[Bigiron]

Tycoon Sam Goi says dinners with Su Haijin, ministers complied with Covid-19 safe-distancing rules | The Straits Times

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/t...distancing


Here's a breakdown of the bullshit in Sam Goi's claim—that dinners with Su Haijin and ministers complied with Covid-19 safe-distancing rules—along with reasons why these statements are questionable or misleading:


---

1. “Complied with Covid-19 safe-distancing rules”

Why it’s bullshit:
During the height of the pandemic, Singapore imposed strict group size limits and no intermingling rules, even for private dining. Numerous people were fined or charged for gatherings smaller or similar in scale to what Goi implies occurred. For instance:

Ordinary citizens were charged for meeting in closed pubs and private homes.

F&B outlets were shut down for smaller breaches like customers mingling or singing.


Double standard: Why were tycoons and ministers dining with Su Haijin allowed such latitude, while others were penalized? If there was “compliance,” where is the evidence (dates, group sizes, venue capacity, seating arrangements)?


---

2. No mention of venue names or dates

Why it’s bullshit:
Goi makes a sweeping claim of compliance but does not provide verifiable details (e.g., date, time, number of people, floor plan, or safe distancing arrangements). That makes the claim unfalsifiable and not accountable to public scrutiny.


---

3. Association with Su Haijin downplayed

Why it’s bullshit:
Su Haijin is not just any businessman. He’s a convicted money launderer, part of a S$3 billion criminal network. For a public figure or tycoon to dine with him—and then retroactively defend it as legal—suggests either gross negligence or complicity.

The claim of “legality” is irrelevant to the ethical and reputational implications of such dinners.


---

4. Implied ministerial innocence

Why it’s bullshit:
By stating ministers were present and “rules were followed,” Goi subtly uses the ministers’ presence to imply legality. But:

Ministers’ attendance does not guarantee compliance—they too could have broken rules.

The presence of Su Haijin makes this a serious lapse of judgement regardless of legality.


This is an attempt to deflect blame by invoking status and hierarchy.


---

5. Timing of the Statement (Post-Scandal)

Why it’s bullshit:
Goi’s statement comes after Su Haijin’s conviction. It looks like damage control, trying to paint past conduct in a compliant light to avoid scrutiny.

If they had nothing to hide, why wasn't this disclosed earlier?


---

6. No independent verification or investigation outcome cited

Why it’s bullshit:
The claim rests entirely on Sam Goi’s word. There is no reference to police findings, safe distancing enforcement audits, or ministerial accountability reviews. Just a convenient “trust me” after the fact.

[Bigiron]

The dinner with minister Chee was held on Nov 19, 2020, the dinner with Mr Ng was held on May 1, 2021, and the dinner with minister Ong was held on May 10, 2022,

 Zhun boh

[Alice Alicia]

Imagine what will happen if Pritam Singh was found in restaurant with Su Haijin.

[Bigiron]

list of flaws, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Straits Times article quoting Sam Goi about his dinners with Su Haijin and ministers:


---

1. Dates Are Given — But Still No Proof of Compliance

Claim: The article lists dinner dates:

Nov 19, 2020 (Minister Chee)

May 1, 2021 (Ng Chee Meng)

May 10, 2022 (Minister Ong)


Flaw: While dates are now known, no evidence is provided that the dinners followed COVID-19 restrictions in force at the time. For instance:

What were the group sizes?

Were tables separated?

Were masks worn when not eating?

Did the venues have zoning in place?


Contradiction: Citizens were fined or prosecuted for much smaller gatherings during these same periods. Where is the enforcement consistency?


---

2. No Independent Verification

Flaw: The article relies solely on Sam Goi’s word. It does not:

Reference any enforcement checks

Cite SafeEntry/TraceTogether logs

Quote ministers or official investigations


Contradiction: During the pandemic, average citizens were fined using digital tracing logs and CCTV. Why are the dinners involving tycoons and ministers not subject to the same public standards of proof?


---

3. Su Haijin’s Involvement Is Glossed Over

Flaw: The article casually mentions Su Haijin’s presence, despite him being a key figure in Singapore’s largest money laundering case (S$3 billion).

Inconsistency:

Goi frames the dinners as “normal” when Su's presence should have triggered red flags.

There's no explanation of why Su was invited, what role he played, or how his criminal activities were not detected despite mingling with political elites.



---

4. Post-Facto Justification Lacks Credibility

Flaw: Goi only disclosed the dinners after the Su Haijin scandal erupted, implying a reactive, not proactive clarification.

Contradiction: If everything was above board, why wasn’t this transparency offered before public pressure?


---

5. Appeal to Ministerial Presence = False Assurance

Flaw: Goi implies that since ministers were present, the dinners must have been compliant.

Contradiction:

Ministerial presence does not equal legality.

In fact, it raises the stakes: Were ministers complicit, unaware, or simply careless?


This is a circular argument used to deflect criticism rather than provide evidence.


---

6. No Mention of Other Attendees or Business Purpose

Flaw: The article is silent on:

Who else attended

The purpose of these dinners

Whether there were business dealings involving Su Haijin


Inconsistency: For public trust, transparency matters. Selective disclosure without the full picture feeds suspicion of elitism and cronyism.

[Bigiron]

With the **specific dates** of Sam Goi's dinners now confirmed, we can **update the loopholes** in his claims with precise COVID-19 regulations in effect at those times. Here’s the breakdown:  

---

### **1. Loophole: Group Size Limits Were Likely Exceeded**  
#### **Dinner Dates & Rules in Effect:**  
- **19 Nov 2020 (with Minister Chee):**  
  - **Phase 3 had not yet begun** (started 28 Dec 2020).  
  - **Max group size: 5 pax** (social gatherings).  
  - **Dining-in allowed, but no intermingling between tables.**  
  - **If more than 5 attended**, it was a breach.  

- **1 May 2021 (with Mr. Ng):**  
  - **Phase 3 (Heightened Alert) was in place.**  
  - **Max group size: 5 pax** (reduced from 8 due to rising cases).  
  - **Strict no-interaction rule between tables.**  

- **10 May 2022 (with Minister Ong):**  
  - **Post-Stabilization Phase (group limits lifted on 26 Apr 2022).**  
  - **No legal group size limits**, but SafeEntry check-ins still required.  

#### **Why It’s a Loophole:**  
- Goi claims **all dinners complied**, but:  
  - If **more than 5 people** attended in **Nov 2020 or May 2021**, it violated rules.  
  - Were **all attendees from the same household?** If not, it was a breach in 2020-2021.  
  - No proof of **seat spacing (1m apart)** or **mask compliance** when not eating.  

---

### **2. Loophole: Ministers’ Attendance Could Indicate Official Exemptions (But Were They Justified?)**  
#### **Key Issue:**  
- **Work-related gatherings** had looser restrictions (e.g., up to **50 pax** in 2021 if "essential").  
- But Goi framed these as **dinners**, not official meetings.  

#### **Why It’s a Loophole:**  
- If ministers **used "official business" as an excuse**, was it legitimate?  
  - No agenda or minutes were provided to prove necessity.  
  - **Ordinary Singaporeans couldn’t claim "work" to bypass group limits.**  

---

### **3. Loophole: Su Haijin’s Presence Raises Compliance Doubts**  
- Su Haijin was later **convicted of money laundering** (indicating a pattern of rule-breaking).  
- If he attended **Nov 2020 or May 2021 dinners**, how strictly did he follow distancing rules?  
- **No enforcement checks** were mentioned—just Goi’s word.  

---

### **4. Loophole: No Verification of SafeEntry or TraceTogether Logs**  
- **All diners were required to check in** (2020-2022).  
- Yet, **no records were released** to prove:  
  - Who was present.  
  - Whether **all attendees scanned in** (or if some were "hidden").  

---

### **5. Loophole: Contradiction in Government Messaging**  
- **Publicly**, ministers urged strict compliance.  
- **Privately**, they attended multi-household dinners during restricted periods (2020-2021).  
- **Double standard?** Ordinary citizens were fined for similar gatherings.  

---

### **Key Takeaways: Updated Loopholes**  
1. **Nov 2020 & May 2021 dinners likely broke group limits** (unless all attendees lived together).  
2. **No proof of SafeEntry logs or seating arrangements.**  
3. **Ministers may have exploited "work exemption" loophole.**  
4. **Su Haijin’s presence undermines trust in compliance.**  
5. **Lack of transparency suggests unequal enforcement.**

[Alice Alicia]

He looks like one of those corrupted Myanmar Junta govt official.

[Bigiron]

[Bigiron]

1. Dates Are Given — But Still No Proof of Compliance

Claim: The article lists dinner dates:

Nov 19, 2020 (Minister Chee)

May 1, 2021 (Ng Chee Meng)

May 10, 2022 (Minister Ong)

Former Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say stated that the dinner where he was photographed with Su Haijin took place on May 10, 2022. Lim described the event as a "social gathering among old friends" and clarified that Su Haijin was the only person he did not recognize at the dinner, calling Su "the only stranger there." Lim emphasized he had no contact with Su after the dinner and did not know why Su was included by the host

How is possible for Mrs Lim having dinner with them?

[Bluebull]

The dinner with minister Chee was held on Nov 19, 2020, the dinner with Mr Ng was held on May 1, 2021, and the dinner with minister Ong was held on May 10, 2022,

Ok, let say we believe NCM attended the dinner organised by Goi om MAY 1st
But May 1st is LABOUR DAY, an important day for NTUC
Why this particular function with Goi …….. attended by the Mafia chief
NO other important NTUC function to attend?
NO dinner more important than this?
Why photographed so close with the mafia chief?

[Bluebull]

1. Dates Are Given — But Still No Proof of Compliance

Claim: The article lists dinner dates:


May 1, 2021 (Ng Chee Meng)

May 10, 2022 (Minister Ong)

The mafia chief wore the SAME SHIRT and have the SAME HAIR STYLE
When photographed with Lim and Ong in 2021 and with NCM in 2022

How this is possible ?

[Bluebull]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...il-4242286

[[[ForeverAlone]]]

Actually hor, this expose is not about Sun H J money laundering case whatever.

This Expose main thing already show you the Real Reality , those Influence Ultra Rich are behind all along Supporting the PAP.

Sam G himself also a Pro PAP supporter.

Just like other countries Politics , you see those Big influence ultra rich support.

Like my idol Elon Musk support Trump.

[moonrab]

“The dinner with minister Chee was held on Nov 19, 2020, the dinner with Mr Ng was held on May 1, 2021, and the dinner with minister Ong was held on May 10, 2022,” he said."

Quick make police report if you are still unsatisfied. Or Sue him lo....🤭🤣🍺