by: Leong Sze Hian/

I refer to the article “Past reserves tapped on to fund land reclamation and Sers” (ST, Aug 7).

It states that “President S R Nathan’s office has been approving the use of past reserves to fund land reclamation projects since 2001 and land acquisition for the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers) since 2002”.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not think anyone in Singapore knew about the use of the Reserves in the past.

Was this ever disclosed in Parliament or reported in the media?

When the Resilience Package was announced in 2009 to combat the recession, I believe Singaporeans were given the impression that it was the first time ever that the Reserves were being used.

Reserves for Sers?

I cannot understand the logic of using the Reserves for Sers.

Since the HDB sells flats which recovers the cost of land as well, wouldn’t the revenue from the redeveloped Sers land sold to private developers or used to build new HDB flats, be more than sufficient to recover the Sers’ land costs in the first place?

Hence, why the need to use the Reserves?

Budget surpluses and land sales?

Also, since the Budget has been in surplus like about nine out of every 10 years, and land sales amounting to around $10 billion a year are not counted as revenue in the Budget, why was there a need to use the Reserves?

Why didn’t the Auditor-General pick up these anomalies?

Sers flats for foreigners?

Since about 800 of the 2,000 Sers flats awaiting redevelopment have been rented out to non-Singaporeans at market rates for profits, is not the Reserves in a sense being used to benefit foreigners?

Reserves to Temasek?

As to “Mr Nathan and his advisers have judged that these projects do not deplete the reserves because the resulting increases in land value ultimately add to the reserves”, I would like to point out that the revenue derived from the use of reclaimed land and Sers, may have gone to the Government which may ultimately end up in the books of Temasek and the Government Investment Corporation (GIC).

For example, the land on which Changi Airport sits, if some of which is reclaimed land, has been privatized to Temasek for a paltry $3.3 billion.

Surely, the unfetted utilization of the 1,300 hectares of Changi Airport land, is akin to a ‘raiding’ of the Reserves.

Privatisation = moving Reserves?

Since “According to the Constitution, all state land and buildings are considered part of past reserves”, any privatization of state assets that contain land and buildings, may in a way, also be a ‘raiding’ of the Reserves.

With regard to “Before 1999, such projects were funded out of current reserves, even though the government of the day would usually not benefit from them. Mr Nathan noted that infrastructure projects often span across terms of government, which may disincentivise the government of the day to undertake them using current reserves, even though they benefited Singapore in the long term”, was this significant change debated in Parliament and reported in the media?

Booking current surpluses?

In my view, another side to the revelation now of the justification for the use of the past Reserves, may be that the Government may be incentivised to report surpluses every year, when in reality there may have been a deficit, since in a way, by a mere slight of the hand it has used past Reserves to spend instead of current Reserves.

In the corporate world some may liken this to a “cooking of the books”, as it is somewhat like reporting more profits, simply by booking current revenue and spending retained earnings or accumulated capital as expenses instead.

I would like to suggest that the “set of guidelines for processing all such cases of land development”, “agreed upon”, by “the president’s office and the relevant government department” be made public.

In respect of “Such projects include Sers and land reclamation”, does it mean that there may be other projects whereby the Reserves were also used?

How much used?

Finally, I am rather surprised that with this explosive disclosure now, no one has asked or answered the obvious question – how much of the Reserves has been used?


Support TOC! Buy Leong Sze Hian’s book here!

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

推着电动滑板车走半小时 送餐员示范禁令后“正确送餐方式”

电动滑板车禁令颁布后,靠有关代步工具工作的送餐员生计大受影响。一名送餐员示范正确的送餐方式,就录制了一段视频,行走了半个小时才成功将饮料送达目的地。 一名GrabFood送餐员将自己的送餐行程,于11月11日上载到优管(Youtube)的Guide to GrabFood频道上。 在视频开端就提到目前的条规,包括在行人道上行驶将被罚款2000元、草坪上行驶罚款5000元、在沟渠盖上行驶则罚款四万元,但是他的银行户头内只有300元等,随后就开始其送餐行程。 他到淡滨尼中5路的世纪广场(Century Square)一家奶茶店,领取了顾客所点的饮料后,就朝向目的地,即淡滨尼42街第458座组屋前进。 基于所走的路线都没有公共连接道,所以这名送餐员唯有推着电板车,在人行道上行走。“如你们所见,我现在在人行道上,所以只能推着电动滑板车。这是“最合法”的送餐方式。” 一路上,他一边推着电板车,一边阅读网友们的评语。 网友的评语有赞有弹,也有提醒不能违规的事项。而他一边行走时,也分享了有关政府和送餐服务商,推出700万元以旧换新援助计划的看法。 “我真的觉得很值得,因为是提供给在职的送餐员,有1000元,而要换成脚车的也能领取600元,我觉得有多了,很不错。” 此外,他也提到自己是幸运的,因为身体健康,所以行走送订单并不是问题,但是对其他面对某些状况的送餐员而言,可能就做不到了。“一些送餐员是残缺人士、或者身体抱恙,需要电板车帮助送餐;有的则是因为教育水平不足,无法找到更好的工作,需要这份工作来支撑生活。”…

S’pore needs to break away from risk-averse culture

Yee Jenn Jong / SMU don, assistant professor Chung Wai Keung, is…

Liew Mun Leong’s company-wide email blast emphasising “integrity” being hypocritical?

Following the acquittal of Liew Mun Leong’s former domestic worker, Parti Liyani,…