Ridout Road scandal

[Lisafuller]

Latest news is that the investigation found no wrongdoing in the case of both ministers renting massive houses along Ridout road. However, a lot of Singaporeans are questioning the legitimacy of the investigation, as it was conducted internally. What do you all think?

[sundaymorningstaple]

I think it's a tempest in a teacup. People are selectively blind and cannot see the elephant in the middle of the room. Both Ministers come from well to do families. Both had good well paying careers in the private sector before entering politics. Probably both have invested wisely over the years before entering politics so why is it such a problem to believe that they cannot afford those properties? Those naysayers just are unhappy sods who haven't done anything with their own lives and rail at those who have. Independent investigation? What is that? In Singapore? Even the government didn't know about the independent investigation (only the PM knew as he asked for it outside of parliament knowledge as is his privilege). What is conducted internally mean?? Especially here in Singapore.

[musical box]

1. publish the lease
2. were procurement rules followed (Audit Dept to reply)?
3. was there a tender process?
4. publish the bids

[smoulder]

I think it's a tempest in a teacup. People are selectively blind and cannot see the elephant in the middle of the room. Both Ministers come from well to do families. Both had good well paying careers in the private sector before entering politics. Probably both have invested wisely over the years before entering politics so why is it such a problem to believe that they cannot afford those properties? Those naysayers just are unhappy sods who haven't done anything with their own lives and rail at those who have. Independent investigation? What is that? In Singapore? Even the government didn't know about the independent investigation (only the PM knew as he asked for it outside of parliament knowledge as is his privilege). What is conducted internally mean?? Especially here in Singapore.

With that in mind, any enquiries done are a waste of time and resources in my opinion.

[sundaymorningstaple]

1. publish the lease
2. were procurement rules followed (Audit Dept to reply)?
3. was there a tender process?
4. publish the bids

Instead of sounding like you are Rip Van Winkle and just waking up after a long-long sleep, try reading the local newspapers either online or in print. All those questions have already been answered. The rules governing the leasing were followed that apply to all and sundry. I went through it as well, 40 years ago and lived in Black & Whites for 15 years. Albeit, not good class bungalows but the process is the same for all the properties that they handle.

[tiktok]

There are no concrete answers to any of those 4 questions. The government is desperately hoping Singaporeans are to stupid or lazy to keep asking.

The bigger issue - which the government controlled "local papers" haven't even mentioned - is the two ministers have clearly breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

[Lisafuller]

I think it's a tempest in a teacup. People are selectively blind and cannot see the elephant in the middle of the room. Both Ministers come from well to do families. Both had good well paying careers in the private sector before entering politics. Probably both have invested wisely over the years before entering politics so why is it such a problem to believe that they cannot afford those properties? Those naysayers just are unhappy sods who haven't done anything with their own lives and rail at those who have. Independent investigation? What is that? In Singapore? Even the government didn't know about the independent investigation (only the PM knew as he asked for it outside of parliament knowledge as is his privilege). What is conducted internally mean?? Especially here in Singapore.

The phrase I'm hearing a lot is "ownself check ownself".

It's not a secret that a good number of Singaporeans have their doubts about the legitimacy of the local political system, and the power the incumbents wield. It's just not a very good look that the assessment was done from within, though I don't doubt that it was done properly.

[Lisafuller]

1. publish the lease
2. were procurement rules followed (Audit Dept to reply)?
3. was there a tender process?
4. publish the bids

I believe most of this is public information

[Lisafuller]

1. publish the lease
2. were procurement rules followed (Audit Dept to reply)?
3. was there a tender process?
4. publish the bids

Instead of sounding like you are Rip Van Winkle and just waking up after a long-long sleep, try reading the local newspapers either online or in print. All those questions have already been answered. The rules governing the leasing were followed that apply to all and sundry. I went through it as well, 40 years ago and lived in Black & Whites for 15 years. Albeit, not good class bungalows but the process is the same for all the properties that they handle.

I don't doubt that the ministers have the capacity to afford these homes, but what is a little odd is the fact that on top of the six-figure rent, there's also a yearly maintenance of around $500,000. Altogether, it's a lot. And considering the fact that these certainly aren't their only expenses, it's difficult to see how their salaries as civil servants would allow them to afford this, even if we take into account their successful careers in the private sector, prior to entering politics.

[Lisafuller]

There are no concrete answers to any of those 4 questions. The government is desperately hoping Singaporeans are to stupid or lazy to keep asking.

The bigger issue - which the government controlled "local papers" haven't even mentioned - is the two ministers have clearly breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

How so?

But yes, the local papers are kind of a joke at times.

[tiktok]

Code of Conduct for Ministers para 3.1:

A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest
between his office and his private financial interests. Such a conflict, or a perception of
conflict, can arise:
(a) from the exercise of powers or influence in a way that benefits or may be seen to
benefit private interests held; or
(b) from using special knowledge acquired in the course of his activities as Minister
to bring benefit or avoid loss (or could arouse reasonable suspicion of this) in
relation to his private financial interests.

I would love to see the government explain how the bolded sections above do not apply in this case.

[Lisafuller]

Code of Conduct for Ministers para 3.1:

A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest
between his office and his private financial interests. Such a conflict, or a perception of
conflict, can arise:
(a) from the exercise of powers or influence in a way that benefits or may be seen to
benefit private interests held; or
(b) from using special knowledge acquired in the course of his activities as Minister
to bring benefit or avoid loss (or could arouse reasonable suspicion of this) in
relation to his private financial interests.

I would love to see the government explain how the bolded sections above do not apply in this case.

Very interesting. I'd say this incident certainly seems to have violated both of these clauses. Any consequences?

[sundaymorningstaple]

I don't doubt that the ministers have the capacity to afford these homes, but what is a little odd is the fact that on top of the six-figure rent, there's also a yearly maintenance of around $500,000. Altogether, it's a lot. And considering the fact that these certainly aren't their only expenses, it's difficult to see how their salaries as civil servants would allow them to afford this, even if we take into account their successful careers in the private sector, prior to entering politics.

What I didn't write (actually deleted before posting last night was one step in time further back. They are both Seniors. They both went to good universities which meant a high cost was incurred (even back in the day when I was in school that why Student Loans are such a big issue in the US today). However, for them, those types of things didn't exist so their families had to foot the bills. This means that the family was extremely well off but as there is a good possibility they have passed on now (considering the ministers ages). Both of the ministers could have received a very healthy inheritance. Not saying anything here is the gospel but when looking at who they are, what their educations were and professions they were in. I feel even then, the quote that tictac posted doesn't hold water either.

(a) they rented from the open market and followed proper protocol so there was no exercise of powers or influence at all except in the minds of little people.

(b) no special knowledge was required. Even tictac could have applied for the lease on either one of them as long as he could afford it and show proof of capability to do so. As it was all done publicly I don't think para 3.1: holds any sway here at all..as neither apply to either of them. In fact, Shan, recused himself from any duties at SLA as the Minister overseeing SLA to avoid that perception at all.

But I will agree it was done in bad taste, but nothing seems to be done illegally or by slight of hand. I had to pay for some of the repairs when I rented my Black & White all those years ago. The major repairs they took care of.

[Lisafuller]

Didn't know about point b. Certainly helps that he stepped away from his duties at SLA.

Either way, any idea if there's a penalty for violating these terms? I don't think either of them will be charged as violators but wondering what would happen if someone actually broke the rules.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I'm guessing censure and possibility of being asked to step down but it was depend on the severity of what was done (like 1MDB for instance). I reckon there is a whole range from fines to exile to a offshore island without trial for 30 years like LKY did the that fellow all those years ago after the guy helped to get LKY elected.