>Forget pixie faced Tin Pei Ling. So what if she’s a material girl pampered by her sugar daddy husband? The worst is that if she’s elected into Parliament, we have one young rich spoiled brat who is unable to connect with the ground.
But so what about that? Aren’t most PAP MPs unable to connect with the ground anyway?
What needs further looking into is Foo Mee Har’s case. I am referring to the case where a bankruptcy order from a bank was made against her husband, then withdrawn by that bank she happens to work for.
In any other circumstances, this case won’t be an eyebrow-raiser. After all the bank, who is the plaintiff; husband, the defendant; and Mee Har the employee of the bank, are three separate parties. So what happens between the plaintiff (bank) and defendant (husband) is totally a commercial matter. The employee of the plaintiff (Mee Har) has no part to play. Or is that the case?
This is no ordinary circumstance. This is about a lady who is about to be elected into public office. She would be YOUR MP. The public has a right to know if she and/or her party had any influence in the decision by the bank to withdraw the bankruptcy order against her husband.
Ms Foo Mee Har needs to clarify about her husband’s bankruptcy order
However, in an article published by The Straits Times (‘New PAP faces stunned by online vitriol’,31 Mar 2011), it mentioned that, indeed, there was a bankruptcy order served against her husband, Mr Chan, brought by Standard Chartered Bank but the order was later withdrawn. Mr Chan was not made a bankrupt. The Straits Times reported that Ms Foo did not want to respond about her husband’s bankruptcy matter apart from saying that he works as a general manager at an IT firm.
Strait Times’ confirmation about the bankruptcy order against Ms Foo’s husband certainly raises further questions. I would like to ask Ms Foo the following questions:
- Why did Standard Chartered Bank sue Ms Foo’s husband in the first place?
- How much was owed to the bank and what was the money used for?
- Why was the bankruptcy order withdrawn? Has the debt been fully settled? If so, how?
- Has the debt been restructured by the bank to make it easier for Ms Foo’s husband to pay up gradually?
- Did Ms Foo, being a senior person in Standard Chartered Bank, use her influence in the bank to effect any favorable treatment of her husband’s debt by the same bank that he owed money to?
- Did Ms Foo has a role in persuading Standard Chartered Bank to withdraw the bankruptcy order?
- Why the reluctance on Ms Foo’s part to clarify her husband’s bankruptcy matter with the reporters?
There are seven points put up by the writer in his article above. While the first four can be seen as a private transaction which the public need not know, the last three (coloured in red above) are very important points. Let’s look at each on of them.
Did Ms Foo, being a senior person in Standard Chartered Bank, use her influence in the bank to effect any favorable treatment of her husband’s debt by the same bank that he owed money to?
If it is a case of Ms Foo using her influence as a senior person in SCB, what would you think she is capable of when she becomes your MP?
- Did Ms Foo has a role in persuading Standard Chartered Bank to withdraw the bankruptcy order?
Again, note the same point about her using her influence. If she could do that before she becomes an MP, what more if she’s elected?
- Why the reluctance on Ms Foo’s part to clarify her husband’s bankruptcy matter with the reporters?
This is the one question that is hanging in everyone’s mind. What is she hiding?
There is one more question I would like to put up. Here it is:
Is there any interference from any of her senior party members such that Standard Chartered Bank was influenced to withdraw the bankruptcy charges against Foo Mee Har’s husband?
When one wishes to get elected into office, his or her trustworthiness, integrity and honesty has to be under scrutiny. The fact that Mee Har is so silent about the case, as well as PAP’s every so willingness to brush aside the whole matter, raises far more issues than just a simple bankruptcy order being withdrawn.
It is not that the PAP has never been opaque about the shadowy dealings of past ministers. Here is a case where an allegation has been made against an ex-minister and his wife, and no suits for libel from the ex-minister, his wife or the PAP has been filed against the writer. Yes, note the deafening silence especially from the PAP.
Escape from Paradise
So Ms Foo Mee Har (and the PAP), why are you not clearing the air about the withdrawal of the bankruptcy charge against your husband?
Why the silence?
What are you hiding from the public?
Tin Pei Ling has nothing to explain for being a spoiled brat.
But you certainly have lots of explaining to counter the worries in the minds of many that you and/or senior members of the PAP may have had an influence over your husband’s bankruptcy case.
After all, if the PAP could have had an influence over Yeo Cheow Tong’s case, why not yours?
Your silence (as well as PAP’s) is incriminating you and the PAP.
