Connect with us

Editorial

No net increase in Singapore’s Past Reserves, even if land sold at market value, was bought at 30 cents per square ft in 1979?

Published

2 years ago

on

SINGAPORE — Former GIC Chief-economist Yeoh Lam Keong and The Online Citizen Asia (TOC) were served with POFMA Correction Directions notice on Friday (14 Oct) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act as directed by the Minister of National Development, Desmond Lee.

In one of the notices addressed at TOC’s article, ”Singapore’s reserves substantially profits from $500m land sales in AMK BTO” and social media posts, the government said that TOC has falsely conveyed that the government’s sale of land to Housing Development Board for the Central Weave @ Ang Mo Kio Build-To-Order (BTO) project will lead to an increase in Singapore’s reserves.

“When HDB requires land to develop flats, the land has to be taken out of the Past Reserves. HDB has to purchase the land by paying fair market value for the land, and the money goes into the Past Reserves. The estimated land cost for Central Weave @ AMK is about $500 million,” the statement said.

“If the Government arbitrarily prices the land below its fair market value, such as at the historical price that past Governments had paid to acquire the land, or at just a nominal $1, then it is not putting back fully what it has taken out from Past Reserves. This is equivalent to drawing down the Reserves…”

Indeed, past historical prices of land which were acquired by past People’s Action Party (PAP) Governments were much lower than their present fair market value. Many of these land were acquired compulsorily from Singaporeans at very low monetary value.

Take for example, the land at Bishan was acquired from Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng temple through a compulsory acquisition by past PAP Government.

We know this from an article written by Mr Lim Chin Joo who was the lawyer acting on behalf of the 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, ST). 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. When the land acquisition gazette notification finally came in the late 70s, the clansmen were saddened by the news and appointed Mr Lim as their legal adviser.

After much negotiations, the government was only willing to pay a paltry S$4.9 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,” Mr Lim recalled.

“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.

Whatever the case, the government at the time acquired the Bishan land on the cheap at 30 cents per square foot in 1979. Perhaps the government can help Singaporeans to understand how this deal translate to our Past Reserves?

On another note, the HDB BTO estate that was launched in 2020, Bishan Ridges, has 1,502 units and sells a 4-room flat at about S$555 per square foot.

In any case, the government has required TOC and Mr Yeoh to put up the POFMA correction notice, with the clarification article saying:

“Neither the Government nor the Past Reserves profit from land sales. When State land is disposed of at fair market value, there is no addition to the Past Reserves but a conversion of one type of asset (land) to another (cash).”

“For the Central Weave @ AMK BTO project, HDB will pay the Government fair market value for the land, estimated to be about $500 million. This money will be paid into the Past Reserves, but does not result in a net increase in the Past Reserves.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
2 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

1 year ago

on

31 July 2023

By

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

Editorial

Shanmugam, Balakrishnan, and the Code of Conduct: A Demand for Straight Answers

Editorial: Amid the recent controversy involving Singaporean ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the tenancy of two state properties, serious questions have surfaced about potential breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Despite being renowned for high standards of governance, the lack of a clear response from the ministers themselves and the decision to pass the issue to a review committee chaired by a fellow party member has raised eyebrows. The crucial question remains: does leasing property from the Singapore Land Authority, an organization overseen by the minister in question, breach the Code of Conduct?

Published

1 year ago

on

23 May 2023

By

In a country renowned for its high standards of governance, the recent controversy surrounding the tenancy of two state properties by Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has raised some perplexing questions.

Both ministers, tasked with the important responsibility of upholding the integrity of Singapore’s laws and foreign affairs, respectively, find themselves under scrutiny following allegations of a potential breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Mr Shanmugam claimed in his statement on Tuesday (23 May) to have “nothing to hide” and encouraged questions.

However, the irony is palpable when we consider the simple question that remains unanswered: Does leasing from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), an organization he oversees, breach the Ministerial Code of Conduct?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to initiate a review is commendable and necessary to maintain the high standards of integrity that are a cornerstone of the Singapore government.

However, having a fellow People’s Action Party Senior Minister, Teo Chee Hean, chair the review does raise some questions. Furthermore, it remains puzzling why a straightforward answer isn’t forthcoming from the ministers implicated in this issue.

Under Section 3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it’s stipulated that a Minister must avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.

While we should refrain from jumping to conclusions before the review concludes, the public certainly has the right to question whether a Minister leasing public property could conceivably conflict with his public duty.

This predicament reflects an unprecedented evasion of responsibility, particularly from Mr Shanmugam, who has been vocal in demanding clear and direct responses from political opponents.

Now that the tables have turned, the nation awaits his clear and direct answer – does leasing the property at 26 Ridout Road contravene the Code of Conduct for ministers?

Instead of a straightforward response, we see the matter deferred to a review committee and promises of addressing the issue in Parliament, where the ruling People’s Action Party holds a supermajority. This is far from the accountability and directness we expect from a Minister, especially one overseeing Law and Home Affairs.

The question is simple and direct, yet the absence of a clear answer has inevitably raised eyebrows and triggered skepticism about our leaders’ transparency and accountability. It is incumbent upon Mr Shanmugam and Mr Balakrishnan to clear the air and restore public confidence by providing a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.

Do the two ministers not think that the average person will likely perceive a conflict of interest when ministers rent from a government agency under the Law Minister’s purview? Once such a perception exists, how can there be no breach of Clause 3 of the Ministerial Code?

Clause 3, analogous to the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, requires a Minister to avoid actual conflict of interest and apparent or perceived conflict of interest.

Parliamentary privilege and safe environments shouldn’t be an excuse for evading direct answers. Singaporeans deserve more than opaque explanations and bureaucratic deferrals; they deserve straightforward, honest responses from their public servants. This is a matter of trust, transparency, and, above all, integrity.

If there’s anything the public can perceive from the actions of the ministers so far, it’s how out of touch they appear to be with common folks – both in the matter of principle and the need for accountability – from atop their massive ivory towers on Ridout Road.

Continue Reading

Trending