'Leave my family alone': Shanmugam denies allegations that son's firm renovated Ridout Road bungalows
SINGAPORE: Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam denied on Monday (Jul 3) online allegations that his son was awarded government contracts to renovate a bungalow that he had rented, warning people criticising him to “leave his family alone”.
Mr Shanmugam was addressing a question by Ms Nadia Samdin (PAP - Ang Mo Kio) during the debate on the renting out of two Ridout Road black-and-white bungalows, which are state properties, to himself and to Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
Before 26 Ridout Road was rented to Mr Shanmugam, Singapore Land Authority (SLA) had done preparatory works costing S$515,400 to make the residence liveable. It also cost SLA S$570,500 to restore 31 Ridout Road, which was rented by Mr Balakrishnan's family.
Ms Nadia had asked how the SLA scopes and awards contracts for the maintenance of black-and-white bungalows and for preparatory works on the two bungalows rented by the ministers.
She asked in particular if the minister can address allegations that a contract for works on the properties was awarded to Livspace, which Mr Shanmugam’s son heads as CEO. Mr Ravindran Shanmugam is listed as the Southeast Asian CEO of Livspace on LinkedIn.
The claims had been published in a blog post by opposition politician and Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam.
“My son tells me that his company does not have any contracts with SLA, nor did they do any work on the Ridout properties for SLA. You get these utterly false and defamatory statements. Do these people really believe that CPIB would not have found this out if it were true?” said Mr Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday.
“I say to these people: You want to come after me, you come after me. I am perfectly capable of defending myself and they will find out that I will defend myself. But leave my family alone.”
Related:
Before this, Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had clarified that Livspace was not an appointed contractor of SLA and, nor does the company have any transactions with SLA.
He also explained that, in general, an external consultant is engaged to study the state of such properties with regard to the conservation guidelines, and to recommend what works need to be carried out. Mr Tong said that the works were carried out by a separate contractor which was appointed through open tender.
“The suggestion that Minister Shanmugam’s son or his company Livspace was appointed - and I think the sting of these allegations is that there’s a preference given to this - is completely scurrilous and unwarranted,” said Mr Tong. “There is no basis to suggest that for both 26 and 31.”
Mr Shanmugam also said that there were many untruths circulated about him and the renting of 26 Ridout Road, and this was “inevitable” as he was a political figure and “obviously a target”. But some try and make things difficult for politicians’ family members by putting out false information, he added.
“This is how some conduct politics,” said Mr Shanmugam.
Livspace later sent an official statement to the media, calling the allegations that the company has obtained contracts from SLA and has done work for SLA on properties on Ridout Road "completely false and baseless".
"Livspace has not undertaken any project or work whatsoever at any of the properties based on Ridout Road - neither for SLA, nor for homeowners, nor for tenants. Livspace has no contracts with SLA (and Livspace has never been engaged by SLA to do any work)," the statement said.
"PUBLIC INFORMATION"
Earlier, the minister also spoke about why he went to the then-deputy secretary of the Ministry of Law to get a list of a few properties available to the public to rent back in January 2017.
This was in response to a question by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (PAP - Potong Pasir) who had asked if it was appropriate for Mr Shanmugam to ask for this list, although the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had found that there was no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, who led a review into the transactions, said that the CPIB had looked into the matter and found no evidence of any abuse of position for personal gain.
“Which state properties are available for rent is public information,” said Mr Teo. Such lists are available to credible prospective tenants if they ask for them from the SLA or the managing agents (MA) for the properties, even those not listed online, he added.
“This is not privileged information. The SLA or the MAs have received inquiries from ambassadors, company executives, professionals to rent state properties. And SLA provides the information to companies too.”
Mr Shanmugam also clarified that he could have approached SLA directly for the information but he asked the deputy secretary so that the Ministry of Law would be informed of the potential transaction and there would be “total transparency”.
“Instead of asking SLA directly, he will usually let the permanent secretary know and as senior admin service officers, he and the permanent secretary will be able to go beyond me and report to the head of civil service or the Prime Minister if they felt that anything needed to be brought up to that level,” said Mr Shanmugam.
“So I believed it was better to ask him rather than ask SLA directly,” he added.
On further questioning on this point, Mr Teo said that the key issue was that there was no privileged information that Mr Shanmugam was seeking to obtain.
“Minister Shanmugam explained in his own terms why he decided to approach the deputy secretary. Because he was doing this in an open, transparent way, to tell his ministry, I am doing this. There is no secret about it,” he said.
The minister could have got an agent to get the information from SLA, and then the SLA could have found out later that it was the minister who asked for the information, said Mr Teo.
“Is that better or is that worse? I think it’s a judgment call. And in this case I think the minister told his ministry and was quite open and transparent about it.”