- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/09/04/pap-conceals-material-information-to-avoid-vto/
[h=2]PAP conceals material information to avoid VTO[/h]
September 4th, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
GE 2015 – PAP conceals material information to avoid being booted out
by Singaporeans
Singaporeans have been patiently asking our PAP servants to come clean and
not conceal any material information. It appears we have been ‘playing the piano
for cows to listen’.
Shortly after GE 2011, PM Lee advised PAP MPs:
For your own protection, every MP should disclose to
me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your
present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are
receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of
Government Ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or
clients.
In short, voters do not deserve to know all important
information about their respective MPs and only one ‘aristocrat’ needs
to know. What exactly is PAP trying to conceal from the public?
Questions:
Are PAP MPs serving Singaporeans or PM Lee?
Does PM Lee have any special power to protect MPs?
Do lawmakers in any other country whisper information which should be in the public domain only to their leaders?
Without transparency, citizens do not know if an MP is furthering his own
personal/business/professional interest. From all the epic screw ups and eerie
silence on important issues in Parliament, it appears PAP MPs are
self-serving.
Almost all PAP MPs are either millionaires or
multi-millionaires. PM Lee should have been exemplary by
declaring his net worth, i.e. number of properties, bank account
balance, etc. Instead, he allows and encourages all PAP MPs to conceal
information from the very people they are serving.
Ex PAP MP Michael Lim and his chateau. Does this guy really need to beg to
serve citizens when $16,000 is peanuts to him?
Besides
MPs’ income and directorship, tax dollar and reserves-related information must
also be disclosed. Laws which prevent their disclosure must be
amended. An example would be the pay package of Temasek and GIC
directors.
Although PSD has confirmed that ministers serving as GIC directors do not receive any fees,
the government has yet to reply to my query with regard to Temasek directors’ remuneration.
Perhaps PAP’s status is extremely flexible – a servant begging to serve prior
to every election but self-promoted to our master when power is in its hands.
The pay package of Temasek’s top management is probably in excess of
$100 million. This money belongs,
collectively, to all citizens and it is our right to know who
gets how many tens of millions. Citizens are therefore not asking PAP any favour
to disclose such information.
In 2007, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had a Parliamentary exchange with Lily Neo over the increase of only
a few million dollars to increase in the benefits of about 3000 needy
Singaporeans. In contrast to the gargantuan amount of compensation at
Temasek for just a few ‘talents’, there has been total silence
in Parliament. Why the double standard?
In April this year, Temasek announced its CEO, Ho Ching, would be on
“part-time sabbatical leave” for 3 months. Ho has recently extended her leave to
6 months and will be back at Temasek after GE 2015. Whatever “part-time” means,
of interest to citizens would be Ho’s remuneration package because the money
will be coming from every citizen’s pocket (reserves).
Assuming Ho’s salary package was $25 million last year, will she be receiving $25 million this
year despite being on leave for 6 months? How many millions of
tax dollars will Ho be paid while she’s on leave?
If PAP feels that the remuneration at Temasek and GIC is justified, it should
not be afraid of disclosure.
While PAP-related information is concealed, other information could be
selectively disclosed to help PAP score political points.
MND’s Khaw is of the opinion that the contract awarded by WP to FMSS is an
“arrangement to reward their supporters and friends” and
describes the $3 million contract as “very rich”.
What about PAP town councils? Aren’t their managing agents
also in the same business and because they enjoy economies of scale, are likely
to be profiteering more obscenely than AHPETC’s agent?
In 2013, Khaw defended the sale of public property to AIM, a
$2 PAP company and said the MND “gives the same latitude to all political parties in town council
transactions with political affiliates”.
The town council software had cost $24,000,000 and was sold to AIM, a PAP company, for only
$140,000. If a $3 million contract is considered “very rich” to Khaw, the
AIM transaction should have left him as speechless as TPL. One would suspect it
is the PAP which has been more than grossly profiteering, unless
Khaw is able to prove otherwise.
PAP ministers live in glass houses and naughty little boy Khaw really
shouldn’t be throwing stones. Should Khaw disclose similar information on PAP
TC’s managing agents, there will be public outrage and PAP will be sent
packing.
Other information which should be in the public domain includes
grassroots members who have regular business dealings with the
government. One such company is Top Advertising which counts almost all the
ministries as its clients as well as a number of government-linked
companies.
[h=2]PAP conceals material information to avoid VTO[/h]
September 4th, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
GE 2015 – PAP conceals material information to avoid being booted out
by Singaporeans
Singaporeans have been patiently asking our PAP servants to come clean and
not conceal any material information. It appears we have been ‘playing the piano
for cows to listen’.
Shortly after GE 2011, PM Lee advised PAP MPs:
For your own protection, every MP should disclose to
me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your
present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are
receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of
Government Ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or
clients.
information about their respective MPs and only one ‘aristocrat’ needs
to know. What exactly is PAP trying to conceal from the public?
Questions:
Are PAP MPs serving Singaporeans or PM Lee?
Does PM Lee have any special power to protect MPs?
Do lawmakers in any other country whisper information which should be in the public domain only to their leaders?
Without transparency, citizens do not know if an MP is furthering his own
personal/business/professional interest. From all the epic screw ups and eerie
silence on important issues in Parliament, it appears PAP MPs are
self-serving.
Almost all PAP MPs are either millionaires or
multi-millionaires. PM Lee should have been exemplary by
declaring his net worth, i.e. number of properties, bank account
balance, etc. Instead, he allows and encourages all PAP MPs to conceal
information from the very people they are serving.
Ex PAP MP Michael Lim and his chateau. Does this guy really need to beg to
serve citizens when $16,000 is peanuts to him?
MPs’ income and directorship, tax dollar and reserves-related information must
also be disclosed. Laws which prevent their disclosure must be
amended. An example would be the pay package of Temasek and GIC
directors.
Although PSD has confirmed that ministers serving as GIC directors do not receive any fees,
the government has yet to reply to my query with regard to Temasek directors’ remuneration.
Perhaps PAP’s status is extremely flexible – a servant begging to serve prior
to every election but self-promoted to our master when power is in its hands.
The pay package of Temasek’s top management is probably in excess of
$100 million. This money belongs,
collectively, to all citizens and it is our right to know who
gets how many tens of millions. Citizens are therefore not asking PAP any favour
to disclose such information.
In 2007, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had a Parliamentary exchange with Lily Neo over the increase of only
a few million dollars to increase in the benefits of about 3000 needy
Singaporeans. In contrast to the gargantuan amount of compensation at
Temasek for just a few ‘talents’, there has been total silence
in Parliament. Why the double standard?
In April this year, Temasek announced its CEO, Ho Ching, would be on
“part-time sabbatical leave” for 3 months. Ho has recently extended her leave to
6 months and will be back at Temasek after GE 2015. Whatever “part-time” means,
of interest to citizens would be Ho’s remuneration package because the money
will be coming from every citizen’s pocket (reserves).
Assuming Ho’s salary package was $25 million last year, will she be receiving $25 million this
year despite being on leave for 6 months? How many millions of
tax dollars will Ho be paid while she’s on leave?
If PAP feels that the remuneration at Temasek and GIC is justified, it should
not be afraid of disclosure.
While PAP-related information is concealed, other information could be
selectively disclosed to help PAP score political points.
MND’s Khaw is of the opinion that the contract awarded by WP to FMSS is an
“arrangement to reward their supporters and friends” and
describes the $3 million contract as “very rich”.
What about PAP town councils? Aren’t their managing agents
also in the same business and because they enjoy economies of scale, are likely
to be profiteering more obscenely than AHPETC’s agent?
In 2013, Khaw defended the sale of public property to AIM, a
$2 PAP company and said the MND “gives the same latitude to all political parties in town council
transactions with political affiliates”.
The town council software had cost $24,000,000 and was sold to AIM, a PAP company, for only
$140,000. If a $3 million contract is considered “very rich” to Khaw, the
AIM transaction should have left him as speechless as TPL. One would suspect it
is the PAP which has been more than grossly profiteering, unless
Khaw is able to prove otherwise.
PAP ministers live in glass houses and naughty little boy Khaw really
shouldn’t be throwing stones. Should Khaw disclose similar information on PAP
TC’s managing agents, there will be public outrage and PAP will be sent
packing.
Other information which should be in the public domain includes
grassroots members who have regular business dealings with the
government. One such company is Top Advertising which counts almost all the
ministries as its clients as well as a number of government-linked
companies.
