~by: Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss~

Raffles Hotel [1] on Beach Road is undoubtedly an icon. I love the place. I am sure many Singaporeans are fond of the place too.
Built in 1887, it was extensively renovated between 1989 and 1991. I must say, those involved in the restoration works did a marvellous job. The architecture of the building and its elegant interiors evoke the nostalgic ambience of a bygone era. Raffles Hotel is certainly a Singapore landmark I would be proud to boast about and to bring my foreign friends to see.
Sadly, Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, as I only recently found out. Until 2005, the hotel was owned by Singapore-listed “Raffles Holdings”[2], a Temasek Holdings company.
In 2005, Raffles Holdings sold all of its hotel assets to US-based Colony Capital for SGD$1.72 billion. The portfolio of assets owned by Raffles Holdings consisted of 41 hotels and resorts, with its most prominent establishment being the luxurious 103-suite Raffles Hotel. (I guess I did not pick up on this news at the time it was announced.)
At the time of the acquisition, Colony Capital chief executive Thomas J. Barrack said: “We are honored to become the custodian of one of the finest hotel chains in the world and a true national treasure of the people of Singapore. We deeply respect the historical significance of the Raffles Hotel, Singapore and we consider it our responsibility to protect that legacy.”[3] In 2006, Colony Capital teamed up with a Saudi businessman to buy Fairmount Hotels and Resorts in a deal that resulted in Toronto-based Fairmount Raffles Hotel International[4] becoming the new owner of Raffles Hotel.
On 8 April 2010, The Straits Times reported that a Qatar sovereign wealth fund has bought Raffles Hotel for US$275 million (S$384 million), making it the third change of ownership in seven years.
This morning, 14 January 2012, I read in the Straits Times[5] that “Singapore’s grand old dame Raffles Hotel is finally in the hands of its new Qatari owners” – the government-owned Qatar National Hotels Company.
Though I feel a sense of loss upon reading today’s Straits Times article, the fact is, that the horse bolted out of the stable seven years ago.
Still, questions nag my mind:

  • How could parent company Temasek Holdings consider it alright to sell away “Singapore’s grand old dame”? There is only ONE Raffles Hotel and it is of historic and sentimental value to Singaporeans.
  • Did Singapore need the money badly that we had sell off our heirloom and heritage? (To my understanding, people sell off their family jewels in times of war or crisis, out of necessity, in order to survive their hard times.)
  • Have Singaporeans benefitted from the proceeds of the sale of Raffles Hotel in 2005? More hospital beds? Better care facilities for our elderly? More affordable housing for Singaporeans? Higher subsidies for education? Improvements in public transport?

I suppose it is pointless to lament the loss of Raffles Hotel. The next time I talk about Raffles Hotel to my foreign friends, I have to remind myself that Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, so I have nothing to boast about.
 


[5] http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_755535.html

This article first appeared on Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss’ blog. TOC thanks Jeannette for allowing us to reproduce it here.

 

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

Forbes says India’s COVID-19 outbreak is world’s worst with highest daily cases among all nations

Forbes published an article yesterday (10 Apr) saying that India’s COVID-19 outbreak…

刀下不留人:48小时内国家处决了四条生命

《联合早报》今日报导,大法官梅达顺、上诉庭法官朱迪珀拉卡斯和郑永光等三司,推翻早前高庭减轻控状判决,维持30岁马国保安人员因走私二醋吗啡的死刑判决。 在我国,政府认为死刑是控制毒品危机的措施,例如我国外交部长维文曾在2016年,在联合国大会上重申新加坡保留死刑的立场,也坚称死刑在我国获得国人“很高的支持”。 小编仔细阅读了以上有关判死的报导,了解到有关马国保安人员名为葛毕(Gobi a/l Avedian),在2014年间12月11日,将超过40.22克的二醋吗啡(diamorphine,海洛英违禁成分),藏在电单车内,在过关卡时被逮捕。 审讯揭露,被告乃是“跑腿”,声称雇用者告知他只是运送“巧克力毒品”,就算被抓到刑法也不严重。 被告女儿患肿瘤急需手术费 被告在新加坡当保安,薪资越为1400-1800元间。但是,年幼女儿患有毒性肿瘤,他们为女儿安排2015年1月开刀,需5万令吉(约1万6500新元),他和妻子只能筹到一般款项。 由于急需用钱,葛毕只能铤而走险,接下友人介绍的运毒工作,每包成功过关毒品克获得500令吉酬劳。 三司在昨早下判时表示,被告仅凭自己认为不认识毒品,不足以不知自己罪名严重的情况下犯案,他明知自己在运毒,酬劳异常高,理应察觉事有蹊跷,“若他真的害怕死刑不敢走私“严重”的毒品,理应竭尽所能查明毒品真正性质,而不是单单相信毒贩和友人片面之词。” 三司把葛毕的罪状改为走私A级毒品罪名。他为筹募女儿手术费铤而走险,反而搭上了自己一条命。他的女儿和妻子的处境如何,我们不得而知。从报导中,我们也不知,教唆葛毕运毒的幕后黑手、背后操盘整个毒品事业的大毒枭,至今仍逍遥法外。 真得是因为葛毕自己愚昧、不够小心谨慎,误信谗言,才“罪有应得”吗?…

LTA to refine COE System to 3-Monthly Recycling Periods

From February 2014, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will refine the COE…

TOC remembers Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (January 5, 1926 – September 30, 2008)

Today is the second anniversary of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam’s passing. Below is…