Political Commentary
The Mas Selamat Scandal: Its Impact on the Government-People Relationship
The following article, like previous ones, was turned down for publication by the Straits Times. It looks like I should stop being thick-skinned and give up sending my commentaries to them!
‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.‘ Something could get rotten in the state of Singapore as a result of the very unfortunate Mas Selamat scandal.
Scandal it is, in terms not only of its shocking nature—掖he most dangerous political prisoner and terrorist operative in Singapore makes a laughably easy escape in a super efficient, technologically advanced city state—拊ut also of the serious doubts it is raising in the public’s perception of government accountability, and the damage that these doubts could do to the government-people relationship.
Up to this point, the relationship has been fairly stable and amicable, transcending whatever conflicts that have arisen over the years when the people expressed their unhappiness about the government’s decisions on various issues, such as those related to foreign workers, ministerial salaries, the casinos, Shin Corp, etc.
In each case, public debate has followed a predictable pattern: first, the people are allowed to speak their minds freely through the permitted channels including the forum pages of newspapers, TV debates, the feedback units, and dialogues with government representatives; next, at an appropriate point, the Prime Minister himself and his ministers enter the fray with patient, sustained explanations and persuasive arguments, and finally the matter comes to a close, usually with a gentle but firm message from the Prime Minister himself that in effect says, ‘Trust us; let’s move on.’
An expansion of this simple admonition could go something like this: ‘You have consistently re-elected us, thus acknowledging that we are a competent, responsible, trustworthy government. So even if we make unpopular decisions, it is only for the good of the society. And even if we cannot answer all your questions, it is only for reasons of national confidentiality and security. Therefore trust us, and we will continue to do our job well.’
In the Mas Selamat case, the government is precisely using this approach. But this time, it falls far short of the expectations of an increasingly articulate electorate, including, in the most surprising way, members of the PAP government itself, who seem to have suddenly become more alert, discerning and courageous, voicing reservations and asking questions in Parliament about government accountability that, in the past, could only have been expressed privately. Was the apology from the Minister of Home Affairs, followed by a detailed factual account of the escape, enough? Was the promise of corrective action to prevent such incidents in the future enough? Would not the findings of a Commission of Inquiry comprising members selected by the government itself raise more questions?
The voices raised in question and doubt, both in Parliament and the media, were expectedly measured and polite, in keeping with a tradition of deference to a powerful government that does not tolerate strident dissent. But politeness may soon give way to the persistence and boldness that come from conviction. The signs are that the voices, especially of the younger generation, will become a force to be reckoned with, because they are part of a whole new culture spawned by the Internet and globalization, with all that this implies of greater knowledgeability, awareness and sophistication.
Thus, a serious disconnect between the government and the people has arisen: while the government is still operating from the old perceptual paradigm carried over from a simpler, more innocent era, the people are developing a new one in keeping with the times. They are increasingly aware of new expectations and needs in their roles as citizens in a democratic society, and will no longer respond uncritically to the government’s usual exhortations of ‘Trust us’, ‘Also trust those we have picked to work for us,’ ‘Don’t forget what we have achieved,’ ‘Look at things in perspective’, ‘Let’s move on to more important, bread-and-butter matters,’ etc.
The Mas Selamat incident could cause the two paradigms to move so far apart as to make the disconnect permanent. Thus the incident may be seen as a watershed in the history of the government-people relationship, resulting either in a strengthening and maturing of the relationship on the one hand, or irreparable damage on the other.
Clearly, what the people expect, by way of an appropriate government response, is a large public gesture commensurate with the incident which in its magnitude has no precedent. That gesture will be no less than an offer of resignation from the Minister of Home Affairs himself. Whether the offer is accepted by the Prime Minister or the people is a separate matter. The personal integrity of the Minister is not in question. But in the conduct of the public life of a society, when something of this gravity happens, the symbolism is necessary. A symbolic act in public will have high visibility and emotive power, even in a pragmatic, down-to-earth society like Singapore, and can unite a people in times of trauma, giving a sense of something very like closure. Only then will Singaporeans regain their trust in the government and their belief in the honour, dignity and accountability of high office.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Government accountability means that public officials have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms — political, legal, and administrative — designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Sorry, in the presence of such ‘mechanisms’, corruption can thrive.
Come naked before a body FULL OF EYES.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:34 am
It’s sad that in this country, ministers do no subscribe to the terms of honour and leadership. It’s sadder to see PM Lee endorsed this very act. But I’m also fortunate that this episode has given us the opportunity to not follow in their footsteps. The disconnection is real. I guess that explains their source of quitters.
April 26th, 2008 at 6:13 am
One can’t help but cringe at the hypocrisy of this. Every opposition politician is held responsible for his words and actions (from Jeyaratnam to Chee SJ to James Gomez), even non-politicians like Catherine Lim and MrBrown have had to pay a price for their public comments and publications. Yet when it comes to one of their own, some seem to be more equal than others. Membership (in this elite club) obviously has its privileges, just like it says in the Amex commercials.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:59 am
The citizens of Singapore get what they vote for.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Committee of Citizen Statement On The Committee of Sensible Inquiry On The Ministerial Statement Made In Parliament On The Committee Of Inquiry Findings On The Escape Of Mas Selamat
Dear President, MM, SM, PM, PAP ministers, MPs, NMPs, Fellow Singaporeans,
The Committee of Sensible Inquiry (CSI) was convened to vet the report submitted to DPM, Wong Kan Seng. This is necessary as the citizens feel that the DPM’s choice of the COI members constitutes potential conflict of interest between the DPM, the government and the citizens. As such, transparency, accountability and liability will be subject to less than independent scrutiny.
CSI’s query: WRDC is a detention centre with well-established prison protocol. Therefore, detainees there won’t get any privilege of privacy. Given common sense, a detainee’s clothes are subject to checks, for those stripped and for those put on, unless there is no visible clothing on him/her.
CSI’s query: a. The urinal cubicle is not equipped with toilet bowl nor shower. We find it inconceivable that the guard would wait for a few minutes, knowing very well that the most Mas can do inside was passing urine, which at most would take less than a minute.
b. It is human knowledge that men do not remove their trousers to pass urine under normal circumstances. The guard, being a man, is fully aware of this anomaly if indeed, Mas did remove his trousers. The guard would had sense this foul play and done the necessary, unless he was aware that Mas was engaged in some self-service acts.
c. The cubicle door does not extend to the ceiling and the sound of the running tap water was not possible to mask the purported escape as the guard was in such close proximity. The handle-less window, although without grilles, would not facilitate an easy escape without creating noises. The sound of the running tap water cannot possibly be as loud as a torrential rain unless designed and equipped to be so.
d. The woman ISD officer outside when alerted, had to summon an Assistant Case Officer to check on Mas. This is totally unbelievable when the gurkha guard was right outside the cubicle door to do it immediately.
e. CSI is of the opinion that the guards and the ISD officers are such professionally trained security personnel to be able to commit such incoherent errors.
f. The uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre.
CSI’s query: a. The fact that no conclusive evidence of the escape route can be established may also point to the fact that the escape did not occur at all.
b. Where the enclosed staircase and walkway converge with the perimeter fencing, this so-called weakness would had been factored with the appropriate security measures in the planning stage.
c. No evidence was presented on the distance between the closest jump-off point and the perimeter fence. Whether it is possible to simply jump over the fence is a critical factor that must be established to support this theory.
d. The baju kurong which Mas was reported wearing and which was found outside could had been placed there prior to the search if the escape did not occur in the first place.
CSI’s query: CSI emphasized that the uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre. That the supposedly highly qualified superintendent of WRDC did not see it necessary to grille the window supports our notion. Therefore, this cannot be a source to channel the blame.
CSI’s query: Given that WRDC is such an important detention centre housing terrorists, it is simply beyond logic to have non-active monitoring nor recording cameras even in this case where upgrading is on-going.
There was no mention of the other cameras in the vicinity. Is the DPM suggesting that all cameras were not functioning nor recording at that time, in the midst of the upgrading? Not commissioned does not necessarily mean that they are not working.
Since no escape point could be confirmed in the first place, this is subject to further clarification. It is also possible that no evidence of escape could be presented from the recordings, which explained for the non-commissioned cameras.
The Post Incident Response CSI strongly chastises the DPM and his subordinates for the rather mediocre and comical info provided to the public over the days after the escape. This is unbecoming of a ministry handling national security. Descriptions on Mas were simply confusing. This can only be excusable if Mas was new to the detention centre.
CSI is of the opinion that to escape from the centre is near impossible if unaided. Not unless all the security measures failed at the same time and the centre is unmanned. The only other explanation for this episode is that no escape took place.
CSI unreservedly thank all those activated and involved in the manhunt including the innumerous sufferings and inconveniences endured in this episode. The government is expected to compensate all as a token of appreciation.
Other highly suspect and contentious misdemeanor identified by CSI 1. The appointment and composition of the COI is highly questionable with conflict of interest and collusion a distinct possibility. Of equal glaring concern is that the DPM chose to stick to his choice when this anomaly was highlighted. However, the greatest concern is that the PM did not object to this when it is so obvious that accountability and integrity are at stake in this matter involving the DPM, which will ultimately reflect on the government.
That the COI’s findings was accepted wholesale by the DPM and in turn, by the PM, is shocking and beyond comprehension. With so many points of contentions, the citizens are hard pressed to demand for transparency. A separate COI comprising neutral parties is the only solution for a credible report, more so, in this case involving the integrity and accountability of the highest office in Singapore.
It is puzzling and highly controversial that the DPM chose to exonerate the director of ISD prior to the release of the COI report. There is no doubt of questionable integrity at a time when the DPM himself is subject to accountability and liability pending the COI report.
Compounding the question of integrity is the fact that the PM saw it fit and proper to endorse his continued confidence for the DPM despite all these disturbing facts of controversial proceedings. As such, the PM’s integrity is now also under the spotlight and subject to scrutiny.
Despite the systemic failures of the current incident along with many previous failings, the DPM was not censured nor penalized or demoted. Incoherently, the PM has embarked on a crusade of exonerating ministers from being accountable for the mistakes of their subordinates despite declaring that ministers are ultimately responsible for their ministries.
Both the PM and the DPM have been exemplary in dodging issues raised by channeling accountability and blame to the guards and the superintendent of WRDC only. Of paramount concern is that this seemingly promiscuous delegation of responsibility has been well-received in parliament with no objection nor abstention of support.
The citizens are highly concerned and disoriented that their $10,000+ per day PM is uttering less than creditable arguments. With 2 casinos in mind, he exhibits pre-occupation with gambling matters in using the throwing of dice to decide on possibly difficult decisions, where a 1 means a straightforward decision while a 6 denotes 6 variable choices of decisions. Very confounding and challenging to try not to get a 6 indeed.
CSI reminds the government that this matter is not properly settled yet. Any call to move on from here will only add fuel to the fire, which in due course, will be difficult to put out. It is in the interest of Singapore that a further thorough investigation be expedited to restore integrity and accountability.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“Given that WRDC is such an important detention centre housing terrorists, it is simply beyond logic to have non-active monitoring nor recording cameras even in this case where upgrading is on-going.
There was no mention of the other cameras in the vicinity. Is the DPM suggesting that all cameras were not functioning nor recording at that time, in the midst of the upgrading?”
All the authority needs to do is prove Mas Selamat presence, preferably with video clip, in the detention center on the day of his escape to assuage those who think it might be a hoax.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
This is an extremely balanced and persuasive article and the fact that the Straits Times did not see fit to print it is very disappointing, since this is just the sort of debate which Singapore should be addressing. Dr Lim has argued in very moderate terms that the gesture of offered resignation would create a bonus for the government quite out of proportion to the act itself, not least in acknowledging significant faults in the system.ﾃつ Indeed,if the comments under the heading ‘Expected Analysis’ above are to be believed, the errors are appalling, to the extent that the contributer leads us to infer that this was a cover-up for a contrived escape, which is even more serious than the original story.ﾃつ I come from the United Kingdom,where there has been much debate in recent years over the failure of ministers to accept the responsibility of major shortcomings in their departments and to try and ‘tough it out’, rather than to resign, which was once the accepted and honourable thing to do.ﾃつ Several of these ministers have ultimately been forced to resign because of public discontent, not least that expressed in the press.ﾃつ Theﾃつ British tradition of honourable resignation and media pressure on those who have not respected such precedents does not exist in Singapore, nor should an outsider expect it. However, in the climate of the changing nature of political awareness due to the explosion of information available, democratic governments have to enhance their links with the people. Even autocratic regimes, such as China, are being forced to address this issue. So, it is extremely disapointing that the Straits Times has turned down this article which expresses such a restrained, balanced and well-argued comment over an issue of gross failure on someone or some organisation’s part. As Dr Lim says, the offer does not have to be accepted, merely that it was made would more than enough in the particular circumstances that exist in Singapore.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am
The terrorist will have repurcussion on the economy of Singapore someday. As ever, the ONLY message you will ever get from PAP is:
“Let’s MOVE ON”
“Let’s move on to BREAD AND BUTTER issues—like keeping your CPF $ till you are 81, pack you like sardines in the public transport’
Come on, you want REAL bread and butter issue, how about MINIMUM WAGE law for Singaporeans for a start, like what other developed countries have?
April 27th, 2008 at 1:22 am
It would be a shame if Catherine stopped trying to get published in the ST Forum. Why don’t you write in your blog more frequently, I am sure you have a following.
I get mail from contributors to the SG forum on Yahoo and some of them, while they do have pints to make, are off putting because they are almost rabid.
We need sensible comment not rabble rousing from those safely out of reach of the government’s arms.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
it doesn’t bother me a bit whether they publish or not. i have since stop buying local papers (except those free papers for sporting news only).
the wonder of internet.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
A Dedicated Response To Chua Lee Hoon Of ST
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ迭eading Internet postings often makes my blood boil.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
What a shame! As a journalist, your mind should be as wide as an ocean to accommodate differing views. If you are touting that others should listen to people like you only, it’s time for you to move out rather than move on.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ典oo many netizens obviously have not read the full account ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ.etc, etc.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
We believe you have not read enough of what the citizens said and meant or rather, you prefer not to reflect on their views accordingly.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ滴ow many of those called for the resignation of Teo Chee Heanﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ.etc.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
Well, this is proof that time, trend and sentiment are vastly different now. The citizens have awakened from their slumber, vowing not to be complacent anymore.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ的f a fireﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..If a teacherﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..etc?
These are rather incoherent examples compared to the escape. You are way off the track.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ鼎ommon senseﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ.or there will no ministers left in no time.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
Are we expected to accept mistakes, blunders, etc, without any fair accountability and responsibility? The last thing we worry about is losing the liable minister. In fact, if there are more of them of such nature, we have to ensure that the problem is rooted out.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ釘ut the Mas Selamat case? What loss has there been, except that of face — mostly?ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
A real pity that you were not given a chance to voice this in parliament. All the work, reporting, searches, inconveniences, parliament time, lost productive time, etc, would have been expedited for something you believed is not worth the trouble. The DPM and the PM should have taken your advice to simply brush off this case as a little lost of face matter. Therefore, the COI and Ministerial Statement combined is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ的f you talk to businessmenﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦno impact on their business decisions.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
As long as business is as usual, we do believe this escape will have no impact on business sentiments.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ鄭fter such a signature eventﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..there has been unprecedented transparencyﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
You are not following the Internet news nor the citizens’ discussion. More likely, you choose to dismiss them. If after reading the report and you have no doubts about it, that’s your opinion. To us, the report presented more questions than before. In fact, the whole saga has become a mystery.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ添es, there were confusing momentsﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
Well, no thanks for reminding us of this factual blunder. It adds credence to the mystery, no doubt.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ鼎ompare Singapore’s handlingﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦwith America’s equivalent.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
We are responsible for our own and our country’s matter. Therefore, there is no logic in drawing a comparison here unless we believe we are a part of America. Or are you advocating that we should adopt the same as what happened there? Perhaps, you should follow up with your mouthful to Bush. We’ll encourage you to take this initiative.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ的f people want transparencyﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
Interestingly, you choose not to address the issue of the COI members, which is one of the biggest issues. All we need is an independent COI team to do the necessary.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ鄭s far as heads to rollﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦthe government made a tactical mistakeﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
A tactical mistake is your judgement. We fully agree with the DPM that disciplinary action can only be exercised after the due process. Therefore, we strongly feel that your judgment here is flawed. If your judgment is largely accepted, then it proves that the PM and the DPM have been less than competent.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ展ord has it ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦwho has been disciplined and howﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
We already knew the safe position of the PM and the DPM plus the director of ISD. We can envisage what will happen to the others. Gurkha guards will be sent home, ISD woman officer dismissed and the superintendent demoted and/or posted out. Until we have the concrete evidence and independent findings, we reserve our rights to cast doubts on this sordid affairs. At the same time, we maintain our calls for transparency and accountability of the DPM in order to justify the disciplinary process.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ溺eanwhile, there are many other thingsﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦthey’ve got no time to think about this.ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
We wonder why you would expense so much time and energy to come up with this insight then. Thinking aloud, we feel that you’re trying too hard to impress the PM and the DPM, to the point of being incoherent in certain arguments and examples cited in your article.
Singaporeans are bothered about rising costs as well as government accountability. Looking in perspective, they are closely linked.
ﾃ｢竄ｬﾅ鏑ets move onﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦﾃ｢竄ｬﾂｦ..ﾃ｢竄ｬﾂ
We have. But that doesn’t mean this case has been rested. We just cannot be complacent anymore. We are accountable to ourselves as well.
Finally, allow us to issue this advisory for your attention. Change your mindset to be a real independent journalist. Present arguments and facts for readers’ consideration. Don’t ever attempt to infect your uninvited biased report in readers’ memory. The firewall is operating 24/7 and updated constantly. Most of all, you will lose your credibility and integrity.
Please read Grace Ng’s report on Temasek and GIC’s investment in Sunday Times, 27-4-08, on Page 28. This is what can be termed a balanced report expected of a non-partisan journalist.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Dear Catherine
Thanks for the article which was sent to me by a Malaysian friend. I think the whole incident as a whole felt strangely calm in reaction on the government’s part. I wholly agree that the lack of closure has been overlooked and highlights the government’s perceived coolness and distance from the public. I asked myself why the whole episode feel so detached when viewed from the official point of view? Logic has prevailed over a complacent slip up, but human sentiment has not been completely appeased. That’s something the PAP will have to work on.
Although I have no doubt they are actually trying to rectify the situation – in a very strange way, their reaction feels slightly blase – again it’s the perception. Something fell short somewhere.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Please continue to write, and submit to the ST, and post on your website – the more they turn down, the more helpless they appear. Let everyone be the judge of your writings – not just the lackeys at the ST. Cheerios
April 27th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“Present arguments and facts for readers’ consideration. Don’t ever attempt to infect your uninvited biased report in readers’ memory.”
Report the facts and butt out? You are asking them to lose their jobs.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:39 am
It has always been my opinion that our local papers are mere mouthpieces of the Government and their refusal to publish Dr Lim’s articles only strengthen these notions. On the other hand, it’s hard to blame them for being afraid to publish contraire views when certain govt. administrators are so fond of using defamation lawsuits to battle unfavourable comments.
Although I do appreciate that we may have a fairly good and safe life in Singapore, thanks to our “Administrators”, this has been achieved at the expense of many basic human rights!
I am so reminded of George Orwell’s “1984″, where “Big Brother” is “watching (over) us” and we are kept happy with discussions of “mundane” issues, conditioned not to have critical thought, to leave all the important things to “Big Brother!
Dr Lim, your ‘voice’ is our beacon of hope for discerning critical thought!
April 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
A Reply To Chua Mui Hoong of ST
CMH’s efforts in digging into history to cite examples of how other countries’ ministers put themselves up for scrutiny and accountability is much appreciated. Thanks for reminding our PM and the DPM over the Mas Selamat case.
It was our MM and PM who advocated the use of top corporate sector pay to lure top talents to the civil service. As such, Singaporeans rightly expect above board transparency, accountability and integrity in return, in order to justify taxpayers’ contribution and sacrifices for the country.
As illustrated in your examples, some ministers had no reservation in taking responsibility while some naturally fought for their political survival. The critical difference here is that since PAP came into power, had there been any minister who stood up to take responsibility for lapses, etc? Please enlighten us on this.
In Mas Selamat’s case, we feel that the DPM has to shoulder responsibility as well, having been Minister of Home Affairs for many years. The fact that he and the PM did not see it necessary, despite the findings, has become another contentious issue.
Whether the DPM should resign over this matter is debatable. Assuming responsibility does not necessary mean resign as the only course of penalty. The fact that he did not see it as his responsibility is most unacceptable and unbecoming of a minister.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’m just wondering….if we expect the minister to resign, just like what high-paying CEOs would do in the West, are we also prepared for him to pocket millions before he leaves for the private sector for an even higher paying job, as a severance package, as the high-paying CEOs in the West would get when they “valiantly” took responsibility and resigned (copped out) when a crisis struck?
I also wonder….if he offered to resign, and resignation was not accepted by the prime minister, would the angry people be appeased? They’d then say it’s all a charade, that the minister offered to resign, knowing that he would not be sacked.
I think we’re so keen on mimicking what the more “enlightened” West does , without using our brains, it’s not funny anymore.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Oh, another thing…why stop at the minister? Shouldn’t the PM go too, since he was the one who appointed the minister? And since the PM was chosen by his peers, shouldn’t they all go too? And since they were voted into Parliament by the voters, shouldn’t the voters have a part in the matter too? Shouldn’t we all be sacked???
April 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Chua Lee Hoon’s ST article compared sg govt’s handling of the escape to America’s handling of similar events… all i want to say to ST is: please.. for god’s sakes, stop comparing eveything to other countries!
our weather is not as cool as tokyo’s, so stop saying our trains are so comfortable and we can pack more ppl, our cost of living is not the same as paris, NY, tokyo and London so stop saying our taxi fares are cheap and of course stop comparing our transparency with America’s…
amercia do not have the world’s most expensive goverment officials.. they can be less transparent! we are paying TOP DOLLAR for our govt so we better be getting TOP SERVICE!! if we are not getting the best service, but paying top dollar, then singaporeans need to think if there is anyone else out there who can do an equally good job, if not , better, at a lower cost!!
my fellow singaporeans, pls think abt this come 2010/2011!!!
April 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I agree with Neutral that it is rather strange that the Authorities has been rather silent in providing any information on Mas Selamat especially prior to his escape.
Is there anything to prove that Mas Selamat was still alive prior to his escape ?
April 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Justice must be seen to be done.
In the case of the Mas Selamat. The government was seen to have fallen short of taking the necessary corrective and punitive measures warranted by the gravity of the incident.
In computer programming terms, you cannot debug the code. You need to thrash it and start all over. There is fundamentally something amiss at the structural level.
Replacing some of the lower officers is like changing the colour of your mobile phone cover, when the phone is no longer working.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Neutral,
Don’t worry. Like our ministers, they don’t have to assume personal responsibility. If there’s any outcry over her article, just push the blame to the editor.
“I wrote the article but it was the editor who authorised its publication. It’s not fair to blame me because I had done my work. It’s the editor’s responsibility to vet and ensure that my article is in line with PAP’s objective.”
Escape??? The CCTV recordings did not show any evidence of escape. Therefore, they said that the CCTV wasn’t in operation. Simple and effective reason!
Alex,
Thanks so much for your reminder. Must quickly informed the President to issue Presidential Statement to make it a crime for govt to issue severance pay.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Dear Dr. Catherine Lim,
I applaud you for your sincerity and determination in voicing your opinions over the years.
I have watched the video of your speech and it heartens me that you have succintly expressed all the political views that we have so harboured within ourselves and yet so afraid to surface them for fear of confrontation with our almighty govt.
You are so “spot on” on the issue of fear. You are indeed the ONE voice and with your eloquence, I would have liked to see you as an NMP where your opinions would carry more weight in the context of the parliament sitting.
Please keep up the good work !
With warmest regards, Ivan Tan
April 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You have an excellent profile in politics and has been actively commenting on local politics. Some years back, you were warned by SM Goh to shut up or take up politics. I believe your zealous energies in trying to help shape Singapore political scene should not be merely in words only. I hope seriously you should consider taking a role in the next election, nevermind what you fear. Speak the truth for all Singapore Citizens.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am
A perspective from a jc student. Most of my peers feel that the resignation of a minister, and a high-ranking one at that is purely an act of symbolism and thus a foolish thing to do. WKS has had a good record,though this incident has cast a shadow over it, we should trust that the mps that we put into parliament, and the subsequent systems in the ministries will produce a capable minister.
A more democratic or liberal or indeed people’s government would definitely gladly welcome the step down, but as can be seen in Taiwan, where policies are implemented so often based on people’s sentiment, decisions should not be made based on what the majority of the society feels. (note difference between feel and think) Further in the example of Taiwan, you’ve got public’s anger and strong opposing voice on the issue of lowering taxes for foreign investment. Yet if they don’t lower them, they can never compete against other nations in the region.
Singapore’s way of democracy can be more liberal yes, but we should go about it in a matured way, debating issues with transperancy and mutual trust. Minister resignation? That’s just succumbing to a less desirable yet more convinient brand of democracy.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Top dollar for world-class government. At least cut his salary right?
May 25th, 2008 at 8:17 am
With great skepticism, I once asked my professor in a Government and Politics of Singapore module if democracy is the best form of governance. His answer was some sort of a yes. Democracy is an ideal form of governance, he answered. Just as I would doubt advocates of authoritarianism and the like, may I suggest that democracy may all be a kind of masked tyranny. Like Samuel Huntington, a political scientist, I believe a certain degree of authoritarianism is beneficial to a country. Governance by a few is inevitable,governance by the masses – inconceivable.
So instead of clamouring for democracy all day long, perhaps we should ask ourselves, do we really want democracy?
May 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
But we do need to worry alot about this Mas houdini act.
When I read about child-killer Tok escaping to Johor Baru with such consumate ease, now add in Mas Kestari’s escape, I am beginning to have doubts about Singapore’s internal security capabilities.
Authoritarianism is beneficial to a country? I definitely dont agree with this line of thought. But I do know Myanmar’s General Than Shwe will definitely put his hand up to support you on this one.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Dear Mr Lau, what I meant was a CERTAIN degree of authoritarianism. It is the degree of governance I am referring to. Authoritarianism is different from totalitarianism, which I suppose is what you implied. Say, give Singaporeans ‘democracy’, do you think they can handle it? I postulate that most people are more than happy to be led.
October 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Mas Selamat perkara kechil.Kita menghadapi isu yang lebih besar lagi.Cuba fikirkan.Adakah negara kita aman.