After the 2011 election, the PMO issued a letter ”laying down the rules on how the PAP’s MPs should behave”.
It is strange for the PMO to only issue a set of rules for one political party MPs and not all MPs. Is the PM allowed to use the resources of his publicly-funded office for the PAP, similar to using his press secretary in his private lawsuit against an ordinary citizen?
Under “Declaration of income” (pt 35), PM Lee said: “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.”
Is Singapore a democratic country? Why does the PM need to offer PROTECTION to PAP MPs? There appears to be something very wrong with our system when the leader of our country wants to protect an opaque system. No other democratic country has offered such protection to its lawmakers.
This again raises important questions – What is the PAP trying to hide from citizens? If PAP MPs and ministers or their friends/relatives have any business dealings with the government, why should this information be disclosed only to PM Lee?
Singaporeans deserve to know basic background information of their MPs, their businesses and professional interests. For example, ministers Lim Swee Say, Khaw and Gan are also serving as advisers on the board of ‘Business China, Singapore’ with MOS Sam Tan and SMOS Lee Yi Shyan and Josephine Teo as directors. So our ministers are not as busy as made out to be and PAP is more focused on running our country as a corporation.
Should Heng Chee How be moonlighting to earn an additional $36,450 (pg 18) for attending 5 NTUC Income board meetings on top of his income topping $1 million tax dollars as a SMS ($935,000) and MP ($192,500)?
What about superhuman Yeo Guat Kwang who holds the highest number of directorship and membership and other MPs? Can they function effectively as MPs and political office holders with so much financial interest in the private sector?
The PAP must also not continue to conceal information such as the remuneration of directors of Temasek Holdings, GIC, MOHH, etc. Public funds have been used.
A non-transparent government loses the trust of citizens. For the PAP, it appears losing our trust is worth concealing all the information.
Transparency has been an issue for decades which PAP has been reluctant to resolve. This naturally raises the question – why is the PAP afraid of transparency?