Letters to the editor

Letters are welcome via e-mail to [email protected]

Singapore responds

The Banyan column in your issue of July 29th makes a serious charge: that Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) cannot be independent because it reports to the prime minister, who appoints its head. This misrepresents the process. The CPIB does not require the prime minister’s permission for its investigations. It sought his concurrence before initiating a formal investigation of the minister for transport, S. Iswaran, because it involved a cabinet minister. The prime minister concurred within a day of receiving the director of CPIB’s report.

No prime minister of Singapore has ever prevented the CPIB from investigating anyone. But even if the prime minister does not consent to CPIB investigations, under the constitution the director of the CPIB can still proceed with the investigations if he obtains the concurrence of the president. This is a constitutional provision unique among Westminster-style democracies. There are also safeguards for the appointment or removal of the director of the CPIB which require the concurrence of the president.

In the case of two ministers renting state-owned bungalows in Ridout Road, it was the prime minister himself who asked the CPIB to investigate the matter. It conducted a thorough examination and found no evidence of wrongdoing or corruption. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) concurred with the finding.

The leader of the opposition accepted the CPIB‘s finding, stating in Parliament that he did not believe anybody was making an allegation that the ministers were corrupt. When the CPIB completes its investigation of Mr Iswaran, its findings will be submitted to the AGC, which will decide what to do with them. Such is the CPIB‘s fearsome reputation for thoroughness, few Singaporeans doubt its ability to see any case of corruption to its logical conclusion.

This is why The Economist’s charge that simply because the CPIB reports to the prime minister it can’t be independent strikes many Singaporeans as deeply offensive and uninformed. Would The Economist suggest that the head of Scotland Yard is not independent because he is appointed on the advice of the home secretary, in consultation with the mayor of London?

If indeed the CPIB is so lacking in independence as The Economist makes out, how could it be possible that Singapore has consistently ranked high in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. In the latest 2022 index, Singapore was ranked fifth, behind only three Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, and ahead of every other Asian country. Britain was ranked 18th.

The prime minister, as well as his successor, Lawrence Wong, the deputy prime minister, are as determined as their predecessors were to investigate any case of corruption, no matter whom it involves, thoroughly and transparently. Singaporeans and foreign investors alike can be certain of this.

T.K. Lim
High commissioner of Singapore
London

Still in the office

The portrayal of working from home as a matter of diverging choices and preferences between firms and workers is fundamentally misleading (“The WFH showdown”, July 15th). The evidence offered by online surveys, such as those cited in your article, overrepresents the views and conditions of workers who have been already digitalised and are mostly located in advanced and well-connected urban areas across the world.

On the contrary, where administrative data allow a more detailed and nuanced picture, it is immediately apparent that many firms and workers have never had any choice as to whether to work from home or not.

Limited broadband access, a lack of managerial capabilities and the small size of many firms prevent most workers and companies from even considering working from home as a possibility, let alone fight over it. It would be healthy for managerial and public-policy debates to maintain a foot in the reality of most employees and employers. This reality is often worlds away from the digital environment of San Francisco’s Bay Area, where some scholars have announced the end of the workplace far too soon.

Professor Riccardo Crescenzi
Dr Davide Rigo
Department of Geography
London School of Economics

A secretary of state

Your review of Calder Walton’s excellent book, “Spies”, misdated a quote by Henry Stimson (“Hi, spy”, July 22nd). As I note in my forthcoming history of American intelligence, “Vigilance Is Not Enough”, Stimson did not say in 1929 that the reason for closing America’s codebreaking agency was “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”. He wrote that line 19 years later in his memoirs. However, his co-author, McGeorge Bundy, said it did express Stimson’s views at the time.

Mark Lowenthal
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Washington, DC

The well-established party

Lexington’s comment that Abraham Lincoln has been the only candidate elected to the presidency from a third party requires clarification (July 22nd). By the time of Lincoln’s election in 1860 the Republicans could hardly be called a third party as they had succeeded the Whig Party, which disbanded in 1856, as the main opposition to the Democrats. Although the Know Nothing party also opposed the Democrats, the Republicans cemented their role by gaining a majority in the House of Representatives in 1858. Moreover, in the 1856 presidential election the Republicans’ first-ever presidential candidate, John Fremont, came second with 33% of the vote.

Vincent Meng
Exton, Pennsylvania

The more things change…

I read your Technology Quarterly on in vitro fertilisation (July 22nd) with great interest. I went through IVF in 1989 and had a successful frozen embryo transfer at a clinic in Virginia. Reading your articles through tears, it brought back all the sharp memories of hope, anticipation, pain and anguish that these IVF cycles can cause. It was a rollercoaster of emotions, time and money. Insurance did not cover any of the procedures then.

I was hoping to read how far IVF has advanced in recent years, but not so. The process is still too expensive and not much has changed except the willingness of some clinics to hone their skills at peddling hope and unproven costly add-ons to women seeking their help. It is such a shame to hear that modern-day snake- oil salesmen exist in IVF.

Bonnie McIntyre
Billings, Montana

Market logic

Reading Buttonwood’s column on the mystery of gold prices (July 15th) recalled a comment that is often attributed to Clem Sunter, a futurologist, when he worked in the gold division at Anglo American: “The price of gold will go up, and the price of gold will go down, but not necessarily in that order”.

Michael Acott
Cape Town