Supreme House on Penang Road was one of the first commercial project of the URA's inner city redevelopment plans of the 1960s. Supreme Holdings Pte Ltd spent S$16m on the development which was opened in 1971.The older generation folks will remember the Skillets Coffee House which was a very popular place to hang around back then when we were the young ones.
In 1989 Supreme Holdings sold the building to Wingtai Holdings for $168mm. Wingtai spent millions on retrofitting and re-opened it in 1992 as a mall for fashion goods. The building name was changed to Park Mall as more fitting for its fashion branding focus.
The business slided and needed a revamp. Wingtai then refocused on the furniture market. Park Mall became the go to place for furniture. The change of retailers was a good move. Soon tenancy stabilised. In 2005 Wingtai sold the building to the bigger boys Suntec REIT for S$230m. In turn, Suntec sold the building in 2015 to a joint venture (Suntec + Singhaiyi) for S$411m for redevelopment into an office building.
Local fashion brand tenants come and go and the fashion project bombed which prompted Wingtai to refocus in 1995 on furniture retailing. Tenancy rates went up and Wingtai hit their financial targets. Wingtai went on to greater things and left tax payers without a clue they had been blood-sucked by leeches sponsored by the government.
Now that you are aware Wingtai got a S$40m grant, how do you feel about the Business Times headline above? Seems like fake news existed a long long time ago.
That is the problem when bureaucrats try to play businessmen. What kind of plans went into the local fashion centre project? If it failed, what were the lessons learnt? I don't recall any public discourse over the matter. Our ministries are populated by extremely highly paid people who has exceptional acumen. Surely they cannot blow S$40m in 3 years without any post-mortem or accountability?
The question that needed to be raised, inside and outside parliament, is why was Wingtai given that special privilege? As far as grants go, should there not be a regime of competition so the best ideas win? Why was Wingtai singled out to be the recipient of the grant?
Wingtai started off in the garment industry as Wing Tai Garment Manufactory producing jeans in Hongkong in the 1950s. Certain production shifted to Singapore in the 1960s. Back then, they were already blessed, being the only company that was allowed to bring in foreign workers to do the sewing work at the factory. Wingtai has since come a long way. It is now under 2nd generation leadership and the current head of the family, Mr Cheng Wai Cheung. recently won further fame as the seller of the most expensive bungalow in Singapore. His home in Nassim Road that has been on the market for 6 years, was sold for S$230m.
Whilst I want to raise awareness that something seems amiss regarding the S$40m grant to Wingtai, I have to pass fair comment that from all accounts, the Chengs seem to have been pretty good employers.
**********
2 comments:
The project to make Park Mall as the flag bearer of Made in Singapore retail goods showcase was funded by Economic Development Board. Two pertinent questions that need serious answers - (1) Why was Wing Tai Group singled out to benefit from this state funded iniative. We're other candidates or commercial buildings considered before the decision to blue eye Wing Tai Group? (2) More importantly, did Wing Tai Group already knew that they would be funded in this government funded project which was the reason for their interest in purchasing the building. The point is, was the seller aware that they were selling the building to a buyer who already had information that the government was going to fund a renovation project committed to showcase local products, the knowledge of which could have made them withhold the sale.
The US has it's lobbyists, China their Guanxi (whatever that means, the end word for the connection is CCP), Singapore has Papies and Familees.
In a murky and non-transparent process, 'Grant' is a sanitised word for entitlement and impunity. As the articled pointed out, where is the competitive bidding.
Post a Comment