Stunning relevation about $500,000 GIC housing loan in Ong Seh Hong's testimony

[JohnTT]

Yes and he is showing you that your logic has some problems
so think about it

I already said is his extension. He twisted my logic in his extension.

Apart from unclear mind, I think you have an unsound mind too............

I have said enough. Bye!

 

[scroobal]

My goodness! Do you understand the meaning of handshake? Both parties are EQUALLY responsible. How can u push the blame to Ren Ci alone?

Example : If someone bribed you, & you accepted the money, can you say the problem lies with their person, & not you b'cos you are on the other side of the handshake. Pls be clear-minded. Black is black & white is white. Black cannot be white & vice versa.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Its common practice for those moving from one employer to another to arrange for loans issued by the first to be taken over either the second employer or another party. Its done all over the world. It basic HR function.

I have always felt that the Ren Ci monk was a fraud and PAP MP during his tenure obviously was hopeless in setting the ship straight but the loan is not an issue. It no different to drawing a salay from Ren Ci.

Durai on the other hand carried the title of Hon Gen Sec for many years despite drawing a full salary but gave the impression that it was an honoraium.

I am actually surpised that many are not aware that this is accepted and established practice.

Its becomes an issue when the loan provider allows a loan that is either not allowed and done in contravention of the entity's rules.

However the perception issue needs to be addressed as it is a charity. That is important.

 

[cass888]

That's why I say these SDPies are all frogs in the well, for them not to even know employee loans are common practice. But they want to pick on OSH, who wasn't even MP then, who just wanted to make sure he was in the same position loanwise as if he didn't leave Temasek.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Its common practice for those moving from one employer to another to arrange for loans issued by the first to be taken over either the second employer or another party. Its done all over the world. It basic HR function.

I have always felt that the Ren Ci monk was a fraud and PAP MP during his tenure obviously was hopeless in setting the ship straight but the loan is not an issue. It no different to drawing a salay from Ren Ci.

Durai on the other hand carried the title of Hon Gen Sec for many years despite drawing a full salary but gave the impression that it was an honoraium.

I am actually surpised that many are not aware that this is accepted and established practice.

Its becomes an issue when the loan provider allows a loan that is either not allowed and done in contravention of the entity's rules.

However the perception issue needs to be addressed as it is a charity. That is important.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes.......

However the perception issue needs to be addressed as it is a charity. That is important.

 

[scroobal]

That's why I say these SDPies are all frogs in the well, for them not to even know employee loans are common practice. But they want to pick on OSH, who wasn't even MP then, who just wanted to make sure he was in the same position loanwise as if he didn't leave Temasek.

I however have issues with Ong not with the loan but not knowing what was going on with Ren Ci in the first place.

This is a Govt MP, and this guy has no clue what is going on. Any why is representing Singaporeans in parliament.

 

[Hakka Tiow]

That's why I say these SDPies are all frogs in the well, for them not to even know employee loans are common practice. But they want to pick on OSH, who wasn't even MP then, who just wanted to make sure he was in the same position loanwise as if he didn't leave Temasek.

SDP what? You want to have all their cocks shafted into your cheebye mouth? Including those PAP dogs you hang around with as well?:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[Areopagus]

Durai was not Hon Gen Sec. He was a paid employee, Mrs Goh Chok Tong as patron of NKF knew about his salary and said that it was "peanuts". Dr Ong is not drawing a miserable salary. read the commissioner of charities report. In addition to his MPs allowance, he is drawing a significant salary from Ren Ci.

If all the donors to Ren Ci felt that it was alright for their money to go towards a housing loan for the director who was soon to be drawing a MPs allowance in addition to a substantial salary, then that is OK. I doubt that they were asked!

 

[scroobal]

Durai was not Hon Gen Sec. He was a paid employee, Mrs Goh Chok Tong as patron of NKF knew about his salary and said that it was "peanuts". Dr Ong is not drawing a miserable salary. read the commissioner of charities report. In addition to his MPs allowance, he is drawing a significant salary from Ren Ci.

If all the donors to Ren Ci felt that it was alright for their money to go towards a housing loan for the director who was soon to be drawing a MPs allowance in addition to a substantial salary, then that is OK. I doubt that they were asked!

You need to read my post again on all points. If you can't understand , just ask.

 

[londontrader]

I already said is his extension. He twisted my logic in his extension.

Apart from unclear mind, I think you have an unsound mind too............

I have said enough. Bye!

He pointed out how inconsistent your logic was
somehow, I am no longer surprised that you can't comprehend that!

That's so typical of immature people
when you can't win an argument, resort to insults and name calling!
As I said before, it is pointless arguing with you

 

[londontrader]

Ren Ci being a public charitable org puts a different complexion on the matter...to me civil service and public charity are not similar...sorry but that is the perception at least...to remedy such a complexity I think the charity in question needs to be transparent and accountable when dealing with such matters...was this the case in Ong's matter?...I do not know...hopefully Ong shall reply to TOC's letter with full sincere disclosure.

Ok I have a question for you.

If:

1. Ren Ci fully disclosed everything that transpired
2. The decisions leading up to the loans were reached by consensus
3. Dr Ong disclosed every aspect of his arrangements with Ren Ci
4. The donors had every opportunity to be kept informed about how their $ was dispensed

Would you still have a problem with their management?

 

[londontrader]

"You don't seem to understand how this works."

JohnTT is very selective about what he chooses to understand

"Its common practice for those moving from one employer to......."

Very well summarised
It's time to focus on what the real issues are
BTW, I would like to ask your opinion:

If:

1. Ren Ci fully disclosed everything that transpired
2. The decisions leading up to the loans were reached by consensus
3. Dr Ong disclosed every aspect of his arrangements with Ren Ci
4. The donors had every opportunity to be kept informed about how their $ was dispensed

Would you have a problem with their management?

 

[londontrader]

"I however have issues with Ong not with the loan but not knowing what was going on with Ren Ci in the first place."

His was initially a clinical appt
I doubt he had much opportunity (early on) to uncover such irregularities with decisions taken by his CEO. However, I think he subsequently moved up the ranks quite fast and may reasonably be expected to have some feel for what was going on. But all this is supposition, since I don't know what the culture was like in Ren Ci under the monk CEO. If Dr Ong is at fault, then all the management at Ren Ci should be responsible too.

"This is a Govt MP, and this guy has no clue what is going on. Any why is representing Singaporeans in parliament."

I'm actually not surprised having met and worked with some of these people.

 

[londontrader]

"If all the donors to Ren Ci felt that it was alright for their money to go towards a housing loan for the director who was soon to be drawing a MPs allowance in addition to a substantial salary, then that is OK. I doubt that they were asked!"

I think it is logistically difficult (and expensive) to ask all the donors to sign off on management issues. However, if the charity had made efforts to keep the donors informed of the philosophy and direction they were taking, would you still be OK with how they spent the $?

 

[JohnTT]

He pointed out how inconsistent your logic was
somehow, I am no longer surprised that you can't comprehend that!

That's so typical of immature people
when you can't win an argument, resort to insults and name calling!
As I said before, it is pointless arguing with you

I am talking about his frame of mind & yet you keep talking about the legality of the loan. Pls read thru' all my posts & digest well.

The problem with you is that you have a tendency to misinterpret, twisting words, drawing your own assumption & conclusion, & probably hallucinating.

Very mature of you. I let you win, ok? I shall rest my case.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

First of all, such practice may be acceptable in corporate world but corporate world finance their business dealings and loans to employees by its own means while CHARITY like RENCI finance itself via money DONATED by public donors. Here lies the distinctive difference.

It is an interesting news to me to be seen side by side to the proposed study of criminalizing those who take loans from the loan sharks.

Imagine while the poor and desperate has no avenues to funding from banks or institutions, no state welfare for them and forced to take loans from loan sharks at horrendous interest rate, we have rich, affluent and powerful people taking interest free loans from a CHARITY organization!

So it bugs me, is CHARITY organization taking care of the poor or the affluent? Are money donated by layman used to finance the poor or those who are apparently well to do? Why didn't charity organization provide cheap loans to the poor instead of those who are earning many times than the poor?

It is really an interesting contrast here.

Goh Meng Seng

You don't seem to understand how this works. Its common practice for those moving from one employer to another to arrange for loans issued by the first to be taken over either the second employer or another party. Its done all over the world. It basic HR function.

I have always felt that the Ren Ci monk was a fraud and PAP MP during his tenure obviously was hopeless in setting the ship straight but the loan is not an issue. It no different to drawing a salay from Ren Ci.

Durai on the other hand carried the title of Hon Gen Sec for many years despite drawing a full salary but gave the impression that it was an honoraium.

I am actually surpised that many are not aware that this is accepted and established practice.

Its becomes an issue when the loan provider allows a loan that is either not allowed and done in contravention of the entity's rules.

However the perception issue needs to be addressed as it is a charity. That is important.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Ok I have a question for you.

If:

1. Ren Ci fully disclosed everything that transpired
2. The decisions leading up to the loans were reached by consensus
3. Dr Ong disclosed every aspect of his arrangements with Ren Ci
4. The donors had every opportunity to be kept informed about how their $ was dispensed

Would you still have a problem with their management?

Dear Londontrader,

Good day to you!

Yes, I would still do have issue with such interest free loans.

The reasoning is this, donors donate their money for the charity the organization is providing to its clients, not for money to be made interest free loans to people who are supposedly well to do, even if they are employers of the organization.

This is actually a case of principal agent problem, moral hazards. When the charity organization sell the idea of their charity work to persuade donors to donate to them, the funds should be used diligently to achieve that objective.

For example, if the charity takes the money to gamble in high risk commodity futures in the name of getting high return to finance their charity work, would it be acceptable to you? This is a direct reasoning, unlike HR issue here.

Donors' money should not be made as a piggy bank for the employees to get interest free or even cheap loans. It is a question of morality, not legality.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[rainnix]

Dear Londontrader,

Good day to you!

Yes, I would still do have issue with such interest free loans.

The reasoning is this, donors donate their money for the charity the organization is providing to its clients, not for money to be made interest free loans to people who are supposedly well to do, even if they are employers of the organization.

This is actually a case of principal agent problem, moral hazards. When the charity organization sell the idea of their charity work to persuade donors to donate to them, the funds should be used diligently to achieve that objective.

For example, if the charity takes the money to gamble in high risk commodity futures in the name of getting high return to finance their charity work, would it be acceptable to you? This is a direct reasoning, unlike HR issue here.

Donors' money should not be made as a piggy bank for the employees to get interest free or even cheap loans. It is a question of morality, not legality.

Goh Meng Seng

For a while I wondered why do charities need to function like corporate business? Same questions with our TC. Do we really need all these fanfare on TV live shows before a Singaporean will start to donate to charity?

That could not have been. There are many charities, churches and temples whom are operating way below their target of donations and still manage to survive. Whereas big organizations which millions are involved, could not shake corruptions due to improper breaches of corp governance.

Does Renci need to use corporate HR practices so that to attract "talented" people to work for them? Is that the culture of our Nation? What had Singapore become???

 

[londontrader]

I am talking about his frame of mind & yet you keep talking about the legality of the loan. Pls read thru' all my posts & digest well.

The problem with you is that you have a tendency to misinterpret, twisting words, drawing your own assumption & conclusion, & probably hallucinating.

Very mature of you. I let you win, ok? I shall rest my case.

Okay I'll be fair to you
Here is a sample of what you wrote:

--------------------------
The question NOW is whether he is suitable to be a MP given his frame of mind? He served his own interest before public interest & sick interest.
--------------------------

Okay, you did refer to his "frame of mind" and how he might has some character issues. I have no problems with that!

BUT you also wrote:

-------------------------------
Govt must take action against this MP guy
I hope the govt will look into this matter & take action promptly
This MP must be thoroughly investigated
Both parties are EQUALLY responsible. How can u push the blame to Ren Ci alone
Example : If someone bribed you, & you accepted the money, can you say the problem lies with their person
--------------------------------

Ren Ci is now party to a criminal prosecution. You say the MP is "EQUALLY responsible" and needs to be "thoroughly investigated" with "action" to be taken "promptly". You have flat out associated Dr Ong with Ren Ci's criminal case, whether you meant it intentionally or just can't write clearly!

Then we have your rude insults:

------------------------------
Apart from unclear mind, I think you have an unsound mind too.
------------------------------

So we have established that

1. You can't express yourself properly ie. meant to talk about "frame of mind" and end up also accusing the man of having an equal share in criminal activity.

2. You are just as defensive as Dr Ong ie. simply refuse to admit your wrong choice of words and explain yourself

3. You are very immature ie. hurl insults when you can't win an argument!

Based on 1, 2 & 3, you will make a perfect PAP MP!
Hope they invite you for tea very soon!
I rest my case!

 

[londontrader]

Dear Londontrader,

Good day to you!

Yes, I would still do have issue with such interest free loans.

The reasoning is this, donors donate their money for the charity the organization is providing to its clients, not for money to be made interest free loans to people who are supposedly well to do, even if they are employers of the organization.

This is actually a case of principal agent problem, moral hazards. When the charity organization sell the idea of their charity work to persuade donors to donate to them, the funds should be used diligently to achieve that objective.

For example, if the charity takes the money to gamble in high risk commodity futures in the name of getting high return to finance their charity work, would it be acceptable to you? This is a direct reasoning, unlike HR issue here.

Donors' money should not be made as a piggy bank for the employees to get interest free or even cheap loans. It is a question of morality, not legality.

Goh Meng Seng

Hello Mr Goh

Thanks for expressing your opinion about this issue. This is the dilemma that our charitable organizations have to face in the aftermath of the NKF scandal (and now the Ren Ci scandal). They collect donations with clear objectives to help the less privileged. However, one doesn't achieve those objectives just by collecting money. The funds have to be deployed to procure the resources that offer direct help to those who need it eg. building and then running a hospital.

You are probably aware that spending money to achieve an objective isn't always straightforward. Some people do it better than others, some get cheated while others obtain very good value. So charities face the same staffing challenges as any corporate entity ie. you want the staff that adds value to your organization.

So, do you pay market rates and hire the best you can find to do the job well? Afterall, quality staffing increases the probability of helping your target group by deploying the donated monies well. You may shun paying market rates and hope to rely on volunteers and altruistic workers (ie. willing to accept low pay). Does this actually achieve your objective of helping your target group? Yes it may if you are fortunate enough to attract the right kind of volunteers and altruistic employees. What happens if you don't? Is your target group to be let down because you choose to be "Penny-Wise, Pound-Foolish"?

So what's my opinion about this issue?

1. I will congratulate any charity who can achieve it's aims without having to resort to typical corporate type behaviour (which we do seem to find distasteful when associated with a charity).

2. I will not condemn a charity which has to pay commercial wages if they need to in order to meet their stated objectives. Especially applicable to hospitals ie. medical personnel don't always come cheap and altruistic

3. Full and frequent disclosure is expected with proper performance measurement to show value for money. Of course they should measure the right kind of performance! Remember how the NKF was very good at measuring money collection as opposed to benefits given out.

4. I will expect a charity to show RESTRAINT ie. they should aim to be on the conservative side as opposed to being too generous. The way we pay snr civil servants and politicians in this country is not the model to follow. Therefore, while I do defend Dr Ong from unfair accusations of improper behaviour, I am uncomfortable with Ren Ci's past remuneration policies (too generous in my opinion). I also find Dr Ong rather distasteful but that's a personal preference.

5. Should all loans be ruled out as a staff incentive? No, I think we should look at the situation case by case. The organization needs to balance it's obligations to the donors with it's own objectives. Sometimes, you need to reach out and hire (or retain) some quality people who can really make a difference. Ultimately, you want your target group to benefit. I know of charities in the UK that give out low cost staff housing loans to offset the lower wages that their people earn. Remember that banks grant mortgages based on your salary. BTW, the funding for the loans didn't all come from donated money. The charity was also able to obtain preferential funding in the wholesale market.

6. Charities shouldn't get carried away with raising funds even though it is one of their primary functions. They need to periodically report on how they have cleverly spent the funds to benefit X no. of people. We have enough reports of how they cleverly raised X amount of $$$. I'm also more interested in aggregate data as opposed to flashing a video of how they helped ONE poor desperate soul during an over the top charity phone in.

That's my 2 cents worth
Maybe a bit long winded

 

[shelltox]

You mind is still stuck in the middle ages, we are talking about organisation that generate funds of millions of dollars and at the same time taking care of hundreds of patients. renci need to emply doctors and nurses and professional health care workers to look after the old patients.

these people need to be paid close to market rates , we can be altuistic but who is going bring home the bread and the butter. The amount of income may be high by your standard but Dr ong could have earned more if he work in gic,