• 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!

Willamshakespear

Alfrescian
Loyal
You trying to say that both this two ministers do not owned a land property of their own ? They must have ,before they rented this , question is whether their landed property is still around, sold off or rented out ?

Thanks for your reply. No where in my post did I said the 2 ministers do not own properties of their own or even alleged such. Do remember that both ministers are already drawing substantial salaries as professionals before they joined Public Service. What they do with their funds or properties legally earned & how they manage such are their private affair. Although they are now public figures, they are not slaves. They are still entitled to privacy.

However, their private affairs legally earned are not RELEVANT to the issue of 'Conflict of Interest' here. As I outlined in my post, had there been any of such, or had all the frustrations been merely petty & envy politics, with aims to topple the career of two of our VALUABLE Cabinet Ministers & drive schisms between the People & Govt?
 

batman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Thanks for your reply. No where in my post did I said the 2 ministers do not own properties of their own or even alleged such. Do remember that both ministers are already drawing substantial salaries as professionals before they joined Public Service. What they do with their funds or properties legally earned & how they manage such are their private affair. Although they are now public figures, they are not slaves. They are still entitled to privacy.

However, their private affairs legally earned are not RELEVANT to the issue of 'Conflict of Interest' here. As I outlined in my post, had there been any of such, or had all the frustrations been merely petty & envy politics, with aims to topple the career of two of our VALUABLE Cabinet Ministers & drive schisms between the People & Govt?
Simply,as pap ministers,they are answerable to the taxpayers of Singapore.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Simply,as pap ministers,they are answerable to the taxpayers of Singapore.

No they aren't. Taxpayers are mere citizens who have no authority over the government whatsoever. Their influence is limited to one vote each every 5 years and nothing more. Between the elections the government of the day has the mandate to govern as it pleases. If sufficient numbers of taxpayers decide that someone else can do a better job the election outcome will reflect the collective will of the electorate at subsequent elections.

Indulging in the politics of envy over a couple of bungalows by isn't going change anything.
 

batman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
No they aren't. Taxpayers are mere citizens who have no authority over the government whatsoever. Their influence is limited to one vote each every 5 years and nothing more. Between the elections the government of the day has the mandate to govern as it pleases. If sufficient numbers of taxpayers decide that someone else can do a better job the election outcome will reflect the collective will of the electorate at subsequent elections.

Indulging in the politics of envy over a couple of bungalows by isn't going change anything.
It is not about the politics of envy.The ministers are governed by the 2005 Code of conduct for Ministers paper laid before parliament by command of the President of the republic of Singapore "A minister therefore must never enter into any transactions whereby his private financial interest might, even conceivably,come into conflict with his public duty".:biggrin:
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
It is not about the politics of envy.The ministers are governed by the 2005 Code of conduct for Ministers paper laid before parliament by command of the President of the republic of Singapore "A minister therefore must never enter into any transactions whereby his private financial interest might, even conceivably,come into conflict with his public duty".:biggrin:

How does living in colonial house conflict with public duties?
 

Merl Haggard

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
No they aren't. Taxpayers are mere citizens who have no authority over the government whatsoever. Their influence is limited to one vote each every 5 years and nothing more. Between the elections the government of the day has the mandate to govern as it pleases. If sufficient numbers of taxpayers decide that someone else can do a better job the election outcome will reflect the collective will of the electorate at subsequent elections.

Indulging in the politics of envy over a couple of bungalows by isn't going change anything.

There is conflict of interest here because the landlord SLA is under the control of the Ministry of Law?

In 2019 the Shammed fella even appointed the CEO of SLA.
 

Merl Haggard

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
How does living in colonial house conflict with public duties?
I think he could not resist the temptation to rent out his Queen Astrid Park GCB for say $200,000 pm or more and rent Ridout Rd for $$30,000 - $40,000 pm.

To make an arbitrage to gain is a violation of the 2005 Code of conduct for ministers.
 

Rabbit7

Alfrescian
Loyal
How many Children does these two MiniStars have ?
Are they staying in these properties to have a 3-Generational Family ?
How really necessary ?
 

asenmaga

Alfrescian
Loyal
Top