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?
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, ie 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.
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.
For a company whose revenues must be in the tens of millions of tax dollars, the names of its directors are not found on its website. Why is PAP doing business with such companies? Isn’t Top Advertising owned by grassroots leader, Calvin Teo, Ass Sec of Kaki Bukit CCC? Perhaps Khaw would like to shed some light on the profit margin of Top Advertising as he did for FMSS. It’s likely he will find this a sadder outcome for Singaporeans.
The PAP should disclose the value and number of contracts awarded to thousands of grassroots members because it involves hundreds of millions of tax dollars and residents’ funds.
There is simply too much information which should have been in the public domain but continues to be concealed by PAP. Chances are all the hidden information will be deeply-embarrassing to PAP and the disclosure will result in PAP being booted out by the people.