[h=2]Dr Ng condemns TI’s defence spending rating for SG[/h]
February 19th, 2014 |
Author: Editorial
Minister Ng Eng Hen condemns TI's findings on the way S'pore spends money buying weapons.
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has condemned Transparency International (TI) for giving Singapore a “poor” rating last year for the way it spends money buying weapons. He was replying to a question in Parliament on Monday (17 Feb).
Dr Ng said that TI’s assumptions for its assessment were flawed. He questioned its move to group Singapore in the same category as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dr Ng noted that in a separate report pertaining to TI’s Corruption Perception Index, Singapore was ranked the fifth least corrupt nation in the world. “The fact that the same organisation, albeit through another publication, can now produce a completely different assessment, again calls into question TI’s credibility,” he said.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon GRC) had asked whether Singapore’s defence budget oversight and procurement processes were sufficiently robust, in light of TI’s poor rating for the city-state.
Dr Ng declared that MINDEF has strict procedures to ensure procurement systems “adhere to the highest and most rigorous standards”.
“MINDEF has examined TI’s assessment and found its assumptions to be flawed and processes weak,” he added.
TI’s processes need to be strengthened “by relying on more authoritative sources and substantiated facts”, Dr Ng argued, pointing out that its analysis seems to be based mainly on internet sources.
“We have a robust system of checks and balances, an independent Auditor-General who reports to the President, and a clean civil service,” Dr Ng said.
Dr Ng also accused TI of not willing to engage MINDEF. He said MINDEF had tried to reach out to TI to give it more information, but it “flatly declined our offers of more information to debunk their false assertions”.
In response, TI said it had tried to contact MINDEF officials in September 2011 and followed up with an e-mail a month later to invite MINDEF to review their findings that December. But MINDEF only replied in July 2012, which was past the review deadline, a TI spokesperson said.
She told the media that TI sent another three letters. “We still wanted their input and published their response to the findings on our website… MINDEF was well aware of that. So it’s not true that we have not been willing to engage.”
She added that TI is still keen to work with MINDEF on this research. “We hope to have an earlier engagement so that the review can be included and we can improve the integrity of the study.”
If the government finds TI not to be credible as Dr Ng has alleged in Parliament, perhaps the government should stop using TI’s rankings and surveys altogether.
For a start perhaps, CPIB could stop using TI’s rankings on its website. Presently, it prominently displays TI’s CPI on its home page [Link]:
Next, CPIB could remove all references to TI on its website [Link]:
Also, PM Lee should remember not to quote TI in his speeches anymore [Link]:
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has condemned Transparency International (TI) for giving Singapore a “poor” rating last year for the way it spends money buying weapons. He was replying to a question in Parliament on Monday (17 Feb).
Dr Ng said that TI’s assumptions for its assessment were flawed. He questioned its move to group Singapore in the same category as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dr Ng noted that in a separate report pertaining to TI’s Corruption Perception Index, Singapore was ranked the fifth least corrupt nation in the world. “The fact that the same organisation, albeit through another publication, can now produce a completely different assessment, again calls into question TI’s credibility,” he said.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon GRC) had asked whether Singapore’s defence budget oversight and procurement processes were sufficiently robust, in light of TI’s poor rating for the city-state.
Dr Ng declared that MINDEF has strict procedures to ensure procurement systems “adhere to the highest and most rigorous standards”.
“MINDEF has examined TI’s assessment and found its assumptions to be flawed and processes weak,” he added.
TI’s processes need to be strengthened “by relying on more authoritative sources and substantiated facts”, Dr Ng argued, pointing out that its analysis seems to be based mainly on internet sources.
“We have a robust system of checks and balances, an independent Auditor-General who reports to the President, and a clean civil service,” Dr Ng said.
Dr Ng also accused TI of not willing to engage MINDEF. He said MINDEF had tried to reach out to TI to give it more information, but it “flatly declined our offers of more information to debunk their false assertions”.
In response, TI said it had tried to contact MINDEF officials in September 2011 and followed up with an e-mail a month later to invite MINDEF to review their findings that December. But MINDEF only replied in July 2012, which was past the review deadline, a TI spokesperson said.
She told the media that TI sent another three letters. “We still wanted their input and published their response to the findings on our website… MINDEF was well aware of that. So it’s not true that we have not been willing to engage.”
She added that TI is still keen to work with MINDEF on this research. “We hope to have an earlier engagement so that the review can be included and we can improve the integrity of the study.”
If the government finds TI not to be credible as Dr Ng has alleged in Parliament, perhaps the government should stop using TI’s rankings and surveys altogether.
For a start perhaps, CPIB could stop using TI’s rankings on its website. Presently, it prominently displays TI’s CPI on its home page [Link]:
Next, CPIB could remove all references to TI on its website [Link]:
Also, PM Lee should remember not to quote TI in his speeches anymore [Link]:
Singapore is well recognised to be a clean and incorrupt system and country. Our international rankings in this respect are high, whether it is with Transparency International, the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy or the World Bank.
But beyond the rankings, incorruptibility has become ingrained into the Singaporean psyche and into our culture. Singaporeans expect to see, and demand to be delivered, a clean system. Unlike in some other countries, they will not give or accept any “social lubricants” to get things done, not even small ones. And they will sound the alarm once they sense that something is wrong – indeed, many of CPIB’s tip-offs come from members of the public, including whistleblowers. And they expect to see all cases thoroughly investigated, and the culprits, if found guilty, strictly punished.
What do you think?But beyond the rankings, incorruptibility has become ingrained into the Singaporean psyche and into our culture. Singaporeans expect to see, and demand to be delivered, a clean system. Unlike in some other countries, they will not give or accept any “social lubricants” to get things done, not even small ones. And they will sound the alarm once they sense that something is wrong – indeed, many of CPIB’s tip-offs come from members of the public, including whistleblowers. And they expect to see all cases thoroughly investigated, and the culprits, if found guilty, strictly punished.
