If you’ve been following the case of the Singaporean single-mother who has been battling the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to withdraw her savings in her Special Account due to her current circumstance, you’d know that the Board revealed the woman’s real name even when TOC originally published the story using a pseudonym as she wanted to remain anonymous.
When CPF used her real name in their joint statement on Facebook, Ms Soo wrote to the CPF Board via email to ask if they had the right to publish her full name.
She asked, “Do you have the right to do that? The newspaper and online articles did not publish my real name at my request. I demand an explanation. What is your intention? Does asking for help in times of dire need means exposing my identity and become a target for possible cyber bullying?”
“I meant to remain anonymous, not become the talk of the town. I am depressed enough as it is in view of my current situation. What you did has pushed me over the edge. Are you forcing me to jump out of my window? I live on the 8th floor by the way.” wrote Ms Sua.
In a statement, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office said on 27 December (Friday), “Some specific personal information was disclosed in order to convey verifiable facts and to enable the individual to challenge the Government’s account of the case, if need be,” it said.
“The law permits such disclosure, including the identity of the individual, in the public interest.
“Public agencies have a duty to preserve the public trust reposed in them and to ensure that citizens are not misled.”
So the government claims that it had no choice but to name Ms Soo (not her real name) in public in order to protect the public trust.
But let’s take a look at six things the government could have revealed in the interest of protecting public trust but didn’t:

1. Cost breakdown of HDB flats

For years, members of Parliament and the media have raised questions about the breakdown of construction costs of HDB development projects. However, the Housing Development Board (HDB) has stayed mum on the breakdown, leaving the public with only guesses on how much HDB spends on obtaining land and subsequently on construction public housing projects.
Despite the large deficit incurred by HDB due to its “social mission” of selling flats to public at “below market values”, with land bought from government at market price, what HDB didn’t say was that the government attains even bigger budget surplus from selling land to HDB as well as to private developers.
So, even as the government is financing HDB’s deficit of close to $2 billion a year, it made even more money from its land sales, selling them at market price.
In 2018, Worker’s Party MP Faisal Manap asked a question in Parliament about how the land cost amount – which is included in the sale price of a new HDB flat – is tabulated.
In response, Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong said that affordability is a key consideration when pricing new HDB flats which are cheaper than comparable resale flats. He didn’t quite answer the question.
He also said, “The selling prices set by HDB for new flats cannot cover their development costs, which include construction and land costs.  That is why HDB incurs significant deficits every year in its home-ownership programme.”
But still, no actual breakdown.

2. Breakdown of employment change or income of citizens and PRs individually

Another thing that the government hasn’t revealed is the breakdown in employment change by Permanent Residents (PR) and citizens, often lumping those two groups together.
In an article on his website, Leong Sze Hian noted that according to the Department of Statistics, in 2017 the total employed persons (foreigners, citizens & PRs) decreased to 3,550,100 from 3,570,000 the year before. Total unemployed persons (almost entirely citizens and PRs) increased from 87,1000 in 2012 to 106,900 in 2017. Finally, the resident unemployment rate (citizens and PRs) increased from 3.7% in 2012 to 4.2% in 2017.
He pointed out that since 31,849 new PRs and 22,076 new citizens were granted in 2017, the majority of whom may be working, they may be automatically classified as resident employed persons (PRs and citizens).
Mr Leong asked, “would they make the resident unemployment rate look lower than it actually is?”
We wouldn’t know because there is no breakdown of labour statistics for employment changes or income specifically for citizens and PRs – only a single figure grouping those two categories.

3. Staff involved in Hepatitis C outbreak in 2015

Back in 2015, the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) experienced a Hepatitis C outbreak which infected 25 patients over several months, eight of whom died. Seven of those deaths were possibly linked to the infection.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) and SGH looked into the outbreak to identify those at fault. However, while the public was expecting to find out the identities of those at fault and if some of those deaths could have been invented, the report released merely stated that disciplinary action was taken against 16 unidentified senior-level people. Those people were given warnings, stern warnings and financial penalties, according to the findings.
An MOH spokesperson said that they were adhering to staff and patient confidentiality norms, and assured the public that the staff involved in the incident have been disciplined accordingly.
MOH said, “The disciplinary actions were decided based on the specific roles, responsibilities and job nature of the officers, as well as the nature of the incident and the impact of their actions in this episode.”
Straits Times’ health correspondent Salma Khaik wrote on 19 March 2016, “The public had expected transparency and accountability. Instead, what it got was roughly: “We’ve looked into it and taken action. You don’t need to know anything more. Just trust us to do the right thing.”

4. Who was behind the SingHealth data breach of 1.5 million patients?

Last year, Singapore faced its largest cyberattack which resulted in the personal data breach of 1.5 million SingHealth patients including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Shortly after the breach, a committee was formed to look into the incident, holding 22 hearings which revealed that the break went on for about a year between August 2017 to July 2018.

However, while a whole host of reasons and failing were identified in the 454-page report, the identities of the perpetrators were withheld.
Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said that the decision to do so is rooted in the need to protect Singapore’s foreign policy, in addition to serving as a potentially unhelpful and counterproductive act against the public healthcare system.
He was responding to a question by researcher Gillian Koh at a dialogue session of the Singapore Perspectives conference, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) at the Sands Expo and Convention Centre on Monday (28 January 2019).
Dr Balakrishnan said that carrying out an exposé on the perpetrators will not increase the security of the SingHealth system and will potential potentially result in negative outcomes for Singapore’s foreign policy should any particular nation-state be named.
About two week before that, Minister for Communications and Information S Iswaran responded to a similar question by saying, “We know who the perpetrator is and appropriate action has been taken”.
In response to Pioneer Member of Parliament Cedric Foo Chee Keng’s question as to whether the Government could elaborate on the decision behind keeping the perpetrators’ identity a secret, Mr Iswaran said that “in deriving a sense of confidence, our citizens should be looking at the totality of our response and not focus on one particular aspect of the response.”

5. The benefit of CECA to Singaporeans

In November, a member of the public wrote to the Straits Times Forum to counter the accusations made by the ST Editorial that “the spread of incorrect and misleading information” on policy issues via social media has potential to harm the Singapore’s social fabric.

The editorial, titled ‘Distinguishing Fact from Fiction‘, referred to the hotly debated Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), calling for Singaporeans to “be able to distinguish fact from fiction”.
Mr Ang noted that most, if not all of the information circulating online about CECA condemned the agreement, which was signed in 2005, for being unfairly lopsided in favour of India.
Mr Ang said, “As a result, much vitriolic criticism has been directed at the Government.”
He continued, “While it is easy to implore the millions of ordinary Singaporeans to distinguish fact from fiction in relation to CECA, the reality is they do not have the wherewithal to gather the facts and figures to make a well-informed judgment.”
He added, “Many Singaporeans are convinced that Ceca has enabled Indian nationals to steal their jobs.”
Mr Ang goes on to say that he feels Singaporeans cannot be faulted for thinking this way because, ““To be fair, in the absence of information from reliable sources, Singaporeans cannot be faulted for their perception that Ceca has opened the floodgates for Indian nationals to come to our shores.”
And earlier in August, founding Secretary-General of the Progressive Singapore Party (PSP) Dr Tan Cheng Bock said at the party launch that the party will ask the government to come up with a balance sheet to account for how Singapore has benefitted from CECA.
“How many local jobs have gone to Indian professionals and how many Singaporeans have gone to India?” asked Dr Tan.

6. Ho Ching’s wage as CEO of Temasek

Finally, the country tends to circle back to this particular issue every once in a while – the salary of Temasek Holdings CEO and wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Ho Ching.
This year, Temasek reported a massive decrease in one-year shareholder returns for the financial year ending 31 March, a mere 1.49% shareholder return compared to the previous year’s 12%.

However, it was pointed out by the PM’s brother Mr Lee Hsien Yang, that Temasek’s annual financial report once again did not disclose the salary of its CEO. Also pointing out this glaring omission is Chief of People’s Voice Party Lim Team who described it as absurd and asked, “where is the transparency and accountability?”
TOC noted in an article in May 2019 that Temasek is an exempt private company under the Singapore Companies Act. This means the company is not required to publish its audited statutory consolidated financial statements.
Because of that, they aren’t obliged to tell the public how much Ho Ching is paid.
When probed by Workers’ Party MP, Png Eng Huat earlier this year, Minister of National Development, Lawrence Wong refused to disclose the pay of Temasek’s management. Saying that the Government keeps an “arms-length relationship” with GIC and Temasek Holdings, and does not get involved in their operational decisions, such as remunerations.
The best we can come up with is a calculated guess based on how much other CEOs were paid per year and how much Temasek had offered Charles Goodyear when they approached him to be CEO back in 2009. Blogger Philip Ang puts it at about $300,000 a day or well over $100 million a year.
Temasek is Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund. Which means as Mr Lim Tean said, the stakeholders are Singaporeans and they should have the right to know how their money is being managed. This includes being transparent about how much Temasek staff are paid.

Public interest over anonymity?

Given the six examples above, this begs the question of whether the government really does put public trust and transparency above anonymity and privacy?

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

Public can enter the Istana for the first time at night on 6 October

In conjunction with the Istana 150 Commemorative Event, members of the public…

SingHealth fiasco: Committee of Inquiry formed to probe into recent cyber attack

A Committee of Inquiry (COI) that comprises four members was selected to…

长荣航空劳资谈判破局,空服员发动罢工恐108航班取消

长荣航空(Eva air)昨日(20日)因劳资协商谈判破局,下午4点正式宣布罢工,根据《关键评论网》报道,截至今日已有79个航班受,约1万5000名旅客受影响,预计到23日会有108个航班受影响。 据《联合早报》报道,当中往返新加坡和台北的长荣四个航班均被取消,而即将从台北出发,飞往新加坡的两趟班机,分别为BR225和BR215,原定早上7点40分和9点25分起飞也正式取消。至于由新加坡飞往台北的班机BR226和BR216,原定下午1点10分和3点10分起飞,均取消。 樟宜机场第三搭客大厦长荣航空的柜台也展出告示,说明因罢工影响航班。 明天买了长荣机票飞台北的朱先生(47岁)表示,虽然明天航班还未取消,但由于这次行程有必须出席的活动,为了避免最后飞不了,已先买了明早酷航的机票。 “另一朋友本来是今天的班机,昨天收到简讯得知取消后,就赶快买了酷航今早的机票上机。” 至于赔偿部分,朱先生表示会等从台湾回来后再跟购票的第三方网站处理。 长荣劳资争议已久 长荣航空与空服员职业工会的劳资争议历经已久,昨日正式谈判破局。《关键评论网》指出,空服员聚集在位于南崁的长荣公司门口,开始轮班静坐,并缴交员工证、护照及台胞证,截至今天早上为止已经超过1000人缴交(长荣约有4600名空服员,加入桃园空服员职业工会长荣分会的有3276人,有2949人在罢工投票中投下同意。),现场也架设舞台并在公司周边围起罢工封锁线,做好长期抗战准备,直到双方重回谈判桌。 据悉,长荣航空劳资双方三度调解仍未达共识,桃园市空服员职业工会其后介入协助会员争取权益,并成功在月初的罢工投票中取得合法罢工权。工会提出日出支费调整(含禁搭便车)、改善疲劳航班、劳工参与公司治理及参与人评会、国定假日双倍薪、工会干部假、更改劳动条件须与工会协商、一架航班外籍组员不超过2人,总共八大诉求,但双方对此仍无共识,其中资方不接受禁搭便车条款。 据《联合新闻网》,长荣航空总经理孙嘉明昨日(20日)表示,对于桃空职工发起突袭式罢工行动,以牺牲旅客权益争取空服员福利的行径,长荣航空深感遗憾及痛心,也因为受到罢工影响不得不延误或取消航班,造成许多旅客行程不便及社会动荡不安,致上最大的歉意。 孙嘉明表示,第一时间就已经成立紧急应变小组,在确保飞航安全的前提下,以降低旅客的不便为优先考量,并会尽一切所能全力疏运旅客。经过人力盘点后,规划出可以飞航的最大运能,最新航班异动讯息除了会以简讯通知旅客外,也请民众自行至官网www.evaair.com或运用App查询。

STB: Singapore is ‘business as usual’ despite impact on tourism by Covid-19

Singapore has not been spared from the impact of the Covid-19 viral…