-
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
Revelations from Ridout Road review raises more questions, say observers – Political Sophistry
politicalsophistry.wordpress.com
Following a month-long investigation, the report on the rental of state properties by two high profile ministers was finally released on 28 June 2023. As expected, it cleared the ministers of any wrongdoing. However, it also contained several stunning revelations that raised more questions than it answered.
BACKGROUND
The investigation was prompted by initial revelations that Law Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had been renting large colonial bungalows from the Singapore Land Authority, which Mr Shanmugam oversees in his capacity as law minister. These were No.26 Ridout Rd and No.31 Ridout Rd respectively, both of which were in excess of 100,000 sqft.
Leaving aside whether or not this is a fair price, it seems a remarkable coincidence that the price he ended up paying was exactly identical to the guide rent, especially since according to SLA the guide rent was not disclosed to him. It is even more remarkable considering that $26,500 was not the original guide rent, but rather a revised figure meant to account for the cost of additional work done at Mr Shanmugam’s request. In order to arrive at this figure he would have had to guess not only the original guide rent, but also the cost of the work done and the method SLA was using to amortise the cost.
Not including the additional works that he requested, the guide rent would have originally been just $24,500 a month. This is about 5 percent lower than a neighbouring unit mentioned in the report which was tenanted for $26,000.
It seems very unlikely that the standard process for prospective tenants involves directly approaching such a senior civil servant for basic information. This is even more problematic considering that according to the report, information about the No.26 Ridout Rd property was not published on the State Property Information Online website. Unlike Mr Shanmugam, regular prospective tenants would have had to physically visit the property to find out if it was for lease.
Essentially SM Teo was tasked with establishing whether or not everyone acted scrupulously in handling this matter, including himself. It is very difficult to see how he could be considered an independent, given that any negative findings would inevitably reflect poorly on himself as the highest ranking politician aware of the conflict of interest at the time.
The report notes that maintenance work is carried out to ensure that the property remains tenable in the long term (10 t0 15 years). Perhaps it is just another remarkable coincidence that the previous 10 t0 15 year period happened to end immediately before Mr Shanmugam moved in.
5. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY
In addition to the over $500,000 in essential repair work, another $172,000 was spent to fence adjacent land into the property boundary, more than doubling the size of the property. This was done at the request of Mr Shanmugam, who wanted to be able to maintain the land to his own standards. It is unclear if such accommodations are normal practice for tenants. Perhaps more significantly, despite the fact that these constituted substantial changes and improvements to the property, no attempts were made to solicit for additional bids. While the guide rent was increased by $2000 to reflect the cost of the fencing work, the fact that the property had more than doubled in size seemingly did not affect the guide rent.
In fact, while the report mentions that the guide rent takes into account “location, use, floor area, physical condition of the property and prevailing market conditions”, what is is noticeably absent is land area. The explanation given for this was that in SLA valuation team’s professional view, Gross Floor Area is a more important factor than land size. Arguably, this method fails to account for exceptional cases like 26 Ridout Rd, where the tenant is able to negotiate a more than twofold increase in land without it being reflected in the guide rent at all.
It is certainly not the case that having control over the land has no value, or else Mr Shanmugam would not have negotiated for it.
6. LACK OF ADVERTISING
It also seems that very little effort was put into marketing these properties in the first place. Per the report, publicity seems to have been limited to displaying advertisement signs at the gates of the properties. Perhaps even more puzzlingly, while the report specifically notes that No.31 Ridout Rd was listed on the State Property Information Online website, it makes no mention of No.26 Ridout Rd (Mr Shanmugam’s property).
The report goes on to explain that listings may not be published online when demand is low, for fear of competing with other properties thus cannibalising demand and making it harder to maximise occupancy and rental rates. It seems then that a deliberate choice was made to make the listing it harder to find, ostensibly to avoid cannibalising demand. This had the effect of advantaging only those who were lucky enough to spot the advertisement posted on the gate or those who were able to request a list properties directly from the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Law.
7. MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT
There is also the question of whether or not there was a violation of the ministerial code, which clearly states that ministers must ensure that there is no real or perceived conflict between their official duties and private interest. While according to the report Mr Shanmugam did take steps to prevent a conflict of interest by recusing himself , the fact that an investigation was required at all is proof that there was at the very least the perception of a conflict of interest.
If the parties involved had acted transparently from the outset by publicly declaring their interest and publicly recusing themselves, rather than doing so behind closed doors, such a perception could have been avoided. Indeed, the ministerial code specifically includes perceived conflict of interests for that very reason. Yet this was not the case.
8. CPIB INVOLVEMENT
Finally, there is confusion over who was actually conducting the review. While it had previously been announced that the review would be conducted by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, it was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had also been directed to investigate by the Prime Minister.
The existence of a CPIB investigation was not made known to the public until after the report was published and the case declared closed by the Attorney General’s Chambers. This is despite the fact that other investigations by CPIB like the ongoing case against Seatrium have been announced well in advance of findings being published. It is unclear why the procedure was not followed.
CONCLUSION
In addition to questions raised by the revelations in the report, there yet more questions that are outside the scope of the investigation. For example, whether or not renting out black and white colonial bungalows for what has been revealed to be paltry sums compared to the cost of maintenance is a good use of state land and resources. One can only hope that some of these questions will be addressed at the upcoming parliamentary session.
https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...d-review-raises-more-questions-say-observers/
politicalsophistry.wordpress.com
Following a month-long investigation, the report on the rental of state properties by two high profile ministers was finally released on 28 June 2023. As expected, it cleared the ministers of any wrongdoing. However, it also contained several stunning revelations that raised more questions than it answered.
BACKGROUND
The investigation was prompted by initial revelations that Law Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had been renting large colonial bungalows from the Singapore Land Authority, which Mr Shanmugam oversees in his capacity as law minister. These were No.26 Ridout Rd and No.31 Ridout Rd respectively, both of which were in excess of 100,000 sqft.
- THE GUIDE RENT
Leaving aside whether or not this is a fair price, it seems a remarkable coincidence that the price he ended up paying was exactly identical to the guide rent, especially since according to SLA the guide rent was not disclosed to him. It is even more remarkable considering that $26,500 was not the original guide rent, but rather a revised figure meant to account for the cost of additional work done at Mr Shanmugam’s request. In order to arrive at this figure he would have had to guess not only the original guide rent, but also the cost of the work done and the method SLA was using to amortise the cost.
Not including the additional works that he requested, the guide rent would have originally been just $24,500 a month. This is about 5 percent lower than a neighbouring unit mentioned in the report which was tenanted for $26,000.
- THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
It seems very unlikely that the standard process for prospective tenants involves directly approaching such a senior civil servant for basic information. This is even more problematic considering that according to the report, information about the No.26 Ridout Rd property was not published on the State Property Information Online website. Unlike Mr Shanmugam, regular prospective tenants would have had to physically visit the property to find out if it was for lease.
- THE SENIOR CABINET COLLEAGUE
Essentially SM Teo was tasked with establishing whether or not everyone acted scrupulously in handling this matter, including himself. It is very difficult to see how he could be considered an independent, given that any negative findings would inevitably reflect poorly on himself as the highest ranking politician aware of the conflict of interest at the time.
- TIMING OF REPAIR WORK
The report notes that maintenance work is carried out to ensure that the property remains tenable in the long term (10 t0 15 years). Perhaps it is just another remarkable coincidence that the previous 10 t0 15 year period happened to end immediately before Mr Shanmugam moved in.
5. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY
In addition to the over $500,000 in essential repair work, another $172,000 was spent to fence adjacent land into the property boundary, more than doubling the size of the property. This was done at the request of Mr Shanmugam, who wanted to be able to maintain the land to his own standards. It is unclear if such accommodations are normal practice for tenants. Perhaps more significantly, despite the fact that these constituted substantial changes and improvements to the property, no attempts were made to solicit for additional bids. While the guide rent was increased by $2000 to reflect the cost of the fencing work, the fact that the property had more than doubled in size seemingly did not affect the guide rent.
In fact, while the report mentions that the guide rent takes into account “location, use, floor area, physical condition of the property and prevailing market conditions”, what is is noticeably absent is land area. The explanation given for this was that in SLA valuation team’s professional view, Gross Floor Area is a more important factor than land size. Arguably, this method fails to account for exceptional cases like 26 Ridout Rd, where the tenant is able to negotiate a more than twofold increase in land without it being reflected in the guide rent at all.
It is certainly not the case that having control over the land has no value, or else Mr Shanmugam would not have negotiated for it.
6. LACK OF ADVERTISING
It also seems that very little effort was put into marketing these properties in the first place. Per the report, publicity seems to have been limited to displaying advertisement signs at the gates of the properties. Perhaps even more puzzlingly, while the report specifically notes that No.31 Ridout Rd was listed on the State Property Information Online website, it makes no mention of No.26 Ridout Rd (Mr Shanmugam’s property).
The report goes on to explain that listings may not be published online when demand is low, for fear of competing with other properties thus cannibalising demand and making it harder to maximise occupancy and rental rates. It seems then that a deliberate choice was made to make the listing it harder to find, ostensibly to avoid cannibalising demand. This had the effect of advantaging only those who were lucky enough to spot the advertisement posted on the gate or those who were able to request a list properties directly from the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Law.
7. MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT
There is also the question of whether or not there was a violation of the ministerial code, which clearly states that ministers must ensure that there is no real or perceived conflict between their official duties and private interest. While according to the report Mr Shanmugam did take steps to prevent a conflict of interest by recusing himself , the fact that an investigation was required at all is proof that there was at the very least the perception of a conflict of interest.
If the parties involved had acted transparently from the outset by publicly declaring their interest and publicly recusing themselves, rather than doing so behind closed doors, such a perception could have been avoided. Indeed, the ministerial code specifically includes perceived conflict of interests for that very reason. Yet this was not the case.
8. CPIB INVOLVEMENT
Finally, there is confusion over who was actually conducting the review. While it had previously been announced that the review would be conducted by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, it was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had also been directed to investigate by the Prime Minister.
The existence of a CPIB investigation was not made known to the public until after the report was published and the case declared closed by the Attorney General’s Chambers. This is despite the fact that other investigations by CPIB like the ongoing case against Seatrium have been announced well in advance of findings being published. It is unclear why the procedure was not followed.
CONCLUSION
In addition to questions raised by the revelations in the report, there yet more questions that are outside the scope of the investigation. For example, whether or not renting out black and white colonial bungalows for what has been revealed to be paltry sums compared to the cost of maintenance is a good use of state land and resources. One can only hope that some of these questions will be addressed at the upcoming parliamentary session.
https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...d-review-raises-more-questions-say-observers/
I hope TCH, Shan and Vivian can POFMA the above writer and sue him till pants drop.
Just compare 38 Oxley Road and these two Ridout properties and I wonder what LKY would have said had he been alive and visited Shan and Vivian there , something like " very grand , super spacious and so much bigger than my own house ?
Just compare 38 Oxley Road and these two Ridout properties and I wonder what LKY would have said had he been alive and visited Shan and Vivian there , something like " very grand , super spacious and so much bigger than my own house ?
What surprises me is no POFMA issued and no lawsuits filed against all these defamatory articles about our good minister Shan and Vivian.
Parliament is not a court of law, so Shan and Vivian should seek justice in a court of law and produce all the necessary documents to support their case as well as let the public see for themselve that our honest and upright ministers are 100 transparent .
Parliament is not a court of law, so Shan and Vivian should seek justice in a court of law and produce all the necessary documents to support their case as well as let the public see for themselve that our honest and upright ministers are 100 transparent .
Lol,use tax payer.money renov the place n.remt out cheap.for.ministers,why Don all.pap ministers 80.of them.move into all.british conservation house,lol
Sometimes hv authority u can do eat u want cos 60% all support this,lol,60% like.pigeon holes ,after paid their pigeon holes they will hv to ask for handouts or their kids support them lol
Sinkies even renov hdb uv to loan n pay many years ,seems like papigs hv privileges using ah money to renov for them ,envy their kids ,lol,hv nice place renov for them ,funny is the place so big at a cheap.rent,lol,living like a billi9naire at the expense of sinkies,lol,60% get high,lol
Can all sinkies ask government to renov our hdb as we are tenants also,lol
Can enjoy facilities such as car park,swimming pool and very big garden (field) and need to maintain service staff such as gardener,cook,driver and security guard.
Corruption is everywhere,5ax payer money, no.lamd lord would spent 500k reniv n rent out 26k per mth,knn ,take 20 years to recoup expenses,lol,only papigs aslo that rent of 26k n 19k is too cheap should be 200k n 130k per mth for that land size ,cb ,corruption
Lol,only sg uv this who say sg is clean lol,2 clear examples,lol,a lost in deL.,no.wonder temasick by jinx losing money always ,seems like sinoies pay dumb elites to do the job ,lol
Lol still.say no corruption ,I should.join papigs n rent a 26k place with 300000sq ft , good deal.,lol
The gomen, as owner if the premise, should reimburse tenant the money they spent upgrading the property.
Nobody wanted it. The ministers offered and owner accept.
Lol,sad ,corruption is very where in sg,worse is they are the minister take advantage n conflict of interstlesr n they can tell all they pa, rent ,fxxx then ,no one 8n sound mid would renov fir 2 units for 1mil plus n rent out total 500k ,hiw.many donkey years u can recover the cost in repair,fxxxx them
Need at least 20 yrs to recover renov ,might as well leave it empty,knn 2 properties can rent out 350k per mth
Similar threads
