I wish to add that: don’t you guys get it? This POA law will keep MM Lee in power so that is good for Singapore. If you don’t believe me, watch a documentary called:

Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew

It is a very nice show! My teacher show it in national education lesson. After that, me and my classmates, we all respect MM Lee more. He fight bad guys like communists in the past and even has many operations to stop bad guys! Operation Cold Store and Operation Spectrum. Bet you dunno what I am talking. Nowadays he still has not give up to catch bad guys. Like a USA citizen blogger, people wearing kangeroo shirts. They all bad for

Comsumerism
Commercialism
Comrades
Connections
Conspiracy

Little does he or his GRC colleagues know that he is starting to harm and damage the reputation of his bosses.

1. An ‘independent auditor’ :
a. ‘Independent’ : a company is the paymaster to an accounting firm to act as the independent auditor. I like to know, being in the business of auditing and being the service provider to the paymaster, is there conflict of interest? I hope to get clarified on this.

b. ‘auditor’ : ditto.

First NKF, then Ren Ci, then Youth Challenge (maybe no direct PAP people, but nonetheless fishy).

What about some very very rich churches whose pastors and staff are paid 20k, 30k or more per month? Are there MPs involved or Ministers involved as members or otherwise?

coincidental the No. 9 got some religious or magical meaning as to why a monk wants 9 Credit crads …..puzzling to read in today’s ST about his roomate 2 sharing a room?………………..hope no hanky panky too!

I would normally agree with you on the NO need to reply in this matter. It is only fair and just if such emails would go unnoticed IF it was any ordinary person.

BUT and a HUGE BUT Ong is NOT an ordinary person. He is an ELECTED MP (elected by the people, ie: US). And due to this position, he is OBLIGATED and MUST REPLY because HE IS ACCOUNTABLE TO US!

Don’t want to reply also can, resign lor. Dont be an MP, then we won’t be bothered if he had taken any loan from Bin Laden.

“From the looks of how sour the Temasek and GIC performed last year. I guess you can say their conbined wealth is really in deep water or underwater and maybe realized the some of the losses already.”

You think they invest with their own money ar? They take loan from GIC lar, if make money they pay back lor, if lose, they write it into GIC’s portfolio and GIC suffer lar, not them.

So simple also must I teach you meh?

“If he choses to ignore netizens now, he is making the biggest mistake in his political career.”

Lon worry lar, famiLEE will protect him one, the election come, he maybe inside and contesting a GRC of 8 or maybe 10 men lor, headed by MM, worry simi?

1) Are NGOs in Singapore allowed to use public donated money as loan to working staff?

2) If point 1 is legal, shouldn’t this policy be declared to public? Again, the primary reason for this transparency is that public donors expect donations are used for charitable causes. Yes? No? Strictly speaking “Staff Loan” to me does not fall into this category. This will not be an issue if it is a non-NGO.

3) If it is perfectly okay to treat it as staff loan and that it is within the legal frame work of Singapore laws, why wasn’t this came to light much earlier before this Ren Ci incident? I mean this amount would have appeared in their P&L, why wasn’t this issue raised by auditors who audited their accounts? (I mean the legality of its nature).

I mean, there must be legal laws to safe guard this “possible abuse of publicly donated funds”. Yes? No? Are these people involved traversing with our judicial system? This incidence gives a real bad name for charitable organizations in Singapore who are truly “NGOs”. The implications are far greater than these people involved thought of, the public confidence must be badly shaken as we no longer know whether public donations are really for good causes and that in turn will affect those who relied on these charitable funds for support.

In my humble opinion, I have always viewed NGOs are run by a handful of “reasonably paid” employed administrative staff and the rest of them are mainly volunteers wanting to contribute their valuable time for a good cause. This episode has deep implication and is far from being clean, clear policies or guidelines on how NGOs are operated in Singapore and there are caused for concerns by the public. I sincerely hope the authorities will look into this matter and investigate it with a serious mindset and provide a satisfactory response to clear the doubts of the concerned public. Please don’t allow this to tarnish the good old name of Singapore government clean cut policies. This cannot happen here. We are examples for our neighbors and countries like China, Vietnam and elsewhere are trying to embrace our corruption free policies into their countries. Please do not ruin this stellar record that was built with the blood and sweat of hard working law abiding Singaporeans.

Very long lar, you lon understand issit?

See hor, must make appointment with lawyer, then must call PM secretary make appointment to see PM, then PM must see SM, then hor must again appointment to see MM, all take time lar.

Understand lar, without the head of the famiLEE say “OK”, who dare to make reply hor, dio bo? Even PM also must wait for MM to give clear instructions and directions mah, you tink he dare to act on his own meh?

PM useless but he no stupid lar, PM position also handed on a plate to him one, on the condition that when the head of the famiLEE say sit, he die die guai guai must sit. You know?

So hor, lon wait for le reply lar, go play with AWARE 1st, then maybe hor, after the election hor, the MP Ong win seat hor, if you no forget then he reply lor. If Ong bo join election or lose, then this issue all under the carpet liao and the gahment will use the “Move On” law, order you to move on lor.

I wont be surprised if the famiLEE doesn’t pay taxes at all since its afterall, still “their money”. Oaying taxes to them means from one hand to the other, thats all.

The loan to Ong is not an issue itself. Companies do that all the time and its not illegal at all.

Whats of concern should be whether the “loan” was indeed a loan as intended, not some bri**, kickba**, etc etc etc

Was there any paperwork like IOU? Was the loan declared in RC’s statement of affairs? It it was, then we should cut Ong some slack and move on.

5) When did you complete repayment of the loan?
A: When Ren Ci’s CEO was arrested and charged.

6) Did you declare this loan to the People’s Action Party selection committee?
A: Yes, I told one of the famiLEE’s members and he replied that it was “hear no evil, see no evil”.

maybe he forgot.

I actually am very curious to hear him take the opportunity offered to clarify.
I like to hear how a doctor reply. Must be very bombastic.