very well, beyond reproach. Every cent must be accountable. No taking the public money from the front door and not in the dark of the night. Both are equally wrong.
 
The lessons are painful but there are a lot of hard truths in them. Be whiter than white. White is not enough unless you are in power. Until you are in a position of absolute power, be clean, be transparent, be accountable. And when people ask you to tell the truth in Parliament, to come clean, you must answer and come clean. How to be clean and transparent when you refused to tell, to come clean?