Why should civil servants stop plundering the coffers?

WHEN the latest Transparency International forum was held, it was reported that the panelists issued a joint declaration that corruption should be stopped, given that it arrests a country's development ('Global Anti-Corruption NGO Blasts Corrupt Officials'; The Straits Times, February 20).

I am amused that members of the educated elite would find it appropriate to ask Governments to set up anti-corruption watchdogs, bodies which would effectively put an end to the practice of politicians and civil servants enriching themselves splendidly at the expense of their country.

One would have thought that it is up to the people to track down corrupt officials and try to expose them to the press (even if their letters might not be published).

It is NGOs like Transparency International, if they feel strongly that corruption should be stopped, who should go and 'carry out investigations' and such to stamp out corruption.

They are just like the typical NGO which urges politicians and civil servants to do everything, even to the extent of depriving them of their filthy lucre.


The above is a parody of the following (real) letter. And, no, if you think I'm insinuating that civil servants are corrupt, you've totally missed the point of the parody (I was originally going to write about the Police urging robbers to turn themselves in, but decided that it was so subtle, even I wasn't getting it).

Why should Govt put itself out of power?

WHEN Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered the National University of Singapore Society's 50th Anniversary Lecture, it was reported that an NUS alumnus asked for Singapore to have alternative leadership, given that the Government is now opening up for more debate ('If casino gets nod, 'social costs will be managed'; The Sunday Times, March 20).

I am amused that a member of the educated elite would find it appropriate to ask the Government to set up a two-party system, a system which may effectively put the ruling party which forms the Government out of power if it succeeds.

One would have thought that it is up to the people to set up a viable opposition party that may offer alternative leadership to the present Government.

It is people like the NUS alumnus, if he feels strongly that there should be alternative leadership, who should go and 'rope in ex-ministers and MPs' and other like- minded people to form a political party.

He is just like the typical Singaporean who depends on the Government to do everything, even to the extent of asking it to put itself out of power.

Peter Teo Boon Haw

loupgarou26: "the government serves the people, not itself. if it be the best interest of the people that a two party system exist in order to provide checks and balances as well as to prevent political stagnation, then the government should create a playing field where a two party system can exist.

OR have we already reached the state where the government serves itself above the people.

has PAP become "PAP Action Party" and not "People's Action Party" ?"

[Editor's note: A clarification about my letter parody - I am not suggesting that we SHOULD split the PAP up, just that to rule out that possibility a priori because political parties don't and shouldn't do anything against their own interests is ridiculous.]