Tag: Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Open Letter To Finance Ministry Concerning National Productivity Fund
Tharman Shanmuguratnam

Deputy Prime Minister

& Minister of Finance

Ministry of Finance

100 High Street

#10-01 The Treasury

Singapore 179434

Dear Minister,

I have some questions and concerns with regards to the National Productivity Fund (NPF). In particular I am concerned that there seems to be little accountability or Parliamentary oversight of the money spent and no information as to how much money remains in the Fund.

You set the NPF up in Budget 2010 with an initial $1 billion allocation but a commitment to a total size of $2 billion. In Budget 2011 you allocated another $1 billion for the NPF taking the total to $2 billion. In this year’s Budget you allocated another $1.5 billion. This brings the total amount of money allocated to at least $3.5 billion.

It is a constitutional requirement that if you set up a new fund to be managed and administered separately from the Consolidated Fund you must pass a new Act of Parliament to provide for proper administration. If this is not done then under Article 147-(1) you are required to include the proposed expenditures in the annual estimates presented to Parliament before the end of each financial year. Parliament then has to approve the expenditures as part of the Budget process. This requirement is backed up by Article 7-(3) of the Financial Procedures Act that states:

(3) Subject to subsection (3A), moneys standing to the credit of Singapore with any bank, or otherwise held by Singapore may be invested by the Minister —

(a )on deposit in any bank;

(b) [Deleted by Act 45 of 2004]

(c) in gold and other bullion;

(d) in securities of, or guaranteed by, any government or international financial institution;

(e) in any of the stocks, funds, securities or investments; or

(f) as otherwise authorised by law,

and such investments together with the interest and any other income received therefrom shall form either —

(i) part of the Consolidated Fund;

(ii) part of any fund created by any law; or

(iii) part of any deposit account constituted under section 8,

Parliament passed a law setting up the NPF in 2010. However this is not the case for several other funds that you have set up and allocated substantial sums of money to in the last few Budgets. I have been unable to discover any Parliamentary Acts for the Bus Services Expansion Fund (BSEF), the National Youth Fund (NYF) or the Special Employment Credit Fund (SECF), to name a few of the many funds you have set up over the last few years.

Despite being required under the NPF Act to keep proper accounts and records and to present audited accounts to Parliament as soon as practicable, there is no record in the Parliamentary reports of this having been done. I have been unable to find the accounts online or to find any record that the Auditor-General has audited the accounts and controls of the NPF.

The only evidence I can find as to how much money has been spent from the NPF is from the Parliamentary reports. On 15 October 2012, during oral answers to questions on the effectiveness of the Government’s productivity measures, Teo Ser Luck, then the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, revealed that $950 million had been committed from the NPF “to support the slew of productivity initiatives” and that approximately 7,000 companies had benefited. The next update was in the Debate on the President’s Address held on 26 May 2014 when Teo Ser Luck updated the House that half of the NPF had been committed. At that time the amount set aside was $2 billion so that would make total commitments until then $1 billion. Does that represent actual spending or commitments? Does the NPF hold shares in the companies to which it has given grants for productivity improvements or claw back any of the money spent from the financial gains?

I am particularly concerned that the NPF, the BSEF and the SECF have never been shown in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities (see link) which Article 147-(4) (b) of the Constitution requires you to present to Parliament at Budget time. The link is to the statement dated 31 March 2013. This is more than two years out of date but is the latest that you allow Parliament and the Singaporean public to have access to. However you have given the President the statement dated 31 March 2014 and there is no reason why Parliament and the public should not have access to the more up-to-date figures.

This is supposed to be “an audited statement showing as far as practicable the assets and liabilities of Singapore at the end of the last completed financial year.” Neither are the BSEF, the NYF or the SECF. However other funds are represented on the liability side of the balance sheet such as the National Research Fund, the GST Voucher Fund, the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, the Government Securities Fund and the Edusave Endowment Fund.

To sum up, I have the following specific questions:
1. Why have the annual Statements of Assets and Liabilities never shown the National Productivity Fund when it is a separate fund established by law and not part of the Consolidated Fund? For example, the National Research Fund is shown as part of the Statement even though the NPF is not.
2. SImilarly why have the annual Statements never shown the BSEF, the SECF or the NYF?
3. Would you agree that it is a Constitutional requirement to include them? If not what is the explanation?
4. If the NPF is not shown on the liability side of the Government’s balance sheet, are the monies allocated still shown on the asset side?
5. Similarly are the monies allocated to the BSEF or the buses purchased with the fund shown on the asset side of the balance sheet? Ditto with the SECF.
6. If it is no longer included on the asset side, does this mean that the entire $2 billion appropriated to the NPF up until Budget 2015 has been spent?
7. Why then did Teo Ser Luck say in Parliament on 26 May 2014 that only half the NPF had been committed?
8. Were the accounts of the NPF ever presented to Parliament as required under the Constitution? Have they ever been audited by the Auditor-General? What about the BSEF and the SECF?
9. Has the money committed been given away in grants and if so to which companies?
10. Was there any requirement to pay back the grants from the increased productivity, if at all, of the companies?
11. Given that productivity has not risen at all since 2010 and is in fact lower than before the financial crisis of 2008, it is difficult to see that there have been any positive benefits from the money spent. Would you agree that this has been a complete waste of taxpayers’ money?
12. Why have Acts of Parliament not been passed to administer the Bus Services Expansion Fund, the Special Employment Credit Fund or the National Youth Fund? You allocated $2.35 billion to the SECF in 2012 and another $0.5 million in 2015 while the figure for the BSEF was $1.1 billion.
13. If no Act has been passed, then would you agree that by law the monies allocated remain part of the Consolidated Fund and all expenditure therefrom needs to be authorised by Parliament?
14. In the BSEF and the SECF remain part of the Consolidated Fund, would you point me to where expenditures from these funds were approved by Parliament as part of the Budget?
I am sure that you will have a simple explanation for these apparent discrepancies and apologise if I have been too obtuse not to see it with the limited access to information given to the Singapore public and Parliament.

You have rightly been vigilant on behalf of Aljunied residents in pursuing an alleged $6.4 million overpayment by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) to their managing agent. Therefore you will understand why I am concerned on behalf of all Singaporeans by possible Constitutional breaches involving sums hundreds of times larger. My concerns go to the heart of transparency and accountability and the reasons why we need a strong Parliamentary check on the Executive. I am worried that without proper accountability and full transparency the monies allocated to the NPF and to other funds not shown could be used to cover up losses at Temasek, GIC and MAS. While there is no evidence that this has occurred there is equally no evidence that it has not. I therefore urge you to release the accounts of these funds without delay and to answer my questions.

You admitted this year that the amounts you allocated to endowments and trust funds do not constitute real spending after we drew this to the public’s attention here, here and here. Yet once they have been allocated they disappear from Parliamentary oversight and control and from the eyes of the public. In view of the Government’s admirably tight-fisted approach to spending on Singaporeans’ welfare, health and education it is vitally important that we see such controls applied to other areas of Government spending to see that there is no unnecessary wastage at best and fraud at worst.

If the funds are not listed in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities then it is difficult to see how we are expected to believe that there are adequate controls on spending. We know that the Constitution requires you to provide the President with a summary of the receipts and expenditure of each fund but without transparency how can we know if the President is performing his Constitutionally mandated role adequately?

You have ignored my previous letters written in May 2012 and February 2014 even though the latter showed that you had admitted that the AG had misrepresented a loan commitment as an asset when it is actually a liability in order to defeat my suit over Singapore’s $5 billion IMF loan commitment. Therefore I expect you will ignore this letter and shelter behind the High Court’s decision to deny Singaporeans locus standi to sue their Government if it breaches the Constitution. However if you fail to answer my questions within a reasonable time frame, Singaporeans can and will draw their own conclusions.

Yours faithfully,

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Source: http://sonofadud.com
May 23, 2015
Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Why A By-Election Should Be Called In Tanjong Pagar
The death of Lee Kuan Yew leaves his seat in Tanjong Pagar GRC vacant. Recently a Bloomberg journalist asked me to comment on the suggestion that Lee’s seat in Tanjong Pagar be left vacant as a mark of respect. Her resultant article can be read here. Some commentators have suggested that the Opposition should boycott any by-election, giving the PAP a walkover similar to the ones it has enjoyed ever since Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency was included as part of Tanjong Pagar GRC. In addition a lot of people have been asking me whether I think a by-election will or even must be called.

The fact that any one could even suggest that denying the democratic rights of the citizens of one ward to choose their representative is a way to show respect for the founder of our one-party authoritarian system goes a long way to explaining how far from being a democracy that system is and how far we have to go to become a developed nation in terms of our political and legal structures.

LKY’s seat had of course been effectively vacant for some time. For many years other MPs in the GRC had performed his constituency duties. Ill-health and advanced years also meant that his appearances in Parliament after his unopposed re-election in 2011 were mostly perfunctory. In a democracy an MP who was incapacitated by advanced years or ill-health would have resigned to allow a new and fitter incumbent to perform the duties that he was no longer able to.

In addition because of LKY’s deliberate creation and reinforcement of a climate of fear, and the very real measures he took to crush anyone who stood up to him, the voters of his GRC have been denied the right to choose their representatives for several decades. Even in 2011, when every other seat was contested and our aim was to see Singapore’s first non-walkover GE , a team of independents ran out of time in filing their nomination papers and were disqualified. The fact that the people of that ward have gone without choosing their representatives for so long means that there is a more urgent need to hold a by-election in his constituency now. But can the PM leave the seat vacant indefinitely in defiance of every democratic norm but as has been normal PAP practice until recently?

The short answer and the absolute legal fact is that it would be unconstitutional not to hold a by-election unless the Prime Minister decides to call a general election within the next three months or so.

The argument ( thanks to Article 14) runs like this.

Article 49 of the Constitution states:

49.

—(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

It was established by the Court of Appeal decision in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG (2013) that the calling of a by-election is mandatory and not discretionary and that it has to be held within a reasonable space of time, normally three months.

The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) seems to contradict this requirement when it states in Article 24-2(A) that:

(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ [for a by-election] shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.

However this places Article 24-(2A) of the PEA at odds with the Constitution. Where this is the case the Constitution clearly overrides any laws enacted by Parliament, as stated in Article 4 of the Constitution:
1. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Article 24-(2A) of the PEA is clearly inconsistent with Article 49 of the Constitution. Therefore under Article 4 of the Constitution it is void. Therefore the Prime Minister must call a by-election for Tanjong Pagar GRC, or at least for the constituency vacated by his father’s death, within the next three months.

If the PM refuses to do so, I (and I know my Party members would join me) would support an application to the Court to declare that the PEA is inconsistent with the Constitution and that a by-election must be called. It should be easy for Lee Hsien Loong’s poodle, the Elections Department, to carve out Tanjong Pagar SMC from the GRC if the PM does not want to call a by-election for the whole GRC. However as it was uncontested in 2011 it would be right now to hold an election for the whole GRC.

In the event that the PM observes the Constitution and calls a by-election, it would be good for the Opposition parties to come together and agree to field a joint “A” team against the PAP under an umbrella with all our strongest candidates combined. This would be an important step in the process of transforming the Opposition in the eyes of the electorate into a credible force that is ready to form an alternative Government.

Source: http://sonofadud.com
April 24, 2015
Did Lee Hsien Loong Breach The Ministerial Code Of Conduct?

I made the following posts on Facebook at midnight on Friday. I have now decided to put the posts up on my blog to answer some online comments

I am seriously concerned that the PM has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct by using his Official Press Secretary to write a letter to the Economist newspaper defending the PM’s private defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. This states:

“4.3 A Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Singapore Civil Service’s core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.

He should respect the duty of civil servants to remain neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy.”

Neutral? This is quite apart from the fact of whether it is right for the PM to use a civil servant paid by the taxpayer to assist him in his private capacity and not his official one.

He is suing Roy as a private individual and yet he uses a state employee, paid by you the tax payer, to write to the foreign press defending his personal matter. I believe the principle has been established that State Institutions cannot sue a private individual so why can a state employee be put to work on it. Is the Press Secretary working for us, who put the government in place as public servants, or is the Press Secretary working for LHL in a private capacity. It needs clarifying.

I pointed out the uncanny parallels with the alleged misconduct that led to the blogger Roy’s sacking from Tan Tock Seng Hospital:

I have had another thought. If the PM used his Private secretary to write to the Economist on his personal matters was this also a misuse of office resources, computer etc such as got Roy fired?

The posts have already attracted a lot of online comments. Some of the commentators have defended Lee Hsien Loong’s actions in getting his Press Secretary to write since, they say, Roy Ngerng’s defamation brought the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) into disrepute.

However I would disagree. The defamation was against the person and not the office. Lee Hsien Loong is suing Roy for damage to his personal reputation not to the reputation of the PMO. If he succeeds in his action for damages the money will not go to the PMO but to Mr Lee personally. The proper person to have written to the Economist should have been Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer, and not his Press Secretary who is paid by the taxpayer.

Who has responsibility for determining if there has been a breach of the Code and what sanctions should apply?

The preamble to the Ministerial Code of Conduct makes clear that any breaches of the Code are to be treated extremely

This Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out the “rules of obligation” that all Ministers are to abide by in order to uphold these standards. Breach of any of these “rules of obligation” may expose the Minister to removal from office.

However the Code goes on to say that:

This Code does not have the force of law and therefore any issue concerning the compliance or non-compliance with it is not subject to review by any court or tribunal.

The Code is silent on how it is to be enforced. While responsibility for Ministers’ observance of the Code would appear to rest with the Prime Minister, it is not clear from the Constitution how breaches by the Prime Minister would be dealt with. The onus for investigating breaches would appear to lie with the President though this needs clarification. In matters involving corruption the President has the power under the Constitution to concur with the Director of CPIB’s decision to authorise an investigation even if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent. However the CPIB comes under the PMO so it is not independent. The President does not have the power on his own to initiate investigations.

In this instance a request should be made to the President asking him whether he has jurisdiction in this matter? If he does not who does? If he does, then he should investigate whether Lee Hsien Loong has breached the Code and make his findings public. Surely Lee Hsien Loong would not be able to continue in office if he was found to have committed a serious breach of the Code?

Source: Kenneth Jeyaretnam; http://sonofadud.com

January 14, 2015