~ By Bertha Henson ~

Another day of bad memories. I am referring to the case of the ex-SPH executive Peter Khoo, who was charged in court for filching money and receiving kickbacks from a supplier. I have been waiting for this day for close on two years now, ever since my ex-Editor called me into his room to tell me the news that Pete had confessed to what he did. He asked me to take on Pete’s job and clean house. I felt as though my head was about to burst; the blood was pounding in my skull so hard…I would never have thought Pete needed the money…

The day went by in a blur. Meetings with management to cobble out a press statement, a trip to the National Council of Social Service – then administrator of the School Pocket Money Fund (SPMF) to alert them to what’s happening, editorial meetings to decide how to ”play” the story. The ST editors decided that the story would be dealt with like any other story – even though/or especially since it involved one of our own. Stake-outs started. People who might have an inkling of what went on were pounced upon by their own colleagues.

But the impact fell hardest on the staff closest to Pete. Through the day, I had been busy contacting each one, telling those who were out of the office organising outside events to return, getting people on their rest day out of home to the office and telling one who was away on holiday to take the next plane home. Like now. Now.

When all went finally brought before the Editor to be told the news, they were shell-shocked. I thought to myself, “Oh my God, I am going to have a very hard time pulling them together to clean house,” I was wrong.

After a day of daze, they picked themselves up with a vengeance and we went about sorting through all the standard operating procedures and introducing new ones. I tied so much stuff in red tape that we were strangling ourselves with it.

The main thing was to ensure that DONATIONS would not have a way of slipping into somebody else’s pockets. Thinking back, some of the things we did were really over-the-top. Not enough to have one safe but two. Not enough to have one signature but two/three. There was the problem with cash donations. Cheques were pretty straightforward since they were in the name of the Fund, but all those coins and notes? 

Dealing with small change became a big chore. Bags and tags and counting once, twice, timings to get to the bank. It became so that I was tempted to say no cash please. It was just a small percentage of total donations but enough to be a big headache. Several times, staff came to me to ask that we convert the cash into a cheque. My chequebook would come out, and I would have several stacks of $2 bills that couldn’t fit into my handbag.

Of course, we didn’t clean house alone. Internal and external auditors were killing entire forests with reports on what was the case, now the case and would be the case. Those vouchers – and we had plenty – were a pain. New records were started, everything serialised, and procedures put in place for the drawing of any voucher. Essentially, staff had to record my permission for every single voucher drawn.

What was worse was that Pete had admitted taking Capita vouchers too. So there I was at one dinner with the Capitaland folks, a cheque in hand, to make restitution. I don’t when I have ever felt so shame-faced. But the Capitaland folks were gracious and more than willing to work with us again…I mean, they could have really made me feel worse.

I am not talking about the ins-and-outs of the kickbacks etc, since a court case is coming up. I know SPH has declined comment, but an assurance that things are in order is, well, in order. So dare I say this:  We cut off all links with Sino-British, the suppliers, as soon as we possibly could. The SPMF was ring-fenced even further. It is now a full-fledged charity, rather than the half-being it was. It is now properly staffed, with its own board and governance rules. There’s so much red tape on collection and distribution of money we could use them as Christmas decorations. At least, that was the way I left it.

Some people thought that we made too big a deal out of a small amount of money. I mean, $190K or so is nothing like City Harvest’s $23m…I don’t think so. When a publishing company gets into trouble, it has to come clean, be whiter than white.

After all, the media is the outfit that gets on its high horse whenever others commit breaches of trust. What more when it’s one of its own? Some self-flagellation is in order to restore the public trust. That’s part of maintaining editorial integrity as well.

Go buy ST.

This article first appeared on her blog. Bertha Henson is a former Associate Editor of The Straits Times.

 

You May Also Like

Workers’ Party Celebration at Hougang Ave 5

Photos taken by Chan FS, shows the crowd at Hougang Ave 5…

‘Guest Workers’ or Modern Slavery?

Some of these men are not allowed to leave Singapore because the labor ministry requires them to stay to appear as witnesses in a string of court cases. “This is the dark side of globalization: a vast work force trapped in conditions that verge on slavery,” Newsweek said.

涵盖狮城西部逾千公里道路 无人驾驶车辆测试范围扩大

随着无人驾驶的试验范围将扩大到整个新加坡西部,无人驾驶汽车将在武吉知马、金文泰和裕廊等一带,超过1000公里的公路上行驶。 交通部兼通讯及新闻部高级政务部长普杰立医生,今早(10月24日)指出,预计将在未来数年逐步以小规模、渐进的方式扩展进行,然而公共安全仍然是重中之重。 普杰立在出席智能交通系统的交通峰会上致辞时表示,普及化无人驾驶,公众的接受度是关键成功因素,但若出现意外将功败垂成。 陆路交通管理局表示,此次扩展实验地区是为了回应业界针对更多样化测试环境的回馈,并为相关公司提供可以在更广泛的交通场景和道路条件下进行上路测试的机会。 政府已于2017年将榜鹅、登加和裕廊创新区定位进行无人驾驶巴士和班车的试点计划,为居民和员工们提供地铁站的首一英里和最后一英里的服务。“若有计划在特定选区进行试跑计划,陆交局将会提前和当地的基层及社区领导人接触。” 所有无人驾驶车辆都会贴上让其他道路使用者容易识别的标记,且必须经过全面的安全评估才能进行上路测试。当局也会聘请合格的安全驾驶员在旁,在需要时能够随时控制车辆,且也备有第三方责任保险。 当局表示,唯有通过严格的能力测试后,才会将试跑计划范围进一步扩大。 测试无人驾驶车的小组成员有ComfortDelGro、新加坡科技工程有限公司和南洋理工大学。 交通部长许文远也在开幕仪式上表示,无人驾驶车拥有改变城市交通和改善居住环境的潜力。 “我期待我国能大规模采用无人驾驶服务,但是我相信不会这么快。” 他指出,在扩大无人驾驶服务之前,新的基础设施和措施都扮演重要的角色,包括提供专用车道和车辆基设的通信技术。

非议社企管理小贩模式 学者“开课”教训环境局

李光耀公共政策研究院前副院长刘浩典教授,在脸书贴文非议社企管理层管理小贩的手法,也详加分析社企和环境局针对小贩管理上的不合理之处。 帖文中他非议规定小贩最低营业时间的做法,认为小贩已经给足租金,为何还要管他们工作多长时间。 “如果小贩工作几小时就有足够收入,那为何还要强迫他们营业至少八小时?社企这是在进行哪门子的斯大林式经济?” 他相信小贩也能估算和比较,多做一小时的边际收入和成本,来决定该营业多久。那么何以见得社企管理层就比小贩们更了解行情,可以指点小贩该营业多久? 再者,环境局一再强调要打造充满生机的小贩中心,但为何要把达成这目标的重担,非得让小贩来承担?营造小贩中心活力是集体利益,但假设一些时段顾客少,社企却非得要小贩拉长营业时间,结果成本和压力还是落在小贩身上。 这种做法也是不经济、违反伦理的。市场是由需求产生供应,也即是如果晚上或凌晨有足够需求,小贩觉得生意做得过,就算不逼他们,也会自己开档做生意。很少会有供应来制造需求的。 利用小贩超时工作来营造市场生机 “简言之,市场有活力固然社群得益,但是需有人(如小贩)承担他的成本。假如社企管理层认为营造生机之法,乃是拉长小贩营业时间,那么就应该给小贩相对的报酬超时营业,而不是设定最低营业时间。” 至于为何以上做法违反伦理?是因为这形同把小贩工具化、利用他们来营造市场生机、或者为了达成申遗的手段。小贩的存在不是为了让城市活化。他们当小贩就是为了营生,如果要他们做得更多,让小贩自行选择,和给他们适当的报酬。 他也认为如今环境局和社企管理层对小贩的要求已经偏离初衷,对他们施加太多互相矛盾的政策目标。 反对一味压低小贩食物售价 “设立小贩中心一开始的目的,是为了解决公共卫生问题,可负担食物并不是主要目的。当初,为了鼓励街边小贩迁入小贩中心,还津贴了他们的租金,小贩们才有能力提供价格廉宜的美食。所以,便宜的食物价格,是当年政策的间接产物。”…