The National Solidarity Party finds the controversial purchase of the 26 Brompton bicycles by NParks disturbing on two counts.

Firstly, that public funds was used to purchase bicycles at prices that the average person finds exorbitant. Secondly, that the Minister for National Development finds the purchase acceptable, despite there being only one bidder for the tender, and at such a high price.

It is thus with some relief that we note that the Ministry of National Development (MND) has referred this matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Even if the Ministry is now handling this matter in a more appropriate manner, several questions remain unanswered.

According to the MND's Press Release dated 24 July 2012, the Minister had called for an internal audit last month (June). This followed a report on the purchase, in the local media, on 22nd June.

But on July 4th, the Minister had blogged that he had “accepted NParks' explanation” that NParks had no particular brand in mind, that the quotation on the Government website adopted general specifications to ensure that as many dealers as possible could submit bids, as it was considering all brands.

If the Minister had blogged about his acceptance of the purchase after he had called for an internal audit, it could mean that he had arrived at a conclusion even before the results of the audit came out. Was the internal audit affected by the Minister's defence of the purchase? What guidelines, if any, are in place regarding blogging by public officials holding positions of influence, on matters relating to their official duties?

The total cost of purchasing the Brompton foldable bicycles may only be $57,200, but what it has done is cast a shadow on the entire government tendering process, including disclosure of bidding, short GEBIZ window and award of tender. Even if we set aside the issue of corruption, a tendering process that awards the contract to the sole bidder regardless of price is not one that safeguards the prudent use of public funds. How does the government intend to improve the purchasing process?

How the Minister for National Development and the Government respond to these legitimate queries from the general public will help to restore confidence in the fairness of the government tendering process.

 

You May Also Like

UPR Consultation

Dear Friends, Singapore is due for its first review on human rights…

浅谈非选区议员谬论 朱正熙律师:这是个无上权力的附属品

翻译自朱正熙律师文章: “继续投我们(行动党),你还是能保持12名反对党在国会,而且是拥有充分投票权”,这是人民行动党强调非选区议员的论述。 人民行动党的论点看起来极富吸引力。显然,人民行动党认为此次仍然会大胜,这也是为什么他们在竞选期间一直专注于此课题(非选区议员)。然而,我并不认为这是一个很好的论点,甚至无法确定这是否对于新加坡是件好事,所以让我们更深入地思考非选区议员制度。 首先,人民行动党通于2016年通过了这项宪法修正案,以此赢得选举。当时仍有另一项饱受争议的宪法修正案为对民选总统进行修改。 每当你听到非选区议员的论点时,请注意,尽管它极具吸引力,但这是一个无上权力的附属品,摆弄我国选举制度的最根本。 我们在回答前一个问题前,先提出一个疑问:非选区议员制度会产生何种形式的影响?非选区议员将砍断各市镇会与政治代表的联系。当选的议员有权代表居民写信给政府,并能够掌控市镇会,使它对居民产生具体的利益。 因此,若砍断在野党对于市镇会掌控,等同于砍断他们能够为居民贡献的机会。 反观若人民行动党输了议员议席,该当如何?失去议席的人民行动党候选人还可以再基层担任基层领导,得到人民协会的大力支持。人民协会在2019年以5.16亿元持续经营。是的,你没看错,是将近5亿元的预算,可是输了的在野党却无法享有同等的待遇。 以《今日报》的报道为例,文章内也指出人民行动党如何利用市镇会来巩固人民行动党的权力。在竞选期未开始前,行动党的旗帜和海报已经充斥在马林百列集选区内,而市镇会的管辖亦包括协助挂上海报。 最后,也是最现实的问题,即使你想看到您属意的在野党,作为非选区议员出现在国会,你也得要把票投给他们,他们才有可能有机会成为非选区议员。 总而言之,请勿害怕投票给在野党! 原文阅读在此

王乙康抵触选举条例警不追究 张素兰质问为何有差别待遇?

日前,教育部长王乙康被指选举期间,出现与小学生对话的短片,已违反选举规则,短片也已取下。 根据选举法(第218章)第83条文,不得参与选举活动的人士,包括中小学生、非公民、破产、或有犯罪记录者,都不得参与选举活动。 然而,选举局和警方告知媒体,警方虽确认接获有关报案,但不会对王乙康采取进一步行动,理由是短片已被取下,选举官已经训诫后者,需遵守选举条例。 对此,张素兰律师质问,警方为何不追究王乙康短片一事。 文内指出,在她阅读了相关报道后得知王乙康已违反选举法第81(1)条文,并指警方有权针对相关违法人士进行扣押电子设备、摄像机、电脑和手机等。 “我刚阅读了警方不会对教育部长采取进一步行动的报导,王乙康确实违反了第81(1)条文,并援引第81(7)条,警方有权进行逮捕。“ 张素兰:其他被指抵触同样条例者却遭“羞辱” 但选举局与警方却选择不采取进一步行动,王乙康甚至都没有接到警方的警告。然而,其他被警方声称有着相同违法行为的人包括她自己却不得不忍受警方的羞辱。 “包括我在内的人如鄞义林、拉维、库玛兰等人却在2016年时不得不忍受警方所带来的羞辱。“ 她也忆述当时被抓捕的情形,指当时遭受署名警方的威胁,要求交出手机,并指出当时被告知犯下“可予拘捕罪行“,却与王乙康的待遇截然不同。 “犹记当时深夜,便衣警察找上门,他们开始追踪我的动向,并在门缝地下留了一封信。翌日,警方早上9点来敲我门,并要求我必须到警察总部报到。在警察总部时,我被几名凶狠的警察审问和威胁,并要求交出手机,当时有人告诉我,我犯下的罪行是“可予拘捕罪行”,与王乙康所犯下的罪行相同。“ 未犯下谋杀罪,却被八名警员“护送”回家…

5 out of 9 new NMPs list MM Lee as their “favourite politician”

NMPs gush and heap praises on Minister Mentor Lee. Andrew loh.