Was there a need for civil service to protect politicians?

robertteh SG

It is the politician like Minister Lim Hng Kian who made the policy decision to make Singapore an Education Hub leading the flurry of overseas universities being set up with business plans not even properly studied for feasibility.

As a result of poor planning and study, it led to heavy financial losses to the tune of some S$32.3 mil taxpayers' monies going down the drain.

There are more than meet the eye behind all the manoerve to push responsibilities to civil servants. Why can't minister take responsibility for such lack of direction and study of business plan of UNSW before committing taxpayers' monies to the project. Is this as simple as a normal company SOP which will prevent great financial losses of such nature. A commission of inquiry inside parliament should be set up as soon as possible to allay the fear that neither minister nor civil servants are able to should such responsibility.

At least do so to substantiate that our world class ministers are world class and not using civil servants as punching bag to rid themselves of accountability for their political or policy decision or direction.

(Source onlinecitizens)

The University of New South Wales saga is still onging in Singapore. The Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) has finally reported how much Singapore lost in the venture. EDB had given S$15 million in loans and S$17.3 million in grants to the university. The S$15 million is back up by bank loans and can be retrieved, but as for the S$17.3 million, negotiations are underway with the university to come up with a feasible plan for repayment.

Good luck on that. Thing is...this isn't the exact cost spent by the Government on the UNSW Asia deal. There hasn't been any report on whether Singapore has any outstanding liabilities to third parties such as banks, construction companies etc. "Confidentiality obligations" I think the EDB are calling it. (The fact that UNSW has issued public statements on its liabilities and losses to the Australian Parliament is quite another matter to Singapore it seems.)

Now, the blame will be non-stop between the EDB and UNSW chief Fred Hilmer, but I still have some questions. Why does it takes a sitting of Parliament for the EDB to come clean (half-clean) on this? Nine MPs have tabled questions on the failed high-profile project, only then did the EDB showed us these figures. This is Singapore's public money isn't it? Why can't the EDB showed us these numbers from the get-go? Also reported was the fact that 18 private schools were shutted in the past 5 years in Singapore, but to our Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang, Singapore is "on its way to becoming an education hub". Really?

To me, the UNSW saga is NOT a minor setback and the amounts loss is VERY important. I find it amazing that the EDB never reviewed the soundness of UNSW's business plans. Mr.Lim says that the Government does not evaluate business proposals. If that is the case, then someone at EDB needs to take responsibility for this and get his head chopped off. I can understand if this is a business plan that failed, it happens. But the EDB issued a cheque to UNSW without looking at their business plans? That is just plain wrong and someone at the EDB made a huge mistake here.

Singaporean businessmen has horror stories on the mountains of paperwork they need to fill out to get even the smallest grants from Singapore agencies, and EDB issued millions to UNSW but never review their plans? If what Mr.Lim says is true, then heads must roll at the EDB.

bila_prem SG

What about the Suzhou project? It was also a failure overseas. Why no comment on that?

dragg SG

do we see heads roll when mistakes are made?

4getmenot SG

no it was an 'honest mistake' , lets move on.. Mr. Green

reyes SG

is suzhou a failure?
dint really did a research on that.
but i went suzhou for biz trip, it seem this project is very well respected by the local chinese.

robertteh SG

Because of top-down governance, Singapore leaders lacked the entrepreneurs to seize investment opportunities in the prime Shanghai Putong project in the earlier periods of its development which benefited mainly other investors from Thailand, Hongkongers and Taiwanese, etc.

Singapore also came to realise its loss of many business opportunities in the earlier exodus of many Hongkong businesses due to hand-over of the territory to China.

So belatedly it sent a delegation and ended up talking to Chinese leaders of second choices like Suzhou a god-foresaken backwater no other investors dare to tread because of its lack of port and other transportation access.

Not only was Suzhou too remote to attract investors they would have to pay Shanghai authority all the port and other charges if they took up Suzhou.

Suzhou was also more expensive to build as compared with the old district. So Singapore was actually taken for a ride by the Chinese who were too clever or savvy for our simpler minded technocrats who had no problem with spending people's monies since there is no accountability whatsoever.

The Suzhou local authority of course took the golden opportunity to use Suzhou to sell its investments at the expense of Singapore investments. The rest was history as all should have read how Suzhou local authority became fuming mad with our leaders criticizing their actions as breach of faith or "High mountains which blocked off the Emperor who was too far to reach".

The moral of the story is when our leaders have too much funds on their hand they will tend to lose it on the slightest whims as it has lost in this case to people who are more street-wise or savvy. At the end Singapore had to give up its lion share at a pittance to allow China to receive the whole investments on a silver platter.