And so here we are, the government doing loop-the-loop with Senior Minister Teo and CPIB producing reports on their investigations into Ridoutgate. Both reports came to the same conclusion there was no wrong doing by Ministers Vivian and Shan, and SLA, relating to the rental of government-owned bungalows at 26 and 31 Ridout Road. PAP members now have ‘third party’ reports to wave in parliamentary session in July when the issue will be discussed.
White sheep flocks to argumentum ad verecundiam (or argument from authority). Everything coming from government is Truth. These 2 ‘third party’ reports that vindicate SLA and the ministers suit them fine. Elites, like one local professor, thinks the negativities surrounding Ridoutgate is nothing but politics of envy. They think black sheep are all under Dunning-Kruger Effect. The reality is black sheep tend to be less trusting of officialdom, thus have natural tendency to do more critical thinking over the matter. Many black sheep have written from different angles, some out of frustration, some in anger, some very concerned about the way the moral compass of the PAP is quivering. Me, I’m a little white and a little black, several shades of gray most of the time.
The Swimming Pool:
URA has clarified the 25m swimming pool at 26 Ridout Road is considered a ‘minor work’ and thus no permit is required from them. One TOC (theonlinecitizen) correspondent Vincent Low wrote to rebut URA by showing chatGPT’s description of the amount of professional work and certification it entails suggesting the swimming pool is no doubt a major construction work.
This is a good example why one cannot be plain black or white. Everything is contextual. What URA meant was a swimming pool is not work affecting the conserved building itself and these are classified as ‘minor works’ for which no permit is required from their office. A 25m swimming pool would obviously still need approvals and certification from BCA and other health agencies as normal.
URA Permits are required for:
(1) Alterations and Additions’ - there are 3 categories, all relate to the conserved building itself.
(2) Minor Development – there are several specified minor works, swimming pool is NOT included in the list shown in their website.
Swimming pool is actually not mentioned at all. The question then is, does it’s omission mean it is automatically allowed, no URA permit needed? Or is it a case of simply making up as we go along?
According to URA, they observe the “3R” Principle for Conservation, namely Maximum Retention, Sensitive Restoration and Careful Repair. General idea is to “retain the inherent spirit and original ambience of these historic buildings”. The question is does a swimming pool impact the ambience of the place. And the test is, has there been any pools built at B&W bungalows before?
The list of available units:
CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses, and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions.
People interested in renting B&W bungalows either see the ‘For Lease’ sign at the gates, or at the government online tender portal. Vivian’s wife saw the sign board for 31 Ridout Road. House 31 was also listed in the online portal. House 26 was not listed, the reason being SLA wants to avoid 'cannibalising' their potential bidders.
So how did Minister Shan chance upon house 26? He approached the Dy Secretary of the Ministry of Law for a list of available units and was obediently provided one. For all intents and purposes, this is tantamount to insider trading. It is an in-your-face lie by CPIB to report “no disclosure of privileged information”.
The additional plot of land:
CPIB discovered that there was a lack of precision in SLA’s use of the term “Guide Rent” with respect to 26 Ridout Road State property.
SLA had mentioned that Shan had bidded above “Guide Rent” which was originally $24,500 and Shan bidded $26,500. SLA was not wrong in this regards.
An adjacent plot of land of about 14,000 sq mtr was an issue for Shan. The wild vegetation poses threats of mosquitoes and snakes. Shan proposed to foot the bill personally for maintenance of the land at $25,000 annually. To accommodate the minister, the plot was ‘annexed’ to House 26 increasing its total size to 23,000 sq mtr. URA bore the cost of clearing the vegetation and constructing the fence for $172,000. Kind of like land alienation in reverse. For this additional cost, the rent was increased by $2,000 to $26,500.
For this change in rent, CPIB had to harness the agency’s intelligentsia to come up with a politically acceptable explanation for the difference in ‘guide rent’, at time of bidding ($24,500) and post-bid adjusted rent ($26,500), was just “a lack of precision” by URA.
On the contrary, there was fantastic precision by URA to be able to come up with a post-bid revised ‘guide rent’ that was exactly what Minister Shan bidded. One dollar more and his bid could be disqualified.
Any fool with a modicum of gray matter can see the hogwash on full display.
By the way, did you notice the attempt to downplay the additional plot of land by referring it to ‘sloped land’. Its just a useless piece of slope, never mind that it forms 60% of the redefined land area.
If Shan dislikes the wild vegetation and fears mosquitoes and snakes, he should perhaps go get an apartment in Nathan Mansion. Not sure if special discounts are still available. Almost all tenants of these government-owned B&W bungalows are nature lovers who love the lay of the land in its raw nakedness. Nature lovers can never understand, nor forgive, the need to chop down all those mature trees.
The question of whether there was preferential treatment can be easily answered by URA showing in the last 52 years since the British left us those bungalows, how many times have there been redefining of land to placate a tenant?
One thing for sure Singaporeans are very grateful the forest reserves of MacRitchie Reservoir is not adjacent to the mighty Minister Shan’s house.
Essential Restoration and Maintenance works by URA:
All-in, URA spent $570,500 on House 31 and $515,400 on House 26. I would avoid discussing the dollars and sense of the outlay which is an operational decision. Suffice to say maintenance is necessary to extend the economic life of the assets far beyond the tenancies of the ministers.
However, in trying to pry into whether there was preferential treatment, I would again apply the test of precedents. How many times in past 52 years has URA spent half a million dollars on maintenance of B&W bungalows after a tender was accepted?
The fact both the houses were not tenanted out the last 4 years probably speaks to its state of maintenance. This in turn speaks for the massive maintenance put up by URA. It then begets the question. Had the essential works been carried out before the ministers' bids, would more bids be received from the public and at much better prices? One never knows, and therein lies the ministers' benefits and protests of unfair treatment.
Many have knee jerk shock reaction at the rentals in relation to the massive land area of the 2 bungalows and cry foul. As to whether the rent is fair market value, I leave it to others with better expertise. What I know, which many seems to forget, is rental value is solely a market dictate. Whilst size matters, it is never the sole factor.
I am very annoyed by juvenile online comments I came across from white sheep who take the view the bungalows were unlettable and had been vacant for many years. Because of the ministers, the properties are now rented out and earning returns for the government. They simply cannot see the special benefits the ministers enjoyed.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like
blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the
button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs
there. Thanks.