Bloomberg: Nearly half of 2024 GCB transactions lack public record, raising transparency concerns

CORRECTION NOTICE: This post communicates false statements of fact. For the correct facts, visit: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually231224

Singapore’s exclusive Good Class Bungalow (GCB) market, increasingly defined by secrecy and the use of trusts, is at the centre of a growing debate over transparency.

Recent revelations about high-profile transactions involving lawmakers have added an ironic twist to the situation, with those tasked to uphold transparency partaking in opaque dealings.

High-Profile Transactions and Public Scrutiny

Bloomberg recently reported that Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng purchased a GCB in Brizay Park in 2023 for S$27.3 million.

However, despite The Online Citizen’s (TOC) search of the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Private Residential Property Transactions database and other online sources, no public records of the transaction could be found aside from Bloomberg’s revelation.

This isn’t Dr Tan’s first foray into the GCB market. In 2016, The Business Times reported that he acquired a GCB along Peirce Road for nearly S$24 million while serving as managing director and CEO of IHH Healthcare Bhd.

Minister K Shanmugam transferred Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million

Meanwhile, TOC highlighted an earlier transaction involving Law Minister K Shanmugam.

In August 2023, the minister sold a GCB in Queen Astrid Park for S$88 million.

This transaction, facilitated through a trust known as Jasmine Villa Settlement, left the identity of its ultimate beneficiary undisclosed.

Despite the significant scale of this sale, mainstream Singapore media has yet to report on it.

These developments exemplify the growing trend of using trusts to obscure ownership details in the GCB market.

Transparency Concerns in the GCB Market

Bloomberg notes that nearly half of GCB transactions in 2024 lacked property caveats, legal filings that record ownership and ensure transparency.

This trend allows buyers to keep transactions hidden from public scrutiny, raising concerns about oversight in the high-value property market.

The involvement of lawmakers in such opaque dealings raises questions about transparency and accountability.

Critics argue that participation in transactions that exploit legal mechanisms for privacy stands in contrast to the values of openness and fairness these officials are expected to uphold.

Alan Cheong, a research executive at Savills, warned, “The fallout from public perception is much worse than the actual problem.”

The irony is stark: policymakers responsible for overseeing regulations are part of the system that enables such opacity.

Opposition leader Chee Soon Juan has questioned how valuations and disclosures are handled in high-profile property sales, pointing out potential conflicts of interest.

While the use of trusts is legal and not inherently unethical, the lack of mandatory disclosure rules fuels scepticism.

Singapore imposes a 65% tax on residential property purchases through trusts, payable upfront in cash, but enforcement challenges persist given the secrecy surrounding beneficiaries.

The broader implications of this trend extend beyond lawmakers.

The GCB market, already inaccessible to most Singaporeans—nearly 80% of whom live in public housing—is increasingly favoured by wealthy migrants and the ultra-rich.

This exclusivity has pushed GCB median prices to about S$36 million in 2024, nearly doubling since 2019.

For Singapore, renowned for its governance and transparency, the intertwining of political figures with opaque real estate practices underscores the need for stronger safeguards.

The dual revelations of Minister Tan’s purchase and Minister Shanmugam’s sale illustrate the urgency of addressing secrecy in this elite property sector to preserve public trust.