Why the silence by Minister Shanmugam on his S$88 million property sale?

When it comes to addressing allegations, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, has shown he can respond swiftly and decisively, as seen in his and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's rapid legal actions against Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) for defamation, as well as their recent rebuttal to LHY's statement regarding the defamation costs paid to the two ministers. However, the stark contrast in how Mr. Shanmugam has handled recent revelations about his own financial dealings, and his silence regarding the S$88 million sale of a Good Class Bungalow (GCB), is puzzling and raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest. TOC had earlier disclosed that Mr Shanmugam sold his GCB at 6 Astrid Hill for a staggering S$88 million in August 2023. The sale was to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd, a transaction managed by legal professionals from his former law firm and concluded without any encumbrances like a mortgage. This deal turned a home bought for S$7.95 million into an S$88 million sale—garnering a massive profit. This sale was made just a month after he made his ministerial statement explaining the circumstances of his leasing of the massive black-and-white bungalow estate at 26 Ridout Road from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a statutory board that he oversees as the Minister for Law. This transaction, particularly the identity of the buyer and the approval process for such a high-value sale, is of public interest because GCBs are subject to stringent sale conditions. They are generally only sold to Singaporeans or approved Permanent Residents who have made significant economic contributions to Singapore. The approval for such transactions typically comes from the SLA. This raises an inherent question: Why has Mr Shanmugam not addressed the public regarding this substantial financial transaction, especially when such approvals could potentially involve his direct oversight? We have written to him for his comments but were met with silence. We do not know who the actual beneficiaries of the property are, as it was sold to 'The Jasmine Villa Settlement,' a trust managed by UBS Trustees. The beneficiaries could be Singaporeans, foreigners, or a mix of both. His silence is notable because it contrasts sharply with his and other ministers' rapid responses to allegations made by LHY. The potential conflict of interest in the sale of the minister's GCB is similar to earlier concerns about his rental of a black-and-white property at 26 Ridout Road, which also involved the SLA from which he has said to have recused himself from decisions made. Notably, the government has also cleared him of any wrongdoing. The lack of public commentary from Mr Shanmugam about the sale of his GCB, despite the potential need for SLA’s approval, and the silence from the mainstream media on this revelation, merit scrutiny. The public deserves to know:

• Who was the buyer and, if the buyer is a non-Singaporean, who approved the sale to UBS Trustees and under what criteria? Especially since GCBs can only be sold to Singaporeans or Permanent Residents who have not only been resident in Singapore for over five years but have also made exceptional economic contributions—a criterion subject to the subjective approval of the authorities.
• Was there any conflict of interest given the minister's role over the SLA? This is particularly pertinent given that the SLA, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Law, would typically be involved in approving such transactions if the buyer does not meet the usual criteria. Moreover, given the huge sum involved in the transaction, extra scrutiny is warranted, especially as Mr. Shanmugam is a public servant holding significant power.
• Why has there been no public statement from Minister Shanmugam on this matter, especially given the rapid response to defamation accusations? His silence contrasts sharply with his prompt responses to other public issues, raising questions about consistency and transparency in handling personal financial dealings versus public allegations.

Minister Shanmugam’s transparency in this matter would reaffirm public trust and ensure that his actions as a minister do not conflict with his personal financial dealings. His response, or lack thereof, will significantly influence public perception of his commitment to transparency and accountability in his official capacities.