-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
The #RidoutGate Mega-Thread!
- Thread starter Balls2U
- Start date
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...cally-justifiable-and-politically-defensible/
The recent revelations from reviews conducted by Senior Minister (SM) Teo Chee Hean and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) concerning the rental of state properties on Ridout Road by Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan have ignited intense debates across Singapore.
Despite these reports finding no evidence of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or conflict of interest, they nonetheless expose a captivating financial puzzle within the operations of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).
The SLA, responsible for managing Singapore’s state properties, finds itself in the spotlight due to its management of these rentals.
The reports reveal that the SLA spent a hefty S$515,400 to refurbish 26 Ridout Road, a property rented by Minister K Shanmugam, who also supervises the SLA in his role as Minister for Law.
The spending didn’t end there – the SLA expended an additional S$172,000 for site clearance, greenery replanting, and fencing, bringing the total expenditure to S$687,400.
In addition, the SLA spent S$570,500 to repair 31 Ridout Road. However, the report does not specify the cost of greenery clearance for the property, although satellite imagery shows extensive clearing when the Minister for Foreign Affairs began his tenancy.
These costs far exceed two years’ worth of rent collected from Mr Shanmugam, who pays a monthly rent of S$26,500 for a nine-year lease, and Dr Balakrishnan, who pays roughly S$20,000 monthly for an eight-year lease.
The situation grows more complex considering the properties’ land sizes, particularly for 26 Ridout Road. Initially spanning 9,350 sqm, the property expanded to 23,164 sqm after Mr Shanmugam offered to maintain the adjacent land.
Flourish logoInteractive content by Flourish
Flourish logoInteractive content by Flourish
The report argues that the rent for 26 and 31 Ridout Road is consistent with other black-and-white houses in the vicinity.
However, it fails to provide a detailed comparison of land sizes, particularly given that 26 and 31 Ridout Road overshadow many SLA-maintained black-and-white bungalows.
Moreover, it notably omits the rental details of comparable properties, thereby hindering public examination of the comparisons’ validity and appropriateness.
Table from report on rental of Ridout estates by the two ministers
The report justifies this rental agreement by claiming that the 26 Ridout had been vacant since 2013 before Shanmugam decided to rent it in 2018 and that 31 Ridout had been vacant for five years before two unsuccessful bids were made below the prevailing Guide Rent.
This assertion raises two significant issues.
First, it suggests SLA’s failure in maintaining the properties, resulting in an inability to lease the space or fetch a price above the guideline as the state of the property does not justify the guideline rent.
Second, it prompts questions about whether the SLA would have launched such considerable refurbishment efforts for an average tenant.
How would an average tenant, evaluating the state of the properties, anticipate that the SLA would spend over half a million dollars refurbishing the property for them upon signing the lease? Particularly since these tenants, who are expats, would probably rent on a two years + two years extension arrangement in most cases.
Can the SLA provide any examples where it has spent as much as it did on the two Ministers’ rented properties for the other estates it manages?
The CPIB highlighted a lack of precision in the SLA’s usage of the term “Guide Rent”, which led to the misconception that Mr Shanmugam’s offer exceeded the Guide Rent. In truth, his rental payment of S$26,500 matched the correct Guide Rent for the property.
The odds of a person making an exact bid on the Guide Rent, including the S$2,000 for additional refurbishment costs, have been likened by some netizens to winning the lottery.
Furthermore, while average citizens experience rental fee increases of as much as 70%, as reported recently by Reuters, Mr Shanmugam’s rental appears to be locked in for a nine-year period, and Dr Balakrishnan’s rent doesn’t seem to reflect market trends, implying potential economic losses in a rapidly inflating rental market.
Just a brief walk from 26 Ridout Road is a 28 times smaller estate listed on PropertyGuru, that commands a monthly rent of S$65,000. How does this align with market norms?
While SM Teo’s report seeks to absolve the ministers from any allegations of misconduct, it unintentionally raises more questions about the arrangement’s origins and financial viability.
Moreover, it brings into question whether these arrangements comply with the spirit of the Ministers’ Code of Conduct, introduced in 1954, which mandates that “a minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his official responsibilities and his private financial interests”.
The forthcoming parliamentary session next week, where these issues will be addressed, is keenly awaited as the public eagerly anticipates the ministers’ responses.
----------------
The recent revelations from reviews conducted by Senior Minister (SM) Teo Chee Hean and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) concerning the rental of state properties on Ridout Road by Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan have ignited intense debates across Singapore.
Despite these reports finding no evidence of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or conflict of interest, they nonetheless expose a captivating financial puzzle within the operations of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).
The SLA, responsible for managing Singapore’s state properties, finds itself in the spotlight due to its management of these rentals.
The reports reveal that the SLA spent a hefty S$515,400 to refurbish 26 Ridout Road, a property rented by Minister K Shanmugam, who also supervises the SLA in his role as Minister for Law.
The spending didn’t end there – the SLA expended an additional S$172,000 for site clearance, greenery replanting, and fencing, bringing the total expenditure to S$687,400.
In addition, the SLA spent S$570,500 to repair 31 Ridout Road. However, the report does not specify the cost of greenery clearance for the property, although satellite imagery shows extensive clearing when the Minister for Foreign Affairs began his tenancy.
These costs far exceed two years’ worth of rent collected from Mr Shanmugam, who pays a monthly rent of S$26,500 for a nine-year lease, and Dr Balakrishnan, who pays roughly S$20,000 monthly for an eight-year lease.
The situation grows more complex considering the properties’ land sizes, particularly for 26 Ridout Road. Initially spanning 9,350 sqm, the property expanded to 23,164 sqm after Mr Shanmugam offered to maintain the adjacent land.
Flourish logoInteractive content by Flourish
Flourish logoInteractive content by Flourish
The report argues that the rent for 26 and 31 Ridout Road is consistent with other black-and-white houses in the vicinity.
However, it fails to provide a detailed comparison of land sizes, particularly given that 26 and 31 Ridout Road overshadow many SLA-maintained black-and-white bungalows.
Moreover, it notably omits the rental details of comparable properties, thereby hindering public examination of the comparisons’ validity and appropriateness.
Table from report on rental of Ridout estates by the two ministers
The report justifies this rental agreement by claiming that the 26 Ridout had been vacant since 2013 before Shanmugam decided to rent it in 2018 and that 31 Ridout had been vacant for five years before two unsuccessful bids were made below the prevailing Guide Rent.
This assertion raises two significant issues.
First, it suggests SLA’s failure in maintaining the properties, resulting in an inability to lease the space or fetch a price above the guideline as the state of the property does not justify the guideline rent.
Second, it prompts questions about whether the SLA would have launched such considerable refurbishment efforts for an average tenant.
How would an average tenant, evaluating the state of the properties, anticipate that the SLA would spend over half a million dollars refurbishing the property for them upon signing the lease? Particularly since these tenants, who are expats, would probably rent on a two years + two years extension arrangement in most cases.
Can the SLA provide any examples where it has spent as much as it did on the two Ministers’ rented properties for the other estates it manages?
The CPIB highlighted a lack of precision in the SLA’s usage of the term “Guide Rent”, which led to the misconception that Mr Shanmugam’s offer exceeded the Guide Rent. In truth, his rental payment of S$26,500 matched the correct Guide Rent for the property.
The odds of a person making an exact bid on the Guide Rent, including the S$2,000 for additional refurbishment costs, have been likened by some netizens to winning the lottery.
Furthermore, while average citizens experience rental fee increases of as much as 70%, as reported recently by Reuters, Mr Shanmugam’s rental appears to be locked in for a nine-year period, and Dr Balakrishnan’s rent doesn’t seem to reflect market trends, implying potential economic losses in a rapidly inflating rental market.
Just a brief walk from 26 Ridout Road is a 28 times smaller estate listed on PropertyGuru, that commands a monthly rent of S$65,000. How does this align with market norms?
While SM Teo’s report seeks to absolve the ministers from any allegations of misconduct, it unintentionally raises more questions about the arrangement’s origins and financial viability.
Moreover, it brings into question whether these arrangements comply with the spirit of the Ministers’ Code of Conduct, introduced in 1954, which mandates that “a minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his official responsibilities and his private financial interests”.
The forthcoming parliamentary session next week, where these issues will be addressed, is keenly awaited as the public eagerly anticipates the ministers’ responses.
----------------
U look at him. He thinks all sinkees are stupid and ignorant.
What you mean he THINKS...he knows !!!!
To prove that PAP is above board, somebody should offer to rent it at $27K and kick this two leeches out.
Conflict of interest, if they want bug landed ,should rent other private properties, sane as the one they rented should be 150k to 200k per mth,greedy rent under market value
Power corrupts no matter how PAP dresses or hides it.
This saga shows it is unwise to vote PAP en masse into Parliament. It's going to adversely affect the average Singaporean in the years to come with such blatant abuses and covering up.
Ask the 61 percent, they are the cheese bye kias
It is up to the people to decide if they are corrupted. Not whatever shady investigation they come up with.
If the property had fallen into disrepair and required a capital outlay of $515,000 of taxpayers' money for refurbishment so that it could be rented out again, shouldn't the SLA chief have done so in 2013 to make sure that the property started earning income since 2013 ? If SLA had started working on the property in 2013 and not allowed it to fall into disrepair, SLA wouldn't have to spend as much as $515,000
Instead, they waited for a knight in shining armor to appear 5 years later, and the knight turned out to be the boss of SLA chief.
Putting aside the cost of clearance of the adjacent land, which amounted to some $172,000, the guide rent had remained the same even after spending $515,000 on refurbishments.
Now we come to the cost of clearance of the adjacent land amounting to $172,000. This cost "will eventually" (not immediately) be paid by the knight by an additional rent of $2,000 per month making the total rental $26,500. So the knight gets the benefit of the adjacent land just by paying the clearance cost. The adjacent land increased the overall land size of the property from some 9,000 sqm to 23,000 sqm. Yet the rental remains at $24,500 + $2,000.
Instead, they waited for a knight in shining armor to appear 5 years later, and the knight turned out to be the boss of SLA chief.
Putting aside the cost of clearance of the adjacent land, which amounted to some $172,000, the guide rent had remained the same even after spending $515,000 on refurbishments.
Now we come to the cost of clearance of the adjacent land amounting to $172,000. This cost "will eventually" (not immediately) be paid by the knight by an additional rent of $2,000 per month making the total rental $26,500. So the knight gets the benefit of the adjacent land just by paying the clearance cost. The adjacent land increased the overall land size of the property from some 9,000 sqm to 23,000 sqm. Yet the rental remains at $24,500 + $2,000.
Ask my property agent friends,they said never come across a rental agreement where the tenant got to pay for cost of renovation in order to rent a property.If the property had fallen into disrepair and required a capital outlay of $515,000 of taxpayers' money for refurbishment so that it could be rented out again, shouldn't the SLA chief have done so in 2013 to make sure that the property started earning income since 2013 ? If SLA had started working on the property in 2013 and not allowed it to fall into disrepair, SLA wouldn't have to spend as much as $515,000
Instead, they waited for a knight in shining armor to appear 5 years later, and the knight turned out to be the boss of SLA chief.
Putting aside the cost of clearance of the adjacent land, which amounted to some $172,000, the guide rent had remained the same even after spending $515,000 on refurbishments.
Now we come to the cost of clearance of the adjacent land amounting to $172,000. This cost "will eventually" (not immediately) be paid by the knight by an additional rent of $2,000 per month making the total rental $26,500. So the knight gets the benefit of the adjacent land just by paying the clearance cost. The adjacent land increased the overall land size of the property from some 9,000 sqm to 23,000 sqm. Yet the rental remains at $24,500 + $2,000.
Without doubt,the landlord got to pay for the cost of refurbishment of a property to bring it to a rentable condition.
Ask my property agent friends,they said never come across a rental agreement where the tenant got to pay for cost of renovation in order to rent a property.
Without doubt,the landlord got to pay for the cost of refurbishment of a property to bring it to a rentable condition.
SLA paid for the $515,000 refurbishment, but the tenant paid another $400,000 which has nothing to do with the restoration paid by SLA.
So SLA is not saying that the tenant paid $515,000.
They knew they have a strong mandate (majority). So,even if they have committed any wrongdoing,nobody can touch them .
...dunno whether it is true, but I remember some years back,
ex-Ministat, Wong Cunt Sing also stayed in the Ridout premises.
Is this shortie still staying in this neighbourhood now ?
Similar threads
