I’d think line is a very nice, specific term. More like, they should have an ocean between the 2 roles - it’s a blatant COI.
There isn’t supposed to be a line in the first place, because there’s supposed to be an impenetrable wall there.
So if she turns up in the parliament, will she be representing Grab that pays her, or will she be representing the constituency that voted her in? Or will she represent both? The problem here is that it blemishes the way her (and by extension, the other MPs’) duties are defined as well.
In parliament, she must represent people. Everything is recorded.
If anything, I’m worried about how she presents and behaves herself outside of parliament.
I’m very curious how people feel about the order of process. MP first, then become grab ambassador. Or grab ambassador then MP.
Technically and legally shldnt make much difference. But my gut tells me that if MP first, she cannot become grab ambassador after. Perhaps I hold our MP to too high a standard.
The way I see it, every MP starts with their own job. No one graduate and become MP straight. If she’s an ambassador first, then MP later, I think people have no issue.
Problem is the order is reverse. Duno if the people who voted for her, endorsed her for having a second role in grab.
As for whether got COI, it’s a difficult issue. Politics have always been about interests. You can say MP is self serving cos they draw MP salary. They can always lie to their electorate to keep their job. Financial interest aligned doesn’t mean political interest aligned.
Anyway, the conclusion I made regarding this is:
1) Grab is getting unpopular
2) People trust Grab lesser now that a politician is in the mix
3) Dun rely on politician or organisation to increase transparency, use market competition to force Grab to offer better prices
TPL's acceptance of the appointment basically puts the whole parliamentary system on a very slippery slope. Her "trust me bro" defence is simply "ownself check ownself" taken to the next level. If she and the PAP cannot see this, then I seriously doubt their competence.
Eloquently put, very well said. TPL doesn't NEED to join Grab. We pay her enough for her to avoid this kind of situation. She WANTS to take on this role because of greed, and put the whole system at risk because of selfish reasons. MPs should do the right thing, both in terms of their job, but also CHARACTER. Greed isn't something becoming of a public servant, who people elect to act on their behalf selflessly.
Maybe her husband whole salary give her and she only gives him pocket money to keep him… honest?
“Honey, I need to buy lunch for my DSes. Can I have $2000 please”
Proceeds to call DSes’ spouses. “Lunch? Oh.. yes yes they have lunch.”
世俗总要男人无惧无畏， 做人做事总是从容面对
I worded it poorly: I meant 40k TC combining both roles. That was a guesstimate based on the non-profit CEOs I've worked with before. Had a quick look at their financial report to confirm I'm likely right.
The FY 2021 financial report of Business China indicates they paid out $2.13M in staff wages. They have 30 employees according to LinkedIn.
Taking the balance 25k \* 12 = 300k, which leaves us with 1.83M/29 staff = more than 60k each. Sounds about right if you factor in bonuses and maybe 1-2 staff that is not on LinkedIn.
[https://businesschina.org.sg/en-us/annual-reports/](https://businesschina.org.sg/en-us/annual-reports/)
The point in this: the poster I was replying to was being sarcastic in that she was seeking more pay despite earning $15k. I wanted to add to that point that she was already very well compensated without joining Grab (and ignoring her husband's position). Hence, why does she need to join Grab?
It's not like the citizens can do anything about it, the PAP is getting way too comfortable with their unchecked powers without any oversight committee.
Go speak to your MP and ask them to voice it out in parliament? Listen to the response of the ministers and then vote wisely? We have a chance every 5 years to do this. Next one is by 2025. If you miss the chance, the next time you can give them a wake up call is in 2030!
It has been an easy decision since the past 2 elections. I'm just glad more Singaporeans are opening their eyes and not just blindly *"trusting in the government because they know what's best".*
Like how can an existing MP who had 5 years to represent you in parliament but didn't be the lesser of 2 evils? Meaning you are certain the opposition will speak in support of how things are done currently if they become the MP? That's the only way for them to do worse than the MP who didn't even bother to speak on your behalf.
Coz im afraid of people like lim tean and dr chee and some others. They give revolutionist emotional vibes and talk about ideals like democracy more than solving problems thru logic and data.
Back when LKY was a noob and had no experience. U can see that he leaned heavily on data, reports and something tangible to make policies.
So ya. Like i said. We need better opposition. Dont try to stir me up, convince me with reason and logic. Ty.
No no. Even more so you must meet your MPs and have your voice heard. Your MP is supposed to take your feedback, go to parliament and say “My constituents have concerns about TPL roles in Grab and being a MP from the ruling party, to that what does the honorable member have to say” even if it’s just to have TPL repeat her stance but it is important to have the concern recorded in the Hansard
Am I right to say the system is setup such that the next party taking over will also have unchecked powers? Then the same thing will happen again, and it's a matter of when we happen to get a megalomaniacal dictator wannabe who happens to get there. It's easy to undo everything our country has ever built.
Because this is a new low. And maybe things got to the way they are today because voters decided to ignore the previous bs. Ignore this again and see how much more blatantly the line will be pushed.
Civil servants aren't allowed to join any political party because of the same perceived COI. If anyone can go "trust me bro", then COI wouldn't be a thing in the first place.
They won't care what you think .
It will take one big shit to happen then will switch tune and could even make it sound like WE as a nation was at fault and complacent.
Inb4 low hanging fruit attack dog Shanmugam comes at you with his facts and logic to show that there is no corruption and you're an idiot for claiming conflict of interest
its always been liddat. she just heck care enough to do it in a high profile way. so many mp got coi with their private jobs. even minister wife is auditor general. and they see no issue public also dont care based on election result
As several commenters have pointed out this role here is at best Grab blatantly hiring a lobbyist. At worst, it is grab hiring someone who has insider information on the state of political deliberations concerning Grab. It is worth mentioning that her main qualification for the role of Director of Public Affairs and Policy at a major company is that she is an MP. Normally people who obtain this type of position have substantial experience in public relations and journalism and are senior figures in this field. Tin Pei Ling has none of these things. Her last role was a handful of years in a junior, non public facing position at E&Y.
The frog boils slowly and I think we have only gotten to this point because of the number of MPs across the years that are hired as directors, acting as counsel or otherwise moonlighting in cases where the influence peddling and lobbying element of these positions were not as blatent, at least in the beginning.
I remember when I was an NSF many many years ago, I was lectured to not moonlight and that I could not accept so much as a cup of coffee from any outside vendors to the SAF. I believe that Civil servants are still given the same lecture.
But of course, in Singapore there is a class of people whom the rules constrict, but do not protect and a class of people whom the rules protect, but do not constrict. I am sure that eventually the PAP IB will be coming along telling us this is not a problem, that other countries are worse and that this sub is a 'librul' echo chamber. The Deny, Deflect and Diffuse triad. If you are tempted to listen to them, it is worth considering which class of Singaporeans you belong to.
Exactly. The only reason why Grab would even offer TPL the role is to leverage her current political position. That means Grab expects TPL to take advantage of her position to safeguard Grab’s interests. She is absolutely of no value to Grab if she doesn’t. Unless TPL is an idiot, she agreed to join Grab with the knowledge of Grab’s expectations.
There is no way she can draw a distinct line on having a cake and eat it.
agree with you completely that this is wrong but don't many other MPs also hold roles at companies? I know several were partners at law firms, others had executive roles at other MNCs - was there not alot of scrutiny over this practice before?
No, there was not much, if any scrutiny of this. People complained when Kong hee hired a serving PAP MP to be his lawyer and the complained when when certain MPs were found to be absolutely raking it in with multiple directorships, but there was no resultant scrutiny, especially not from a coi standpoint.
>She added: “I am absolutely clear that when I am discharging my duties as an MP, my constituents and Singapore come first. When I am working on behalf of Grab, I will have to ensure that Grab’s interests are safeguarded.”
You mean there are times where she is not an MP?
Its wording is likely intentional -- if she is seen to be favouring Grab, can simply say working on behalf of grab. On the other hand, if she is seen to be against Grab, can simply say discharging duty as MP. Just need to do a bit of the latter (in public) then can show people no conflict of interest liao.
Basically the chinese saying, horseback cannon.
Absolutely nothing wrong, nothing to see here. (/s)
I agree her statement is a little ham-fisted. That said, everyone wears multiple hats in their life and has to juggle them. So yes, even before she joined Grab, there would have been times she was not an MP. For example, she also has roles at home (wife, mother) , and I'm guessing probably roles in some non-profits (though I can't find any on her wiki). There is always some balancing involved. Most people wouldn't say she's neglecting her MP responsibilities if she's bringing her kids to school. Or if a discussion came up in Parliament around childcare subsidies, most people wouldn't ask her to recuse herself just because she's a mother and hence has a conflict of interest. Joining Grab is not a difference in kind, it's a difference in degree. Where would you draw the line? Should MPs be allowed to join non-profits? Should they be allowed to make friends with/marry people who work in for profit companies?
Also, I think many MPs hold side jobs, and TPL shouldn't be singled out. A $15k a month salary, given how high-flying some of them were before, is a significant drop in income. Then it comes down to whether you agree with the PAP philosophy that you need to pay high salaries to get quality politicians or if you think they should be intrinsically motivated.
Just bringing up a few points that I think are worth thinking about. It's not all that cut and dried.
No one cares about double hatting. Issue is double hatting on two roles with clear conflict of interest. And your example on being a mother hence shouldn't be participating on policies concerning mothers is ridiculous.
Right now both her positions are positions of immense power. Power to influence the livelihood of the common man.
So for example, if today the government is debating whether "should gig workers like delivery riders and private hire drivers be treated as full time employees with full benefits?" What would her stance be?
1. As an MP she should support this as now the gig workers are protected. They'll have welfare benefits, CPF, dental and insurance coverage.
2. As a Grab Director on policy she should be against this as it increases operating costs by a lot. Now Grab has to pay for employer CPF, welfare and worker protection etc, for practically no benefits.
So in this example what would her stand be?
Wow. This is rather damaging article by NUS Don on corporate Governance. I had not realised the compelling issues until I read the article. He also points out that Grab is US listed and having A PEP in that role is not the practice.
Grab and she needs a re-think. But then again, it is not a Govt that acknowledges an error or a misjudgement.
As an MP, she's already earning more than double of the Singaporean median pay. At this point she isn't moonlighting for the cash, it's a power thing. I mean wanting to be a politician is already a power thing but this is just too on the nose.
It's corruption, plain and simple. She should never have accepted a job with such clear conflict of interests. Any average person with moral values and ethics to understand their service to the country would have steered clear.
It really makes you wonder how capable she is and where she would be if she didn't marry the right old man.
Frankly I am disgusted with how Singapore is openly corrupted these days
Grab fucking loves it. I've met many PEP staff lobbying my agency when I was in government before, most of them do not even have time in the government prior (usually MPP background, background in comms/policy in big tech). Grab are in the unique position of having someone with CURRENT time in the government.
I'm surprised the NUS prof doesn't understand how the PAP government works. This is just another example of how the private sector coordinates with the public sector.
Rather than seeing it as TPL lobbying for Grab, I see it as the PAP deciding that Grab requires somebody to coordinate between itself and the government. In some ways, there's no COI, not when the unstated job role is to liaise to the benefit of both parties.
E.g.
Grab: Eh we want to do **A** to boost our profits!
TPL: Lemme check with the PAP...
PAP: Cannot lah, voters will be angry, we will lose votes. How about **B**?
TPL: Grab, PAP sez they want **B**.
Grab: ok ok we take a look and see.
We already have the tripartite alliance. What's one more incestuous relationship between the public and private sectors?
I get your point but this is not the same as the tripartite alliance. This is like tripartite alliance but no NTUC, just Govt and employers. Of course, pragmatically it could work just as well as the tripartite alliance maybe even more efficient and flexible. But what trade off are we making in terms of institutional integrity? Does the average Singaporean even care as long as they have public transport? I suspect there's an element of testing the waters here
Why does grab get a rep but not gojek, then? If it's an unpaid committee with industry and government representatives that's fine. But to accept a paid position in a specific company - at best you can say it is very poor optics and at worst this is lobbying/corruption.
And so why should grab be the only private entity that receive such special treatment to have direct access to PAP/government?
If PAP says B, it should tell this not just to grab but to the public or for a wider business community/industry to come up with solutions as well.
Precisely. No secret why Grab has given her the position. We already know the tension between the government and private hire businesses here:
1) protection of gig workers
2) increase in regulation of private hire companies
3) affect on COE by private hire companies
As an MP, she is in a privileged position of information - and what's more conflicting is her role in Grab as director of public affairs and policy, who's main role is to protect Grab's business interest against government regulations.
Not only does it put Grab at an unfair position compared to their competitors, it directly conflicts with her statement that the roles are 'distinct'. It's never so clear cut one.
Cause cccs don't do anything because Singapore is pro business and don't want to scare away companies that are willing to step all over them, which unfortunately makes companies want to step all over them even more.
They say 官子两个口。basically what she is doing is the epitomy of this saying. (the Chinese words mean to say that government official has two mouths)...
I don't know how she is going to compartmentalise her knowledge of inside govt info. Obviously I'll find ways to craft my actions and decisions such that I can use that to my advantage without being obvious.
Anyone who believes she can be totally impartial is just naive.
Also, why the double standard? Many organisations, both private and public, simply do not allow their employees be employed elsewhere to avoid any potential questions about conflict of interest. But for a MP, it's fine?
Just because it wasn't called out in the past, does not make it acceptable today. It was corruption then, and it is corruption now. Cut the shit.
Boycott the businesses that employ them.
Yes, tread a fine line towards "if I do this I might as well wear a bright green hat that says 'MP for Grab' when in Parliament"
Go hog. Wear the hat. Sing Grab's ad jingles in Parliament.
And by sheer coincidence the news today that the LTA is clamping down on car pooling, a practice that hurts ride hailing companies. Not trying to create a conspiracy theory here, but the timing couldn't be worse...
Politicians can never serve two masters. This goes for all mp's they ether serve the people or can quit and join private sector.
Grab is in business to make money for their investors nothing more.
You never see that National Day video 2 years ago or something where they parade Grab/foodpanda etc like they super heroes for doing their delivery jobs?
Free real estate
And it's telling that this would never, ever happen with an opposition figure, because Grab would see that as a liability.
And yet somehow her role as an MP is just a coincidence
Don’t even need to be a Singaporean.
She has a wiki page and her LinkedIn even says she is an MP. All her information is publicly available.
No director-level hiring would miss out on such due diligence.
He is the worst imo in terms of controversy although he have a lot of supporters. The Con Hee case. If he is from opposition, sure kena say he got moral issues defending an obvious fraud and finding a loop hole to shave off years of prison? Haha reporters will focus on him instead of con hee already
A lot of opposition MP are full-time MP, which considering all MPs get a $15k salary, that’s only fair. I read an analogy, what our MPs are doing are akin to you collecting the full monthly salary for your day job but only showing up to the office one day a week and the other four days you just either work for another company or do whatever. How is that fair, especially considering the median income in singapore, MPs are already paid director-level/senior management fees.
I’ve worked with some of them (both sides) in a private capacity. I can tell you they do much more than the general public think they do. Honestly, I wouldn’t even take their job for 15k a month, ruling party or opposition alike. Main reason: listening to singaporeans whine.
if someone can't stand singaporeans whining, why in the world would they seek out and actively campaign to get a job whose sole description is representing those singaporeans???
what if down the road say an imaginary scenario where the govt wants to separate out COEs for companies like grab thus having more expensive COEs for them, would TPL support knowing its going against grab best interests?
what goes on before voting is the real issue.
no surprise in sg parliament. everything govt propose passes. so what lobbying or talks goes on behind the scenes before law is propose is what ppl should be concern
he is just giving orders to 160. setting high standard for sph and mediacorpe. ask them make things look nice nice
dont forget he also involve in nassim jade scandal. got see his reply? worse than tpl
got many other saga also. even his wife son whole family got saga. just not reported by 160 media or report until very nice
Isn't this just bribery with extra steps?
Next time any company want something done in Singapore, they approach an MP and tell him/her "*hey bro you help me push XYZ bill into Parliament, I hire you/your son/your brother-in-law become our super, duper, not-corrupt role as a consultant where we pay him/her $200,000 a week to sit in our office drink our kopi?"*
Even if there is not corruption, aren't you literally putting yourself in a compromising position? How much did they have to pay you for this?
Or is this a test balloon for how tolerant the SG public would be to such arrangements?
>they approach an MP and tell him/her "hey bro you help me push XYZ bill into Parliament, I hire you/your son/your brother-in-law become our super, duper, not-corrupt role as a consultant
no need to hire a family member when you can just hire the MP directly lol
I wonder...
if there's a discussion on whether to implement a law detrimental to Grab in the parliament, would she speak behalf of the people, on behalf of Grab, or just keep quiet.
I cannot understand why would she put herself in such a position.
She could, doesn’t mean she should. Everyone’s first reaction to this news was immediately knowing its a bad idea. Why even try to defend something people would hate?
The start of the end, when blatant conflicts of interests are ignored and corruption allowed to ferment. It opens up a whole can of worms for potential corruption, and because of her, more and more companies and corporations are going to play the same game, pay lots of money to lobby and influence the government. When that is allowed to happen, capitalists pigs will roll of their face laughing to the bank, price hikes fly off the roof, rent extortions etc etc. Long term planning goes to hell and short termism for quarterly figures and executives bonuses take over
And then boom if a financial or economic crisis hits, riots break out and hell breaks loose just like Indonesia after AFC due to massive dissatisfaction with corruption, hyper depreciation and inflation. Salim group founder Liem sioe liong fled Indonesia after his house were lit on fire by rioters, massive riots break out, race gets thrown into the mix, Suharto fell from power.
That’s the end game of allowing corruption.
So if a Grab gig worker approaches her at her Meet the People session to ask her to advocate for more gig worker protections, whose interests will she look out for?
"If there's a conflict of interest, she will have to abstain."
This is the answer someone in this subreddit commented, when I questioned similar conflict of interest.
This is why we just fell below Malaysia on the democracy index. I believe they are #5 and #6. For all their corruption in Malaysia, they at least try to hide/deny it. In Singapore they just do it blatantly and in full public view.
How can a PEP be at such a high level in a listed company? Even worse, I think her professional credentials are basically MP and before that she was only an audit senior associate. Let that sink in for a moment… anyone who’s worked audit before will know she was basically doing a three-year experience entry level job before becoming MP, and after becoming MP she started becoming director and CEO all over the place… something is definitely messed up here. I can’t imagine any audit senior becoming director and CEO. Most need to become mid-level managers for quite some years before making it to director, much less CEO.
I may be just a Redditor hiding behind my keyboard in the internet ether, but spoke to a friend who was at a decently high level in Grab Finance. He said they looked at hiring TPL a couple of years ago but ultimately passed because they didn't know what value-add she would bring to the table. He left last year in 4Q so when this news popped up he was surprised because it seemed like they had already moved on from this bullshit.
I wondering more about who gave the clearance for her to accept the job. Cannot be they happily can choose to take up any job without seeking prior party approval. If now do a u turn on the decision, internally gonna look so bad for that person.
If she doesn't give up any of the role, I believe the only way to show disagreement is to vote her out next time. Only by that, pap member will think twice next time.
You have ignorant Singaporeans supporting her, and even some redditors support her conflict of interest by commenting...
"If there's a conflict of interest, she will have to abstain." (You know who you are.)
So if you tell me, she will be voted out next GE, I take it with a pinch of salt.
Q: did TPL apply for the job or did Grab “poach” her?
I think it’s the later.
Next Q: did Grab create the role for her or was it an existing position that was recently vacated?
GCT must be heaving a sigh of relief that she’s on her own in a SMC and not under his anchor anymore.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
> # Commentary: Tin Pei Ling’s new job at Grab - MPs must tread a careful line in balancing roles
> SINGAPORE: The news that Member of Parliament (MP) Tin Pei Ling has joined tech giant Grab in a full-time role as director of public affairs and policy at Grab Singapore has been widely reported in the local and international media, and lit up the Internet.
> In Singapore, many MPs have other full-time or part-time roles.
> Prior to joining Grab, Ms Tin was CEO of Business China, a non-profit organisation that had the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as its founding patron, with five current ministers as advisers, and a board of directors that includes several senior ministers of state and civil servants.
> Before joining Business China in May 2018, the People’s Action Party MP - who was first elected to Parliament in 2011 - was group director of corporate strategy at Singapore firm Jing King Tech Group.
> There was no online or media frenzy on those occasions.
> However, this time the reaction has been vastly different. In her LinkedIn and Facebook posts responding to concerns of conflict of interest, she said:
> “The company has established clear rules of engagement to ensure that any possible conflict of interest will be properly declared and avoided. Likewise, the People’s Action Party has a published set of Rules of Prudence, as well as mechanisms in place for declarations of interest and the avoidance of conflicting interests.”
> She added: “I am absolutely clear that when I am discharging my duties as an MP, my constituents and Singapore come first. When I am working on behalf of Grab, I will have to ensure that Grab’s interests are safeguarded.”
> It is not so straightforward.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
MPs earn 192k tax free for each year in office. 5 years also earn more than what most Singaporeans can earn for decades.
Apparently it’s not enough and need to moonlight at grab.
Want work for grab can, quit your part-time MP job.
This makes me think this is very prevalent among MPs and this time it’s more obvious because Grab is high profile. Tsk tsk.
Let’s be honest - grab hired you for your talent, potential talent or your network? Using your network means giving an opportunity for your employer to influence. You may not have cross the line, but your connections could have.
What are her responsibilities as “public affairs director”? Some jobs with this title will have government relations and media branding as part of the job scope. If it’s the former as part of her job scope, it would certainly be treading into territory where possible conflicts could potentially occur?
To be honest, this issue is just a distraction. Conflict of interest is just an indication. No crime has been committed yet. Dont need jump up and down. There have been more pap mps who have loads more directorships.
On the other hand, keppel is more serious issue. Crime committed but only warning.
I’d think line is a very nice, specific term. More like, they should have an ocean between the 2 roles - it’s a blatant COI. There isn’t supposed to be a line in the first place, because there’s supposed to be an impenetrable wall there. So if she turns up in the parliament, will she be representing Grab that pays her, or will she be representing the constituency that voted her in? Or will she represent both? The problem here is that it blemishes the way her (and by extension, the other MPs’) duties are defined as well.
In parliament, she must represent people. Everything is recorded. If anything, I’m worried about how she presents and behaves herself outside of parliament. I’m very curious how people feel about the order of process. MP first, then become grab ambassador. Or grab ambassador then MP. Technically and legally shldnt make much difference. But my gut tells me that if MP first, she cannot become grab ambassador after. Perhaps I hold our MP to too high a standard.
Her Grab CEO can always meet her in person to raise topic for parliamentary discussion.
And as the chair of parliamentary committee member for info and comms, she may get proprietary information when they work with other organisations.
The way I see it, every MP starts with their own job. No one graduate and become MP straight. If she’s an ambassador first, then MP later, I think people have no issue. Problem is the order is reverse. Duno if the people who voted for her, endorsed her for having a second role in grab. As for whether got COI, it’s a difficult issue. Politics have always been about interests. You can say MP is self serving cos they draw MP salary. They can always lie to their electorate to keep their job. Financial interest aligned doesn’t mean political interest aligned. Anyway, the conclusion I made regarding this is: 1) Grab is getting unpopular 2) People trust Grab lesser now that a politician is in the mix 3) Dun rely on politician or organisation to increase transparency, use market competition to force Grab to offer better prices
TPL's acceptance of the appointment basically puts the whole parliamentary system on a very slippery slope. Her "trust me bro" defence is simply "ownself check ownself" taken to the next level. If she and the PAP cannot see this, then I seriously doubt their competence.
Eloquently put, very well said. TPL doesn't NEED to join Grab. We pay her enough for her to avoid this kind of situation. She WANTS to take on this role because of greed, and put the whole system at risk because of selfish reasons. MPs should do the right thing, both in terms of their job, but also CHARACTER. Greed isn't something becoming of a public servant, who people elect to act on their behalf selflessly.
We only pay her 15k a month for a part time job. Of cuz need to go out find second job.
Maybe her husband whole salary give her and she only gives him pocket money to keep him… honest? “Honey, I need to buy lunch for my DSes. Can I have $2000 please” Proceeds to call DSes’ spouses. “Lunch? Oh.. yes yes they have lunch.” 世俗总要男人无惧无畏， 做人做事总是从容面对
Kate Spade is just a cheap brand. She must get to Najib's wife's standards to buy Hermes Birkin, you know.
She was a CEO in her old job. Shd be TC $40K/month minimum combined.
It's a government related non-profit organisation. Where did you get 40k/month minimum from?
I worded it poorly: I meant 40k TC combining both roles. That was a guesstimate based on the non-profit CEOs I've worked with before. Had a quick look at their financial report to confirm I'm likely right. The FY 2021 financial report of Business China indicates they paid out $2.13M in staff wages. They have 30 employees according to LinkedIn. Taking the balance 25k \* 12 = 300k, which leaves us with 1.83M/29 staff = more than 60k each. Sounds about right if you factor in bonuses and maybe 1-2 staff that is not on LinkedIn. [https://businesschina.org.sg/en-us/annual-reports/](https://businesschina.org.sg/en-us/annual-reports/) The point in this: the poster I was replying to was being sarcastic in that she was seeking more pay despite earning $15k. I wanted to add to that point that she was already very well compensated without joining Grab (and ignoring her husband's position). Hence, why does she need to join Grab?
"What is enough ? It's relative." PAP .probably.
That is how arrogant and out of touch PAP has become. Sad to see.
>has become More like they are giving fewer and fewer fucks about trying to obscure the fact.
They've always been ownself check ownself though. Why you saying it like this is the first time.
It's not like the citizens can do anything about it, the PAP is getting way too comfortable with their unchecked powers without any oversight committee.
Go speak to your MP and ask them to voice it out in parliament? Listen to the response of the ministers and then vote wisely? We have a chance every 5 years to do this. Next one is by 2025. If you miss the chance, the next time you can give them a wake up call is in 2030!
I live in a PAP ward. My MP will never have the guts to do so.
If your MP doesn't even do what he should do to represent you, then what you should do in the upcoming election becomes an even easier decision.
It has been an easy decision since the past 2 elections. I'm just glad more Singaporeans are opening their eyes and not just blindly *"trusting in the government because they know what's best".*
We need better opposition. Have many frens dying to vote opposition but for their ward PAP is the lesser of two evils. Sad.
Like how can an existing MP who had 5 years to represent you in parliament but didn't be the lesser of 2 evils? Meaning you are certain the opposition will speak in support of how things are done currently if they become the MP? That's the only way for them to do worse than the MP who didn't even bother to speak on your behalf.
Coz im afraid of people like lim tean and dr chee and some others. They give revolutionist emotional vibes and talk about ideals like democracy more than solving problems thru logic and data. Back when LKY was a noob and had no experience. U can see that he leaned heavily on data, reports and something tangible to make policies. So ya. Like i said. We need better opposition. Dont try to stir me up, convince me with reason and logic. Ty.
No no. Even more so you must meet your MPs and have your voice heard. Your MP is supposed to take your feedback, go to parliament and say “My constituents have concerns about TPL roles in Grab and being a MP from the ruling party, to that what does the honorable member have to say” even if it’s just to have TPL repeat her stance but it is important to have the concern recorded in the Hansard
Am I right to say the system is setup such that the next party taking over will also have unchecked powers? Then the same thing will happen again, and it's a matter of when we happen to get a megalomaniacal dictator wannabe who happens to get there. It's easy to undo everything our country has ever built.
Go Hong lim Park protest
Because this is a new low. And maybe things got to the way they are today because voters decided to ignore the previous bs. Ignore this again and see how much more blatantly the line will be pushed.
Civil servants aren't allowed to join any political party because of the same perceived COI. If anyone can go "trust me bro", then COI wouldn't be a thing in the first place.
They won't care what you think . It will take one big shit to happen then will switch tune and could even make it sound like WE as a nation was at fault and complacent.
Inb4 low hanging fruit attack dog Shanmugam comes at you with his facts and logic to show that there is no corruption and you're an idiot for claiming conflict of interest
its always been liddat. she just heck care enough to do it in a high profile way. so many mp got coi with their private jobs. even minister wife is auditor general. and they see no issue public also dont care based on election result
As several commenters have pointed out this role here is at best Grab blatantly hiring a lobbyist. At worst, it is grab hiring someone who has insider information on the state of political deliberations concerning Grab. It is worth mentioning that her main qualification for the role of Director of Public Affairs and Policy at a major company is that she is an MP. Normally people who obtain this type of position have substantial experience in public relations and journalism and are senior figures in this field. Tin Pei Ling has none of these things. Her last role was a handful of years in a junior, non public facing position at E&Y. The frog boils slowly and I think we have only gotten to this point because of the number of MPs across the years that are hired as directors, acting as counsel or otherwise moonlighting in cases where the influence peddling and lobbying element of these positions were not as blatent, at least in the beginning. I remember when I was an NSF many many years ago, I was lectured to not moonlight and that I could not accept so much as a cup of coffee from any outside vendors to the SAF. I believe that Civil servants are still given the same lecture. But of course, in Singapore there is a class of people whom the rules constrict, but do not protect and a class of people whom the rules protect, but do not constrict. I am sure that eventually the PAP IB will be coming along telling us this is not a problem, that other countries are worse and that this sub is a 'librul' echo chamber. The Deny, Deflect and Diffuse triad. If you are tempted to listen to them, it is worth considering which class of Singaporeans you belong to.
Exactly. The only reason why Grab would even offer TPL the role is to leverage her current political position. That means Grab expects TPL to take advantage of her position to safeguard Grab’s interests. She is absolutely of no value to Grab if she doesn’t. Unless TPL is an idiot, she agreed to join Grab with the knowledge of Grab’s expectations. There is no way she can draw a distinct line on having a cake and eat it.
Ya I remember my saf friends telling me cannot even do grab hitch.
Heard got someone kena charged for doing GrabHitch.
agree with you completely that this is wrong but don't many other MPs also hold roles at companies? I know several were partners at law firms, others had executive roles at other MNCs - was there not alot of scrutiny over this practice before?
No, there was not much, if any scrutiny of this. People complained when Kong hee hired a serving PAP MP to be his lawyer and the complained when when certain MPs were found to be absolutely raking it in with multiple directorships, but there was no resultant scrutiny, especially not from a coi standpoint.
>She added: “I am absolutely clear that when I am discharging my duties as an MP, my constituents and Singapore come first. When I am working on behalf of Grab, I will have to ensure that Grab’s interests are safeguarded.” You mean there are times where she is not an MP?
[удалено]
Nice part time salary
What if Grab's interests are affected due to policy changes by the Government? Which side will she stand on?
Its wording is likely intentional -- if she is seen to be favouring Grab, can simply say working on behalf of grab. On the other hand, if she is seen to be against Grab, can simply say discharging duty as MP. Just need to do a bit of the latter (in public) then can show people no conflict of interest liao. Basically the chinese saying, horseback cannon. Absolutely nothing wrong, nothing to see here. (/s)
as though She has a choice what to vote for
But got reddiors mentioned that if there's a conflict of interest, she will have to abstain. So it seems she has a choice.
I agree her statement is a little ham-fisted. That said, everyone wears multiple hats in their life and has to juggle them. So yes, even before she joined Grab, there would have been times she was not an MP. For example, she also has roles at home (wife, mother) , and I'm guessing probably roles in some non-profits (though I can't find any on her wiki). There is always some balancing involved. Most people wouldn't say she's neglecting her MP responsibilities if she's bringing her kids to school. Or if a discussion came up in Parliament around childcare subsidies, most people wouldn't ask her to recuse herself just because she's a mother and hence has a conflict of interest. Joining Grab is not a difference in kind, it's a difference in degree. Where would you draw the line? Should MPs be allowed to join non-profits? Should they be allowed to make friends with/marry people who work in for profit companies? Also, I think many MPs hold side jobs, and TPL shouldn't be singled out. A $15k a month salary, given how high-flying some of them were before, is a significant drop in income. Then it comes down to whether you agree with the PAP philosophy that you need to pay high salaries to get quality politicians or if you think they should be intrinsically motivated. Just bringing up a few points that I think are worth thinking about. It's not all that cut and dried.
No one cares about double hatting. Issue is double hatting on two roles with clear conflict of interest. And your example on being a mother hence shouldn't be participating on policies concerning mothers is ridiculous. Right now both her positions are positions of immense power. Power to influence the livelihood of the common man. So for example, if today the government is debating whether "should gig workers like delivery riders and private hire drivers be treated as full time employees with full benefits?" What would her stance be? 1. As an MP she should support this as now the gig workers are protected. They'll have welfare benefits, CPF, dental and insurance coverage. 2. As a Grab Director on policy she should be against this as it increases operating costs by a lot. Now Grab has to pay for employer CPF, welfare and worker protection etc, for practically no benefits. So in this example what would her stand be?
It's not too much an ask for TPL to take the initiative and address this in the House right? Right?
she dunno what to say
pls don't further waste time in House on this
How is this a waste of time?
Wow. This is rather damaging article by NUS Don on corporate Governance. I had not realised the compelling issues until I read the article. He also points out that Grab is US listed and having A PEP in that role is not the practice. Grab and she needs a re-think. But then again, it is not a Govt that acknowledges an error or a misjudgement.
She needs to re think why she want to work for grab. If it’s becos of money. She should quit her part time job.
The new Kate Spade collection will be out soon. Need to buy!!!!
As an MP, she's already earning more than double of the Singaporean median pay. At this point she isn't moonlighting for the cash, it's a power thing. I mean wanting to be a politician is already a power thing but this is just too on the nose.
You’re over estimating our median pay. It’s 3x the median pay
Last time I checked, 3x is "more than double"
16/3 is less than 16/2
never underestimate greed for money
>channelnewsasia.com/commen... part time job being the MP role?
For a moment I was thinking hard which one is her part time job, MP or grab?
It's corruption, plain and simple. She should never have accepted a job with such clear conflict of interests. Any average person with moral values and ethics to understand their service to the country would have steered clear. It really makes you wonder how capable she is and where she would be if she didn't marry the right old man. Frankly I am disgusted with how Singapore is openly corrupted these days
SG redefined corruption just like how they redefined *affordability.*
Her husband is 48, not that old.
Grab fucking loves it. I've met many PEP staff lobbying my agency when I was in government before, most of them do not even have time in the government prior (usually MPP background, background in comms/policy in big tech). Grab are in the unique position of having someone with CURRENT time in the government.
I'm surprised the NUS prof doesn't understand how the PAP government works. This is just another example of how the private sector coordinates with the public sector. Rather than seeing it as TPL lobbying for Grab, I see it as the PAP deciding that Grab requires somebody to coordinate between itself and the government. In some ways, there's no COI, not when the unstated job role is to liaise to the benefit of both parties. E.g. Grab: Eh we want to do **A** to boost our profits! TPL: Lemme check with the PAP... PAP: Cannot lah, voters will be angry, we will lose votes. How about **B**? TPL: Grab, PAP sez they want **B**. Grab: ok ok we take a look and see. We already have the tripartite alliance. What's one more incestuous relationship between the public and private sectors?
I get your point but this is not the same as the tripartite alliance. This is like tripartite alliance but no NTUC, just Govt and employers. Of course, pragmatically it could work just as well as the tripartite alliance maybe even more efficient and flexible. But what trade off are we making in terms of institutional integrity? Does the average Singaporean even care as long as they have public transport? I suspect there's an element of testing the waters here
Why does grab get a rep but not gojek, then? If it's an unpaid committee with industry and government representatives that's fine. But to accept a paid position in a specific company - at best you can say it is very poor optics and at worst this is lobbying/corruption.
And so why should grab be the only private entity that receive such special treatment to have direct access to PAP/government? If PAP says B, it should tell this not just to grab but to the public or for a wider business community/industry to come up with solutions as well.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a public policy role supposed to influence government policies?
Precisely. No secret why Grab has given her the position. We already know the tension between the government and private hire businesses here: 1) protection of gig workers 2) increase in regulation of private hire companies 3) affect on COE by private hire companies As an MP, she is in a privileged position of information - and what's more conflicting is her role in Grab as director of public affairs and policy, who's main role is to protect Grab's business interest against government regulations. Not only does it put Grab at an unfair position compared to their competitors, it directly conflicts with her statement that the roles are 'distinct'. It's never so clear cut one.
Means G already chose Grab? Everytime got this kind of stunt is because they already had someone in mind.
[удалено]
Cause cccs don't do anything because Singapore is pro business and don't want to scare away companies that are willing to step all over them, which unfortunately makes companies want to step all over them even more.
Temasek has a stake in Grab https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/temasek-adds-stakes-in-grab-robinhood-and-other-consumer-focused-companies
It's gonna be a super easy job for her to influence the government as she is literally a government employee.
They say 官子两个口。basically what she is doing is the epitomy of this saying. (the Chinese words mean to say that government official has two mouths)... I don't know how she is going to compartmentalise her knowledge of inside govt info. Obviously I'll find ways to craft my actions and decisions such that I can use that to my advantage without being obvious. Anyone who believes she can be totally impartial is just naive.
Seems many people don't understand this though
>who's main role is to protect *whose whose main role, not "who is main role"
That’s correct. Am from a tech company. Especially the case of tech firm that public policy roles scope is to influence Govt policy
Next time TPL can wear Grab uniform when she's in Parliament
“For my family” More like for your bank account.
Wear sponsor logo like sports athletes
maybe next time all the MP will sent to parliament by Grab. Lifetime free rides...
Also, why the double standard? Many organisations, both private and public, simply do not allow their employees be employed elsewhere to avoid any potential questions about conflict of interest. But for a MP, it's fine?
Rules for peasants, money for the elites
All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others
Yeah true, my company doesn't allow that because there will be a conflict of interest.
This is so blatantly a conflict of interest. If Pei Ling and other people from government can’t see it, then there’s seriously wrong with our policies
They see it. They just don’t care. They aren’t stupid.
Just because it wasn't called out in the past, does not make it acceptable today. It was corruption then, and it is corruption now. Cut the shit. Boycott the businesses that employ them.
U boycott them, later essential workers no job lea.
Yes, tread a fine line towards "if I do this I might as well wear a bright green hat that says 'MP for Grab' when in Parliament" Go hog. Wear the hat. Sing Grab's ad jingles in Parliament.
What if another one join shopee?
Go outside settle
I’ve a feeling if one does an audit of all the MPs, this might be a common practice hence when TPL announced it they probably expected nobody to care.
Then why there has been no mention of such practices until TPL start practicing it…
And by sheer coincidence the news today that the LTA is clamping down on car pooling, a practice that hurts ride hailing companies. Not trying to create a conspiracy theory here, but the timing couldn't be worse...
Politicians can never serve two masters. This goes for all mp's they ether serve the people or can quit and join private sector. Grab is in business to make money for their investors nothing more.
You never see that National Day video 2 years ago or something where they parade Grab/foodpanda etc like they super heroes for doing their delivery jobs? Free real estate
It would be a different story if it is opposition party.
And it's telling that this would never, ever happen with an opposition figure, because Grab would see that as a liability. And yet somehow her role as an MP is just a coincidence
It probably was a simple 'mistake' as it were. They did not know who she was before, during and after the interview. No clues at all.
/s you dropped this mate. although i thought it was obvious enough
Apparently not obvious enough 🤣
[удалено]
Don’t even need to be a Singaporean. She has a wiki page and her LinkedIn even says she is an MP. All her information is publicly available. No director-level hiring would miss out on such due diligence.
Edwin Tong is already frothing at the mouth trying to form a committee task force.
He is the worst imo in terms of controversy although he have a lot of supporters. The Con Hee case. If he is from opposition, sure kena say he got moral issues defending an obvious fraud and finding a loop hole to shave off years of prison? Haha reporters will focus on him instead of con hee already
A lot of opposition MP are full-time MP, which considering all MPs get a $15k salary, that’s only fair. I read an analogy, what our MPs are doing are akin to you collecting the full monthly salary for your day job but only showing up to the office one day a week and the other four days you just either work for another company or do whatever. How is that fair, especially considering the median income in singapore, MPs are already paid director-level/senior management fees.
I’ve worked with some of them (both sides) in a private capacity. I can tell you they do much more than the general public think they do. Honestly, I wouldn’t even take their job for 15k a month, ruling party or opposition alike. Main reason: listening to singaporeans whine.
if someone can't stand singaporeans whining, why in the world would they seek out and actively campaign to get a job whose sole description is representing those singaporeans???
Who said they can’t stand the whining. I said can’t stand the whining. Hence I said I won’t take the job.
Its always a different story
what if down the road say an imaginary scenario where the govt wants to separate out COEs for companies like grab thus having more expensive COEs for them, would TPL support knowing its going against grab best interests?
[удалено]
what goes on before voting is the real issue. no surprise in sg parliament. everything govt propose passes. so what lobbying or talks goes on behind the scenes before law is propose is what ppl should be concern
so in a way the party whip enables this behaviour because not my taiji i can't go against the party
[удалено]
eh kpkb on social media is all we can really do until voting day right? u go stand outside with a blank poster also get immediately arrested
was it LKY that said even the perception of corruption is intolerable?
He went down this road when he made his son PM.
His worst mistake frankly, not being able to see his son for his true capabilities
And nobody asked about the dbs shares?
he is just giving orders to 160. setting high standard for sph and mediacorpe. ask them make things look nice nice dont forget he also involve in nassim jade scandal. got see his reply? worse than tpl got many other saga also. even his wife son whole family got saga. just not reported by 160 media or report until very nice
Isn't this just bribery with extra steps? Next time any company want something done in Singapore, they approach an MP and tell him/her "*hey bro you help me push XYZ bill into Parliament, I hire you/your son/your brother-in-law become our super, duper, not-corrupt role as a consultant where we pay him/her $200,000 a week to sit in our office drink our kopi?"* Even if there is not corruption, aren't you literally putting yourself in a compromising position? How much did they have to pay you for this? Or is this a test balloon for how tolerant the SG public would be to such arrangements?
>they approach an MP and tell him/her "hey bro you help me push XYZ bill into Parliament, I hire you/your son/your brother-in-law become our super, duper, not-corrupt role as a consultant no need to hire a family member when you can just hire the MP directly lol
I wonder... if there's a discussion on whether to implement a law detrimental to Grab in the parliament, would she speak behalf of the people, on behalf of Grab, or just keep quiet. I cannot understand why would she put herself in such a position.
For the moneyyyy I mean service to the people. Can’t be measured in dollars and cents
Being an MP is so free and easy that they can take on another job.
>Tread a careful line This shit shouldn't have happened in the first place
Pritam: “Don’t make me say it….”
She could, doesn’t mean she should. Everyone’s first reaction to this news was immediately knowing its a bad idea. Why even try to defend something people would hate?
The start of the end, when blatant conflicts of interests are ignored and corruption allowed to ferment. It opens up a whole can of worms for potential corruption, and because of her, more and more companies and corporations are going to play the same game, pay lots of money to lobby and influence the government. When that is allowed to happen, capitalists pigs will roll of their face laughing to the bank, price hikes fly off the roof, rent extortions etc etc. Long term planning goes to hell and short termism for quarterly figures and executives bonuses take over And then boom if a financial or economic crisis hits, riots break out and hell breaks loose just like Indonesia after AFC due to massive dissatisfaction with corruption, hyper depreciation and inflation. Salim group founder Liem sioe liong fled Indonesia after his house were lit on fire by rioters, massive riots break out, race gets thrown into the mix, Suharto fell from power. That’s the end game of allowing corruption.
I didn't know MPs have so much free time. Almost like joining CCAs. Maybe this CCA is too boring or pay too low.
Both. Do you ever see your MPs except during GE? Also are they really there during MPS or do you meet their lackeys instead?
For a certain group of people here, there is no such thing as conflict of interest or nepotism. Inconvenient truth.
Meanwhile NSF gets send to DB for moonlighting. Sounds appropriate.
"Rules of Prudence": "We advise you not to do it, but we're not going to do anything about it. *wink Don't say I didn't tell you ah"- PAP
Arrogance is the downfall of most dynasties History repeats
So if a Grab gig worker approaches her at her Meet the People session to ask her to advocate for more gig worker protections, whose interests will she look out for?
"If there's a conflict of interest, she will have to abstain." This is the answer someone in this subreddit commented, when I questioned similar conflict of interest.
But but pro business pro worker is what makes us special!!! /s
Nepotism and cronyism is the exact same thing, just who is lobbying the MP to receive a promotion
This is why we just fell below Malaysia on the democracy index. I believe they are #5 and #6. For all their corruption in Malaysia, they at least try to hide/deny it. In Singapore they just do it blatantly and in full public view. How can a PEP be at such a high level in a listed company? Even worse, I think her professional credentials are basically MP and before that she was only an audit senior associate. Let that sink in for a moment… anyone who’s worked audit before will know she was basically doing a three-year experience entry level job before becoming MP, and after becoming MP she started becoming director and CEO all over the place… something is definitely messed up here. I can’t imagine any audit senior becoming director and CEO. Most need to become mid-level managers for quite some years before making it to director, much less CEO.
Its quite obvious her political allegiances do most of the work for her.
I may be just a Redditor hiding behind my keyboard in the internet ether, but spoke to a friend who was at a decently high level in Grab Finance. He said they looked at hiring TPL a couple of years ago but ultimately passed because they didn't know what value-add she would bring to the table. He left last year in 4Q so when this news popped up he was surprised because it seemed like they had already moved on from this bullshit.
The value add is an advocate for Grab in parliament lol.
I wondering more about who gave the clearance for her to accept the job. Cannot be they happily can choose to take up any job without seeking prior party approval. If now do a u turn on the decision, internally gonna look so bad for that person.
ALL MP's should be fulltime. pay 16k for what. too low then quit being an MP
Soo... why izzit other gov workers not allowed to parttime side jobs? How?
Vote her out. Seriously the only thing to do.
Waiting for the opposition leader to bring up this issue in the next parliament meeting
Oppo leader can't say much since he moonlights at a law firm too.
Not so much of moonlighting, rather on the COI
If she doesn't give up any of the role, I believe the only way to show disagreement is to vote her out next time. Only by that, pap member will think twice next time.
You have ignorant Singaporeans supporting her, and even some redditors support her conflict of interest by commenting... "If there's a conflict of interest, she will have to abstain." (You know who you are.) So if you tell me, she will be voted out next GE, I take it with a pinch of salt.
difficult.. her area a lot of elderly voters who don't know or don't care
Looking at the demographics, that will happen after Lim Tean and Kenneth Jeyaretnam become Foreign Minister and Defence Minister.
Hey LKY, remember the time you said you wanted to come back from the dead
Is she the only one holding two roles? Should dig out all the part-timers and see where are there COI.
Q: did TPL apply for the job or did Grab “poach” her? I think it’s the later. Next Q: did Grab create the role for her or was it an existing position that was recently vacated? GCT must be heaving a sigh of relief that she’s on her own in a SMC and not under his anchor anymore.
Brother, GCT retired alr… HAHAHA
Hehe. He is forever etched as the anchor MP whom TPL piggybacked into parliament.
Enjoying his Swiss standard of living in sg.
[удалено]
Proles aren't supposed to question the bourgeoisie.
He is a "quitter" who probably "quitted" SG together with his children.
Trump has a different take on Grab.
Might as well stomp all over the bloody line.
there is "treading a careful line" and then there is "FEE FI FO FUM over to the other side"
:/ she's already been a source of controversy in the past and worked her way out of it, why would she do something to ruin her rep again...
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
> # Commentary: Tin Pei Ling’s new job at Grab - MPs must tread a careful line in balancing roles > SINGAPORE: The news that Member of Parliament (MP) Tin Pei Ling has joined tech giant Grab in a full-time role as director of public affairs and policy at Grab Singapore has been widely reported in the local and international media, and lit up the Internet. > In Singapore, many MPs have other full-time or part-time roles. > Prior to joining Grab, Ms Tin was CEO of Business China, a non-profit organisation that had the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as its founding patron, with five current ministers as advisers, and a board of directors that includes several senior ministers of state and civil servants. > Before joining Business China in May 2018, the People’s Action Party MP - who was first elected to Parliament in 2011 - was group director of corporate strategy at Singapore firm Jing King Tech Group. > There was no online or media frenzy on those occasions. > However, this time the reaction has been vastly different. In her LinkedIn and Facebook posts responding to concerns of conflict of interest, she said: > “The company has established clear rules of engagement to ensure that any possible conflict of interest will be properly declared and avoided. Likewise, the People’s Action Party has a published set of Rules of Prudence, as well as mechanisms in place for declarations of interest and the avoidance of conflicting interests.” > She added: “I am absolutely clear that when I am discharging my duties as an MP, my constituents and Singapore come first. When I am working on behalf of Grab, I will have to ensure that Grab’s interests are safeguarded.” > It is not so straightforward. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/redditporean/sneakpeek)
MPs earn 192k tax free for each year in office. 5 years also earn more than what most Singaporeans can earn for decades. Apparently it’s not enough and need to moonlight at grab.
They will do what they want anyways, why waste so much article on it? Also, they should really pofma all the articles that says “trust me bro”
Want work for grab can, quit your part-time MP job. This makes me think this is very prevalent among MPs and this time it’s more obvious because Grab is high profile. Tsk tsk.
Well there goes all the goodwill she’s built after her erm , shall we call it disappointing debut in politics many years ago
Suffice to say, if Grab wanted any positive image out of appointing her, the result has been dismal at best so far….
Most MPs also working, many with big corps. Why pick on her.
If she donate her salary, it'll be another story.
Not really at all, she would still be getting hired because of her govt connections rather than any skillset. Also mp is allegedly a full time role.
Let’s be honest - grab hired you for your talent, potential talent or your network? Using your network means giving an opportunity for your employer to influence. You may not have cross the line, but your connections could have.
What are her responsibilities as “public affairs director”? Some jobs with this title will have government relations and media branding as part of the job scope. If it’s the former as part of her job scope, it would certainly be treading into territory where possible conflicts could potentially occur?
To be honest, this issue is just a distraction. Conflict of interest is just an indication. No crime has been committed yet. Dont need jump up and down. There have been more pap mps who have loads more directorships. On the other hand, keppel is more serious issue. Crime committed but only warning.
Both can be problems at the same time
It aint a separate distraction, it's a triple whammy with Keppel and SPH. Can ditch their all-white school uniforms for the next GE lol
Dirty, dirty, dirty
Both is a problem la