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

[SBFNews]

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

politicalsophistry.wordpress.com

3rd Jul 2023

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.

1. MAINTENANCE 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 place.

https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...PQ7Wd26qEGAA65a6xo7cGSlOkpYTYDZpxwGeYhgUgi8xo

 

[k1976]

TBH, this saga ish really pointless... There are some dubious characters trying to throw spanners and cause disturbance

 

[batman1]

TBH, this saga ish really pointless... There are some dubious characters trying to throw spanners and cause disturbance

Jamban lady.

 

[laksaboy]

Stop using the wrong words already... it's not incompetence, it's malfeasance.

It's not an 'honest mistake' or cockup, they knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[syed putra]

Fairness requires that everyone have an equal opportunity to rent state properties. This must be a guiding principle of the rental process.

State properties are exclusively made for those serving the state. This particular bungalows are made available for those at the top like chief justice or attorney general, or police inspector general or admiral or ministers.
Others can rent elsewhere. Its been like this since the time of the British. Dontch like, go back to cominist china where everyone are treated as equal.

 

[batman1]

State properties are exclusively made for those servingalow the state. This particular bungalows are made availablemo for those at the top like chief justice or attorney generafl, or police inspector general or admiral or ministers.
Others can rent elsewhere. Its been like this since the time of the British. Dontch like, go back to cominist china where everyone are treated as equal.

THe biscuit king rajan pillai ever rent the bungalow.

 

[tanwahtiu]

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

politicalsophistry.wordpress.com

3rd Jul 2023

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.

1. MAINTENANCE 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 place.

https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...PQ7Wd26qEGAA65a6xo7cGSlOkpYTYDZpxwGeYhgUgi8xo

At the end of this fiasco.... one of them will resign or removed.... lanjiao Loong shd resign

.... this hand picked 4G team of graduated uni degree chasers lack integrity...

 

[NanoRay]

At the end of this fiasco.... one of them will resign or removed.... lanjiao Loong shd resign

.... this hand picked 4G team of graduated uni degree chasers lack integrity...

Black mambo will not field himself in the next GE for sure.

 

[Papsmearer]

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

politicalsophistry.wordpress.com

3rd Jul 2023

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.

1. MAINTENANCE 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 place.

https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...PQ7Wd26qEGAA65a6xo7cGSlOkpYTYDZpxwGeYhgUgi8xo

fantastic write up. don't agree that it was incompetence but rather planned and deliberate. still very good points