SG Talk

Quote:Somehow, the news(?) surfacing day by day over the collection of photographs of a dinner or three has just become more confusing. I think we should come to grips with what the concern really is. 

1. Is this about the ministers’ (and ex-ministers’) relationship with a man who turned out to be a money launderer?

Unless they somehow had inside info of his yet-undiscovered shenanigans, we should take the answers we were given: They didn’t know the Fujian native/Cypriot national Su Hanjin personally.He appeared to have popped up at each dinner, presumably at the invitation of dinner organiser Sam Goi. 

2. Is this about politicians doing some due diligence over who they have dinner with? 

It would be impossible to screen everyone who wants to meet them, especially at public functions. It might be more do-able for closed-door private functions, like registering yourself to attend a sensitive dialogue. But a private dinner thrown by a friend (or someone who is “trusted’’) is something else. It is normal to expect that the friend will do what is appropriate, although I think it would also be quite normal for an invitee to ask “who else will be there?’’. Is this a generally accepted convention for ministers? (I once declined a request from a minister who wanted to lunch with me to submit my resume. I said that it was he who invited me, not the other way round! We still had lunch anyway.) 

3. Is this about Sam Goi’s role in facilitating face-time with politicians for someone who was later discovered to be a crook? 

Goi has tried to pin down the dates of three different dinners although it would appear he got at least one wrong. Su was invited to all three (and wearing his favorite outfit every time?). There is some kind of corporate connection between the Fujian native and Goi because they sat on the same board of a company that used to be called No Signboard Holdings. 

Goi’s response was that the dinners were for “friends’’ and he seemed to have severed all contact with Su who was convicted in April last year. Those dinner engagements, with wives in attendance, have been described variously as a way to engage with different sectors (NTUC chief Ng Chee Meng) and “among old friends’’ (ex-minister Lim Swee Say).  

Only Goi can say why Su was on the invite list, unbeknownst to the VIPs. 

Goi said he organised and paid for all the dinners which, by the way, complied with Covid-19 social distancing rules. All the politicians denied knowing Su personally. MPs-elect Ong Ye Kung and Chee Hong Tat said through their press secretaries have had no contact or dealings with him, before or since these occasions. 

4. Did everyone, including Goi, just get snookered by Su, not knowing that a shark was circling the pond they were in? 

It speaks much for Su’s network of connections that he could penetrate even private dinners for politicians or at least get into the good books of a local businessman known to be close to the Government. 

It is a good “look’’ for him to be pictured with the “right’’ people to lend himself an aura of respectability. But it also shows how vulnerable our politicians are to such “social lubricants’’ that had seemed so innocuous at the time. 
Another sentiment that has been expressed is how the photographs demonstrate a cosy relationship between politicians and businessmen. 

If Goi thought that paying for the dinners out of his own pocket would mitigate any impact, he was wrong. It simply opened a new can of worms about money and access to power. 

Most of us know that the late Lee Kuan Yew preferred to have a distant relationship with the business community, fearing that some advantage would be taken of him. He kept political power distinct from corporate influence so as not to undermine governance. He did so even in the early days when Singapore was hard up for investments. 

He probably ate most of his dinners at home. 

I think it would be a good time for Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to reiterate the need for a high level of political service, where humility and prudence are exercised as a matter of course. 

Give the codes of conduct a good dusting-over, expound or even expand on them at the beginning of the new Parliament and give that white uniform of the PAP a good starching over. It will be a message not just for the elected - but to everyone who thinks he or she can bask in political favour for whatever selfish motivation. 

It will also do help to allay sentiments that our politics is getting, for want of a better word, grubby.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/12K2Grkt8xd/

This Facebook post contains several layered and coded messages, written in a tone of measured critique, seemingly aiming to push for higher standards in political accountability without overtly attacking any individual. Here's a breakdown of the hidden messages and subtext:


---

1. Subtle Criticism of Ministerial Naivety or Complacency

“Unless they somehow had inside info...” and “we should take the answers we were given...”
→ The phrasing is skeptical. It implies the official line may be technically true, but there's an undercurrent of doubt about how politicians could be so unaware of a high-profile criminal's presence at multiple dinners.

“Did everyone, including Goi, just get snookered?”
→ Suggests either gullibility or a lack of proper scrutiny by both the businessman and the politicians, raising concerns about judgment.



---

2. Warning About Political-Commercial Entanglement

“It also shows how vulnerable our politicians are to such ‘social lubricants’…”
→ Implies that casual socializing with businessmen — even under the guise of friendship — can be exploited for image-laundering or influence-peddling.

“How the photographs demonstrate a cosy relationship between politicians and businessmen.”
→ This is a direct nudge at what many Singaporeans fear: the blurring of lines between state power and business interests.



---

3. Implicit Critique of the Current Leadership

“It would be a good time for Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to reiterate…”
→ This is a veiled suggestion that he hasn’t done enough so far, and there's a need to reaffirm clean governance visibly and firmly.

“Give that white uniform of the PAP a good starching over.”
→ A loaded metaphor. The "white uniform" symbolizes PAP’s claim to integrity and incorruptibility. Saying it needs "starching" suggests it's become wrinkled — i.e., tainted or less convincing.



---

4. Contrast with Lee Kuan Yew's Era

“The late Lee Kuan Yew preferred to have a distant relationship with the business community...”
→ This sets a benchmark — perhaps nostalgic or critical — implying today's leaders have strayed from these stricter, cleaner boundaries.



---

5. Public Trust and Accountability as the Real Issue

“We should come to grips with what the concern really is…”
→ Encourages the reader to look past surface details (photos, dinners) to deeper issues: power, access, transparency, and perception.

“To everyone who thinks he or she can bask in political favour…”
→ Hints at a broader culture of elite access-seeking, not just a one-off dinner issue.



---

6. Tone: Polite, But Purposefully Disruptive

The post mimics the style of establishment-friendly commentary — calm, rational, civic-minded — but within it is a call for greater scrutiny, clearer lines, and moral leadership.



-

Quote:Goi has tried to pin down the dates of three different dinners although it would appear he got at least one wrong.

Dis Bertha Henson oso 154 th ranking journalist, rely on on edmw as her credible source of intel without fact checking . Is she claiming Popiah King gave wan 'untrue' dinner date despite having"records" to check from?

The edmw TS made a false allegation. Dat woman seated in front of Lim Swee Say is not his wife.
Lauya 'reportage'...

      
Of course, auntie dared to challenge XJP 黑帮老大, she got to have backup of Fijian gang lah. 

If not, she so daring meh?  


.

need some advice how to WHATABOUTISM about pritam lying moar serious than this lolololololol...

I find it ridiculous that Goi was not able to sniff out a big crook only shows that his business acumen and business circle is very small. A genuine billionaire like Su would have been in the HK Tycoon circle as well and any of the rich would have fished him out.

It is strange that he has quite a few standing in several F& B Board which concludes fictitious and merely very domestic leading to the next point. He became greedy for his small grey matter to handle, fixing dinners to grow his empire and using Ministers as live bait to seduce Su.

Sam Goi is a conniving street smart businessman who has no qualms about being white and black, either way