The NAC bin centre wayang must stop.
What’s the point of the AGO highlighting NAC’s lapse, and NAC’s acknowledgement, without anyone being held accountable? Doesn’t it make a mockery of the AGO and AG Willie Tan Yoke Meng?
The government has not released any ‘material’ information but allowed NAC to defend the high fees paid to consultants in the mainstream media. Worse, it has already decided there was no issue of accountability by publishing NAC’s defence on ‘Factually’, a government website.
Instead of clarifying the consultancy fee overpayment, the issue has been twisted into one of the need for NAC to have a bin centre! (image below)
On the government website, there was no relevant information to clarify the need to spend $410,000 on consultancy fees. Instead, it merely explains:
– The need for a bin centre.
– The complications involved.
– The need for consultancy services.
Assuming the job was so complex that it took 90 days, taxpayers were paying NAC’s consultants about $6200 a day (excluding weekends).
We clearly have an NAC director/directors who did not exercise any common sense and issued a blank cheque, forcing taxpayers to overpay by a few hundred thousand dollars. Is this amount peanuts, again?
How will NAC or other government bodies be able to learn any lesson if no one is held accountable?
Ignoring common sense is no excuse and the director/directors cannot simply expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. Although NAC has “acknowledged and accepted that the cost assessment for building the centre should have been more robust”, the issue doesn’t end here.
More humour cartoons @ mchumour
Has Minister Fu or NAC directors ever issued blank cheques to any party? Why then did NAC issue a blank cheque to its consultants?
The action of NAC is indefensible and those involved must be held accountable. No ifs and buts.
Taxpayers have been ridiculously overcharged: $410,000 is an unbelievable amount to pay for a few months’ work to design a small centre for rubbish.
Overcharging is not only commonplace in Singapore, the sky’s also the limit. A surgeon was once found to have overcharged her royal patient and subsequently agreed to reduce the bill by $12.7 million. During her overcharging case, former PAP MP Alvin Yeo was found to have overcharged the SMC by a whopping $1.16 million. The SMC itself overcharged the surgeon $3.50 per ring binder.
Overcharging is big business in Singapore so how much was NAC overcharged? $200,000? $300,000? As Alvin Yeo had the overcharged amount reduced by $1.16 million, so must the consultants return the excess to taxpayers. No cock and bull story, please.
By attempting to sweep the issue under the carpet ASAP through a government website and defending NAC in the mainstream media, it fuels suspicions of a cover up.
Who is this big-shot NAC director/directors whose name/names cannot be disclosed?
Why are the names of consultants not disclosed in the media?
Why is NAC afraid to disclose cost breakdown?
What is the relationship between NAC directors and the consultants, if any?
What is the amount overcharged by the consultants?
Will this be returned to the government?
What actions have been taken against the foolish director/directors?
Further attempts by the government to not hold civil servants accountable will undermine its trust. Issuing a blank cheque for hundreds of thousands of dollars should not be taken lightly.
This issue deserves parliament’s attention.