Two months ago, a personal blog broke the story that Auckland (New Zealand) Mayor Len Brown was involved in a two-year extra-marital affair with a woman 25 years his junior which was uncovered by freelance journalist Stephen Cook:
Sensational details of sex in office, masturbation and thinking of his mistress while his wife of 20 years was in the next room and being caught with his pants down, literally, spilled into the public arena.
Ernst & Young (EY) were commissioned by the Auckland City Council to undertake a review to look into any improper use of council resources, any preferential treatment given to the mistress, as an employee, contractor or advisor to the council and any other issues, over the course of their two-year affair.
At a press conference last Friday, Auckland Council chief executive Doug McKay announced the findings, saying Mr Brown’s use of resources was “generally within the guidelines”. The EY report confirmed nothing untoward was uncovered except that Mr Brown had, on a couple of occasions, used his council provided vehicle to give the mistress a lift home, texted or called her on the council provided mobile phone and received free rooms at a number of Auckland City hotels.
Len Brown explained he often worked until late in the evening – attending meetings, functions or civic events – and would start work early the next morning hence his use of those hotel rooms.
“I was not charged for nine of these hotel rooms, including one occasion in relation to (my mistress)”.
He further clarifies, “As the (EY) report notes, I never used council resources for private accommodation or in relation to (my mistress), and I do not hold a council credit card.”
However, Mr Brown conceded that as Mayor he is “subject to a higher standard of public accountability”.
“In this context I should not have accepted the free rooms offered to me, and should have disclosed this fact when I was asked about it in October.”
The recent “nasi padang” incident involving Baey Yam Keng tells a very different story about the standards office holders in Singapore measure themselves against.
Mr Baey received a discount on his nasi padang meal (knowingly or unknowingly) and then tried to justify it by saying the stall was new, the stall owner wanted to reach out to more customers, the stall owner wanted to give a special deal to senior citizens and students and finally, the stall owner wanted to do his part to fulfil his “corporate social responsibility”.
Mr Baey also pointed out that it was “really out of simple goodwill and respect for my work and service in the community” that the stall holder gave him a discount for the meal consisting of 3 dishes and rice.
Given the high salary and the numerous benefits that come with this part-time job, one could hardly call their work a service to the community.
While a meal discount is not a big deal, how the PAP MP responds to receiving one speaks volumes of what he thinks of his role as a public servant.
Do office-holders in Singapore, especially those holding Ministerial posts and MP-ship, hold themselves to such high standards as practised in other democratic, first-world countries? How else can they conduct their international governmental business with dignity?
Borrowing the concept and words of Lim Wee Kiak, MP of Nee Soon GRC, if the PAP Ministers and MPs do not hold themselves to the same high standards, it may pose some problems when they discuss policies with other first world leaders who subject themselves to a high level of public scrutiny and transparency, because they (the world leaders) may not listen seriously to Singapore leaders’ ideas and proposals.
Hence, subjecting themselves to a higher standard of public accountability will help our office holders to maintain a degree of dignity.
Cass