TR EMERITUS

The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) released the Auditor-General’s Report for the Financial Year 2013/14 on 17 Jul. This year’s report which was submitted by Auditor-General Willie Tan Yoke Meng to President Tony Tan on 1 Jul and presented to Parliament on (15 Jul), highlighted lapses in the administration of grants, schemes and programmes, as well as instances of weak management of resources which resulted in wastage. Among the ministries and statutory boards cited were the Ministry of Defence, Central Provident Fund Board, National Library Board, Media Development Agency and National Parks Board. In the case of National Parks Board (NParks), AGO was so annoyed at an NParks officer's actions in creating and backdating documents to pass audit and MND's attempt to be lenient towards the said errant officer that AGO literally rebuked MND. The case revolved around the development of Gardens by the Bay. This project was undertaken by NParks which is a statutory board under the purview of MND, Khaw's ministry. During the audit of the project, AGO found out that certain documents furnished by NParks upon AGO's request could have been created and backdated to give the impression that they existed at the time when the relevant transactions took place. AGO said in its report, "Creating and backdating documents to satisfy audit queries is a serious irregularity. It also casts doubts on the authenticity of other documents and information provided to AGO (by NParks)." "AGO therefore recommended that NParks conduct an immediate investigation into the matter," it added. MND eventually did carry out an internal inquiry into the matter and confirmed that an officer, indeed, had created and backdated a total of 16 letters, purportedly issued by NParks to its suppliers to satisfy AGO's audit queries. The NParks officer also arranged with the suppliers to issue another 11 backdated letters, out of which 5 were created by the officer on behalf of the suppliers. Plainly put, the NParks officer was creating "fictitious" documents which were not previously present when the relevant transactions took place. In a manner of speaking, the NParks officer was attempting to "cover" his tracks. Helping the suppliers to create their own letters to "furnish" to NParks was particularly appalling. Concluding its enquiry, MND in its statement said that there was "no evidence to suggest that the integrity of the contract variations and payments had been compromised" for the contracts handled by the officer, despite the officer admitting to the creating and backdating of those letters. The officer told MND that he had committed the acts to "regularise gaps" in the documentation of communications with the suppliers for "completeness of record". AGO disagreed with MND. AGO said that the officer was fully aware of what he was doing and knew that the documents were for audit purposes. "His actions, if not discovered, would have misled AGO into concluding that the procurement processes were in order," AGO rebuked MND. "Therefore, AGO takes a serious view of such actions and does not see these as merely acts to regularise gaps in documentation." Finally, MND relented and informed AGO that it now takes a serious view of the irregularity and "would be taking appropriate disciplinary action against the officer". MND didn't say what actions it will take. Blogger Tattler commented on his blog, comparing this incident with the earlier Brompton bike fiasco which also happened in NParks [Link]: "It is starting to look like the Brompton bikes saga was just the tip of the iceberg." "And, as in the early stage of the Brompton bike fiasco, MND is quick to claim that the integrity of the system of contract variations and payments has not been compromised. An eery similitude of Khaw Boon Wan's premature judgment that the purchase of the $2,600 foldable bikes was above board." "However, the AGO is skeptical about MND's trite explanation that their officer had fooled the system 'so to regularise gaps in the documentation of communications with the suppliers for completeness of record'. Apparently in the MND scheme of things, lying to an investigating officer is part of the company culture (see - 'NParks officer charged with lying to auditors'). Or it's just how the minister-in-charge downplays any evidence of shenanigans." What do you think?    Read More →

人民行动党领袖在告人诽谤时，往往要求很高的赔偿。自认身价很高，名誉地位很高，赔偿当然就要很高。事实上，这是建立在很低的道德底线上的。 行动党说，没有人要从政，因此，从政的人，从政的行动党领袖要做出很大的牺牲。他们从专业人士的岗位上下来，如律师，医生，总裁等等，在金钱上要做出很大的牺牲，因此，从政的人要获得一定的补偿，才能留住他们的从政之心。 所以，行动党就一直在制造‘物以稀为贵’，‘垄断市场’，‘牺牲很大’来说服新加坡人。这是50年来，行动党惯用的伎俩 – 自我调高升价身价的手段。但是，随着想要从政的反对党人士增加后，这样的论据是否还能成立？ 行动党如何做到身价自我膨胀？ 在垄断政治市场的背景下，行动党要想怎么说，就怎么说。它说阿斗是人才，国会，媒体，社会就跟着说阿斗是人才。它说淡马锡找不到人才担任总裁，就找自己人来做，还编出很多道理，如何找不到人，又如何找有身份地位的人来背书。因此，行动党把自己的人才，抬得高高的，就像圣人一样，他们是为了新加坡的前途，而不是为了个人的钱途而投入政治和公家事业的。 一党独大造就了‘垄断市场’。而垄断市场后，新加坡人就只能和行动党拿货，它给什么货色的货，它把下等货说成上等货，新加坡人也只能接受。因为，行动党是唯一的供应商，没有提供货物，新加坡人就要挨饿，说到底，就是要看供应商行动党的脸色。但是，跟供应商拿货需要钱，因此，没钱的人，不单要看行动党的脸色，真的买不起，就要挨饿了。供应商当然希望收到现金，更希望买得起贵货，高档货的高级客户，信用好的还可以给予折扣和延期付款的优待。 这几十年来，这种垄断市场的情形，在商场上出现，当然，也在行动党身上出现。政治上垄断和霸道，内安法，诽谤官司，发言权等就是鲜明的例子。 有了垄断市场，‘物以稀为贵’就很顺理成章了。国外的政治人物，部长拿多少钱和我们无关，我们不需要和国际接轨，新加坡人才难得，从政的人又少，再不用钱来吸引人才，谁还要来从政呢！这个‘物以稀为贵’的说法，不知道用了多少次。每一次大选，都是这么说的，只有行动党领袖是物以稀为贵，其他政党都不是人才。 在早期，垄断市场和物以稀为贵可以通过立法-修改竞选制度和行政手段-内安法，诽谤案等来达到。这两大护法，越来越不管用，到了现在，垄断市场面临严重的挑战。而物以稀为贵，更加没有人相信。 不论垄断还是人才论，事实上都是建立在很弱的道德基础上的。行动党故意造成市场的假象，没有人要从政，尤其是没有人才要从政，因此，我们要为这些人才的出山，而付出高额的代价。真的是如此吗？行动党是卖花赞花香，它利用垄断的局势，通过立法和行政，造成市面缺少从政人才，然后说只有行动党的货才是最好的，因此选民要用高价来买。 其实，这个说法比世界杯名牌球员，明星，歌星，企业家等拿高回报，高薪更加可耻。最少，这些球员，星星，企业家是在竞争的条件下，获得高薪，高回报。而行动党呢？它是躲在垄断市场的背后，以物以稀为贵来欺骗选民。没有最起码的竞争，行动党就肯定自己的人才，应该获得高回报。我们真的要佩服行动党的脸皮！ 诽谤官司的不谈细节和高价赔偿 现在，我们看一下总理告网民诽谤的官司。总理要求summary judgment, 要求法庭不需要争论细节，因为被告方的网民，已经认错。既然网民已经认错，就可以直接跳到赔偿额的问题，法庭只需要对赔偿费做出决定就可以了。 当然，总理要求的是高价，网民提供的数额太少了。 这场官司的处理手法，是不是很接近行动党的垄断市场和物以稀为贵呢？垄断市场就是要法庭，一刀切，summary judgment一下，不用牵涉细节，法庭给一个决定，定下赔偿金额。在物以稀为贵的情形下，这个赔偿金额，当然不可以太少。太少怎么能显示出总理的贵气来呢？ 不论总理和网民的诽谤官司结果如何，我们多多少少看到了垄断的力量和高价的要求。即使最终，总理如愿以偿，获得高额的赔偿，对于新加坡选民来说，这是不是一种道德的欠缺呢！ . 否极泰来 http://pijitailai.blogspot.ca/  Read More →

An angry driver cut into the path of a public bus in the middle of the road to block the bus. The driver came out to challenge the bus driver but in vain as the latter remained in the bus. Oops, he was trying to sweet talk the bus driver to come down to have a friendly chat in the middle of the road. He must be influenced by the kindness movement. Failing in his attempt to woo the bus driver, the angry driver then stood there, made a phone call, left the car stranded, and waiting for the sun to set. Later the police came and told both parties ‘not to breach the peace’. It was reported that ‘No further police action was required’. So, what did that mean? The angry driver was told to move off and all back to normal? Our police officers are so civil and polite, another sign that the kindness movement is getting its message to the people, including the police. This is the new way of handling angry people in a first world country when kindness is the order of the day. Be very nice. Little India? Nice rioters? Police cars burnt, kenna bokok bokok nevermind. Can a driver simply park his car in the middle of the road? Can a driver block the path of a public bus at his own fancy? No offence? The police that came did not see anything wrong? They did not bother to inform the traffic police of any offence, or they did? If anyone thinks there is an offence they should take the initiative to report to the traffic police. It is not the duty of the normal police officers to deal with a traffic offence or violation or disrupting traffic, only if threatening peace? I stand corrected as the police officer present could have taken down the particulars of the angry driver and passed it to the traffic police to follow up. Maybe the police is right. There is nothing to it. Just like the angmoh cyclist stopping in the middle of the road to threaten a woman driver. This is the new kindness movement. There are all trying to communicate to one another in a better way. No offence, no one is hurt. No traffic offence also. This is the new normal. Everything is fine. Everything is so nice, everyone is so nice. This is the new paradise. Who is complaining about lawlessness?   Chua Chin Leng aka redbean *The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com    Read More →