Connect with us

Current Affairs

The New Year that I would like to see

Published

on

By Dr Wong Wee Nam

It is no good for democracy for a country to be run by a monolithic political party. Neither is it good to have a ragtag army of small political parties running around unable to provide a coherent alternative, let alone forming a government.

It is for this reason that for the past one year, I have been trying to get the opposition parties to try to come together to work out a common plan to contest this coming general election. To this end, I roped in Mr. Bentley Tan to help.

For a start, we decided to get the various parties to meet informally and without a fixed agenda to feel things out. The first meeting at a local hotel was called on 24 April 2010. Mr Tan Kin Lian, as a non-partisan, was also invited by us to help us moderate.

The response was encouraging. SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan came, so did SPP’s Sin Kek Tong, NSP’s Sebastian Teo and USD’s Jaslyn Go.

Kenneth Jeyaraetnam turned down the invitation because he thought such a meeting was unnecessary. The PKMS were not invited because there was no clear leadership at that time. The Worker’s Party did not respond.

It was a cordial meeting and there was a general consensus that some kind of opposition cooperation and unity should be worked at. Each party agreed that they would discuss the meeting with their respective CECs and invite the three of us (myself, Bentley and Kin Lian) to clarify our ideas before their committee before we

could move on to have the next meeting and have a definitive agenda to discuss more concrete things.

SDP’s CEC called us up first and after a thought-searching session, they said they would support a second meeting. NSP met us next. Though they had some misgivings, they were also in support of a second meeting.

We did not hear from SPP and when we called Mrs.Lina Chiam, she told us to wait until after their Annual General Meeting where a new CEC would be elected.

Subsequently, the Reform Party’s demands to join the SDA were Wickedly Leaked out and this had caused some internal problems within the SPP. Any talk of opposition unity received a stunning blow and Tan Kin Lian decided he did not want to be involved further.

Later when I met Tony Tan Lay Thiam of Reform Party over lunch, he fully supported such unity and cooperation idea and urged me to try again. Indeed, Tony may be a young politician but he can see a bigger picture than many more experienced ones.

However, this unsuccessful exercise was not a waste of time for me. From it, I gain a better insight to the people involved, or not involved, and it also reinforced my image of Mr. Chiam as a selfless politician.

I have known Mr. Chiam for twenty years. We first met when I wrote to the SDP, of which he was the then Secretary-General, to complain that they had not honoured my subscription to their newsletter, The Democrat. He immediately called me up to meet him for coffee. We met at the Pizza Hut in Jalan Jelita and he offered me his party membership straightaway. I told him that we had just met and how could he trust

me? But then, that is Mr Chiam. He has only one political opponent in his mind and everyone else could be his ally.

This attitude was to be reinforced again in 1997 at a Chinese New Year’s gathering hosted by him. I told him he needed to have a Barisan Nasional kind of arrangement amongst the political parties to fight the PAP. He immediately went to form the Singapore Democratic Alliance. In spite of misgivings by many others, he even invited the PKMS, a party that not many like to be associated with at that time, to join.

Unlike many political leaders, Mr. Chiam does not just pick people who think like him and exclude people whose views do not match his. Yes, this is Chiam. He has only one political opponent and everyone else is free to be his ally.

This is why I had no difficulty in getting him to agree to the meeting on the unity and cooperation of the various opposition political parties that Bentley and I had arranged.

He may have fallen out with his protégé Dr Chee Soon Juan for nearly twenty years. The painful scar still remains till today. Yet that has not prevented him from agreeing to sit down on the same table with the latter for the sake of opposition unity or saying “I agree with Dr Chee…” at the TOC’s Face-to-Face Forum.

Amongst the opposition political leaders, he is the only one I would consider a true statesman.

What then is my wish for the coming year? Below is the photograph I have taken this year. In the coming year, I just hope I have many more opportunities to take such photographs.

SDP's Dr Chee Soon Juan with SPP's Lina Chiam

The views expressed in this article is the author’s own.

This article is written for sgpolitics.net and theonlinecitizen.org. Please provide link to either website if you wish to re-publish the article.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending