Facebook postings about the sale of town council software to Action
Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a PAP-owned company, fell off
dramatically soon after news broke that Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyers
had sent me a letter. Possibly, people felt very unsure what was
safe to talk about anymore.
Therefore, I think it is important for me to clarify that the
statements in the article that I had to take down, and that Lee
took exception to, were not, strictly speaking, statements about
the sale of the software to AIM, but phrases and sentences
pertaining to him. They were statements and questions I had asked
that Lee felt questioned his integrity, corruptibility and abuse of
power should he not launch an investigation. The 21 readers’
comments that the lawyers cited as defamatory were of the same
vein.
I have apologised for them, though readers might want to consider
the broader ecology of defamation threats and suits in Singapore. I
draw your attention to Angela Faye Oon’s Facebook posting of Friday
4 January 2013 (I hope she doesn’t mind me archiving it
here because many readers of Yawning Bread may not be
‘friends’ with her, but I’ll take it down if she asks), Cherian
George’s comment in Journalism.sg (For whom the libel
tolls: government loses even as it wins) and Tan Kin Lian’s
article on his blog (Threat of defamation
suit).
Obviously, our ministers do not like people to question their
integrity. And as in my experience, you might get into trouble if
you did. But it is important to bear in mind that all I have said
so far about AIM and the town councils were not cited by the
lawyers as defamatory, only those statements directed at Lee.
Another reason why social media talk about the AIM saga has fallen
off is that there has been no new revelation except the letter of
termination released by the Workers’ Party. Even then, it merely
confirmed what had earlier been revealed.
The only juicy part was how AIM was so gauche as to use the same
address as the PAP headquarters. As a reader said to me, “It’s as
terrible as it gets!”
* * * * *
Teo Ho Pin et al may take this respite to mean that the worst is
behind them and say no more on the matter. But what would be
interesting is if the Workers’ Party tables a question at the next
parliamentary sitting.
The thing about parliamentary questions is that they are directed
at the government. A minister, or junior minister at least, has to
stand up and reply to them. This means that Khaw Boon Wan as
National Development Minister will likely be in the hot seat since
MND generally oversees town councils, issuing assessments and
ratings periodically. So far, none of the ministers have said a
thing about the AIM affair, but when faced with a parliamentary
question, Khaw or someone else from government will have to
reply.
What will he say? Of course, much depends on how the Workers’ Party
phrases the question (if they choose to ask one) but basically Khaw
will have two uncomfortable choices.
One would be to stoutly defend Teo Ho Pin and the PAP town councils
that chose to sell the software to AIM. But Khaw would then also
have to defend not just the decision to sell, but the rather
convoluted arrangement that was dreamt up, and the very
suspicious-looking execution of the tender. He would have to
dismiss as irrelevant or malicious all the remaining unanswered
questions. Yet, if he stands up to defend it in toto, then the
government takes on the responsibility for the mess, and if any
wrongdoing is later exposed, the government will have it on their
shoulders.
Frankly, even if no later wrongdoing is exposed,
the stink is now so serious, once the government starts defending
it stoutly, it will stick to them till the next general
election.
This scenario also presupposes that Khaw is personally comfortable
defending it. What do I mean by that? Suppose his cabinet
colleagues think the government should defend it stoutly, but what
if Khaw personally has doubts? How will he reconcile his personal
conscience with his duty to act in a way the cabinet as a whole
wishes?
The other route Khaw can take is to tell parliament that he himself
is not completely satisfied that the AIM saga passes the smell
test. He could promise an independent investigation. Doing so might
draw the sting out of the affair.
The problem with this route is that it would mean hanging Teo Ho
Pin out to dry, for anything less than a stout defence may leave
Teo feeling damned by faint praise. His position would become
untenable; he may choose to resign.
This would then present the party and the prime minister with a new
headache: demands for another by-election. And, as I have discussed
in a recent article, the party probably already has enough
recruitment troubles with Punggol East.
It may not be visible to the layman, but I think the AIM saga is
still keeping the PAP awake at night. It has become a ‘heads you
win, tails I lose’ situation.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-6/#more-8836
