The AGC (Attorney-General's Chambers) defended Singapore's contempt of court laws used in the context of the blogger Alex Au's posts on the Dr Woffles Wu case. The AGC said that "accusations of bias diminish (the administration of justice) in the eyes of the citizen, lower it, and ultimately damage the nation".
This was the stated objective when it took action against Alex Au. Now, there are two ways in which the AGC could have taken to protect public confidence in the administration of justice. One, by using the contempt of court laws (however justified it may be) as it did OR it could have chosen to provide evidence to the contrary of Alex Au's misleading allegations.
Which would have been more effective in protecting the reputation of the courts? Obviously FACTS that support the court's decisions, after all what is the judicial system but one where judgement is based on the weighing of evidence? It boggles the mind that the (one assumes) brightest lights in matters of law in the country residing in the AGC could not see this and instead chose to suppress the allegations with the law instead of with evidence.
Facts like: What penalties have been given to others with similar offences in cases prior to Woffles Wu's? This alone would be sufficient to squash any allegations of bias. In the public's eye, I think it is safe to say that the subsequent abettment of his employee to take the rap for him constitutes the bigger offence than the speeding offence itself. And Woffles did it TWICE!
As it is, the public is still in the dark as to why Woffles Wu's case took six years to be heard in court. After all, justice delayed is justice denied is it not? And in this case, it meant that a potential danger to public safety (a speedster) was allowed loose on our roads for that period of time. Did he even get any demerit points on top of the fine?
Not discussed is the fact that Woffles Wu's case has set a legal precedent. From now on, anyone else who is caught for speeding and then abetting someone else to take the rap can expect to be fined not more than $1000. And they can do it twice! Any deviation in penalties would immediately exonerate Alex Au and leave the AGC's reputation in tatters. I think the public has been screwed.
Thursday 19 July 2012
Wednesday 18 July 2012
Mystery of the Disappearing - Reappearing Jewellery
Yesterday it was reported that a couple found the jewellery they kept in Certis Cisco safe deposit box missing. Mysteriously, when they went back with the police in tow, they found that the missing jewellery has mysteriously reappeared!
Even more mysteriously for us is WHY it took the police almost one week to follow up on the case. The report was made on the day the discovery of the missing jewellery was made, almost a week ago.
Here's my conjecture of what happened. This is obviously an inside job. Somehow a copy of the client's key had been made. Some enterprising Cisco officer had decided to 'rehypothecate' the jewellery at some pawn shop. After all, the world's most respected banks and institutions have been doing just this to their client's segregated accounts, so why shouldn't he? On realising that the game was up, he quickly redeemed the items from the pawn shop and replaced them back into the safe deposit box.
Nothing 'permanently' lost, so no harm done right? Unfortunately not. Returning stolen items does not absolve one of the original crime of stealing it in the first place. If this is the case, then Kong Hee of the City Harvest Church should not have been charged with misuse of church funds.
This case can be very simply solved.
1. Interview the Cisco officer who was shouted at by the couple on discovery of the lost. Even if he is not the guilty party, he must have leaked information to the guilty party.
2. View security camera footage of which Cisco officers had been entering the safe deposit area since the discovery of the lost. This will narrow down the list of suspects.
3. Ask the suspect list for a confession. Failing which, they can get location information history from the telcos of the handphones of the suspects. Check the locations and see if any match the premises of any pawn shops.
4. Get the security camera footage from these pawn shops and check them to see if any cisco security officer or anyone related to them turns up. Game over.
Now all that remains for this case is to see if our men in blue are going to fail us (or not), the citizens of Singapore, whose trust and faith have been quite badly abused by the men in white.
Even more mysteriously for us is WHY it took the police almost one week to follow up on the case. The report was made on the day the discovery of the missing jewellery was made, almost a week ago.
Here's my conjecture of what happened. This is obviously an inside job. Somehow a copy of the client's key had been made. Some enterprising Cisco officer had decided to 'rehypothecate' the jewellery at some pawn shop. After all, the world's most respected banks and institutions have been doing just this to their client's segregated accounts, so why shouldn't he? On realising that the game was up, he quickly redeemed the items from the pawn shop and replaced them back into the safe deposit box.
Nothing 'permanently' lost, so no harm done right? Unfortunately not. Returning stolen items does not absolve one of the original crime of stealing it in the first place. If this is the case, then Kong Hee of the City Harvest Church should not have been charged with misuse of church funds.
This case can be very simply solved.
1. Interview the Cisco officer who was shouted at by the couple on discovery of the lost. Even if he is not the guilty party, he must have leaked information to the guilty party.
2. View security camera footage of which Cisco officers had been entering the safe deposit area since the discovery of the lost. This will narrow down the list of suspects.
3. Ask the suspect list for a confession. Failing which, they can get location information history from the telcos of the handphones of the suspects. Check the locations and see if any match the premises of any pawn shops.
4. Get the security camera footage from these pawn shops and check them to see if any cisco security officer or anyone related to them turns up. Game over.
Now all that remains for this case is to see if our men in blue are going to fail us (or not), the citizens of Singapore, whose trust and faith have been quite badly abused by the men in white.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan Has Become A Vegetable...
...sourcing agent. For no apparent reason, the National Development Minister decides to take over the role of Mr Lim Swee Say, who's trademark byline is: "We will diversify our sources...". This is quite a pivot from his earlier "My priority is to protect our babies" from wild boars.
In the meantime, much closer home to his responsibilities as National Development Minister, another Indonesian maid has lost her life after falling out of a window from a flat. It may not be too long before another child decides to climb out of a window and suffer the same fate. Strangely, Mr khaw has chosen to remain silent on this.
In other news, the lawyer Mr Ravi, the perpetual thorn in the side of the government, has been declared unfit to practice by his psychiatrist in a case mired in controversy (See today's forum letter by Mr Young Pak Nang). I wonder what would it take to declare a minister unfit for duty?
Would we have to wait for a diplomatic incident where a minister fondles a foreign dignitary's wife in an inappropriate manner (not that there's ever an appropriate manner) before any action is taken?
In the meantime, much closer home to his responsibilities as National Development Minister, another Indonesian maid has lost her life after falling out of a window from a flat. It may not be too long before another child decides to climb out of a window and suffer the same fate. Strangely, Mr khaw has chosen to remain silent on this.
In other news, the lawyer Mr Ravi, the perpetual thorn in the side of the government, has been declared unfit to practice by his psychiatrist in a case mired in controversy (See today's forum letter by Mr Young Pak Nang). I wonder what would it take to declare a minister unfit for duty?
Would we have to wait for a diplomatic incident where a minister fondles a foreign dignitary's wife in an inappropriate manner (not that there's ever an appropriate manner) before any action is taken?
Tuesday 17 July 2012
To Kill A Wild Boar. A Failure In Governance
The events leading to the decision to cull the wild boars in Singapore reminds me of the storybook: To Kill A Mockingbird. A story of injustice where the court was not a place where a black man can have his innocence proven but was merely a venue to determine his sentence, his guilt already a forgone conclusion.
This is the exact situation the wild boar finds itself. The decision to cull had already been made, all the public discussion is but a sideshow. Trumped up charges on the flimsiest of 'evidence' had been made as justification. And sentence pronounced.
But the larger story is not about the wild boar. It is about how the process of governance is being carried out in Singapore. PM Lee was quoted as saying at the Singapore Symposium held in New Delhi: "But there are also families who say the wild boar killed my dog, another family says the wild boar knocked over my child, better do something about it. Finally, we have to do something about it."
The troubling thing is that our PM Lee appears to have accepted the 'evidence' at face value. Take the unfortunate incident of the pet dog that was killed. The first OBVIOUS question anyone, what more a PM, would have asked was what was the dog doing? Was it sleeping quietly minding its own business when the boar attacked it for no reason at all? Or (more likely), the dog was barking, chasing and possibly trying to bite the wild boar in question? Perhaps the wild boar was a mother defending its piglets from the dog. In that light, was the boar wrong in attacking the dog? I don't think so.
Why is this bad for Singapore? In the past, dynasties have fallen when Emperors chose to listen without question, glowing stories of their empires from their courtiers and eunuchs when the reality was that the country was falling into anarchy. Who is to blame? The conniving courtiers and eunuchs for lying or the Emperor himself for being too lazy to think and confirm the facts for himself?
PM Lee had shown that he has abdicated his responsibilities, at a public forum in an international setting no less. This is not just about a small matter of some wild boars. It is about how he governs the country. It would appear he is not above just taking the word of his ministers at face value without even doing the barest minimum of due diligence expected of someone holding the responsibilities of the office of PM.
It may be necessary to cull the wild boar, but it needs to be done for the right reasons. Doing the seemingly right thing but for the WRONG reasons is not the way to go about justifying it. And it is definitely not the way we would want our country to be governed.
This is the exact situation the wild boar finds itself. The decision to cull had already been made, all the public discussion is but a sideshow. Trumped up charges on the flimsiest of 'evidence' had been made as justification. And sentence pronounced.
But the larger story is not about the wild boar. It is about how the process of governance is being carried out in Singapore. PM Lee was quoted as saying at the Singapore Symposium held in New Delhi: "But there are also families who say the wild boar killed my dog, another family says the wild boar knocked over my child, better do something about it. Finally, we have to do something about it."
The troubling thing is that our PM Lee appears to have accepted the 'evidence' at face value. Take the unfortunate incident of the pet dog that was killed. The first OBVIOUS question anyone, what more a PM, would have asked was what was the dog doing? Was it sleeping quietly minding its own business when the boar attacked it for no reason at all? Or (more likely), the dog was barking, chasing and possibly trying to bite the wild boar in question? Perhaps the wild boar was a mother defending its piglets from the dog. In that light, was the boar wrong in attacking the dog? I don't think so.
Why is this bad for Singapore? In the past, dynasties have fallen when Emperors chose to listen without question, glowing stories of their empires from their courtiers and eunuchs when the reality was that the country was falling into anarchy. Who is to blame? The conniving courtiers and eunuchs for lying or the Emperor himself for being too lazy to think and confirm the facts for himself?
PM Lee had shown that he has abdicated his responsibilities, at a public forum in an international setting no less. This is not just about a small matter of some wild boars. It is about how he governs the country. It would appear he is not above just taking the word of his ministers at face value without even doing the barest minimum of due diligence expected of someone holding the responsibilities of the office of PM.
It may be necessary to cull the wild boar, but it needs to be done for the right reasons. Doing the seemingly right thing but for the WRONG reasons is not the way to go about justifying it. And it is definitely not the way we would want our country to be governed.
Friday 13 July 2012
He Apologises (really?)
It was reported that blogger Alex Au had issued an apology to the AGC (Attorney-General's Chambers) for alleging that plastic surgeon Woffles Wu had received special treatment with regards to his speeding case.
I wonder what is the point of it all. Does Alex's apology actually do anything to repair the alleged damage to the reputation of the Singapore's courts in the court of public opinion? The balance of power in this case is so out of balance in the AGC's favour that it cannot but be seen as being heavy handed and typical of high authority riding roughshod over the 'smaller' people. Alex's apology is unlikely to be sincere and given under duress, so net net, such action to supposedly protect the reputation of the courts is unlikely to achieve its objective.
Doing far more to repair the reputation of the courts would be for the AGC to clarify a few points related to Woffles Wu's case. Why was Woffles Wu's case delayed for 6 years? Was the backlog of traffic offences before the courts so heavy that it took 6 years for his case to be heard? In the intervening years since Woffles was booked for his offences, were any similar cases committed by other offenders heard by the courts BEFORE him? If so, WHY?
Woffles was caught for the offence not once but TWICE. This is evidence that can be interpreted as defining a pattern of behaviour and not a one off misjudgement. I am not sure, but I do not think the law on speeding actually discriminates based on how much above the speed limit the offence was to decide on the severity of the punishment. Granted this could be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the case, but given that it was for TWO similar offences, I should think any leniency would have been cancelled out. Also, the AGC did not specify just how 'little' the speeding was above the limit so that the public could decide if such an apparently light sentence was merited.
Clarity on such matters would do far more to repair any perceived damage to the reputation of the courts than putting Alex in a position where he felt compelled to issue an apology. Afterall, in whose eyes is the perceived damage to the courts reputation is the AGC trying to correct? The court of public opinion isn't it? This high handed action is unlikely to achieve its objective. Sad.
I wonder what is the point of it all. Does Alex's apology actually do anything to repair the alleged damage to the reputation of the Singapore's courts in the court of public opinion? The balance of power in this case is so out of balance in the AGC's favour that it cannot but be seen as being heavy handed and typical of high authority riding roughshod over the 'smaller' people. Alex's apology is unlikely to be sincere and given under duress, so net net, such action to supposedly protect the reputation of the courts is unlikely to achieve its objective.
Doing far more to repair the reputation of the courts would be for the AGC to clarify a few points related to Woffles Wu's case. Why was Woffles Wu's case delayed for 6 years? Was the backlog of traffic offences before the courts so heavy that it took 6 years for his case to be heard? In the intervening years since Woffles was booked for his offences, were any similar cases committed by other offenders heard by the courts BEFORE him? If so, WHY?
Woffles was caught for the offence not once but TWICE. This is evidence that can be interpreted as defining a pattern of behaviour and not a one off misjudgement. I am not sure, but I do not think the law on speeding actually discriminates based on how much above the speed limit the offence was to decide on the severity of the punishment. Granted this could be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the case, but given that it was for TWO similar offences, I should think any leniency would have been cancelled out. Also, the AGC did not specify just how 'little' the speeding was above the limit so that the public could decide if such an apparently light sentence was merited.
Clarity on such matters would do far more to repair any perceived damage to the reputation of the courts than putting Alex in a position where he felt compelled to issue an apology. Afterall, in whose eyes is the perceived damage to the courts reputation is the AGC trying to correct? The court of public opinion isn't it? This high handed action is unlikely to achieve its objective. Sad.
Wednesday 11 July 2012
Lack of MAS Regulatory Action Disturbing
What is the point of having a regulatory body like the MAS if it is not enforcing the regulations it is tasked to police? Last Saturday, we were told that nearly a third of customers of banks and insurers were 'steered to unsuitable investments'.
Mr Lee Chuan Teck, the MAS assistant director for capital markets was quoted as saying the findings were "particularly disturbing". No mention of penalties or even reprimands to the offending companies and their financial advisers were disclosed. Imagine if you made a police report of a burglary at your house and all the police constable did was to tell you he found it "disturbing"!
This practice of giving bad and outright damaging financial advice will not be curbed until appropriate penalties are meted out to offending companies and their staff. Further, the way in which the financial advisers are compensated for their work needs to be changed. When a significant portion of their income is commission based, financial advisers are naturally tempted to sell those products that generate the highest commission income for themselves rather than look out for their customers interests, fiduciary duties be dammed. The conflict of interests is again just too great.
Until those guilty of flouting these guidelines/regulations are fined, jailed or otherwise suitably punished, such practices will continue. More mystery shopping are a waste of time. What in this whole exercise will result in a change in such practices? Zilch. Zero. Nada.
If the tables were reversed and a mystery shopping exercise were carried out against the officers of the MAS, I wonder how many of them will pass. How many MAS officers who are supposed to regulate the industry actually UNDERSTAND the products they are supposed to be regulating? If they, officers of the MAS cannot explain the benefits and risks of such products, how do they expect the general investing public to do so?
Consider this, if MAS or a financial adviser cannot explain the benefits and risks of a financial product in 140 characters or less, then such a product should not be approved for sale to the public, only perhaps to institutional investors. Health Sciences Authority does not approve for sale medicines that have not undergone rigorous trials to proof their efficacy. I do not see why MAS should have a lower standard and then excuse their own responsibility with "Caveat Emptor!"
What is the point of having a dog without teeth or equally useless, a dog with teeth that doesn't bite? It is almost like having a cabinet full of highly paid ministers, at least half of whom have no idea what they are doing. Oops....
Mr Lee Chuan Teck, the MAS assistant director for capital markets was quoted as saying the findings were "particularly disturbing". No mention of penalties or even reprimands to the offending companies and their financial advisers were disclosed. Imagine if you made a police report of a burglary at your house and all the police constable did was to tell you he found it "disturbing"!
This practice of giving bad and outright damaging financial advice will not be curbed until appropriate penalties are meted out to offending companies and their staff. Further, the way in which the financial advisers are compensated for their work needs to be changed. When a significant portion of their income is commission based, financial advisers are naturally tempted to sell those products that generate the highest commission income for themselves rather than look out for their customers interests, fiduciary duties be dammed. The conflict of interests is again just too great.
Until those guilty of flouting these guidelines/regulations are fined, jailed or otherwise suitably punished, such practices will continue. More mystery shopping are a waste of time. What in this whole exercise will result in a change in such practices? Zilch. Zero. Nada.
If the tables were reversed and a mystery shopping exercise were carried out against the officers of the MAS, I wonder how many of them will pass. How many MAS officers who are supposed to regulate the industry actually UNDERSTAND the products they are supposed to be regulating? If they, officers of the MAS cannot explain the benefits and risks of such products, how do they expect the general investing public to do so?
Consider this, if MAS or a financial adviser cannot explain the benefits and risks of a financial product in 140 characters or less, then such a product should not be approved for sale to the public, only perhaps to institutional investors. Health Sciences Authority does not approve for sale medicines that have not undergone rigorous trials to proof their efficacy. I do not see why MAS should have a lower standard and then excuse their own responsibility with "Caveat Emptor!"
What is the point of having a dog without teeth or equally useless, a dog with teeth that doesn't bite? It is almost like having a cabinet full of highly paid ministers, at least half of whom have no idea what they are doing. Oops....
Tuesday 10 July 2012
Government Studying Ways To Screw Savers More Subtly
It has been years since savers in Singapore have been receiving an indecently LOW rate of interest for their savings deposits. Ostensibly, this is due to banks being 'flushed with cash' and 'helping businesses' in a bad economy by reducing their borrowing costs. Yet somehow, banks still manage to retain if not increase their interest margins and their CEOs have managed to retain their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Indeed, their healthy salaries are often touted as a sign that the economy is doing well!
Now, the government is suddenly 'mindful of the problems' faced by savers and depositors. And their solution? Government issued inflation linked bonds! There are two very serious problems with this 'solution'.
1. These are government issued bonds. This means that the interest that are payed out comes from the government. Where does the government get the money to pay the interest? From YOUR taxes. Ie: you are basically paying yourself interest from your own money. I do not see the benefit in that. Do you?
2. What is inflation? Who decides it? It comes from the CPI. Who computes and publishes the CPI? The government! This is a figure that the government can manipulate it to almost any value it so decides.
Now if the government is TRULY interested in helping savers and depositors, the simplest way is to make the banks pay a higher interest rate for savings and deposits. We have all tightened our belts, citizens and businesses, it is WAYYY past time for the banks to do their bit.
If the government still feels inflation linked bonds are the way to go. Then consider making the banks issue such bonds with the government setting the CPI and inflation rates used to determine the interest payouts. This separation will ensure less hanky pankying and it will be more obvious to citizen savers and depositors WHO to blame if the CPI and inflation rates are being set at a level that is out of touch with reality on the ground and is too favourable for the banks.
The banks shouldn't be too worried about getting a raw deal. Despite the system being apparently flush with money, there doesn't seem enough to go around. I understand that Spanish borrowing rates are north of 7% now and Greek borrowing rates are unbelievably high (if they can even borrow). By issuing cheapo bonds to Singaporeans, the banks will be able to use the money to loan to Spain, Greece and soon Italy and France and really make out like the bandits that they really are.
Hmmm.... wonder WHY the geniuses at the MAS and Ministry of Finance didn't think of this? Anyone?
Now, the government is suddenly 'mindful of the problems' faced by savers and depositors. And their solution? Government issued inflation linked bonds! There are two very serious problems with this 'solution'.
1. These are government issued bonds. This means that the interest that are payed out comes from the government. Where does the government get the money to pay the interest? From YOUR taxes. Ie: you are basically paying yourself interest from your own money. I do not see the benefit in that. Do you?
2. What is inflation? Who decides it? It comes from the CPI. Who computes and publishes the CPI? The government! This is a figure that the government can manipulate it to almost any value it so decides.
Now if the government is TRULY interested in helping savers and depositors, the simplest way is to make the banks pay a higher interest rate for savings and deposits. We have all tightened our belts, citizens and businesses, it is WAYYY past time for the banks to do their bit.
If the government still feels inflation linked bonds are the way to go. Then consider making the banks issue such bonds with the government setting the CPI and inflation rates used to determine the interest payouts. This separation will ensure less hanky pankying and it will be more obvious to citizen savers and depositors WHO to blame if the CPI and inflation rates are being set at a level that is out of touch with reality on the ground and is too favourable for the banks.
The banks shouldn't be too worried about getting a raw deal. Despite the system being apparently flush with money, there doesn't seem enough to go around. I understand that Spanish borrowing rates are north of 7% now and Greek borrowing rates are unbelievably high (if they can even borrow). By issuing cheapo bonds to Singaporeans, the banks will be able to use the money to loan to Spain, Greece and soon Italy and France and really make out like the bandits that they really are.
Hmmm.... wonder WHY the geniuses at the MAS and Ministry of Finance didn't think of this? Anyone?
Saturday 7 July 2012
Is the CPIB A Vampire (organisation)?
Singapore is slowly slipping into the Twilight zone. Consider the following story (imaginary of course). A certain Mr Caw retuns home from work and finds a man pinning his daughter down on the bed, ripping her panties off. What did he do? He decides to "monitor the situation". Because you know, until penetration occurs, it is technically not considered rape yet.
When the man had finished the deed, Mr Caw, never one to jump to conclusions asked: "What are you doing to my daughter?" To which the man replied: "I'm deflowering her to get her started on the next phase of her life as a woman". On hearing that Mr Caw replied: "Oh I see. I'm okay with that!"
In the recent NParks bicycle tender controversy, the Singaporean public had been similarly raped, financially speaking. And Mr Khaw, the Minister of National Development was okay with it too.
If a writer to the forum in the paper yesterday is accurate, then it would appear there is a distinct likelyhood that the tender document for the bicycles had been specified with a particular brand of bicycle and possibly a particular supplier already in mind.
I should think there is sufficient prima facie evidence for the CPIB to step in and conduct a thorough investigation for fraud prejudicial to the public's interest in this tender. What are they waiting for? Does the CPIB actually need someone to file an official complaint to initiate an investigation? You know, like a vampire needs to be invited into the house first or it cannot cross the threshold?
And while they are at it, they should look into the conduct of previous tenders and contracts awarded by NParks. As the saying goes: There is seldom only one cockroach... They might want to call on Ms Nora Samosir to assist :)
In giving a free pass to NParks in this matter, Mr Khaw has not thought deeply enough on the consequences of his action. Far from ensuring that such lapses in tendering do not occur again, it actually sets a precedence for others to follow. The reasoning being if NParks can get away with it, why can't I?
From the multitude of recent cases of misconduct by senior civil servants (sexual favours in return for contracts for example), I would say that the quality of the people in the civil service is deteriorating. Something is not working correctly in the hiring and/or promotion process.
These lapses may be minor on their own, but collectively they are undermining the public's perception of the quality of the civil service. And like termite infested wood looking good on the outside but is rotten within, it will one day contribute to the collapse of the government.
One hopes that someone if not from the government then definitely from the pposition will file a query in the coming parliamentary session to address this issue and pursue it until it is properly concluded.
When the man had finished the deed, Mr Caw, never one to jump to conclusions asked: "What are you doing to my daughter?" To which the man replied: "I'm deflowering her to get her started on the next phase of her life as a woman". On hearing that Mr Caw replied: "Oh I see. I'm okay with that!"
In the recent NParks bicycle tender controversy, the Singaporean public had been similarly raped, financially speaking. And Mr Khaw, the Minister of National Development was okay with it too.
If a writer to the forum in the paper yesterday is accurate, then it would appear there is a distinct likelyhood that the tender document for the bicycles had been specified with a particular brand of bicycle and possibly a particular supplier already in mind.
I should think there is sufficient prima facie evidence for the CPIB to step in and conduct a thorough investigation for fraud prejudicial to the public's interest in this tender. What are they waiting for? Does the CPIB actually need someone to file an official complaint to initiate an investigation? You know, like a vampire needs to be invited into the house first or it cannot cross the threshold?
And while they are at it, they should look into the conduct of previous tenders and contracts awarded by NParks. As the saying goes: There is seldom only one cockroach... They might want to call on Ms Nora Samosir to assist :)
In giving a free pass to NParks in this matter, Mr Khaw has not thought deeply enough on the consequences of his action. Far from ensuring that such lapses in tendering do not occur again, it actually sets a precedence for others to follow. The reasoning being if NParks can get away with it, why can't I?
From the multitude of recent cases of misconduct by senior civil servants (sexual favours in return for contracts for example), I would say that the quality of the people in the civil service is deteriorating. Something is not working correctly in the hiring and/or promotion process.
These lapses may be minor on their own, but collectively they are undermining the public's perception of the quality of the civil service. And like termite infested wood looking good on the outside but is rotten within, it will one day contribute to the collapse of the government.
One hopes that someone if not from the government then definitely from the pposition will file a query in the coming parliamentary session to address this issue and pursue it until it is properly concluded.
Thursday 5 July 2012
"Killing and Eating of Chickens is Highly Unlikely" says Fox Guarding Hen House
of Sibor (set by ABS) "is highly unlikely". In all things and especially those things related to financial matters, the maxim: "Trust but verify" is increasingly
a MUST.
The fact that the only a small pool of players are involved in setting the Sibor is NOT a safeguard against malfeasance. If anything, it facilitates collusion in rigging activity as all players will be well known to each other and familiarity breeds, in this case, mischief. At a minimum, alarms should be flashing for anti-competitive behaviour.
Saying that the incentive to rig the Sibor rate is low because of the "small size of Singapore's housing loan market" is being disingenuous at best. I don't think Mr Fox is going to turn up his nose at a chance of a chicken meal just because the hen is skinny! If so, why did the banks lobby for the HDB housing loans to be liberalised? I believe in the past, it was exclusively a HDB business.
A good step to minimise the incentive to rig the Sibor rate is to ensure that banks that set the rate are not allowed to trade in any instruments that depend on the level that rate is set. Ie: their prop desk traders are verboten to trade in any such instruments in the market. The conflict of interest is just too great.
The other is of course to do a thorough audit of the banks to prove conclusively that no such illicit activity had occured. If it is as Mrs Ong-Ang had said, the affected banks should have no objections. As it is, I think some of the banks on the list are already guilty for rigging the libor rate.
Interestingly enough, only ABS responded to this issue and not MAS, the regulator. I'm sure MAS had similar faith that investment companies kept their hands off their client's segregated funds. But as the MF Global scandal showed, that faith is misplaced. Are you STILL sleeping MAS? While you are sleeping, our reputation as a well regulated financial centre is slipping down the drain...
But whatever, I'm sure Mr Khaw would be okay with it.
Dr Goh Keng Swee Should Pay Mr Khaw Boon Wan A Visit
Dr Goh Keng Swee famously chose to walk rather than take a cab to save money. Today, that ethos of thrift and prudent expenditure is but only a distant memory it seems. More details of NParks spendthrift ways came to light in today's report of their purchase of bicycles costing S$2200 apiece for their staff.
Apparently NParks approved the purchase because only one tender submission was received. And Mr Khaw was satisfied with that reason! Has neither Mr Khaw or NParks heard of the concept of a failed tender? Bicycles are not such an exotic product that there is only one supplier available. The correct procedure would have been to call for a re-tender and making sure that at least several potential suppliers are directly informed of the tender.
NParks had given the excuse that a foldable bike would eliminate the need for a van to transport the bikes and staff on their rounds. Are we to understand that with a foldable bike, staff would transport themselves and the bike? How so?
This is an example of when heads should roll. Someone should be fired for mishandling this tender. What next? The traffic police tender for patrol cars has only one tender response proposing the Buggatti Veyron for several million dollars a piece and it will be approved? Because you know, with the proliferation of Ferrari cars and the now updated need to tougher on traffic violation by such vehicles, the police need faster cars to keep up? Really?
PM Lee, you have a problem. One of your ministers has a tendency of not only shooting himself in the foot, his stray shots will start hitting yours as well. From prioritizing "protecting our babies" from wild boar attacks instead of focusing on upgrading the standard of their education to saying that HDB flats have not shrunk in size and now his acceptance of an obviously flawed purchasing decision, his is not only a deadweight your administration is dragging around, but it is actually pulling it in the opposite direction.
The PAP might have a mole in the WP. but you have in your cabinet a minister who could not have done a better job of sabotaging its credibility than if he had been planted there by the opposition. I do not see WHY the public should continue to fund his million plus salary till the next GE when it could be better spend on someone else more competent. Surely you can find someone else more suitable in the 80 plus other MPs in your party.
This minister is likely unelectable. As PM, you need to exercise your leadership role and do the right thing. Far be it for me to tell you what needs to be done and to who but to maintain the status quo would endanger your and the rest of the governments already shaky standing with the electorate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)