Connect with us

Opinion

Public skepticism on China’s role in Singapore’s S$1.8 billion arrests: Beyond Shanmugam’s denials

While Minister K Shanmugam denies external influence in the S$1.8 billion money laundering arrests, the public remains skeptical. The intertwined timelines, significant Chinese connections, and coincidental events provide ample grounds for suspicion over China’s potential involvement, despite official reassurances

Published

on

Singapore’s role as a major financial hub often places it under scrutiny regarding the movement of vast sums of money, both legitimate and questionable.

The startling island-wide arrests of ten foreign nationals, connected to a staggering S$1.8 billion money laundering case on 15 August, have indisputably jolted the city-state.

At the crux of the debate is timing. The Minister of Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, clarified in an interview with the Chinese newspaper, Lianhe Zaobao, that the investigation and subsequent arrests weren’t influenced by external events, particularly China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit on 10 August.

Mr Shanmugam noted that the investigation had spanned several months. The police had diligently traced illicit activities within Singapore and abroad, identified the culprits, and scrutinized the fund flows.

Earlier, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) emphasized that prior intelligence and data from suspicious transaction reports (STRs) submitted by Singaporean financial institutions (FIs) had alerted the CAD to potential irregularities in the financial sector.

Conversely, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) indicated its investigation began based on tips about alleged illegal activities, particularly those centred on the use of counterfeit documents to trace the origins of funds in Singaporean bank accounts.

Subsequent thorough investigations, strengthened by intelligence and review of STRs, pinpointed a group of foreign nationals under suspicion of money laundering.

These funds are believed to have originated from their international organized crime ventures, ranging from scams to online gambling.

Mr Shanmugam highlighted the complexity of concluding such intricate investigations swiftly, pointing out that those familiar with such endeavours would understand the effort and time required.

Yet, the events appear somewhat coincidental, leading the public to speculate.

For example, all the accused originate from Fujian, China. This shared origin, combined with other specifics, paints a compelling picture.

Consider Vang Shui Ming, a 42-year-old Turkish national from Fujian. Singaporean authorities seized assets from him, including an astonishing S$962,000 in cash from his home.

There’s also the notable acquisition of luxurious properties, such as the purchase of 20 units at CanningHill Piers for S$85 million just a year prior to the arrests.

The Business Times, in August 2021, detailed Su Haijin’s acquisition of two adjoining bungalows at Sentosa Cove, totalling a reported S$36.37 million.

As for Su Haijin’s brother, Su Baolin, assets worth over S$130 million were seized from him and his spouse. Notably, Su Baolin paid S$39.33 million for a Sentosa Cove bungalow with a sea view in April 2021.

Chinese authorities had reportedly sought Vang and his brother, Wang Shuiting for his involvement in a group developing and maintaining profit-oriented gambling platforms.

Another individual, Su Yongcan, also arrested, is sought by Chinese authorities for his ties to a 2017 gambling syndicate.

Su Haijin, with S$4.06 million in a UOB account, is alleged by the prosecution to have funds stemming from illegal remote gambling offenses.

The pressing question remains: Did China share this information with Singapore? If so, when?

A Twitter post by Vanessa Gao on 16 August claimed that Singapore’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) had covertly established a task force about three months prior.

This team was said to have focused on the dealings of these Fujian-origin foreign nationals, tracing covert transactions via Citibank linked to gambling and narcotics.

It’s still a matter of debate as to whether Singapore’s authorities had been surveilling these individuals even before this period, given how the ten arrested had managed to move over S$1.8 billion of assets more than a year before investigations were supposedly initiated.

Linking these elements with Gao’s enigmatic tweet about an impending visit from a team of the Chinese Ministry of Public Security on 21 August, it crafts a story hard for the typical Singaporean to dismiss.

Although Mr Shanmugam refutes foreign meddling in the apprehensions, given the timeline of occurrences and the undeniable connections to China, it’s evident why some Singaporeans sense a deeper narrative.

As the court proceedings progress and fresh facts come to light, the storyline might shift. However, for now, public doubt, anchored in the maze of events and timings, stands warranted.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending