Why is Parliament Deafeningly Silent over the Ang Mo Kio Town Council Corruption Scandal?

[LaoTze]

https://news.nestia.com/detail/-/2661268


RedWire Times - KOPI POLITICS·4.6k views·2019-11-06 00:04

ELSON: When Ang Mo Kio Town Council general manager Victor Wong was under investigation for corruption, questions were raised from the public and opposition MPs.
Minister for Law and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam said then to let the law take its course.
Victor Wong pled guilty to the charges in June this year – putting an end to a case which has dragged since end-2016 – and all that’s left is sentencing.
The biggest question unearthed by the AMKTC corruption scandal is not that Victor Wong can find a lao chio to be his mistress.
Rather, it’s about conflict of interest – how did AMKTC approve a key staff of the town council’s managing agent to be appointed as the town council’s general manager, in charge of approving contracts?
And, is this the same approach adopted by other PAP-run town councils?
What were AMKTC chairman Ang Hin Kee and vice-chairman Darryl David’s role in this appointment?
Mr Ang has previously commented that town councillors scrutinise the handling of contracts – so how then did lapses go untended to for over two years?
Should they be recused from handling town council matters, or even step down, as leaders of AMKTC, because their supposed close supervision simply isn’t competent enough?
And, how did AMKTC receive an “all-clear” unqualified financial statement for FY2017 (2016-2017), the year when Victor Wong was still AMKTC general manager?
So many questions, but not a peep in parliament.
In condemning Workers’ Party MPS and AHTC town councillors, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Indranee Rajah said that they do not have the moral authority to speak up on matters related to town council finances.
But when we leave things to PAP MPs to raise questions about a PAP-run town council that has gotten its name dragged through the m&d, we get 5 months-worth of deafening silence.

 

[winnipegjets]

PAP is above the law. The biggest con man is Shanmugam.

 

[LaoTze]

Simon Lim :
I watched Heng Swee Keat's speech on television and I have also read his speech care fully in the Straits Times. In principle, I agree with him that in view of the High Court's findings and until WP mps clear their names, Sylvia Lim and Low TK should recuse themselves from any financial responsibilities relating to AHTC. The underlying considerations are honesty, integrity and accountability which we as a people and government value highly.

By the same yardstick, are the pap themselves above reproach?

When Dr Lee Wei Ling publicly accused her brother, lhl, of Abuse of Power and as a honourable Head of his Government, as a citizen, I ask why didn't lhl step down temporarily until he clears his name? Next, when Keppel O&M was fined US$422 million in the United States as part of a global settlement for corruption, did the relevant senior people at Keppel O&M and/or Keppel Corporation step aside or lose their jobs as a result? Also, over at AMK town council, did any of the 6 pap mps headed by lhl step aside when Victor Wong, AMK town council's former general manger pleaded guilty to corruption charges that resulted in much of the town council's funds being lost due to their collective negligence and/or incompetency? And not forgetting, the famous AIM case in which large amount of public funds were wasted. Did the 3 pap directors of AIM step aside until full and satisfactory investigations were concluded?

We must never forget that Singapore is our collective home and not a farm where animals are equal but some animals are more equal.

In the true spirit of honesty, integrity and accountability, we must never, never tolerate or practise double standards or fall short of any of those values that we profess as precious to us as a people and as a government. Think.

I thank you all for reading my post again.

 

[LaoTze]

“In March 2018, it was the trial balloon saga where Heng Swee Keat (HSK) asked Sylvia Lim to apologise and withdraw her allegation on the timing of the GST hike. Now he is asking her and Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves from the town council’s financial matters.

Being a legal practitioner, Sylvia knew the motion was not legally binding and refused to do so. Besides if she did, it would clearly indicate to some degree that they were dishonest and untruthful in safeguarding public funds that were entrusted to them.

In both incidents HSK went head-on into two roadblocks when it was totally unnecessary for him to do so. Under parliamentary rules he did not breach any rules. But HSK should have known that Sylvia was not going to budge as she knew where she stood by the rules of the house as well.

What HSK must understand is when one apologises it really means one has done wrong. If Sylvia feels that she has done no wrong and has not profited from it why should she make statements or carry out actions to indicate her wrong doing?

In this case the courts have decided but the ruling will only be final when the appeal is heard and the final ruling given. This is called due process of law which in essence prohibits the government from taking any action against its citizens or agents of the government until a final verdict is delivered by the apex court.

HSK has again shown his hand that he is still an amateur at the game. I fail to understand why he adopted this latest course of action. I wonder who was his audience? Was it the Prime Minister, the cabinet and fellow PAP MPs? Was he trying to show them that as the heir to the PAP throne, he is indeed a worthy successor to LHL?

What he should realise is LHL and GCT are not very good examples of strong and decisive PMs. The only reason GCT survived was because LKY was Senior Minister and Minister Mentor from 1990 to 2011, he provided the backbone to these two PMs.

Well we know why LHL became PM and how he has performed. But at least LHL has pretty decent oratorical skills and is articulate.

HSK must now realise that being high-handed does not mean you are a good leader. Look at what people are saying on the internet of his recent spat with Sylvia. A good leader knows when to open up and when to take decisive action.

Good leaders always take calculated risks and aim to win. Poor leaders always stumble because they have not thought through their intended decisions and its ramifications. HSK is in essence a numbers man but not a good leader of people.

Richard Hu who was Finance Minister from 1985 to 2001 was a classic example of a behind the scenes numbers man. Although he was eloquent, he was not a leader in the true sense of the word.

Goh Keng Swee was a brilliant economist and blue-skies man but was inept as a public speaker. They were in reality good planners and visionary political leaders. Men like them knew they were never good PM material.

HSK from his recent showings is an uninspiring leader who is unable to galvanise his followers. He lacks presence and his communicative skills are below par. This worries me as the world has become a dangerous place.

The geopolitical situation in the Asia Pacific has become less stable. The rise of China and its military prowess is a cause of worry as China knows that whatever we may say or do, we are still in the American camp.

The wheels are still churning up north as well. If you have watched recent political developments you will see alliances being struck between old enemies. As yet we still do not know who will succeed Mahathir.

In Indonesia, Joko Widodo has appointed his political rival, Prabowo Subianto as his Defence Minister as well as others who were against the President in the hustings. These developments could affect the immediate political relationship over areas such as airspace management, defence arrangements, border controls and the like.

At a time like this we need a decisive leader who is smart at navigating and taking on the challenges which will surely come our way, a leader who is also compassionate and one who puts his country, his people and party (in that order) before himself.

In this day and age of electronic media broadcasts and TV, a leader must have excellent communicative skills. This is definitely a veto quality in my books.

Why Singapore did well from 1965 onwards was because we had LKY and a very able cabinet in our formative years. When LKY spoke, you can’t help but listen. Not only was he bright but he was street- smart and competent as well. His cabinet comprised able and selfless men who were up to the job.

They knew how the game was played. In the past there was no internet and social media in existence, so we all pulled the oars together. But those days are gone. Singaporeans are better educated, and more vocal. We are better informed and more exposed to the world at large.

Many of us have become “critical lovers” of Singapore. Our political leaders must remember that when we criticise our leaders it does not mean we are disloyal to our country or ungrateful for what the PAP has done for Singapore.

But times have changed, the world has changed and our leaders must go with the change. Being high-handed in governance is passé We all want to have a better say in how our country is run.

In the next election, if members of the opposition are voted in, they will also be held accountable for their words and deeds. Perhaps it may be good for us in the long run to have a capable opposition in parliament as it will make for a better PAP with capable and decisive leaders who will understand that a one-party state is a thing of the past!”

 

[mojito]

Yes. YES that is correct oppies! Speak up for your oppie MPs. That is what you vote them in parliament for.

 

[laksaboy]

Ownself check ownself, one party/familee calling the shots.

And people are surprised by this?