I think the electorate should put their foot down this time. Why pay and have a minister sitting down in the kitchen and do absolutely nothing except to prevent his can of worms being opened by the next administration?
-
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!
- Thread starter Balls2U
- Start date
Therefore, it is important that those who are eligible to vote at Ang Mo Kio, should vote wisely and strategically, to facilitate a farewell and retirement for LHL. Give him the retirement that he deserves.
Shanmugam and Vivian shouldn’t have delivered ministerial statements on Ridout Road: Ex-ST columnist
YT screencapturesShare
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...al-statements-on-ridout-road-ex-st-columnist/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...idout-road-ex-st-columnist/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...al+statements+on+Ridout+Road:+Ex-ST+columnist
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...al+statements+on+Ridout+Road:+Ex-ST+columnist
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...al+statements+on+Ridout+Road:+Ex-ST+columnist
Follow us on Instagram and Telegram
July 5, 2023
By Jewel Stolarchuk
"Ministers don’t rent bungalows as ministers. Tenants do. Otherwise, it’s akin to Donald Trump rejecting allegations against himself by way of a ‘Presidential Statement’. The Person is separate from the Office. Same same but different," he wrote.
SINGAPORE: Public policy educator and former Straits Times (ST) political columnist Gan Swee Leong has opined that the speeches Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan delivered on the Ridout Road saga Parliament yesterday (3 July) should not have been deemed “ministerial statements,” given the fact that they are involved in the controversy.
The Order Paper of the Parliamentary sitting that convened yesterday shows that the authorities consider Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan’s speeches to be two out of the four ministerial statements delivered yesterday. The media has also reported their speeches as ministerial statements.
Mr Gan, however, disagrees with this label. He said on Facebook yesterday morning: “If Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan, like the other two political appointees, are addressing Parliament as Ministers of their respective Law and Home Affairs portfolio, they should stay away from commenting on the Rideout Road bungalows as they have vested interests.”
Sharing his view that the ministers should have recused themselves from making ministerial statements on the matter and expressed their views as ordinary MPs defending their name, he said:
“In other words, Messrs Shan and Vivian should only express their views as ordinary MPs who are accountable for their individual behaviors over an incident deemed inappropriate by many Singaporeans and are using the parliamentary session to defend their good name. That’s fair enough.
“This is no different from opposition MPs across the aisle who have to account for their own indiscretion such as speaking out of line (eg MP Leong Mun Wai) or lying (eg MP Raeesah Khan). They spoke as ordinary folks expressing regret, not as party representatives and certainly not as political appointees.”
Mr Gan added that he is “not trying to be pedantic over the term ‘ministerial statement,’” but is concerned about the “deeper and broader unsavory political culture that has crept into our government and governance.”
He said: “Ministers do not make ‘ministerial statements’ just because they have something to say. When their personal deeds – and not official work – are called to question, they are making, well, ‘non-ministerial statements’. To assert otherwise is to privilege oneself simply because of one’s political office.
“Ministers don’t rent bungalows as ministers. Tenants do. Otherwise, it’s akin to Donald Trump rejecting allegations against himself by way of a ‘Presidential Statement’. The Person is separate from the Office. Same same but different.”
Mr Gan’s post was published before the parliamentary sitting.
Pointing to the Chinese saying: 王子犯法，庶民同罪, which means if a prince commits an offence, he should be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary citizen, the public policy expert called on the two Ministers to “do the decent, noble and honourable thing and that is to express ‘regret’ for causing public resentment, alarm, distress or misunderstanding.”
He added, “Such a gesture is not an admission of guilt but being human. Ministers must remember that’s how all of us begin our lives as.”
Send in your scoops to [email protected]
Shanmugam and Vivian should have taken a leaf out of Chiam See Tong’s book
Photo: YT screencapture, AFP, YT screencaptureJuly 5, 2023
By Jewel Stolarchuk
Mr Chiam, who was at one point the sole opposition parliamentarian in the House, showed Singaporeans the value of having principles and sticking up for principles when he gave up a terrace house, costing him “more than a million dollars.”
SINGAPORE: Despite the gruelling six-hour Parliamentary session yesterday (3 July), in which Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan’s explained how they came to rent the state-owned bungalows along Ridout Road, some are asking whether the whole saga could have been avoided if the ruling party politicians had taken a leaf out of opposition giant Chiam See Tong’s book.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean cited the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which cleared the Ministers of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, conflict of interest or being given preferential treatment, while Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong vouched for his Ministers and said that both ruling party politicians had done nothing wrong.
As the sitting wore on, opposition politicians in Parliament raised concerns about the perception of a conflict of interest even if there was no actual or potential conflict. Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh said that no one is accusing the Ministers of corruption but questioned the optics of how the rental transactions were struck.
Similarly, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) secretary-general Leong Mun Wai said he believed in the Ministers’ integrity but raised the perception of conflict of interest.
Mr Shanmugam, at one point during the sitting, said that conflict of interest cannot be a subjective viewpoint based on perception.
When WP MP Jamus Lim asked whether there were any actions by the two ministers that they believe, in hindsight, could be perceived as a conflict of interest, Mr Shanmugam said that the question essentially is, “if others perceive you to be in conflict, therefore you are in conflict, therefore you’re in breach of the ministerial code”.
Asserting that the government cannot run on the basis that an officer is in conflict as long as a member of the public perceives him to be in conflict, he added that this would mean that the Health Minister could be in conflict if he undergoes surgery at a hospital or the Home Affairs Minister could be in a conflict if he files a police report in his capacity.
While many Singaporeans have accepted the explanations provided by the Ministers and the findings of the CPIB report, some have asked whether this whole controversy could have been prevented.
Earlier, on 28 June, veteran editor Bertha Henson said she didn’t expect wrong-doing but “can’t understand” why no one advised the Ministers to avoid renting from the Government.
Pointing out that this would “give rise precisely to this sort of perception of conflict of interest,” she said: “Then you get public riled up for nothing. And a CPIB probe for info that doesn’t seem so secret.”
She added: “It’s not as if they don’t have a choice of rented property. It’s one of those ‘sacrifices’ ministers have to make to make sure there would be no question about integrity. Why put your civil servants through this and have THEIR integrity questioned?”
Before the Ministers decided to rent the state-owned properties, they could have looked to the example veteran opposition politician Chiam See Tong set decades ago.
Mr Chiam, who was at one point the sole opposition parliamentarian in the House, showed Singaporeans the value of having principles and sticking up for principles when he gave up a terrace house, costing him “more than a million dollars.”
The story of why he did so became public in 1996 when Parliament sat to hear then-Senior Minister (SM) Lee Kuan Yew and his son then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, explain how they bought several condo units by Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) at pre-launch discounts.
While the purchases were eventually found to have been proper, the debate in Parliament turned to the issues of high ministerial salaries. Mr Chiam called on ministers to disclose or declare all their assets in light of the HPL saga.
Defending the policy which ties ministerial pay to the private sector, SM Lee challenged Mr Chiam, saying: “Ask yourself, Mr Chiam, be honest. We are going to have an election soon. You are an honest man… Do not deceive people.
“You say, ‘Declare this.’… Mr Chiam, would you like to declare your income, although it is known to Inland Revenue? Would you like to declare your assets?”
The founding Prime Minister of Singapore added that “no candidate would join the PAP, especially a successful one” if he had to disclose his assets.
Turning to Mr Low Thia Khiang, who was serving his first term as a Workers’ Party MP, the Senior Minister said: “Maybe Mr Low Thia Khiang would be prepared to do it because he has been having a pretty lean time. He has not been a lawyer. So he can show, ‘You see, how poor I am.’”
He shot at Mr Chiam, “But Mr Chiam, let us be honest, and then maybe you will still win Potong Pasir.”
Mr Chiam first responded by addressing the question of ministerial pay and said, “my perception is that salary cannot be everything.”
He added, “We want good men. Sure, we want honest people. I know it is difficult to get them… I was wondering whether if we just concentrate on the incentive of high salaries, without hoping that people would also have values with them, even without the high salary, that they can still work for Singapore.”
Turning to Mr Lee, Mr Chiam said, “Sure, I would be willing to declare what properties I bought.”
Mr Chiam then described an incident when he was a teacher at Cedar Secondary School in the 1960s. He was in the Singapore Teachers Union (STU) and came to know about the Teachers’ Housing Estate project, which built terrace houses, especially for teachers, many of whom were having difficulty finding affordable housing at the time.
A total of 256 double and triple-storeyed terraced houses were built and made available for purchase in the estate in 1969. The price range of the houses was between $23,000 and $25,000, which, while considered affordable at the time, still posed a significant financial burden for teachers earning between $325 and $690 monthly.
However, teachers were able to obtain loans of up to 80% of the purchase price from their schools, with interest rates as low as 6%.
Mr Chiam told Parliament, “I booked a corner unit. It was a very good unit, with a basement below. I arranged with the principal for a loan. I put out some money and I was successful in purchasing that property.”
But Mr Chiam already owned two flats at the time. He said: “I was living in one and renting out the other. I was a single person at that time, and being a bachelor I did not want to live in a terrace house all by myself. I had to rent it out.
“I asked myself what would happen if other teachers got to know. You are depriving them of one house. You are buying it to rent it out and they have a family and they do not have a house to stay in. So I gave up that purchase.”
He asserted: “That is the sort of principle that I have.”
Revealing that he probably lost “over a million dollars” by 1996 due to that decision, Mr Chiam said: “I do not know how much it costs now, but at least over a million dollars. That is the sort of values that I hope can be inculcated among Singaporeans.
“Sure, we want high salaries. We want a good living. We want money for our children to be educated. But at the same time, we must have dedicated and committed people in Singapore. It is not because of the salaries that I come to serve Singapore.”
SM Lee replied to Mr Chiam, “Hear, hear!”
Choosing to let go of the terrace house despite the loss was not the only time Mr Chiam put his principles above high pay and profits. Recalling how he voluntarily worked in rural Malaysia with a very low salary because of his desire to serve the people, Mr Chiam told the House:
“I have given up my time and energy for 20 years to be in politics, hoping that I can contribute. I think I have contributed something to Singapore. I think I have set an example, hopefully, that others will follow me when they are in the Opposition. We have also to help Singapore grow and be strong. It is not only the duty of the Government. It is also the duty of the Opposition. We are also nation builders.”
Send in your scoops to [email protected]
me give this piece , A++ 
Here's a tl;dr of what happened in Parliament on Shanmugam & Vivian renting Ridout Road properties
Now you know.Keyla Supharta |
Events
The parliamentary sitting on Jul. 3, 2023, saw Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, Ministers Edwin Tong, Vivian Balakrishnan and K Shanmugam giving ministerial statements concerning the rental of Ridout Road bungalows by the latter two.
If you do not know what Ridout Road is or didn't keep up with what's happening, you can read the other tl;dr first.
For this edition, we cover some of the questions from various Members of Parliament, both PAP and Opposition, and how the ministers answered them, as well as some highlights of the clarifications.
The (shortened) questions and their (tl;dr) answers
Q: Was there any corruption, criminal wrongdoing or unethical behaviour involved in the two Ministers' tenancies at Ridout Road from SLA?
The number 1 question on the list. The short answer is no.
For the long answer, please read Teo's response here:
Q: Under what circumstances did the two Ministers rent the properties?
Shanmugam contacted a property agent to rent the property, which had been vacant without attracting bids for more than four years.
Vivian's wife came across a lease sign at 31 Ridout Road property and contacted a property agent to negotiate the rent.
Q: Why did they rent the property in the first place?
Vivian said he rented the place to keep his whole family together.
Shanmugam said it was a "personal decision", which he elaborated at length here:
He also talked about his road to politics here:
Q: Was there any conflict of interest in renting the two properties? Was Shanmugam involved in his official capacity as Law Minister in decisions relating to the rental of the Ridout properties?
No, and no. Long answer here:
Q: How will the Government assure the public that the ministers did not receive and make use of any privileged information before renting the properties?
Teo answered the question during his ministerial statement,
"CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers or their spouses, and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions."
Worker's Party chief Pritam Singh, also the Leader of the Opposition, raised the question again after the statement during the time for clarification.
The short answer is the same. You can read the full exchange here:
Q: Are there any rules, conventions or policies to ensure that Cabinet Ministers do not take advantage of privileged information they received regarding the lease of Government properties?
Q: What are the current rules and processes for Cabinet Ministers to declare conflicts of interest, and are there any plans to strengthen such rules and processes?
For both questions, Teo answered that ministers are bound by a Code of Conduct, which had been in place since 1954 and updated in 2005.
Teo added that public officers follow the same rules, and the Public Service Division (PSD) will implement new rules, such as declaring before they can rent government properties managed by their agencies.
Long answer:
Q: How does SLA ensure that the process of renting properties it manages is fair?
The chief executive of SLA declared on Mar. 29 2018, to the then-permanent secretary of the Ministry of Law that the rental transaction was done without any conflict of interest.
The former assured that the proposed rental was set according to the market rate with an assessment done by SLA valuers independently of the SLA leasing offices.
No preferential treatment was given during the rental transaction, and all prospects and tenants were treated equally.
Q: What did PM Lee have to say about all these?
PM Lee said that Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian retain his full confidence and have done nothing wrong in the Ridout Road rental matter.
Importantly, he also said that matters of ethics and standards of propriety are the PM's responsibility.
"I have to set the standards of what is ethical, what is proper. I cannot outsource them, for example, to appoint an ethics advisor to tell me what is proper or not proper," PM Lee said.
Q: What are the main takeaways for PAP and the government?
Teo said that he was glad that all the parliamentarians "agreed to focus on the facts and the truths, not just on wild allegations or rumours or perceptions".
He stressed that this was important so that the government could build a system with a strong foundation which would help to bring in good people to continue to serve in the government to take Singapore further forward.
Teo summarised it here:
Q: Did PSP's Leong Mun Wai ask anything?
Q: By the way, how many trees were removed?
42 trees with more than 1 metre girth were removed with NPark's approval. One tree fell by itself due to bad weather.
Q: On the rumours that Shanmugam's son...
Or you can hear it from himself here:
Top image via MCI.
Dr Chee Soon Juan criticizes Singapore Parliament’s exoneration of ministers in state properties rental controversy
POLITICSSINGAPORE
5 July 2023
ByThe Online Citizen
15
SINGAPORE — Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), has come out strongly on Facebook against the recent parliamentary session concerning the controversial rental of state properties by Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
The session, which saw four ministerial statements delivered, was convened due to the controversy surrounding the rentals by Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, particularly as Mr Shanmugam, in his capacity as Minister for Law, oversees the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) that manages these properties.
In particular, it was revealed that Mr Shanmugam tasked the then-Deputy Secretary from the Ministry for Law to prepare a list of unlisted state properties, which he then used to decide to rent 26 Ridout Road.
“The Parliamentary sitting that exonerated Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan was utterly unsatisfactory, raising more questions than it answered,” Dr Chee posted on his Facebook page, implying that the session did not sufficiently address the public’s concerns.
Dr Chee went on to voice the public’s anger and discontent, stating that “the anger of the public is palpable and warranted.”
He decried the People’s Action Party (PAP) for what he perceives as hypocrisy.
“While berating and lecturing the people about living frugally, the PAP continues to demonstrate its hypocrisy with ministers luxuriating in opulence,” he expressed.
The SDP leader also queried the processes of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), writing, “Herein lies the problem. The bids for the bungalows were not made by the Ministers themselves but their wives. Did the SLA determine that the wives also earned at least 3 times the bid rent of $26,000 a month? If not, how did it know that the women were of sound financial status? Was SLA told that they were the wives of the Ministers’? Did this affect the decision-making process?”
Dr Chee questioned the ministers’ failure to proactively disclose their rental arrangements.
“When Ministers, who are in charge of the government, do private transactions with the government, it should not be whistleblowers who reveal the facts. It is the Ministers who must volunteer, promptly and forthrightly, the information. Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan did none of this,” he added.
On the solution to the issue at hand, Dr Chee suggested the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry.
“To salvage the woeful debacle, only an independent commission of inquiry, one perhaps chaired by a retired judge or law professor, to delve into the case and ask the necessary questions will suffice. Anything less will stoke the public’s resentment even more,” he posted.
In a notable historical footnote, Dr Chee has personally experienced the harsh glare of public service. Back in the early 1990s, he was dismissed from the National University for misuse of office stamps, a decision he contends was a political vendetta led by S. Vasoo, then a PAP MP.
In the parliamentary session, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong maintained unwavering confidence in Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan.
Investigations carried out by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean found no evidence of criminal activity or improper conduct of the two ministers.
The parliamentary debate saw Opposition Leader Mr Pritam Singh, the Secretary General of the Workers’ Party, questioning PM Lee on the scope of the CPIB investigation.
PM Lee defended Minister Shanmugam’s decision to receive personal use information from civil servants, stating, “My view is he (Mr Shanmugam) could have done it a different way. He could have done it this way. He has given the House the reasons why he did it this way.I think those are cogent reasons, which I accept.”
The session ended with Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterating the necessity for a clean government and the importance of building an inclusive and progressive society.
Snakes, sacrifice and snatching victory from Ridout controversy
OPINIONPOLITICS
4 July 2023
ByAugustine Low
53
by Augustine Low
They beat around the bush, they talked of snakes and sacrifice, and in the end, they sang praises of how honesty and integrity won the day.
Once again, the People’s Action Party (PAP) managed to turn controversy into victory.
Yesterday’s Parliament session on ministers’ occupation of Ridout estates showed us why Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean is their best man for the occasion.
He could answer questions without answering yet make the questioner look like he is stupid enough not to get it when he tries to clarify.
There was question after question on conflict of interest, but each time SM Teo answered in a way that he understood best.
He kept harping on the three types of conflict of interest: actual, potential, and perceived. Apparently, if you take steps to avoid the first two, you then eliminate the last one.
Minister K Shanmugam and Minister Edwin Tong also swatted at conflict of interest, like swatting at mosquitoes.
On the key issue of Minister Shanmugam asking his ministry’s deputy secretary for a list of public properties to rent (which were not all listed or made public), he said he did it to maintain “total transparency.”
Minister Shanmugam spoke at length on how he grew up poor and made it as a successful lawyer, then made the sacrifice to be a minister, the sacrifice of a big pay cut, and then said he was not suggesting he had made a “special sacrifice” because it is a privilege to serve Singaporeans.
The minister said he rented 26 Ridout Road in 2018 because he wanted to put his own Good-Class Bungalow (GCB) up for sale.
But later on, he said he was renting out his bungalow while staying at 26 Ridout Road. It is not known why after five years, he still has not managed to sell his bungalow.
Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said he rented 31 Ridout Road so that the extended family could live under one roof. He did not say whether he rented out or sold his own GCB.
SM Teo told the MP for Sembawang GRC that the Ministers’ Code of Conduct does not compel the two Ministers to answer whether they are renting their properties while staying in Ridout Road when she asked.
During a site visit to 31 Ridout Road, Balakrishnan and his wife saw a leaking roof, holes on the wooden floor, major termite infestation, trees which had uprooted, unkempt undergrowth and “actually we saw snakes both inside and outside the house.”
All that would have terrified just about anybody: but the minister and his wife proceeded to take up the rental for the property.
Of course, now we know that the Singapore Land Authority ended up spending a total of $1,257,900 on “essential repair works” for 26 and 31 Ridout Road to make the two bungalows habitable for the ministers.
And now . . . for the victory speech.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he appointed SM Teo to conduct the independent review “to maintain the government and the PAP’s long-standing, high and stringent standards of integrity and propriety.”
He said that “Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan have done nothing wrong, and they retain my full confidence.”
PM Lee added that the session in Parliament is a demonstration of how the PAP is determined to uphold standards.
“The government has not and will never tolerate any compromise or departure from the stringent standards of honesty, integrity and incorruptibility that Singaporeans expect of us.”
With that, the case is closed.
Uncle find that both neh kana pressure till brain cannot function properly liao.
In the first place they need not even needed to explain in public why they are renting.
It's a personal choice .
Do they need to explain to anyone how they like to live their life or how they like to spend their own money ?
The focus should be on clearing the corruption part I.e the indepth cpib investigation agenda.
As long as no proof of corruption that's the end. Even his boss lhl is not allowed to make them explain in public.
Cb teo talk so much but the answer is already obvious.
When sla ceo reports to law minister of course there is a conflict of interest.
Only a Kim siew aka animals will dare to say there isn't coi.
Well the pm lhl aka an emperor can choose whether he want to be a human or a Kim siew. No one can stop that.
Emperor word is the biggest.
When sla ceo reports to law minister of course there is a conflict of interest.
Only a Kim siew aka animals will dare to say there isn't coi.
Well the pm lhl aka an emperor can choose whether he want to be a human or a Kim siew. No one can stop that.
Emperor word is the biggest.
After 3 days of parliament debate,ah nehs still arguing,acting like poor victims to win sympathy,show no remorse, arrogant,threatening to sue,continue leeching the taxpayers' money,no shame at all......no eyes to see.
A Minister's job is not a lifestyle job. Want such a job and lifestyle, quit politics and join family office industry. Then you can court the world's ultra rich from a colonial bungalow, as the new masters who replaced the British. As taxpayer, I resent Ministers leveraging on their positions to gain favorable access to these properties when many young Sg'reans can't even land their first flats to make babies, and you wonder why birth rates so low. Should not allow asset rich new FTs to buy resale HDB at all! They should have to wait 5 years. PAP has the power but not doing its bloody job.
60% voted for it. Don't blame pap... Blame those who put pap in power. Elections have consequences.
There were absolutely no expressions of regret or any attempts to apologise for any cause of unhappiness to the public in this saga.
It is all about themselves and their families.
Why the need for a sprawling bungalow when the spirit of 95% of Singaporeans live in small apartments and flats.
They obviously think they are both well above the rest.
It is all about themselves and their families.
Why the need for a sprawling bungalow when the spirit of 95% of Singaporeans live in small apartments and flats.
They obviously think they are both well above the rest.
What's the point of being a minister if you cannot enjoy the baubles of office?
Their benefits are their high pay...pinky inferred that. And that is where their Benefits end... anymore n it's corruption
Similar threads
