Friday, April 15, 2016

Civil Service and Ministries Should Maintain Neutrality and Professional

There is a Straits Times report today on a "spat" between Mrs Lee Suet Fern and the Ministry of Law.

For those who are not in the know, Mrs. Lee Suet Fern is the wife of Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee.

The wife of Lee Hsien Yang (aka PM Lee's sister-in-law) has complained about the FT policy in Law practice, stating that a scheme Ministry of Law has put up for foreign law firms to register practice here has failed to create more jobs for Singapore lawyers.

The Ministry of Law could have just rebutted her with their usual statistics and all but instead, the Ministry has gone further than that by putting up irrelevant information about how Mrs Lee has tried to get her law firm's foreign partner to be registered under the scheme after the deadline has closed. The statement of Ministry of Law insinuates that Mrs Lee was seeking preferential treatment by asking the Ministry to make exception of her law firm's application. By putting up such irrelevant information also insinuates that she is just talking bad about this scheme because she and her law firm didn't get what they want!

I do not think it is right for the Ministry to put up such information amounting to personal attacks, not that I want to side anyone here, lest a member of the Lee clan. It is totally unprofessional for the civil service and Ministry to do that instead of putting up rebuttal solely as a matter of fact with regards to the issues at hand. The civil service should always maintain that code of neutrality and professionalism in dealing with issues and public debates or discourse on issues of public interests. The civil service and ministries should avoid getting entangled in personal attacks but just stick to the issues when putting up their stance.

Goh Meng Seng

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I do not think it is right for the Ministry to put up such information amounting to personal attacks, not that I want to side anyone here, lest a member of the Lee clan."
Goh Meng Seng

That is beside the point.

The more pertinent question is whether such behaviour of the Ministry can help the opposition, in particular Goh Meng Seng's PPP, to win more votes in the next GE.

If not, Goh Meng Seng, despite being a veteran politician, will be reduced to a role of just another blogger on the Internet.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Not many heart landers know the role of Ministry of Law. Is it true that it consist of lawyers judges and courts?

The heart landers do know most lawyers work only for themselves not for me or you.

They also know that your fate will be up in flames with the judges if they happen to have a bad day or if your freckle face do not suit them.

Perhaps our dear GMS can help to agree.

anonymous said...

You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… and your asset values will disappear, your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.”
•MM in Justifying million-dollar pay hike for Singapore ministers (Straits Times, 5 April 2007)

Now security still fine. Women have not become maids yet in other countries and foreign workers. The way things are going who knows?

Anonymous said...

Half the population are having affairs men and women. If one were to keep recycling about David Ong, it might not sit well with the public. A real man do not only have one woman in their whole life history with the exception of Mr. Lee KY. If one is being told that no other women can aroused them they could be impotent ????????? Whether one agree or not its one of the facts in life!

Pok Kai said...

Just for Laughs.

Ask any human if they have ever been unfaithful.

Their answer standard would be if I answer NO, no one would believe me. I cannot say YES.