Your Views: Are there more Durais and Matthew Tans ?
I note with sadness of another CBT case involving a prominent Singapore with a position of trust. This follows the infamous NKF case involving another person of trust.
There are 2 major issues of concern to Singaporeans:
1. I hope it is not endemic in how things are run at public institutions (including GLCs and charities etc..) which are helmed by "people of trust" when checks and balances are compromised because of these "prominent people of trust" running the show.
Of more concern are the entities entrusted with Singaporeans' hard-earned reserves like Temasek and GIC. Are there sufficient checks and balances in place to prevent such incidents, especially since transparency and accountability issues are frequently brought up in these entities?
2. I note the significance of the year 2003 in Mr Mathew Tan's case: he started his crime in February 2003 and he also joined the Teck Ghee CCC in 2003 (see attached article in the Today newspaper of 22 Nov below).
Questions:
a. What were his motivations for joining the CCC (even choosing the Prime Minister's constituency, no less)? Was he "invited" to join or did he volunteer himself? (This had wider implications on how these volunteers are recruited by the CCCs).
b. Do the CCCs have a screening process sophisticated enough to ensure those volunteering their services are doing it for truly altruistic reasons?c. I understand the People's Association has annual budgets in excess of $100 million (taxpayers' money). Correct me if I am wrong but do these CCCs' fundings come from the multi-million PA funds?
Are there sufficient checks and balances in how these CCCs are run?At the end of the day, Singaporeans will like to be assued that there are no more Durais and Mathew Tans within these public entities managing taxpayers' money.
KAYE POH
There are 2 major issues of concern to Singaporeans:
1. I hope it is not endemic in how things are run at public institutions (including GLCs and charities etc..) which are helmed by "people of trust" when checks and balances are compromised because of these "prominent people of trust" running the show.
Of more concern are the entities entrusted with Singaporeans' hard-earned reserves like Temasek and GIC. Are there sufficient checks and balances in place to prevent such incidents, especially since transparency and accountability issues are frequently brought up in these entities?
2. I note the significance of the year 2003 in Mr Mathew Tan's case: he started his crime in February 2003 and he also joined the Teck Ghee CCC in 2003 (see attached article in the Today newspaper of 22 Nov below).
Questions:
a. What were his motivations for joining the CCC (even choosing the Prime Minister's constituency, no less)? Was he "invited" to join or did he volunteer himself? (This had wider implications on how these volunteers are recruited by the CCCs).
b. Do the CCCs have a screening process sophisticated enough to ensure those volunteering their services are doing it for truly altruistic reasons?c. I understand the People's Association has annual budgets in excess of $100 million (taxpayers' money). Correct me if I am wrong but do these CCCs' fundings come from the multi-million PA funds?
Are there sufficient checks and balances in how these CCCs are run?At the end of the day, Singaporeans will like to be assued that there are no more Durais and Mathew Tans within these public entities managing taxpayers' money.
KAYE POH
posted by mediawatchsg at
10:13 AM
Recent posts (RSS)
2 Comments:
The Economist(UK) ranks Singapore 84th among 167 countries in a new Democracy Index. The index was developed by The Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU). Singapore listed as hybrid regime (mixture of authoritarian and democratic elements) and ranks well below Finland(6), Malaysia(81), Hong Kong(75), Taiwan(32), Indonesia(65).
The index looks at 60 indicators across the five categories of electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture .
Overall, The Economist considers having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom as a basic requirement for its definition of Democracy.
Click here for the full report by The Economist.
By
Anonymous, at 2:17 PM
Actually i have met several active grassroot type of people and they are disappointing. After probing a little it is not hard to see they are doing it really for the money and some material benefits. It is scary to think how many more such people there are in the PAP grassroot system. I mean there are a lot of under the table things going on.
By
Anonymous, at 12:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home