AHPETC – A battle for Transparency and Impropriety

Ng Eng Hen is furious with the poor verdict of Transparency International on how his ministry spent money on the purchase of weapons. TI ranked Singapore together with Afghanistan and Iraq, in another word, our integrity in procurement is at the same level at these 3rd World countries, or at least in the Defence Ministry. The implications of such a rating are very serious, and many times more serious than the audit report of AHPETC.

Khaw Boon Wan had written a letter to Tharman to instruct the Auditor General to conduct an audit on AHPETC’s account quoting a Disclaimer of Opinion from its auditor, implying serious issues in the town council’s financial and accounting system. The Auditor General will now have to comb through AHPETC’s books to verify on all the misgivings and non compliance of Town Council’s regulations.

What we are seeing is the PAP wanting to set a very high standard of accountability and transparency for all town councils. And all town councils will be judged using the same standard of accountability, nothing less. On the other hand many critics are crying foul, that this is another political scam of the PAP to run down its political enemies, probably getting them disqualified from the next GE or, if serious enough, could see some of them behind bars. If this is indeed a political ploy, one can expect the PAP to extract the full mileage possible with the timing of the findings, the penalties and punishment, to ensure the WP suffers untold damage that it would become a lame duck when the GE is called.

Putting this expected and understandable perception of PAP critics aside, the involvement of the Auditor General to audit a town council’s account would set a series of precedents that would then be applicable to all the other town councils. To be consistent and be seen as fair and impartial, and standing on moral high grounds, the Auditor General would also have to conduct the same investigations on all town councils with the same ratings from their auditors or worse, like Adverse Opinion in auditing terms. The opposition parties and netizen investigative journalists in social media must be busy scouring the auditor’s reports for the same gradings to be tabled to Boon Wan and the Auditor General. And should there be such findings, the PAP would now be compelled, or at least Boon Wan would be duty bound to make similar requests to Tharman for the Auditor General’s audit.

Would this high standard of transparency and accountability also be applicable to similar or comparable institutions like the People’s Association? In a Breaking News TRE editorial, it posted an article stating that the auditors had given the PA several years of Adverse Opinions that were technically worse than the Disclaimer of Opinion in the AHPETC’s audit. Why was there no calls for the Auditor General to investigate? All eyes will now be focussed on Boon Wan to do the necessary to PA. Would he or would he not request Tharman to do the same?

With the issue of transparency and accountability high in everyone’s agenda, how far would these issues be pushed to vindicate Singapore’s standing as one of the top nations in incorruptibility? Would there be any other town council fitting the bill for an Auditor General’s audit? Would PA be put under the microscope as well?

For Boon Wan to take such a drastic action, he must be very sure that his own house is in order, ie all the town councils’ audit were beyond reproach. Like the bible said, ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone....’ We have several embarrassing episodes involving the WP and the PAP when the ball curved back to slam the attackers. Retribution came fast and swift at times. How would this incident turn out and who would have the last laugh?

Kopi level - Green

COI for Little India Riot – Respect

My admiration for the Chairman of the COI for the Little India Riot, Pannir Selvam. Senior State Counsel David Khoo pointed to his attention of an article in the ST on an interview with the bus driver involved in the accident that started the rioting. Pannir Selvam took the opportunity to caution the public and other civil society groups not to act too clever and interfere with the COI with their clever suggestions. He said, and I quote:
 
‘This is all highly improper and we don’t need their advice. If anybody thinks that you, your witness or anybody else can fool us, then you’ll be fooling yourselves because we have had enough experience and we know what we are doing. We don’t need your guidance or advice or anything like that.’
 
This is not only a statement of wisdom but of fact and conviction. Many of the boards of inquiry formed comprised of eminent and experienced people with the right expertise to do a proper job. Unless of course the people appointed to such boards are wishy washy type that do not know what they are doing or are incompetent. This is rarely the case. Then they would need the advice of any Tom Dick and Harry to help them with suggestions that they came up with after a few minutes in the kopitiams.
 
Calling for public contributions, suggestions, public consultation papers, presumes that the public knows better. How can this be when the best super talents that are paid millions are the professionals while the public are mostly ignoramus or at best with a little knowledge in the subject? The calling of suggestions from the public inadvertently can be an admission of incompetence or inadequacy, or even a farce.
 
There are things that the public can be invited to express their views, like whether we want 6.9m population as there is no right or wrong in such a position but a matter of preference. It is like a life style choice that is subjective in nature. In professional and technical areas when technical expertise is involved and needed, how much can the lay public contribute in things they don’t know much about? In this riot case, the public can at best offer eye witness evidence for the COI to make an educated assessment of what actually happened.
 
I must say respect to the Chairman of the COI for putting his foot down on the noises coming from the public. It is not wrong to claim they know best as they really are the best. Now who else is asking for the layman uncles and aunties for advice and suggestions on technical matters? Are they saying that the uncles and aunties know more and better than them?

Losers, go back to your own country

Below is a short extract from a post in My Real Singapore by a Joseph Tan.
 
‘Dear The Real Singapore,
 
Just wanted to share my experience on Saturday with a FT couple at Parkway Parade.
I brought my wife and 2 boys to Parkway Parade for dinner and after dinner we were heading to the carpark located on the 5th level.
 
As we walked pass giant towards the escalator, a lady (Indian national) abruptly turn and nearly bang into my and my boy without checking looking.
 
I turned to her and said:"excused me" and continue towards the escalator.
She turned and shouted at us "what excuse me?"
 
Before I could react, her partner came charging to towards me and my son and demanded why I shouted at her wife.
 
I told him, I only said " excuse me" as she nearly bang into me and my son.
He demanded that I should talk to a lady nicely and continue charging towards us with his chest pump up.
 
I replied: "Ok, how I shout at you and what you going to do about it?"
He replied:"Loser, go back your own country."’
 
I agree with the foreigners that Sinkie losers should go back to where they come from if they allowed foreigners to kick them in broad daylight. If you cannot defend your right in your own country and allowed foreigners to bully you, then you don’t deserve to be here. You are a real loser indeed.
 
Or maybe these foreigners have been briefed that Sinkies are losers and they have to come here to help the losers. So in their mind all Sinkies are losers and kicking them is ok. The best part is that the said foreigner could be a fake and he was telling the truth, that even as a fake the Sinkies don’t even know and can’t tell the difference.
 
Sad to say, Sinkies are mostly losers. They got scolded, insulted, beaten by foreigners and got replaced by fake and shit foreigners who claimed to be talents in good jobs, and lan lan become taxi drivers to be ‘praised’ by hypocrites that it is a good job as they can be their own boss, but quietly wallowing in self pity.
 
What are you going to do about it, losers? You have lost your jobs and your country to foreigners and you don’t even know it. And foreigners are so bold to call you losers and to go to where you came from? What can I say? How many of the losers were at Hong Lim Park when Gilbert Goh held his protest rallies?

A big moral battle in the making

Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong has emerged as the point man to take the fight against homosexuality with the LBGT group. From reports in the media, the Pastor Khong’s group has been quietly organizing themselves and has came out with a seven page guide on how to express support for Section 377A of the Penal Code. The LGBT has been mustering support to have this Section of the Penal Code rescind, so far without success. Their fight is in the open with the big show of support at Hong Lim Park on a couple of occasions. On the other hand, supporters of Section 377A have been rather quiet or afraid to voice out their stand. This is the first time, after many closed door sessions, that this group is coming in the open to challenge the views of the LBGT.
 
It was a solitary battle between the LGBT group and the govt with everyone staying clear from this thorny moral issue. The growing acceptance of the lifestyle of the LGBT both locally and internationally has encouraged the LGBT to come out openly about their lifestyle choice, some biological, some hereditary, as normal or natural and not an abnormality.
 
Now we have a religious group coming out openly to challenge this lifestyle choice as not normal and to protect the provisions in Section 377A that makes homosexuality a crime. There are now two big interest groups with equally big supporter bases and international organizations as their backers to pitch their voices for and against the other.
 
The Govt could breathe easier and could take the role of a neutral party other than upholding the law. The less vocal majority could now pitch in their supports for either groups and more fireworks can be expected with both sides quite evenly matched at the moment. Where would this lead to eventually would be interesting to watch as it would affect the moral fibres and values of our society. It is not just a battle of the conservatives against the liberals. It goes deep into the accepted morality of the day and could change quite dramatically on what is normal and acceptable and what is not.

Kopi level - Green

The most hilarious article posted in TRE to date

The editorial post in TRE titled ‘Dr Ng condemns TI’s defence spending rating for SG’ is drawing a lot of laughters and funny comments from readers. The latest count on the number of comments is 65 and growing. This is a great thread for laughter but some might have their eyes popped out or their throats choked for lost of words.
 
Great thread. Highly recommended for jest and entertainment reading.