Connect with us

Singapore

Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy

In August 2023, Minister K Shanmugam transferred ownership of his Good Class Bungalow at 6 Astrid Hill for S$88 million. This transfer followed shortly after his parliamentary address, where he addressed questions about his rental of the state-owned Ridout Road property.

Published

on

In August 2023, records from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) revealed that Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, transferred ownership of his Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 6 Astrid Hill to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd, for a staggering S$88,000,000.

UBS Trustees, acting as a trustee for The Jasmine Villa Settlement, is a trust company licensed under the Trust Companies Act 2005.

The transaction was facilitated by Ms Ho Sheau Farn on behalf of UBS Trustees and Mr Ho Kin San representing Mr Shanmugam, both lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, the law firm where Mr Shanmugam previously practised.

The property, spanning 3,170.7 square meters, was originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in December 2003 for S$7,950,000, reflecting a significant increase in value over two decades. Located in District 10, which is commonly associated with Singapore’s most affluent residential estates, the property’s value aligns with the area’s reputation for high-end luxury homes and prime real estate.

S$150 Million Total Cost for UBS Trustees Property Transfer

The transfer of the property valued at S$88,000,000 to UBS Trustees would involve significant stamp duties. Based on current buyer’s stamp duty (BSD) rates, the BSD alone amounts to S$5,219,600.

Additionally, given the 65% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) applicable for such transactions, UBS Trustees would have to pay an additional S$57,200,000. In total, the transfer would require UBS Trustees to pay a staggering S$150,419,600, including the property price, BSD, and ABSD.

However, UBS Trustees may also be eligible to seek a remission of the 65% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) under certain conditions.

If the property is held in trust for identifiable individual beneficiaries, part or all of the ABSD (Trust) paid could be refunded. The amount refunded would depend on the difference between the 65% ABSD (Trust) paid and the ABSD applicable based on the highest profile of the individual beneficiaries.

To qualify for this remission, the application must be submitted within six months of the transfer’s execution, and the beneficiaries must meet strict criteria.

For instance, beneficiaries must be explicitly named in the declaration of trust and must have irrevocable beneficial ownership of the property. The remission process does not apply to individuals with contingent or discretionary interests, or those entitled only to income from the property.

It is unclear whether UBS Trustees applied for or was granted any remission of the 65% ABSD under the outlined conditions.

Despite the high-value transaction, the transfer between Mr Shanmugam and UBS Trustees did not appear in the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Private Residential Property Transactions database and was not reported by property market monitors, possibly due to the nature of the transaction involving a transfer to a trust.

Such trust arrangements are commonly used for asset management and estate planning purposes, though they can raise questions about the tax implications of transferring high-value properties through these structures.

According to available records, the mortgage on the property was fully paid off by Mr Shanmugam by the end of 2008. Notably, no mortgage was taken by UBS Trustees following the transfer, which suggests that the payment for the property may have been made in cash.

Sale of GCB following explanation by Minister of his Ridout Road rental

This transfer came just weeks after Mr Shanmugam’s ministerial statement in July 2023, where he addressed concerns raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) regarding his rental of the state-owned property at 26 Ridout Road, a black-and-white colonial bungalow leased from the SLA.

MPs questioned his decision to rent the property, seeking details about the rental price, the size of the land, and any potential conflicts of interest, particularly as Mr Shanmugam, in his capacity as Minister for Law, oversees the SLA, which manages these properties.

In his statement, Mr Shanmugam explained that as he approached his 60s in 2016, he reviewed his finances and realized that too much of his savings were tied up in his family home.  As a result, he put the property on the market and moved into a rental home.

“I did not consider selling my own home because of financial need,” he emphasized, explaining that his decision was based on prudent financial planning. He also clarified that while he rented 26 Ridout Road, he was renting out his family home but was not profiting after factoring in property taxes and other expenses.

The fact that Mr Shanmugam transferred his home for S$88 million after expressing concerns about his financial situation raises questions about how much of his savings were truly tied up in the property, considering the substantial value of the transfer. However, it is important to note that the transfer occurred in August 2023, after his ministerial statement in July, meaning his remarks were accurate at the time.

Regarding the Ridout Road property, which Mr Shanmugam rented for S$26,500 per month, the land size increased from 9,350 square meters to 23,164 square meters—significantly larger than the 3,170.7 square meters of the Astrid Hill GCB that he transferred to UBS Trustees.

This expansion was a result of negotiations between Mr Shanmugam and SLA.

According to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s independent investigation, Mr Shanmugam initially offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost if SLA cleared the vegetation. However, he preferred to exclude the land from his tenancy, as including it would impose legal obligations on him, such as responsibility for mosquito breeding or other maintenance issues.

SLA, on the other hand, preferred to include the adjacent land within the property boundary to ensure that the tenant bore responsibility for its maintenance and legal obligations. SLA negotiated an agreement with Mr Shanmugam in which the adjacent land was included within the property boundary, and the tenant was made responsible for maintaining it. This arrangement was said to ensure that the legal responsibilities were clear, with the tenant assuming both the cost and the liability.

Given Mr Shanmugam’s role overseeing the SLA, concerns about a potential conflict of interest were raised. However, in a parliamentary statement delivered by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in July 2023, it was clarified that Mr Shanmugam had recused himself from the decision-making process.

SM Teo stated:

“Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process entirely… CPIB established that there was no matter raised by SLA to MinLaw [Ministry of Law] and hence, to any of the Ministers during the entire rental process.”

SM Teo also noted that the Chief Executive of SLA had declared in March 2018  to the then Permanent Secretary of MinLaw that the rental process for 26 Ridout Road was carried out properly and that the rental price was in line with market rates, as assessed by SLA valuers.

Mr Shamugam’s wife, Mrs Shanmugam, signed the Tenancy Agreement for 26 Ridout Road in June 2018, with a lease term of 3+3+3 years. After the first three-year term, the tenancy was renewed in 2021, with the rent maintained at S$26,500 per month, in line with market conditions as determined by SLA.

The Online Citizen has reached out to Mr Shanmugam for comments on the transfer of his property. As of the time of publication, no response has been received. Should further remarks be provided, this article will be updated accordingly.

Continue Reading
36 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
36 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Singapore

Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng to be charged for abetting graft and obstructing justice

Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng is expected to face charges on 4 October, 2024, linked to abetting graft and obstructing justice. Ong’s case is connected to former transport minister S Iswaran, who was recently sentenced to one year in jail. Iswaran had obtained over S$400,000 worth of gifts from Ong.

Published

on

Property tycoon and hotelier Ong Beng Seng is set to face charges on Friday (4 October), according to Channel News Asia, citing Singapore court records.

Ong is expected to be charged with abetting one count each under Section 165 and Section 204A of Singapore’s Penal Code.

Section 165 pertains to a public servant obtaining valuables from individuals with whom they have an official relationship, while Section 204A deals with obstructing justice.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha. These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165. Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong. The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022. CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight. Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

In addition to Ong, construction tycoon Lum Kok Seng was also linked to the additional charges filed against Iswaran in March this year.

Iswaran, who became transport minister in 2021, admitted to accepting valuable items worth approximately S$19,000 from Lum, including a Brompton bicycle, luxury wines, and golf equipment. However, no charges have been publicly announced against Lum.

This is not the first time Ong has found himself embroiled in controversy.

The 1990s saw questions over luxury condominium units sold by his company to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son. The units, part of the Nassim Jade and Scotts 28 condominiums, were allegedly sold at special discounts.

This raised eyebrows due to Ong’s familial links with the Lees – his uncle, Lee Suan Yew, was a director at HPL. Although then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong cleared the Lees of any wrongdoing in 1996, the incident has remained a notable mark on Ong’s business record.

Furthermore, an investigative report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project in 2018 revealed allegations of corruption involving Ong in the leasing of two islands in the Maldives.

The report suggested that HPL had sidestepped Maldivian laws requiring public tender for island leases, instead conducting direct negotiations with Maldivian officials.

It was also alleged that a US$5 million payment made for the lease of Fohtheyo island had been siphoned off through a company associated with friends of the then Maldivian Vice President Ahmed Adeeb. Ong did not respond to these allegations.

Ong, who is the founder of the Singapore-based organization Hotel Properties and a shareholder in many businesses, has a net worth of S$1.7 billion.

Together with his wife Christina, they ranked No. 25 on Forbes’ Singapore’s 50 Richest list, which was published in August 2022.

Continue Reading

Comments

Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. In a video message, he expressed scepticism about the push for population growth, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.

Published

on

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.

In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.

He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.

Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people

Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.

“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”

Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth

In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.

He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.

In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.

With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.

The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.

Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.

He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.

“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”

“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”

Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion

Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.

He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.

He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.

This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.

Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success

Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.

He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.

Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.

He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.

He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.

Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.

He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.

He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.

Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.

Continue Reading

Trending