Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
No wonder it is said that empty vessels make the most noise...very
apt of someone known for his verbose posts.
The government was not aware of the going-ons in NKF...as you
yourself pointed out, the minister admitted to an oversight. An
oversight is a very different matter from condoning an action, the
latter means the government was aware of Durai's activities. The
government may be accused of negligence or at least, an error of
judgment...the Minister had admitted as much, but not complicity,
as you and robert allege. The former is fair comment, the latter is
defamation.
Like the clown CSJ, there are plenty of idiots here who cannot
understand the difference. You are only asking to be
sued.
As ''big and thick'' as the Mushroom head
can be, it is also known to be ''soft in the head'' too.
How can the government not be aware, when even the backbenchers
from their own Party is calling for an investigation ?
An ''oversight'' is a mere
excuse that one can probably accept - with some degree of
generosity given to someone as humble as Minister Khaw.
What has Minister Lim Hng Kiang got to offer, as well as the other
members of the Ruling Party that backed these two ministers ?
Not forgetting that some of the expressions of
concern came from the Backbenchers from the
Ruling Party itself - yet these calls were ignored.
When 'an unwitting
accompanying person to a crime' can be found guilty as an
accomplice, with the court dismissing his ''claims of
ignorance'' that the other members are armed with intent
to commit murder and robbery - how should we judge the
Ministers ?
How many ''claims of
ignorance'' have been dismissed by the Chief Justice Yong
Pung Howe - from accomplices to major crimes, and even from
landlords pleading ignorance to the legal status of their tenants
on mundane rental issues ?
Yet on a subject of public confidence in a multi-million dollar
charity, should the two ministers have been less diligent and so
protective towards a person and an organisation that is a mirror to
their own image ?
One would have expected the many voiced concerns to have led to
some kind of enquiry instead of an outright dismissal.
If inaction is not implied approval, and if implied approval is not
complicity - what else is ?
Stick to your own medicine, and leave the law as it is - there is
no need for you to interprete an exaggeration of an already
burdensome bundle of legislations designed to trap
Singaporeans.
:
From my post on Page 1 of this thread:
Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to have
clear guidelines on the raising and utilisation of funds to
maintain public confidence in our non-profit organisations and
their programmes. There are essentially three questions the public
is most interested in. First, what methods are used to raise the
money? Second, how much of the charity dollar is used to raise
funds? And, finally, how is the money spent or saved?
Of the three questions, the third is the most relevant to the issue
today: Was NKF in compliance with regulations over how the money
spent or saved?
Mr Lim did not mince words: Mr Speaker, Sir, the NKF is in full
compliance with the regulations. (emphasis added)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there was the matter of the National Council of Social
Services (NCSS). On Dec 31, 2001, the NCSS revoked the IPC status
of NKF. The NCSS took action because it saw the problems within the
NKF. And yet, within a month the Ministry of Health reinstated the
NKFs IPC status.
Now read what Mr Lim told Parliament in 2004:
[The Ministry of Finance] has certain criteria by which [it]
evaluates applicants who want IPC status, and these criteria are
set by IRAS, and we make sure that people who apply have to qualify
before they are given this IPC status. (emphasis added)
In other words we are given to believe that there was an active
search for answers from the NKF before NKF was given clearance to
reclaim its IPC status.
Ignoring clear calls for some checks
to be made with an arrogant dismissal can hardly be called
''an oversight'' - a term
that did not even originate from Minister Khaw Boon Wan, and was
coined to allow some idiot to desparately pick it up and make some
hopeless defense from an already indefensible position.
Compared to idiots, it will be fools that will pick-up trails
designed to be a trap, and there will be clowns who will put up the
pitiful act of ''Ministerial
arrogance'' when they are no more then just ''a puff of hot air'' from a
self-inflated head similar to a mere size of a mushroom.
It seems that your bark is worst than your bite - sue anyone in
this Speaker's Corner ? Your Mushroom head must be suckling with an
overdose from some ''opium
tree''.
The severity of the damage in this NKF saga is best covered at the
earliest opportunity, and you have to be a fool to think that this
matter will need to be further pursued by chasing any participants
in any open forum.
Continue being a twirp, as all the empty cans are fixed onto your
rear waiting for a Mushroom to be wedded to an Oak Tree.
BTW : thanks for your insightful revelation of your recognition to
my verbose posts - do I detect some sense of resignation on your
part ?
