TR EMERITUS

The following is an interesting verbatim post of a comment by our techie on the Tan Chuan-Jin fiasco. We feel that it is interesting and warrant further discussion  because it presents a fresh perspective. For the record, I am glad that Chuan-Jin is no longer the speaker, for he is clearly unfit to be one due to his extreme bias. However, I feel that the reason for him stepping down is wrong. He should have been sacked or removed for his action in the parliament, not for his personal indiscretion and sexual preference. Whatever happened between him and CHL is a private affair and should not be used to judge a person’s competence at doing his job, IMHO. A person’s sexual preference and inclination is his own business, none of ours. There are swinger politicians, there are probably politicians that live a polyamory or BDSM  lifestyle, and there are openly gay politicians who are doing a great job all around the world, why should there be any issues? Whatever he did is best left to his family and spouse to cry father cry mother, who are we to make so much noise about? It is a private affair that I feel we have no business poking our nose into. Most importantly, Is there a law that says getting into an affair is illegal? There is a reason why there is a phrase that goes “waking up on the right side of the bed” and not for no reason. Studies have shown that when a person is sexually satisfied, he/she tend to be in a very good mood and do a better job. Maybe the former speaker is getting low quality or inadequate quantity of sex thus resulting in his using of the F* word in parliament out of frustration? What do you think?        Read More →

It doesn’t matter if it’s non-justification or justifying the unjustifiable. The cycle of justification has to go on. From COVID-19 to corruption probe, they find ways to spin justification. The virus was used to justify why Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong could not meet his target to step down – he had to steer the country through the COVID-19 crisis. Now, the talk from political analysts on mainstream media is that the ongoing investigation on Minister S Iswaran would make it “far harder” for PM Lee to do a handover. Justifying why PM-in-waiting Lawrence Wong has to wait longer. The arrest of Minister Iswaran has supporters justifying on social media that it shows the People’s Action Party (PAP) is able to ownself check ownself. Even presidential hopeful Tharman Shanmugaratnam waded in with similiar justification to “treat the setback as an opportunity to strengthen the system, to display full transparency.” Trying to turn adversity to advantage through their own brand of justification. Tharman himself has had to justify why he is the right man for elected president, given that he has been a PAP man for decades. But no amount of justification can erase what the people see on his forehead – the lightning bolt symbol of the PAP. Leader of the House Indranee Rajah has announced that Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin’s unspeakable remark will be addressed at the next Parliament sitting—though Tan has since resigned as a MP today. They had to dig really deep to justify why six top executives were not prosecuted for the Keppel bribery scandal. Still, the people see the stern warning as a gut punch to the country’s zero tolerance against corruption. They are still trying to justify why SPH Media Trust should be funded to the tune of $900 million, despite the circulation data fabrication. The people see it as a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. In the case of Karl Liew, son of Liew Mun Leong, former chairman of Changi Airport Group, there’s simply no justifying why the prosecution did not ask for a custodial sentence, and why the judge said the prosecution’s submission read like mitigation. Karl was sentenced to two weeks’ jail for lying in the Parti Liyani case, only because the judge decided that “nothing less than an imprisonment sentence is due for such cases.” They have attempted to justify that HDB flats are affordable, GST increase is for the poor, the size of the country’s reserves are a secret, and the Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) is good for the country and good for Singaporeans. But how many people buy any of it? The one that sets a record for the most justification is the ministers’ controversial occupation of Ridout properties. From why ministers need to rent from the government when they have their own bungalows, to why the bid rent is similar to guide rent, to why trees were felled, to why such extensive and expensive repair works before move-in, to why a minister could ask a subordinate for a list of vacant rental properties, to why no conflict of interest, to why no breach of ministerial code of conduct, to why a buddy was the best man for an independent review. Just imagine the time, effort and money spent on justification after justification – from involving public servants and government agencies to convening investigations to convening Parliament. But it seems they are determined to go down the rabbit hole. Surely the people ought to realise by now that they are only buying time instead of going all out to stop the rot.   Augustine Low      Read More →

There are different levels of corruption that are commonly observed in various contexts. Here's a breakdown of each level: 1. Contract-related commissions or bribes: This occurs when a person in authority who is responsible for awarding contracts asks for a commission or bribe in exchange for awarding the contract to a particular individual or company. The amount of the commission or bribe is often tied to the value of the contract. 2. Nepotism or favoritism: In this case, the person in authority appoints a family member or friend to a position of authority or influence based on personal relationships rather than considering their qualifications, skills, or merit. This practice undermines the principles of fair competition and equal opportunity. 3. Awarding contracts to family or friends: Here, the person in authority deliberately awards contracts to their family members or friends without a fair and transparent competitive process. This is a form of favoritism and can lead to inefficient allocation of resources, unfair competition, and limited opportunities for others. 4. Accepting gifts in kind: This involves the person in authority accepting valuable gifts or benefits, such as fully paid overseas trips, from potential or successful vendors. By accepting such gifts, the person in authority may be influenced to make decisions in favor of those vendors, compromising their impartiality and the integrity of the process. 5. Accepting invitations to paid meals: This refers to situations where the person in authority accepts invitations to dinners or lunches paid for by potential or successful vendors. While it may seem less severe than other forms of corruption, accepting such invitations can create obligations and biases that may impact fair decision-making. These different levels of corruption can occur in various settings, such as government institutions, private organizations, or international bodies. They undermine transparency, fairness, and trust, and can have significant negative consequences for economies, public services, and societal well-being. Efforts to combat corruption typically involve strengthening anti-corruption laws, promoting transparency and accountability, and fostering a culture of integrity and ethical behavior.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →