https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/2023/07/16/ridout-scandal-corrupt-sla-not-taken-to-task-minister-shanmugam-lacking-morals/

POFMA correction directions issued to Kenneth Jeyaretnam, online publication Jom over Ridout Road articles

SINGAPORE: Correction directions have been issued to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Mr Thamil Selvan and online publication Jom over articles and social media posts about the rental of two bungalows along Ridout Road by two ministers.

It emerged in early May that Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan are renting two black-and-white bungalows at 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively. 

Interest in the matter arose after opposition politician and Reform Party chief Mr Jeyaretnam questioned if the ministers were "paying less than the fair market value".

Investigations, including by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or preferential treatment given to the two ministers.

CORRECTION DIRECTIONS TO KENNETH JEYARETNAM, THAMIL SELVAN

Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong instructed for the correction directions to be issued to Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Selvan under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said on Sunday (Jul 16).

This was because both men had falsely stated that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) gave the contract to renovate 26 Ridout Road and/or 31 Ridout Road to home interior and renovation company Livspace. They had also claimed that this was done because Livspace’s CEO is the son of Mr Shanmugam.

Mr Selvan did so in a Facebook post on Jul 1, while Mr Jeyaretnam made the claims in an article on his website. It was also shared on his Twitter page.

The issue of the rentals was debated in parliament on Jul 3, with four ministers – Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, Mr Tong, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan – giving ministerial statements.

Mr Tong, who is also Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, told the House that neither Livspace nor Mr Shanmugam’s son was appointed by SLA to carry out works for either bungalows.

“As with its approach for other state properties, SLA had engaged an external consultant to assess the works needed to be carried out for the two properties. Thereafter, contracts to carry out the works were awarded to separate contractors through open tenders,” said MinLaw.

“SLA did not award any contract to Livspace to carry out works to 26 Ridout Road or 31 Ridout Road. SLA has not had any transactions with Livspace for these or other properties.”

Under the directions, Mr Jeyaretnam is required to carry a correction notice on his website and Twitter page, and Mr Selvan is also ordered to put up a correction notice on his Facebook post. The notices should state that their posts contained false statements of fact, said MinLaw on Sunday.

CORRECTION DIRECTIONS TO JOM

In a separate press release, MinLaw and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) said Mr Tong and Minister for Communications and Information Josephine Teo have issued correction directions to online publication Jom.

According to its website, Jom is a weekly magazine about Singapore. Its co-founders are Charmaine Poh, Tsen-Waye Tay and Sudhir Vadaketh.

On Jul 7, Jom published an article that claimed Mr Teo did not respond to questions “concerning the issue of actual or apparent conflicts of interest and possible breach of the code of conduct for ministers”.

The publication said Mr Teo did not go beyond replying that it is more important to observe the spirit rather than just the letter of the code.

Jom also claimed the SLA spent more than S$1 million (US$0.76 million) on the renovation of both bungalows because the ministers were tenants.

It wrote in its article that the government caused Instagram to geo-block a post by fugitive lawyer Charles Yeo, the former Reform Party chairman.

MinLaw and MCI said the Jom article omitted important information from what Mr Teo had said in parliament on Jul 3.

“Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had expressly clarified that he meant it was important to observe the spirit as well as the letter of the code,” said the ministries.

“Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean also said that Minister K Shanmugam had recused himself, and this meant that he no longer had any duty in the matter. There could thus be no potential or actual conflict of interest.”

The senior minister also explained how Mr Shanmugam had “removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process entirely” when it came to the rental of 26 Ridout Road.

Mr Teo also highlighted that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had established – as part of an independent investigation – that no matter was raised by SLA to MinLaw and to any of the ministers during the rental process.

The ministries said that the identity of the tenants had no bearing on the amount spent by SLA on the works carried out on both bungalows.

“The article implies that this sum was unusually large, and omits important information that the works done by SLA were consistent with SLA’s general practice, and were assessed to be necessary in the circumstances, as explained by Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong in Parliament on Jul 3.”

They added that the authority invests a “significant amount” in maintaining conserved properties such as the two bungalows, and that a key reason for the cost is the nature of the conservation requirements for such properties, which are older than the average property in Singapore.

Mr Tong had spoken “at length” in parliament about the details of these conservation requirements, said the ministries.

“While the maintenance works are done in periodic cycles, SLA does them in the lead up to a confirmed tenancy where practical, to avoid disrupting existing tenants and to ensure that the costs can be recovered from the prospective tenant,” said MinLaw and MCI.

SLA has published information that similar and large amounts have been spent by the agency on other black-and-white bungalows “in a manner consistent with conservation requirements”.

In the case of 26 and 31 Ridout Road, most of the costs incurred by SLA were for works that external consultants had determined to be necessary. This was in light of the condition of the properties and to comply with the relevant conservation requirements.

The remaining costs were incurred as part of the usual works done before the start of a tenancy to ensure that the property is habitable, said the ministries.

With regards to the claim that an Instagram post by Charles Yeo was blocked, the ministries said this was untrue and that the government did not issue any directions or requests on this matter to Meta, Instagram’s parent company, that caused the platform to geo-block the post.

As required by the POFMA directions, Jom must publish the correction notices on its website and social media pages.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/ridout-road-pofma-orders-kenneth-jeyaretnam-thamil-selvan-jom-false-statements-3632036

Shanmugam singled out Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen for living in black-and-white bungalows too

During the Parliament session on ministers’ controversial occupation of Ridout estates, Minister K Shanmugam tried to make the point that “a person’s ability to serve should not depend on where he lives, or how poor or rich he is.”

The minister brought up the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, who stayed at a “very large” black-and-white bungalow at Goodwood Hill.

Dr Goh was the Deputy Prime Minister who laid the foundation stones of Singapore’s economy and defence forces.

Minister Shanmugam also referenced the late Hon Sui Sen, who rented a black-and-white bungalow at Malcolm Road. He served as Finance Minister then.

After invoking these highly respected members of the Old Guard, the minister said:

The minister had to qualify his comparison. Doesn’t it show that he was not comparing apples to apples?

During the time of Dr Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen, ministers were paid more modest salaries and were therefore given perks like houses reserved for them.

Today, ministers are paid the world’s highest salaries, minus the perks previously accorded to the ministers of old.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself said in Parliament on Monday: “Ministers in Singapore are paid a clean wage, realistic, competitive but clean wage. They do not get perks, there is no official house to live in.”

The key significance also is that Minister Shanmugam is the Law Minister overseeing the agency that oversees the management of colonial bungalows. This gives rise to all sorts of searing questions.

The point that Minister Shanmugam was making has also been made by many People’s Action Party (PAP) supporters – but in a different way.

This is one such social media posting: “The real question, hidden behind pretences of asking for transparency, is this: Why are our ministers living in huge colonial style bungalows, whilst the majority of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats? …This question is born out of the politics of envy, practised by broken democracies all over the world.”

A very clear attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.

It has long been accepted that with their status and wealth, ministers could easily afford premium private properties. Nobody expects ministers to live in HDB flats and take the bus to work.

However, when a long-kept secret about ministers living in two of the country’s choicest government bungalows suddenly becomes public, people seek accountability.

From whether ministers were given a sweetheart deal to conflict of interest to breach of the ministerial code of conduct.

So it has nothing to do with the politics of envy. Comparing oranges and apples to make a point also does not hold water.

In any case, do any of the current ministers even measure up to a man of towering achievement like Dr Goh Keng Swee?

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/07/08/shanmugam-singled-out-goh-keng-swee-and-hon-sui-sen-for-living-in-black-and-white-bungalows-too/

Wah this Cheng Yan Tan fella has crossed the line liao lah

Is anyone surprised?

‘Stunning incompetence’ in handling of Ridout Road properties; and what should have been done instead

Controversy surrounding the rental of state properties by government ministers has sparked intense scrutiny, culminating in a parliamentary session today (3 July 2023). While the parties involved have cleared themselves of criminal wrongdoing, what is clear is they have fallen far short of the public’s expectations. Are these expectations too high, as some have suggested in parliament? And what would a competent, transparent and fair process actually look like? This piece will address some of the points raised in parliament, and hopefully serve as a helpful guide to politicians and civil servants of the future.

1. EVALUATING LAND USE

The very first step that should have been taken by the institutions involved is a comprehensive review of whether preserving so many colonial bungalows is a good use of scarce land resources. There are currently 262 black and white bungalows exceeding 20,000 sqft managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). That adds up to at least 5.2 million sqft, and possibly as much as 10 million sqft of land, comparable in size to the Singapore Botanic Gardens.

The mission of SLA is “to ensure effective use of land resources and data for the economic and social development of Singapore by optimising land and space utilisation“. It cannot be an effective or optimal use of land to preserve these massive properties for the enjoyment of a select few at a rental rate that is much lower than nearby good class bungalows, all the while other more historically significant sites are facing redevelopment.

Whatever conservation and heritage value these bungalows have is greatly diminished by the fact that there are hundreds of examples of them, and unlike – say a museum, the general public do not even have access to them anyway. In some cases they may even be left empty for years on end, as evidenced by the Ridout Rd properties, serving as decaying monuments to this government’s misplaced priorities.

If these properties are to be preserved, there must be a clear and compelling reason that has been weighed against the costs involved, set out in a public policy paper.

2. BEFORE ADVERTISING

If the decision is made to preserve some of these properties in their current form, then the next step is to ensure that they are kept in good condition. This is the exact opposite of what occured with the Ridout Rd properties. They were allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that “substantial repairs” totalling over $1 million were required just to make them fit for habitation.

Perhaps more shocking is the fact that essential repair works were not completed prior to advertising the properties for lease. Common sense dictates that properties ought to be fixed up prior to advertising, so as to maximise rental value. No property agent in their right mind would show a house in a decrepit state and still expect it to fetch a good price. Now consider a property agent who not only accepts a depressed price but then proceeds to fix up the house at his own expense afterwards, and we are approaching the level of incompetence demonstrated by SLA.

If a commitment has already been made to restore these houses to a habitable condition at the taxpayers expense, as certainly seems to be the case, then the poor condition of these houses cannot be used as an excuse for why the rents involved are so much lower than nearby good class bungalows.

3. ENSURING EQUALITY OF ACCESS

Fairness requires that everyone have an equal opportunity to rent state properties. This must be a guiding principle of the rental process. No one should have an advantage arising from superior access to information, nor should public agencies gatekeep basic information about such properties on the basis of ‘credibility’.

If a list of properties is available upon request, then this policy must be made clear. And if the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Law is available to field real estate enquiries from the general public, then this must be made clear as well. It is imperative that politicians use the same resources and processes as the general public, to avoid even the perception of privileged access to information.

On a related note, this really should not need to be said but ministers must not make requests of their civil servants that are of a personal nature either. Senior civil servants are not personal secretaries. Serious doubts may be raised about the competence of a politician who fails to grasp this basic fact. Indeed, any politician with an ounce of sense should understand that the proper procedure is to engage a property agent to make enquiries, and make any necessary disclosures to civil servants separately.

4. PUBLIC DUTY VS PRIVATE INTERESTS

The ministerial code is extremely clear. “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests”. What is a conflict of interest? It is exactly what it says on the tin: having two interests that conflict with each other.

For example, a property agent who seeks to rent his client’s property for himself has two conflicting interests. To secure the highest price possible for his client and to secure the lowest price possible for himself. Whether he actually acts against his clients interests is immaterial. Simply being in that position is enough for an actual conflict of interest to arise. Thus the distinction between ‘actual conflict of interest’ and ‘potential conflict of interest’ is a meaningless one.

Now, he may avoid the conflict of interest by standing down as his client’s property agent in the transaction. This eliminates one of the interests and thus avoids a conflict of interest. However, this course of action is not available to a minister. To quote the ministerial code: “in circumstances where private interests and public duty conflict, the Minister must dispose of the financial interest giving rise to the conflict“. The code requires a minister put his duty above his private interest. He cannot simply recuse himself, but rather must abandon his private interest.

5. PUBLIC RECUSAL

But let us say a minister chooses to interpret the code differently and decides to resolve the conflict of interest by abandoning his duty and recusing himself. Does that satisfy the requirements of the ministerial code? No, for while he has avoided an actual conflict of interest, he has not avoided an apparent or perceived conflict of interest. Avoiding a perceived conflict of interest is not an impossibly high bar, as some have suggested. All he needs to do is take the crucial step of making his recusal public. The reason for this is simple. If the public is not made aware of a recusal, then as far as public perception is concerned, it might as well have not occurred.

To illustrate, it may well be that a fair minded person would not have perceived a conflict of interest if he knew a minister had recused himself, but that is meaningless if the recusal is kept from him. A competent minister must be proactive in his public disclosures, specifically regarding if and when he has recused himself and for what reason. If the issue is left to fester till the point a Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigation is necessary to eliminate the perception of a conflict of interest, then they have clearly failed.

6. SETTING AN ACCURATE GUIDE RENT

Offers for any state property must be evaluated against an accurate guide rent. It has repeatedly been emphasised that the guide rent for the black and white properties in question are primarily based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) rather than plot size. This is a deeply flawed and parochial view. The implication that vast tracts of pristine undeveloped land somehow confer no benefit and are even a burden on the tenant is patently absurd. It is as nonsensical as the argument that a larger house ought to be worth less because it takes more effort to keep clean.

There is a massive difference between a bungalow surrounded by HDB flats on all sides and a equally sized bungalow sitting on a piece of property comprising two football fields worth of empty space, even if the latter cannot be developed further. A valuation criteria that cannot distinguish between the two is not fit for purpose.

7. NEGOTIATING ABILITY

Finally, SLA must understand that its responsibility goes beyond just checking the boxes and ensuring that the minimum guide rent is met, but includes zealously working to secure the highest rental possible for the public. In this regard, SLA’s actions concerning No. 26 Ridout Rd are a prime example of how not to negotiate. At the parliamentary session, it was revealed that SLA had actually been the one to suggest a rental of $26,500 in response to an initial offer by Mr Shanmugam.

For context, $26,500 was also the minimum amount that they were allowed to accept, also known as the guide rent. Firstly, this seems to contradict SLA’s claim that the guide rent was never disclosed, as this amount was clearly suggested as an acceptable price. Although to be fair it is unlikely the prospective tenant would have known this was the guide rent, if only as a result of SLA’s stunning incompetence. After all, no one expects the opposing party in a negotiation to offer the actual minimum price they would accept as an opening bid. It boggles the mind that supposed real estate professionals lack the negotiating acumen of even the most inexperienced salesmen. One would really like to believe that the organisation entrusted with our land resources is capable of doing more than the bare minimum.

CONCLUSION

The standards required of public institutions and officials are not excessive. All the public asks is that they act with integrity, competence and common sense. If politicians and civil servants find themselves unable to meet this standard, then they should step aside and let more capable individuals take their places.

https://politicalsophistry.wordpress.com/2023/07/03/stunning-incompetence-in-handling-of-ridout-road-properties-and-what-should-have-been-done-instead/

Ownself review ownself, ownself clear ownself, PAP has done it again!

Shan buay song liao: "I will defend myself but leave my family alone!"

The Ridout Road parliamentary debate is in full swing, with four ministers — K Shanmugam, Vivian Balakrishnan, Edwin Tong, and Teo Chee Hean — giving their statements to address concerns and questions.

During the Q&A section on Monday (3 July), the ministers were asked to clarify allegations against Livspace, a firm where Mr Shanmugam’s son is the CEO.

Some have claimed that the contracts of works done on Ridout Road properties were awarded to the firm.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam took a stern stance in response to this, imploring sceptics and naysayers to leave his family alone.

Edwin Tong says allegations about Shanmugam & his son were unwarranted

Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin submitted a follow-up question on the preparatory works for the rental of the two state properties, 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

While seeking to clarify how SLA awards its contracts to vendors, she also asked Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong to address allegations that the contract for works relating to the properties was awarded to Livspace.

Mr Tong said the allegations were unwarranted.

“The sting of these allegations is that there’s a preference given to [Livspace] that is completely scurrilous and unwarranted.

“There is no basis to suggest it for both 26 and 31 [Ridout Road],” he stressed, adding that the official contractor was awarded the project through a tender.

After conducting checks, Mr Tong clarified that Livspace was not an appointed contractor, and neither did they have any transactions with SLA.

Shanmugam tells sceptics to come after him instead & leave his family alone

Before moving on to the next question, Mr Shanmugam quickly stood up to personally address the allegations too.

“Inevitably, there were many untruths circulated about me, my rentals, because I’m a political figure and obviously a target,” he said, referring to claims that SLA had built a car porch for him, that he was cutting down trees illegally, or that he was paying less than market value.

Emphasising that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has established these and other allegations to be untrue, he said,

Mr Shanmugam noted that he did not keep track of his son’s contracts, as there are established processes for awarding contracts by statutory boards.

“My son tells me his company does not have any contracts with SLA, nor did they do any work on the Ridout properties by SLA.”

It was also addressed earlier in Parliament that the SLA valuer was unaware of the prospective Ridout Road tenants when setting the guide rent during the application process.

Lai lai let's clap for SLA!

Evasive reporting by the Shit Times as usual when it's a scandalous issue surrounding the ruling party - whatever happened to citing the extensive list of questions the general public is demanding answers to but still remain pretty much unanswered?