Connect with us

Editorial

Singapore’s reserves substantially profits from $500m land sales in AMK BTO

Published

on

CORRECTION NOTICE:
This article contains a false statement of fact. For the correct facts, click here:
https://www.gov.sg/article/factually141022-b.


Thanks to a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction issued by the government against the local social media page, The Alternative View (TAV), we now know that the government would receive S$500 million from the land sales linked to the Central Weave @ Ang Mo Kio Build-to-Order (BTO) project which it then transfers to the Singapore reserves.

TAV was issued the POFMA correction direction last month (3 Sep) after it published a Facebook post suggesting that HDB had profited from the sale of the AMK BTO flats in the Central Weave project.

In the notice, the Ministry of National Development said HDB will not profit from the sale of these flats.

“In fact, it will incur a loss from this project, as the estimated amount to be collected from the sale is lower than the estimated total development cost of the project,” it said. The HDB incurs a deficit every year, MND assured, adding that “the amount HDB collects from the sale of flats in every financial year is less than the costs it incurs, including the total development cost (comprising land cost and construction cost) and CPF housing grants”.

The POFMA incident probably led Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai to question the National Development Minister Desmond Lee in Parliament on the questions of HDB’s net loss for the Central Weave BTO project; cost of land paid by HDB to SLA for this project; and net profit and loss position for the Government, including HDB and SLA, for this project.

Mr Lee did not fully answer Mr Leong’s questions but did say that the estimated land cost for the project was $500 million, the amount HDB paid to the government for buying the land used in the project. In total, Mr Lee said HDB itself would incur a S$250 million loss on the project and an additional S$20 million if the grants were included.

Mr Lee, however, did not reveal the actual cost of the land which the government had acquired in the first place but it is believed to be low. Even though Mr Lee did not reveal the actual cost of the project’s land the government had acquired earlier, he did allude to profits being made from the land sale by the government to HDB. Such profits would go to the reserves. “Land forms part of the past reserves, hence when HDB uses the land for development, the money that HDB will need to pay for the land must be paid back into the past reserves,” said Mr Lee.

Indeed, commenting on his Facebook page, former GIC economist Yeoh Lam Keong who used to work for the government for 26 years, criticised Mr Lee for using a rather disingenuous and misleading analysis of the supposed S$270 million loss made by HDB and by inference the government in developing the AMK BTO flats at Central Weave (‘Former GIC chief economist ridicule clarification of supposed S$270 million loss by HDB on BTO project as “disingenuous and misleading”‘, 4 Oct 2022).

Mr Yeoh said that the accounting sleight of hand being that the government acquired most of the land at minimal or much lower cost through compulsory acquisition. He argued that the true cost price should be the original book value of the land plus construction costs which on average is probably much lower than BTO prices before subsidy. “The true cost to the government after subsidies will then be much clearer,” he said.

Mr Yeoh further noted that Singaporeans have been channeling a significant part of their disposable incomes to pay off HDB flat, leaving insufficient savings for retirement, medical expenses and education upgrading. In other words, a large part of Singaporean disposable incomes every month have indirectly gone to help build up Singapore’s reserves.

Govt Acquires Land At Very Low Price Via Land Acquisition Act

Although we do not know how much the government paid for the acquired land at Central Weave in AMK, we do know how much it paid for the land at Bishan through compulsory acquisition.

We know this from an article written by Mr Lim Chin Joo who was the lawyer acting on behalf of the Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng temple, which owned the cemetery land at Bishan before it was acquired and developed by HDB (‘Land acquisition – for the sake of nation building‘, 3 Dec 2010). The article first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao before it was translated and published in the Straits Times. Incidentally, Mr Lim is the brother of the late Lim Chin Siong, the famous trade unionist and politician in Singapore in the 50s and 60s.

Mr Lim was invited to the 140th anniversary celebration of the temple in 2010 and thereafter he wrote the article recounting his experience dealing with then the National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan over the compulsory acquisition of the temple’s land in Bishan in the 70s.

He recalled that the government was determined to acquire the temple’s land in the 70s to develop public housing. The land acquisition gazette notification finally came in the late 70s. Understandably, the clansmen were saddened by the news and appointed Mr Lim as their legal adviser.

“The compensation granted under the law is, in theory, based on the market value of the land. However, who has heard of cemeteries having a market value? Regardless of its potential land use, a cemetery can be valued only as a cemetery,” Mr Lim wrote.

After much negotiations, the government was only willing to pay a paltry S$5 million for the 131ha land owned by the temple. “As expected, the compensation did not amount to much. It came to less than $5 million for the 131ha of land – or 30 cents per square foot after appeal. The HDB was responsible for the cleanup, including exhuming the graves and cremating the remains,” Mr Lim explained.

“The clansmen were more concerned about conserving the ancestral temple, which was more than a century old, and handling the cremated remains. These emotional issues sparked heated arguments. It was decided that the PST (temple) would try to keep the temple, and request the Government to allot it land around the temple to build a crematorium and columbarium.”

“On behalf of the PST, I wrote to the HDB and the permanent secretary of the Ministry of National Development on two occasions. The replies left no room for negotiations. We were told the decision to acquire the cemetery had come from the top.”

After appealing to then National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan and more talks with HDB, HDB agreed to let the temple remain where it was, and allot surrounding land to restore it and construct a columbarium. Request for the crematorium was rejected. Finally, the clansmen at the temple had to accept whatever terms the government demanded.

“After due consideration, the clansmen accepted the acquisition for the sake of nation building. Bishan estate was the result. It was a decision that benefited Singapore,” said Mr Lim.

Clearly, the clansmen sacrificed the land their forefathers had built upon for the sake of nation building and public good. Whatever the case, the government has acquired the Bishan land on the cheap at 30 cents per square foot, but sold at a much higher price to Bishan residents later.

The profits made from the government land sales — such as that in the case of Central Weave @ AMK for S$500 million — supposedly goes to the reserves.

Mr Leong had also asked in March this year if the Singapore government could confirm if the total reserves was indeed at S$1.4 trillion dollars as the figures had been publicly been reported. However, he did not get a clear answer for his question.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Editorial

CNA’s one-sided POFMA coverage ignores key opposition and independent voices

[Editorial] Channel News Asia’s recent article on POFMA is marred by a lack of balance and transparency. By failing to engage key stakeholders and overlooking the challenges of contesting POFMA orders, the article skews public perception, reinforcing state narratives while ignoring critical perspectives.

Published

on

Channel News Asia’s (CNA) recent article, “Views stay divided on POFMA five years on, but has it helped in tackling fake news?” on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is presented as a  balanced reflection on the law five years after its enactment after a very controversial parliamentary process.

However, the article raises significant concerns about its lack of objectivity, transparency, and the selective representation of public sentiments toward the law.

Given CNA’s ownership by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, these concerns highlight the limitations of state-funded media in critically evaluating government policies. In Singaporean terms, this article shows how “ownself check ownself” literally “cannot make it”.

Lack of Transparency in Claims

The article claims that CNA reached out to “several recipients” of past POFMA orders to discuss their experiences.

Yet, after cross-checking with numerous POFMA recipients, it appears that only two individuals confirmed being contacted.

Crucially, major targets of POFMA orders, such as The Online Citizen (TOC), Kenneth Jeyaretnam, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)—all of whom have been frequent recipients of POFMA correction directions—were not approached for comment.

This was confirmed by the above and also by Worker’s Party’s Yee Jenn Jong and Progress Singapore Party’s Leong Mun Wai,

This omission distorts the narrative, leaving out key perspectives from those who have been most affected by POFMA, casting serious doubts on the objectivity of the article as a whole.

Moreover, when contacted for clarification on who among POFMA recipients was reached out to, the article’s author did not respond.

This lack of transparency further undermines the credibility of CNA’s claim that it attempted to consult multiple stakeholders. By selectively omitting arguably the most important voices, the article fails to provide a comprehensive view of how POFMA has been applied or received.

Selective Representation of Public Sentiment

CNA’s portrayal of public sentiment toward POFMA is similarly problematic.

The article claims that “a majority” of those interviewed agreed with the necessity of the law to combat falsehoods.

However, this assertion seems at odds with the article’s reception on social media—or, more specifically, its absence online.

CNA chose not to post the article on its usual primary social media platforms, opting instead to post it only on Telegram.

This unusual choice suggests CNA may have anticipated criticism of the article’s narrative and sought to limit public engagement. This does not speak to confidence in the assertion that the “majority” of those interviewed agreed with the law unless the interviewees were restricted to a very narrow echo chamber.

Even on Telegram, the response was overwhelmingly negative, with 372 users disliking the post versus 70 expressing approval.

While this is not a representative sample of the entire population, it directly challenges the article’s claim that most people support POFMA.

The negative reaction on Telegram further undermines the argument that public sentiment is largely in favour of the law, particularly when the CNA itself avoided posting the article where public scrutiny could be more visible and objectively documented.

TOC also posted a survey on Facebook asking if people were in support of the law, with the majority saying no. We recognized the limitations of the survey and did not try to claim to present a balanced view of the law but rather an estimate of public perception based on an open, transparent survey.

The Hidden Costs of Challenging POFMA

One of the most misleading aspects of CNA’s coverage is the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw) claim that the lack of challenges to POFMA orders indicates that recipients knew they were spreading falsehoods.

This interpretation ignores the significant financial, emotional, and legal barriers to challenging POFMA orders.

It also ignores the fact that while the majority of POFMA recipients have not formally challenged the orders in court, many of them published statements disagreeing with the correction directions that they were forced to carry.

To get some idea about how onerous a formal legal challenge to a POFMA direction, just visit the instruction page to learn how to go about filing a POFMA appeal; simply looking at the fees and potential costs involved is intimidating enough.

The fees listed also do not include the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent the individual or entity in court. While you can represent yourself in court, based on TOC’s experience, you would be facing three trained legal professionals arguing against you, which would be very challenging, to say the least.

The reality is that for many, complying with a POFMA order is the path of least resistance, especially when the alternative is public embarrassment, legal intimidation (if they cannot afford a lawyer), and the financial burden of a court battle.

TOC, which has filed the most court applications against POFMA with three applications and received the most directions at 15—more if you include Gutzy Asia’s directions—stopped contesting some of the more recent orders not because it admitted to spreading falsehoods but because the legal process is too onerous and costly.

Because of the way the law is written, challenging a POFMA order is, in most cases, less about proving truth or falsehood but rather about how government ministers frame their statements as being false.

The “multiple meanings” rule taken to be the yardstick by which statements are judged under POFMA presents a huge challenge to anyone making a statement as it would imply that any statement has to take into account varied interpretations beyond the original intent of the statement maker. This legal quagmire deters even those with legitimate cases from fighting back.

A prime example is Terry Xu’s case, where he challenged a POFMA order issued by Minister of Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in 2023.

Despite Mr Shanmugam’s statement in parliament that no costs would be imposed on individuals who contest POFMA orders, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) tried to obtain legal costs from Xu.

The court ultimately rejected AGC’s claim and ordered the AGC to pay Xu S$2,500 in costs for the failed application.

This particular incident highlights the intimidating legal environment surrounding POFMA challenges, where even promises made in parliament appear to be disregarded by government agencies.

Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling that one must establish a prima facie case that the alleged falsehood is true (in other words, that the burden of proof falls on the person who has allegedly made the false statement rather than on the Minister), TOC also had to withdraw its appeal against the POFMA correction direction regarding Ho Ching’s salary after the AGC threatened to seek costs.

It would have been challenging for TOC to contest the case, as the claim originated from a Taiwanese media outlet, which TOC merely reported on. Notably, the Taiwanese media outlet itself was not issued a POFMA correction direction.

This situation highlights a double standard, where media reporting on the government’s claims is not required to verify their truthfulness, given that POFMA directions do not apply to statements made by the government.

It also exemplifies the apparent arbitrariness of the POFMA process, a point that may have been hinted at in the CNA article but was not explored in depth.

A Skewed Perspective on POFMA’s Application

The CNA article also skirts around the fact that POFMA disproportionately targets opposition figures, activists, and independent media outlets.

It briefly notes that nine out of fourteen POFMA cases in 2023 involved opposition members or political candidates but fails to explore the implications of this statistic.

Instead of engaging with the criticism that POFMA is used selectively to suppress dissent, the article repeats MinLaw’s assertion that the process is rigorous and impartial.

However, selective enforcement is a real concern.

For example, the repeated use of POFMA against opposition figures and activists raises questions about whether the law is being applied fairly as promised against threats to public safety or as a tool to stifle political opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

By failing to address these concerns, CNA’s article gives the impression that POFMA’s application is fair and just and above reproach, which does not align with the experiences of those who have been most affected by it.

The article also fails to address how POFMA directions have predominantly been issued by a particular minister and his ministries.

If POFMA were intended to address falsehoods more broadly, one would expect a more even distribution of applications across different ministries, rather than the clear disparity seen in the statistics. (refer to TOC’s documented directions here)

CNA’s Reporting Reflects the Limitations of State Media

CNA’s article on POFMA misses the opportunity to provide a balanced and transparent evaluation of the law’s impact.

Given that CNA is state-owned and funded by Temasek Holdings, its coverage is naturally aligned with the government’s narrative, which explains the lack of critical engagement with the law’s flaws and controversies.

Rather than providing a platform for meaningful debate, CNA’s reporting reinforces the government’s position on POFMA while excluding key voices from the conversation.

Moreover, the decision to limit the article’s visibility on social media raises concerns about CNA’s willingness to engage with public criticism in general.

Ultimately, CNA’s coverage reflects the broader limitations of state media in critically analyzing government policies.

By failing to engage with all relevant stakeholders and presenting a one-sided view of POFMA, CNA’s reporting risks becoming an echo chamber for official government positions, rather than a platform for balanced, independent journalism.

With the SPH Media Trust also coming under the government’s financial umbrella, Singaporeans are at risk of being deprived of critically important news analysis due to this dominance by a one-sided official narrative.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Undying Phoenix: TOC navigates regulatory restrictions with a revamped approach

Despite new regulations hindering operations, The Online Citizen Asia (TOC) views this as a chance to return to its roots, launching Gutzy Asia for Greater Asian news, while refocusing on Singapore. Inviting volunteer support, TOC’s commitment to truth and transparency remains unshakeable amidst these constraints.

Published

on

On 21 July 2023, the Ministry of Communications and Information, under the leadership of Minister Josephine Teo, declared The Online Citizen Asia’s (TOC) website and social media platforms as Declared Online Locations (DOL) according to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA).

This decision follows a series of alleged false statements propagated by TOC, with the most recent incident reported on 2 May.

Amidst a politically charged environment characterized by scandals involving the People’s Action Party and increasing public mistrust towards the ruling government, TOC will continue to operate, albeit under significant constraints, despite the regulatory restrictions imposed.

The DOL declaration mandates that TOC must carry a public notice on its online platforms, which indicates its alleged history of disseminating misinformation.

The POFMA Office, however, clarified that TOC can continue its operations, retaining its website and social media pages under stringent regulations, particularly concerning monetization.

According to Part 5 of the POFMA, TOC is prohibited from gaining financial or material benefits from its operations. Additionally, offering financial support to TOC is equally unlawful. For the next two years, TOC will be compelled to self-sustain, relying solely on its resources without any public backing.

It strikes TOC as notably ironic that the Singapore government, eager to stymie our operations to prevent the spread of “fake news”, simultaneously demonstrates a fervour to invest S$900 million of taxpayer funds into the SPH Media Trust, currently embroiled in a data misrepresentation scandal. This dichotomy indeed presents a masterclass in cognitive dissonance.

Despite these significant constraints, TOC views this as an opportunity to revert to its roots, replicating the enthusiasm and drive that characterized our operation following our establishment in 2006.

Our existing staff will transition to a new publication, Gutzy Asia, focusing on news from Greater Asia, while TOC will refocus on its primary subject, Singapore, hence dropping the Asia subtext.

In this transition, we invite volunteers passionate about journalism and holding power to account to join us in our mission. We also welcome contributions from Singapore’s political parties, offering them a platform to express their perspectives and provide updates.

While this change may result in a decrease in content volume and frequency, we assure our supporters that our commitment to truth and transparency remains steadfast. We are legally obliged not to seek financial aid, but we hope our supporters will provide us with manpower and information support.

We are resolute in our decision to continue TOC’s operations, standing in defiance against attempts to silence dissent through lawsuits and intimidating regulations. We are here to serve the people, and we will continue our mission with determination and resilience.

To keep up to date with the publication: Follow The Online Citizen via telegram (Gutzy Asia’s posts are included)

Continue Reading

Trending