Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) logo signage on the building at entrance. (Image by Mimisim / Shutterstock.com)

In general, Singaporeans are fine with rules. The problem only arises when it appears to be one rule for some while another for others. For rules to be respected, it has to be applied consistently and across the board.
Back in 2017, the Public Service Division (PSD) said in a statement to The Straits Times (ST) that civil servants needed to declare additional trade or work that drew income to ensure that there were no conflict of interests.  That statement to the ST followed the fining of a staff sergeant of $2,000 in default of a 2 weeks detention by General Court Martial, for giving 140 rides using the GrabHitch app between October 16 and March 17 2017.
As a general principle, I have no issue with this.
Civil servants are after all paid for out of the public purse and there should therefore be a certain degree of accountability.
Fast forward two years however, it is apparent that this rule seems to have been forgotten when it was announced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) that it is fine with its Chief Fintech Officer, Mr Sopnendu Mohanty, to also be an adviser to the state government of Odisha concurrently.
The reasoning given my the MAS seems to suggest that because Mr Mohanty is not getting compensated for his role in the Odisha state government which is apparently in his “personal capacity”, there is no conflict of interest. This begs the question, is monetary compensation the sole arbiter of determining whether or not there is a “conflict of interest”?
Surely, Mr Mohanty being in a high position in the MAS will give him access to confidential information. What are the checks and balances to stop him from sharing such information with the state government of Odisha? Do benefits always have to be in monetary in nature? What about contacts, business relationships and connections which can often times be worth much more than immediate monetary compensation?
If I use MAS’s reasoning, shouldn’t dual nationality also be allowed in Singapore? It is not as if, a Singaporean will be gaining monetary compensation for having dual nationality if he or she already lives overseas?
If Mr Mohanty’s dual role in the MAS and the state of Odisha is permitted, why then was a mere staff sergeant fined just for giving Grab rides? It would appear that the stakes of permitting Mr Mohanty’s dual role is far higher than that of a staff sergeant trying to earn some spare cash?
Who decides whether or not something is a conflict of interests? It cannot be applied so unevenly and unfairly.
 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Grief & Covid 19: Why mental health must be a priority in this time of shared vulnerability and collective loss

by James Leong My friend *Andrew succumbed to cancer this Easter Sunday.…

Is MM Lee playing the same old record?

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has made some controversial remarks the last two years or so. Should we dismiss them or pay closer attention to his words? Share your views here.

人权观察:马国不应调查妇女节游行主办方

人权观察组织(Human Rights Watch )今日发表声明,呼吁马来西亚警方停止引用《和平集会法》和《煽动法》,调查主办妇女节游行的人士。 今年的三八妇女节,马国有300妇女走上首都吉隆坡街头游行,呼吁爭取更多的女性权益。 这项#WomensMarchMy游行,共列出的5项诉求包括:停止对所有的性別及性取向的暴力行为、禁止童婚、確保女性权利及自由、推动最低薪金1800令吉及摧毁父权制(patriarchy)並在各阶层建立真正的民主。 人权观察组织指出,马国希盟政府曾在竞选宣言承诺,会废除恶法,然而如今却打算用煽动法来对付妇女节游行的号召者。该组织亚洲区总监毕亚当批评该国政府虚伪,并要求停止调查,尊重集会和言论自由。 与此同时,该国掌管宗教事务的首相署部长慕扎希针对妇女节集会指出,政府立场非常坚定,LGBT在马国不会被接受,指责集会者“滥用民主空间”。此外,参与集会者也在社交媒体上饱受骚扰,甚至接到死亡威胁。 《煽动法》打压民众集会自由 3月14日,马国警方传召七名主办集会人士录口供。警方引用马国恶法之一– 惩戒和平集会的《煽动法》来调查他们。在《煽动法》之下,任何含有“煽动倾向”,如“鼓吹对政府、司法机构、统治者不满或仇恨”,都能构成犯罪。 虽然执政希盟政府承认《煽动法》是打压民主和不公正的,也曾承诺将废除之,然而却默许执法机构继续使用之。 至于马国《和平集会法》第9(5)条则阐明,要举办任何集会和抗议,需要在10天前通知警方。事实上,妇女节游行主办方向媒体透露,他们已经提前10天通知警方,也在集会期间保持和警方的沟通和合作。…