WRDC report to ISD.

ISD report to MHA.

Mr Wong KS has a long working relationship with Mr Pang and he is perfectly confident with Mr Pang’s capabilities.

Mr Wong KS would have assumed that ISD Director Mr Pang will do his due diligence to ensure that there are regular audits to check on the security of WRDC facilities & the SOP in WRDC.

The lack of regular auditing and checking will definitely lead to complacency and a false sense of security. That is the reason why any self respecting organization would conduct their internal & external auditing to prevent any possible wrongdoing.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the WRDC superintendent will make bad judgment and the guards at WRDC were not following the SOP which led to the success of Mas Selemat escaping. Not to mention that not all windows in WRDC toilets are fenced and CCTV are working.

Just because Mr Wong KS & Mr Pang do not have direct control over the Gurkha guards or they are not expected to fix the toilet windows or the CCTV, does it mean that both of them are not responsible for this lapse at all ?

For your comment.

But the citizens (those who were in contested areas) voted for the PAP and gave them carte blanche in exchange for relative security, a roof over their heads and sufficient food.

Unfortunately all that uncurbed power over the years has got into the PAP’s and government’s heads.

This would not have happened if not for their utter arrogance and complacency.

If the ministers are not directly responsible for most of the good things that happened, the ministerial pay-rise wouldn’t be justified.

I do not think he should be sacked but I do not think he should be absolved of all consequences (perhaps a pay-cut?).

You all neber had to squeeze between a rock and hard place before meh?

Either way, we have a problem. It’s either we create a culture of aversion to mistakes or we create a modern day nobility.

The logic is strange in that:

(a) Firstly, “risk” by any stretch of definition means for a given action or even inaction, there is POTENTIALLY a negative consequence. So in the case of WKS, his job as a minister do come with a POTENTIAL consequence that he could be asked to leave the job. The risk is there and anyone, who wants that job must be cognisance of that fact, which means he/she must be prepared to take risk. Now if one were to make the job devoid of any negative consequences that what risk is one taking from the job?

(b) Second, we have to clarify to whom is the risk being mitigated by having a ministerial job that is effectively an unsackable? A minister job is, if it was in a representative government, is to take actions on behalf of the people to whom he represents. The action he/she makes has consequences. In WKS, the consequence of an ALLEGED terrorist on the loose causing “havoc” to Singapore — i.e. the negative one. By his action, which let’s just say, is to put in place a secure institution, and yet, through his own actions or in actions, failed to do so, result in MAS incidence. Now questions: who is taking the risks here? WKS or the people? Certainly not WKS since his job is secure. So it seemed, if we went by Aaron’s logic, we should make someone job secure so he/she personally don’t have to take risk, but it is all right for him/her take actions/inactions and others to bear the consequence. In other words, promoting a culture of “risk-taking-but-not-at-my-expense”!

(c) Thirdly, risk taking is an innate in the person not something that can be “created” by a third person. Every action/inaction a person makes will have consequence for him/her-self. At best a third party can do is to take the risk on behalf of others, which it seemed the PAP Government is doing — i.e. negative consequences, it’s the people’s complacency! Look at America, their government ministers get fired, and their presidents have to suffer humiliation to win office, and criticised all the time, but still people are coming forward to served. In Singapore, ministerial jobs are already cushioned from criticisms by controlled media and have only to suffer slightly rigged election, and still Singaporean are risks adverse — i.e. fearful of negative consequences. Again going by Aaron logic, it seemed the only logical way of making Singaporean not risks adverse is by taking away the risk — i.e. negative consequence — altogether. Then it comes back to point (b) who takes the risks!

Yea, I did Animal Farm for Literature when I was a student…

A quote from “V for Vendetta” that comes to my mind :

“Since mankind’s dawn a handful of
oppressors have accepted the
responsibility over our lives,
responsibility that we should have
accepted ourselves. By doing so,
they took our power. By doing
nothing, we gave it away”

It is high time that Singaporeans need to wake up to pay more attention to what is happening in Singapore, than to rely on blind faith that the PAP will always take care of us.