[Obamao]

https://www.jom.media/an-assessment-of-t...tid=Zxz2cZ&fbclid=IwAR22X9ESBUXSFeSFltZEuQfDDYo-abLPf8z9p2Fk7oGUaXgP5MtivbpJJcQ

[Obamao]

The Code makes it clear that it is “not exhaustive” and that “Hence, a Minister should carefully avoid all transactions that can give the impression that he may be doing anything which this Code of Conduct forbids.” (These and subsequent emphases are mine.) What is forbidden?

Clause 3.1 states that “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflicts of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”
Clauses 3.1(a) and (b) then explain that a conflict of interest, or a perception of conflict, can arise from the exercise of powers or influence in a way that benefits or may be seen to benefit private interests. Such perceptions of conflict can also arise from using special knowledge acquired in the course of activities as minister to benefit his private financial interests (or which could arouse suspicion of this). These are non-exhaustive examples.
With this in mind, clause 3.2 then unequivocally states that “A Minister, therefore, must never enter into any transactions whereby his private financial interest might, even conceivably, come into conflict with his public duty.”

[Obamao]

Significantly, the CPIB report now discloses a further personal involvement by SM Teo in the matter under review: in recusing himself from any discussion on the rental of his property, Mr Shanmugam had informed SM Teo that should matters arise in relation to his intended lease that had to go beyond Minister Indranee Rajah, she would approach SM Teo. While no such issue arose, the unavoidable result is that SM Teo knew of these arrangements, was directly and personally embedded within the relevant chain and implicitly, if not explicitly, approved of the very process whose legitimacy he was later tasked with reviewing.

In these circumstances, SM Teo ought to have recused himself from the review, much less lead it, since the review would inevitably touch on the legitimacy and robustness of the very process that involved himself. If this were a commercial dispute, internationally accepted rules on appearance of bias would have disqualified SM Teo from acting as an arbitrator in the matter, and any findings made by a tribunal led by him would have been liable to be set aside by a court of law.

[Obamao]

https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/spotted-hyena\


你管得了我们吗？

[[[ForeverAlone]]]

Someone need to tell WP or PSP leong

Don't debate on " conflict of interest " or rental etc " NO USE since they already " ownself check ownself "

they will just keep mention CPIB , Teo C H so call " don't have anything wrong " report already shown.

WP and PSP leong should question these Two minister " WHY THEY NEED TO RENT THAT HOUSE ? "

FOR WHAT PURPOSE ??? SURELY THERE ARE REASON FOR IT OR ELSE WHY THEY RENT IT ??

Whereas Other ministers even President , PM himself never rent it .

[Obamao]

"The principles at stake in the Ridout ministerial review go far beyond narrow, commercial considerations. They involve the propriety of ministerial conduct and compliance with ethical and governance standards under a strict Code which has been in place since 1954. In this case, the absence of an independent process in the separate ministerial review undermines the validity of the conclusions in SM Teo’s report. It is worth noting that the UK Ministerial Code provides for such investigations to be conducted by the (non-political) Cabinet Office or an Independent Adviser."

[Obamao]

Concluding Observations. First, given the importance of the issue, the government should clearly state whether, going forward, it is maintaining the strict prohibitions in clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Code. If the current strictures in the Code are being loosened, the government should explain why strict standards which have been in place for decades are being adjusted.

Second, if it is felt that fresh mechanisms should be put in place to address potential ministerial conflicts, then serious thought should be given by the government to adopt the UK model, of appointing an Independent Adviser, both to independently advise on issues arising in adhering to the Code and to investigate any possible breaches. This will avoid the shortcomings highlighted in the Ridout ministerial review process.

However minor, doubts that strike at the foundation of our commitment to incorruptibility and the rule of law must never be allowed to take root. Occasions such as the present offer an important opportunity to reaffirm these commitments.

[Obamao]

Concluding Observations. First, given the importance of the issue, the government should clearly state whether, going forward, it is maintaining the strict prohibitions in clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Code. If the current strictures in the Code are being loosened, the government should explain why strict standards which have been in place for decades are being adjusted.

Second, if it is felt that fresh mechanisms should be put in place to address potential ministerial conflicts, then serious thought should be given by the government to adopt the UK model, of appointing an Independent Adviser, both to independently advise on issues arising in adhering to the Code and to investigate any possible breaches. This will avoid the shortcomings highlighted in the Ridout ministerial review process.

However minor, doubts that strike at the foundation of our commitment to incorruptibility and the rule of law must never be allowed to take root. Occasions such as the present offer an important opportunity to reaffirm these commitments.

In Layman Singlish Kopitiam conclusion = IKL= "Independence Kee Lan"

[Obamao]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1GhYj5V6jk

[winbig]

Someone need to tell WP or PSP leong

Don't debate on " conflict of interest "  or rental etc " NO USE since they already " ownself check ownself "

they will just keep mention CPIB , Teo C H so call " don't have anything wrong " report already shown.

WP and PSP leong should question these Two minister " WHY THEY NEED TO RENT THAT HOUSE ? "

FOR WHAT PURPOSE ??? SURELY THERE ARE REASON FOR IT OR ELSE WHY THEY RENT IT ??

Whereas Other ministers even President , PM himself never rent it .

One important question I want to ask u. Do u trust that CPIB is impartial and their investigations are thorough and can be trusted? Just answer yes or no.

[forum456]

certainly, there are 2 serious conflicts of interest.

1) SM Teo should excuse himself from leading the investigation as he is the senior minister informed by Minister Shan about the purchase.

2) Minister Shan should avoid renting the bungalow or inform PM Lee about the rental as SLA reports to him.

this investigation should not have happened if there is no sign of conflict of interest.

[forum456]

now, it is up to WP and PSP to do their work in parliament.

if they cannot check and punish PAP on this mistake, we need new opposition party in parliament.

[Instinct]

Pritam should propose a Select Committee with more opposition members in it to grill the 2 ministers and the truth will all be out. It's about transparency and accountability to the public.