Dishonestly enticing someone to do your bidding with money is a bribe. But giving a Grant is not a bribe. Can their anti corruption agency verify this, that the Grant given by the government is not a Bribe?
No smoke without Fire. The knee jerk attitude to sue anyone and everyone reflects their frustration in having been publicly outed by what they view as a friendly country. By threatening to take action the Singapore goverment risks being seen as heavy handed and intolerant of criticism .
It would also affirm the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt that monies were certainly paid to certain parties to ensure exclusivity which itself is a violation of the relevant sections of the WTO agreement but also as tacit admission to having committed a serious offence under Singapore law. They seem to have caught the proverbial tiger by the tail.
Did it make business sense? Yes. Was it within Singapore's right? Yes. Do the optics look terrible? Definitely, otherwise there wouldn't have been a NDA clause to begin with (and let's not forget the PAP government is the loudest proponent of the aphorism "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear").
And in a textbook example of just how one-trick pony and reactive the PAP government and its politicians are, the first thing Minister Tong said he's going to do now is threaten to sue whoever leaked the contract details. Well good luck to him: if it is someone from AEG he might want to think again about picking a fight with a global entertainment artiste management company that has over USD20 billion in revenue, and if he can't do that with AEG I'd love to see him try to take the Thai PM to court and subpoena him to give up the name of whoever told him about everything.
Ahh, Singaporean politicians and the civil service. Still as elitist. Still as haughty. Still as arrogant. Still as shallow and predictable to see that they view everything as a problem that money can solve as long as you spend enough of it.
Swift makes between $10 mil to $13 mil per concert appearance. It its highly improbable that the Singapore govt secured her exclusive 6 night concert for a total of $2 mil to $3 mil. Thavisin's $3 mil per appearance makes more sense. Swift is surrounded by financial managers. Surely she must know her value or be made known to settle for $3 mil for 6 performances.
Singapore is looking at shortcuts to boost the economy. HNWIs, casinos and now Swift. All this is having unintended consequences - money laundering and rubbing neighbouring countries the wrong way.
MR ARTEMEL
Surreal.
Dishonestly enticing someone to do your bidding with money is a bribe. But giving a Grant is not a bribe. Can their anti corruption agency verify this, that the Grant given by the government is not a Bribe?
.
Looks like the Singapore government are on overtime to bust the balls of the whistleblower and carry out a damage control scenario. Well done Thai PM.
No smoke without Fire. The knee jerk attitude to sue anyone and everyone reflects their frustration in having been publicly outed by what they view as a friendly country. By threatening to take action the Singapore goverment risks being seen as heavy handed and intolerant of criticism .
It would also affirm the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt that monies were certainly paid to certain parties to ensure exclusivity which itself is a violation of the relevant sections of the WTO agreement but also as tacit admission to having committed a serious offence under Singapore law. They seem to have caught the proverbial tiger by the tail.
Did it make business sense? Yes. Was it within Singapore's right? Yes. Do the optics look terrible? Definitely, otherwise there wouldn't have been a NDA clause to begin with (and let's not forget the PAP government is the loudest proponent of the aphorism "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear").
And in a textbook example of just how one-trick pony and reactive the PAP government and its politicians are, the first thing Minister Tong said he's going to do now is threaten to sue whoever leaked the contract details. Well good luck to him: if it is someone from AEG he might want to think again about picking a fight with a global entertainment artiste management company that has over USD20 billion in revenue, and if he can't do that with AEG I'd love to see him try to take the Thai PM to court and subpoena him to give up the name of whoever told him about everything.
Ahh, Singaporean politicians and the civil service. Still as elitist. Still as haughty. Still as arrogant. Still as shallow and predictable to see that they view everything as a problem that money can solve as long as you spend enough of it.
Swift makes between $10 mil to $13 mil per concert appearance. It its highly improbable that the Singapore govt secured her exclusive 6 night concert for a total of $2 mil to $3 mil. Thavisin's $3 mil per appearance makes more sense. Swift is surrounded by financial managers. Surely she must know her value or be made known to settle for $3 mil for 6 performances.
Singapore is looking at shortcuts to boost the economy. HNWIs, casinos and now Swift. All this is having unintended consequences - money laundering and rubbing neighbouring countries the wrong way.