Honestly, when Tin Pei Ling announced her new role at Grab, I thought it was just a formality.

From Grab’s perspective, of course they hired her precisely for her experience, network, connections and influence in politics, policies and social clout.

When you hire someone prominent like her, who spent more than a decade in politics, you don’t exactly hire her for her coding skills or design chops right?

But so many people had issues with the job scope and her impartiality.

“Member of Parliament (MP) Tin Pei Ling and Grab Singapore have “mutually agreed” to change her job scope, after questions were raised about potential conflicts of interest.”

Interesting.

So Grab changed her job scope, but frankly, who’s stopping her from using her influence, access and networks to get things done?

Was there really a conflict of interest?

Can she really be impartial?

Is it logical and practical to expect her to NOT use her political clout, influence and access?

Why wouldn’t she?

She is a person of skill, intelligence, strong networks and good reputation.

Business at the highest levels rely on precisely those things!

Why can’t she employ all of these tools in her arsenal to the best effect possible?

If you were her employee, wouldn’t you want her to do just that?

It is like buying a car and only being able to use half the function or drive up to 50km/h.

It is neither practical or sensible for any business.

Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders.

They should get their money’s worth when they employ someone as useful as her.

It is illogical to expect her to stifle her own potential and not use all of the resources at her disposal.

The main issue here is maintaining a level playing field for other employees.

If one person has access to privileged information or gets preferential treatment, then it creates an unlevel playing field that disadvantages other employees.

It is, therefore, incumbent on the employer to ensure that everyone is treated equally and no one person has an unfair advantage.

The employer must also ensure that the employee is aware of their responsibilities and duties so they can be sure they are not abusing their power for personal gain.

Another perspective:

Pei Ling got a new role at Grab dealing with public affairs and policy work in Singapore.

People starting jawing and probing.

She declared impartiality and tried to soothe the naysayers.

Didn’t work.

So PAP did another round of talks with her to clarify further.

Turns out, there was indeed some serious conflict of interests and she had to assume a completely new role at Grab.

Director of Corporate Development, whose duties will include “realising synergies across our investments and acquisitions, as well as supporting strategy development”.

Translation: utilise your skills, resources and everything you have to strategize and make more money for the company”.

Perhaps that includes tapping on her clout and access to important people too.

So all that gossiping and complaining actually did something.

It alerted the relevant parties and surfaced the issue to the right people, which may otherwise be swept under the rug.

Turns all the complaining and yapping by netizens actually works eh?

Well, maybe the next time we feel the urge to complain about something, it might not just be for show.

If it is inherently wrong, false or something seems off, we do have the right to sound off.

And yes, for those wondering, these are the kind of news that makes the headlines in sunny Singapore. =)

-

Should sitting Members of Parliament be allowed to have full-time jobs?

-

#startups #business #startupx #growth #success #socialmedia #culture #entrepreneurship #strategy #eth #btc #crypto #tinpeiling #singapore #politics #grab #publicpolicy #corporate #jobs #conflictofinterest

Honestly, when Tin Pei Ling announced her new role at Grab, I thought it was just a formality.

From Grab’s perspective, of course they hired her precisely for her experience, network, connections and influence in politics, policies and social clout.

When you hire someone prominent like her, who spent more than a decade in politics, you don’t exactly hire her for her coding skills or design chops right?

But so many people had issues with the job scope and her impartiality.

“Member of Parliament (MP) Tin Pei Ling and Grab Singapore have “mutually agreed” to change her job scope, after questions were raised about potential conflicts of interest.”

Interesting.

So Grab changed her job scope, but frankly, who’s stopping her from using her influence, access and networks to get things done?

Was there really a conflict of interest?

Can she really be impartial?

Is it logical and practical to expect her to NOT use her political clout, influence and access?

Why wouldn’t she?

She is a person of skill, intelligence, strong networks and good reputation.

Business at the highest levels rely on precisely those things!

Why can’t she employ all of these tools in her arsenal to the best effect possible?

If you were her employee, wouldn’t you want her to do just that?

It is like buying a car and only being able to use half the function or drive up to 50km/h.

It is neither practical or sensible for any business.

Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders.

They should get their money’s worth when they employ someone as useful as her.

It is illogical to expect her to stifle her own potential and not use all of the resources at her disposal.

The main issue here is maintaining a level playing field for other employees.

If one person has access to privileged information or gets preferential treatment, then it creates an unlevel playing field that disadvantages other employees.

It is, therefore, incumbent on the employer to ensure that everyone is treated equally and no one person has an unfair advantage.

The employer must also ensure that the employee is aware of their responsibilities and duties so they can be sure they are not abusing their power for personal gain.

Another perspective:

Pei Ling got a new role at Grab dealing with public affairs and policy work in Singapore.

People starting jawing and probing.

She declared impartiality and tried to soothe the naysayers.

Didn’t work.

So PAP did another round of talks with her to clarify further.

Turns out, there was indeed some serious conflict of interests and she had to assume a completely new role at Grab.

Director of Corporate Development, whose duties will include “realising synergies across our investments and acquisitions, as well as supporting strategy development”.

Translation: utilise your skills, resources and everything you have to strategize and make more money for the company”.

Perhaps that includes tapping on her clout and access to important people too.

So all that gossiping and complaining actually did something.

It alerted the relevant parties and surfaced the issue to the right people, which may otherwise be swept under the rug.

Turns all the complaining and yapping by netizens actually works eh?

Well, maybe the next time we feel the urge to complain about something, it might not just be for show.

If it is inherently wrong, false or something seems off, we do have the right to sound off.

And yes, for those wondering, these are the kind of news that makes the headlines in sunny Singapore. =)

-

Should sitting Members of Parliament be allowed to have full-time jobs?

-

#startups #business #startupx #growth #success #socialmedia #culture #entrepreneurship #strategy #eth #btc #crypto #tinpeiling #singapore #politics #grab #publicpolicy #corporate #jobs #conflictofinterest