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

Male student charged with ‘unauthorised modification’ of webpage

17-year-old student, Melvin Teo, the second suspect behind the “hacking” of an Istana…

李玮玲被诊断 患“进行性核上麻痹”

建国总理李光耀女儿李玮玲分享,她被诊断患有“进行性核上麻痹”( progressive supranuclear palsy)。 这是一种相当麻烦的脑部疾病,类似于帕金森症,会减缓身体的运动、损害眼球活动和平衡、也可能造成常跌倒,再来就是吞食的困难、窒息、肺炎甚至于死亡等。 若病情进一步发展,还可能造成失智和个人行为上的变化,包括无法克制和冲动。 “对这消息,我的反应是“忍”,这字体有一把刀在心上。打从念华校以来我就学习“忍”,意识到生活中有许多不可避免、不如意的事情。” 她期许这或许只是一场噩梦,但如今已经变得越来越真实、她的动作开始变得缓慢、也很难从床垫上起来。至于为何这病找上她,李玮玲形容,她没有问,因为显而易见的答案是“为何不是”? 幼时和管家儿子一视同仁 她叙述,出生在中产家庭、但家长不希望他们的孩子在富裕、特权下成长。自己的父亲是新加坡总理,本可住在总统府地带的大洋楼,但他们仍住在欧思礼路故居,小时候也和男管家的孩子一视同仁,一起分享他们家中的小电视机,且这种密切关系也持续许久。直到现在他们偶遇都会互相以儿时的名称互相问候。 帖文中李玮玲还忆起自己在莱佛士学院的优异表现;但也曾在皇家内科医师学会会员考试面对挫折,这也让他学到韧性的重要。 李玮玲也解释为何选择专攻儿科,原本有意读兽医但父母不同意。不过儿科和兽医两者挑战相似,就是医生面对的病人,都没办法清楚地解释他们的病情、也可能表现得不合作或难搞。…

Worker’s Party seeks feedback on Redundancy Insurance scheme to help workers made redundant

The Worker’s Party (WP) proposes its Redundancy Insurance (RI) scheme to ease the…

公园电灯柱电线外露 热心公民找到掉落盖子盖上

民主党秘书长徐顺全,在本月1日发现武吉巴督230座组屋附近游乐场,有公共电灯柱的电线外露,也找不到盖子盖上,若有附近小孩玩耍时不慎触碰,仍十分危险。 他指出直到昨天(3日)中午,情况以然如此。所幸一名网民Bs Koh 留言表示,在附近地上找到了这灯柱电路的盖子,权且先把它盖上,只不过没有螺丝钉能锁上。 徐顺全感谢这位热心公民,不过也提醒民众为安全起见,应避免接触这些外露的电线。再者我们也不知道这些线路是否有电流流通。 无论如何,民众感谢这位公民,同时也提醒负责武吉巴督单选区的市镇会,应注意公园设备的维修。 徐顺全在上届选举,在武吉巴督单选区上阵,对垒人民行动党穆仁理。后者仅以54.8巴仙得票率,守住该选区。 武吉巴督是由裕廊-金文泰市镇会管辖。