Connect with us

Singapore

PUB contests Tan Kin Lian’s “for free” claim despite zero-cost takeover of Tuaspring desalination plant

The Public Utilities Board (PUB) issued a correction to Tan Kin Lian, disputing his comment that PUB took over the Tuaspring Desalination Plant “for free.” PUB clarified the plant’s negative value, though its zero-cost acquisition and waived compensation arguably left Hyflux investors with less to recover from.

Published

on

The Public Utilities Board (PUB) has issued a correction notice to former NTUC CEO and presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian, disputing claims made in his 28 September 2023 Facebook post regarding PUB’s takeover of the Tuaspring Desalination Plant, previously owned by Hyflux.

In his post, Tan commented that PUB took over the Tuaspring Desalination Plant “for free, at the expense of the investors and bondholders of Hyflux,” and incorrectly stated that the Tuas NEWater Factory was located at the same site as the Tuaspring plant. These comments prompted PUB to issue a public correction on 29 September.

PUB disputed Tan’s characterization of the acquisition, emphasizing that it did not take over the plant “for free.”

The agency clarified that the plant’s purchase price was determined by an independent valuation, which concluded that the asset had a negative value.

This assessment was shared in Parliament by then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Masagos Zulkifli, in April 2019, where it was disclosed that the cost to keep the plant operational exceeded its worth.

Given Hyflux’s precarious financial state, PUB waived a compensation sum owed by Tuaspring Pte Ltd (TPL), Hyflux’s subsidiary, to ensure Singapore’s water security was maintained.

However, while PUB’s statement highlights factual inaccuracies, some of Tan’s assertions may carry weight given the circumstances of the takeover and Hyflux’s financial collapse.

The plant was indeed taken over for zero dollars, with PUB waiving compensation from TPL.

The waiver, while justified by PUB as a necessity to safeguard water operations, still meant that Hyflux’s creditors, including 34,000 perpetual securities and preference shareholders owed approximately $900 million, were left empty-handed from the sale of the water plant.

This outcome arguably made the recovery of financial losses less possible for retail investors who had placed their faith in the once-renowned water management firm.

PUB’s statement further explained that its actions did not weaken Hyflux or exacerbate the situation for bondholders.

However, the broader context reveals that Hyflux’s collapse, largely due to mounting debts and mismanagement, severely impacted its investors, many of whom were left with substantial losses.

Whether PUB’s actions could have been different is a matter of debate, as Tan’s criticism reflects the frustration of retail investors who felt sidelined during Hyflux’s downfall.

PUB’s role in the saga, while arguably pragmatic in its handling of the desalination plant, does not address the broader financial disaster that affected Hyflux’s stakeholders.

In addition to the financial aspect, Tan’s post also inaccurately stated that the Tuas NEWater Factory and the Tuaspring Desalination Plant were located at the same site.

PUB corrected this by clarifying that the two facilities are situated 6km apart, with the NEWater Factory focusing on producing reclaimed water and the Tuaspring facility, now renamed Tuas South Desalination Plant, continuing to produce desalinated water. This technical error in Tan’s post does not detract from the underlying critique regarding how the takeover impacted Hyflux’s investors.

PUB’s public correction seems aimed at ensuring accuracy in public discourse, but it also raises questions about how much responsibility the agency bears in managing the aftermath of Hyflux’s collapse.

As of 10 a.m. on the morning after PUB’s response, Tan had not yet amended his post, and there was no correction direction issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Hyflux once celebrated as a pioneering water technology firm, was ultimately brought down by financial mismanagement, with it taking on too much debt.

The Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant, developed at a cost of S$1.05 billion, became a symbol of Hyflux’s downfall when the company failed to keep the plant operational, prompting PUB to take over the desalination facility in 2019.

In June 2022, Malaysia-based YTL Power International purchased the power plant assets of the Tuaspring facility for S$270 million. With PUB having already taken over the desalination plant at no cost, this acquisition of only the power plant further frustrated Hyflux investors, who believed the assets could have helped recover some of their losses.

While PUB took over the desalination plant to ensure water security, Hyflux’s investors were left with little to recover. Although the takeover may have been necessary for national interests, the financial consequences left many feeling betrayed.

Continue Reading
8 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
8 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