Charles Chong, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, is retiring from politics after 32 years in Parliament. He will not be contesting in the upcoming General Election (GE) on 10 Jul.

Straits Times calls him “the man the PAP sends in when it has a tough fight on its hands”.

Yesterday (27 Jun), PAP Secretary-General Lee Hsien Loong paid tribute to Chong, saying that Chong won by the “narrowest of margins” in the last two elections not because he was a weak MP, but because he could be relied on to “fight hard and fight smart” in elections.

In 2011, Chong won Joo Chiat SMC with 51.02 per cent (388 votes) against WP’s Yee Jenn Jong. Joo Chiat then disappeared from the electoral map in the following GE in 2015. And in 2015 GE, Chong beat WP’s Lee Li Lian with 51.76 per cent (1,159 votes) in Punggol East SMC. Similarly, Punggol East disappeared from the current electoral map in the upcoming GE.

“Always by the skin of his teeth… because when there is a tough fight, and we need a strong candidate who will fight hard and fight smart, we send in Charles Chong,” Lee said. “And every time, Charles has delivered.”

Speaking to reporters, Chong said his 32 years in politics have been most meaningful.

“I leave with the confidence that I will be handing over to capable leaders who, with the support of a resilient people, will get us through these difficult times,” he said.

Fighting “smart”

Indeed, Chong certainly fought very “hard” and fought very “smart” in the last GE when he beat WP’s Lee Li Lian at Punggol East.

How “smart” did he fight?

On 8 Sep 2015 just 3 days before 2015 GE, Chong distributed flyers alleging Workers’ Party has somehow “lost” $22.5 million of town council funds.

“The indisputable fact is that when Punggol East was transferred to the Workers’ Party, $22.5 million was transferred to the new town council. That sum is now unaccounted for…,” he wrote. Note that he even used the word “indisputable” in his allegation against WP.

Final KPMG report clears WP-run AHTC

Three years later on 15 Feb 2018, Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) finally said that it has resolved all its outstanding audit issues and ended its engagement with auditors KPMG, concluding a two-year long clean-up of its accounting system and internal controls.

In the report, KPMG confirmed it is “reasonably satisfied that AHTC is compliant with section 35(c) of the Town Council Act” and that all audit points and control-related matters identified earlier have been resolved.

Issues flagged previously include incorrect computation of required transfers to the Sinking Fund and incomplete disclosure of transactions with related parties in the financial statements.

Writing on his Facebook page on the same day the auditor’s report was released, then WP MP Png Eng Huat took the opportunity to dispel the accusation put forth by Chong on the eve of 2015 GE earlier, which no doubt, must have swung certain number of votes against WP.

Mr Png explained that by the time WP got wind of the flyers distributed by Chong, it was already Cooling-Off Day. After the election, which Chong won by a slim margin, Mr Png met him to discuss the handover matters. “I asked him about the alleged missing $22.5 million. I told him we would want to return every single cent to PE residents if he could point out what this money was all about,” Mr Png recalled.

“In every audited financial statement since 2013, there was $22.8 million to $26.3 million attributed to PE sitting in our accounts. He brushed off my question and said he had already explained. I did not recall there was an explanation given anyway.”

Mr Png then waited until PRPTC under PAP, filed its annual report in 2016 and noted that there was $24.7 million attributed to PE sitting in its book too. And finally, the KPMG report also exonerated WP with regard to the imaginary “missing” $22.5 million as alleged by Chong.

“I waited further for KPMG to publish its final report to complete the final piece of the puzzle. The final report speaks for itself,” Mr Png added.

“We will never solve the mystery of unaccounted $22.5 million now as none of the audited statements from the two town councils and special reports by KPMG and PwC (hired by PRPTC to also look into the accounts of PE after GE2015) could shed any light on the allegation,” he countered Chong’s 2015 allegation.

“The end of the KPMG audit also marks the end of my attempt to find some answers into this matter.”

In any case, the damage was already done. Chong helped PAP win back Punggol East in 2015 GE with the help of his “smart” flyers delivered to the many households in the constituency.

Lee certainly chose the right person to send into a tough fight.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

组屋消防栓被锁、不出水 穆仁理发文解释并致歉

组屋消防栓被锁,要救火时水管喷不出水,对此民防部队在本月8日,向裕廊-金文泰市镇理事会,发出“消除火患隐忧通知书”(Fire Hazard Abatement Notice)。 有关市镇会在本月13日回应《亚洲新闻台》,澄清有关消防栓刚在上月中旬被检查,被鉴定操作正常。 事缘本月1日,武吉巴督21街的第210A组屋一单位发生火患,民防部队人员赶赴救火,却发现火患现场附近好几个消防栓都被锁头锁住;即便撬开其中一个消防栓,水管根本喷不出水! 至于武吉巴督单选区议员穆仁理,昨日在脸书发声明,承认上述市镇会接到民防部队的通知书;也指作为民选代议士,“政治上需对居民负责”( politically accountable)。“这些事件不该发生,我必须道歉。我将与我的民选与受委市镇会同仁检讨此事,并保障加强消防安全系统的可靠。” 在帖文中他指出,实际上火灾当天他都有在现场,惟当时自己专注在如何协助火灾灾黎,并感谢协助疏散的居民。 他表示当时民防部队人员就已向他反映组屋第13楼消防栓的问题,本身关注此事也要求民防人员彻查。他解释由于火患烧毁13楼的水管,导致14和15楼居民没水上厕所、抽水等,当时自己也忙于协助其他受影响居民。 穆仁理提到负责维护消防栓的承包商是JKeart公司,后者坚称水管是有水用的,也向市镇会展示,在火灾同一天他们对水管进行测试的视频;不过在会见和咨询民防官员后,市镇会决定接受民防部队发表的声明。 市镇官员锁消防栓防滥用…

NetLink Trust confirms four workers tested positive COVID-19, two of them visited 34 homes for fibre installation work

Four contractors of NetLink Trust have been confirmed to be infected with…

Chiam See Tong: We have no ill intentions towards the ex-CEC members

the following is a public statement by Mr Chiam See Tong: Some…

“新加坡也有消费税补助券” 纳吉捍卫一马援金计划非贿赂

马国前首相纳吉捍卫国阵政府派发一马援助金(BR1M)的政策,他以新加坡的“消费税补助券”为例,强调以“直接现金转移”把财富平均分配给低收入群体的做法,在他国也有施行。 纳吉是在本月5日,在个人脸书帖文中,反驳马国经济部长阿兹敏言论,后者指国阵派发一马援助金含有贿赂元素,而国阵在辅助B40(家庭月入少于3860令吉)低收入群体的政策也证明是失败的。 纳吉在帖文中强调,“现金直接转移”不是什么新概念,很多国家例如邻国新加坡也推出类似一马援助金的辅助计划,名为“消费税补助券”。 他指出,新加坡在2018年,共派发了10亿新元的消费税补助券,给160万年收入低于2万8000新元的国人。平均每人可得625新元。 纳吉解释,一马援助金不仅为了消灭贫穷,而是为了把60巴仙较富有群体手上的收入,平均地分配给40巴仙低收入群体,鼓励乡镇地区的经济流动,减少国内收入城乡人民之间的收入鸿沟。 “那些逃税或经营非正统经济、来自大城市的富人,也必须缴付消费税,我们再把收税所得平均分配给多数居住在小镇或城郊地区的B40群体,藉此提升他们的收入和刺激地方经济。” 他批评,新加坡也落实类似一马援助金的计划,难道新加坡失败了吗?还是也想透过派钱来宠坏人民?