Well, I emailed the following letter to the Straits Times forum a few days ago.What spurred me to write in was an article published by the Straits Times main paper (6 Febuary2009) in which I uncovered some distorted logic in Mr Tharman Shanmugam's (Minister of Finance) explanation for declining the release of details of the President's deliberation on the budget.
Keeping to the 400 word limit(I wanted to write more a build up an even more solid case but then again, word limit...), the letter is as follows:
I read the article “Govt details steps leading to President’s OK” (6 February) with grave concern.
Mr Tharman had reportedly dismissed Mr Inderjit Singh’s request for the President’s deliberations, citing that Singaporeans should trust the individuals who are in charge. For a system which has long pride itself on a transparent, efficient and clean government, such a drastic change in its stance has certainly raised eyebrows, especially during these tough times. While I believe few Singaporeans would begrudge Mr Tharman’s well-meaning intention to ensure fiscal responsibility where matters of our reserves are concerned, surely fewer still would want a veil of secrecy surrounding the decision-making process. It is even more essential, during these uncertain times that the public is reassured about how such a landmark decision concerning our nation’s savings was conceived.
With well-respected and trusted leaders such as Mr Bernie Madoff and Mr Chen Shui-bian coming under tight scrutiny for possible abuses of client’s and public funds respectively, public trust has been eroded. One was a businessman who ran a billion-dollar wealth management empire for more than four decades while the other was propelled into Presidential office by a popular vote. These were two figures whom the public trusted enough to handle millions of their hard-earned savings, only to watch it all collapse into nothingness. The public were led to believe that a system of checks and balances was in place to protect their interest but the system failed them.
While it would be vastly unfair to draw parallels to our own President, who by all accounts have Singaporean’s utmost respect, emphasis on accountability should not be neglected under any circumstances. Only then can we continue to build a competitive system beneficial to all Singaporeans and free from taint of corruption and deception. Considering that there are two sets of “keys” to unlock the reserves and a stringent set of requirements to be met before any withdrawal can take place, I’m confident that our reserves would not be so easily squandered on less meritorious purposes overtime even if the President’s deliberations were to be made public. Likewise, I have faith that Singaporeans, with their strong pragmatic mindsets, would not be so easily taken to casually tapping on our reserves.
Hence, I strongly urge the government to release the entire set of deliberations to the public, that our trust in the institution would be further strengthened.
Actually, I had 2 motivations for this letter:
1) I honestly wanted a greater degree of accountability from the government. I mean if MPs can query the government in a logical, civilised manner...why can't I?
2) To verify the rumour that certain letters which deliver the truth are being black out for fear that it would create more work for certain ministries and make themselves more accountable to the public, hence a personal experiment.
The result?
The letter was rejected "due to space constraints".
Yeah, probably that might have been the case had I not stumble upon a letter written by Albert Tye and published on 11 February 2009, Straits Times Forum praising Ms Ho Ching for stepping down from her position as CEO at Temasek and encouraging her to support her husband in state duties.
Like how is a letter praising Ms Ho Ching's resignation more important than one seeking to improve the overall system of Singapore's governance? The same thing happened the last time I wrote in a letter to rebut Mr Janadas Devan's (a Straits Times Editor) logic on a certain article (And I had a super strong argument which totally owned his!)
Argh! I give up, with my personal blog, I can continue my own brand of rebuttals as and when I feel like it...Without "space constraints".
On a side note:
Of course the editors at the Straits Times and the Media Development Authority (the institution which censors publications) reserve the right to decide what goes into the forum and what does not and I have utmost respect for them.Nevertheless I too reserve the right to express my thoughts and stake out my stand on issues, backed by logical arguments, for the betterment of our nation!
'The truth, the truth and nothing but the truth!' Sounds familiar?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment