Ridout Road properties: ‘Thorough, meaningful’ debate and full transparency needed, say political analysts

SINGAPORE: Ahead of next week's parliament sitting, political observers said a “thorough and meaningful” debate, with relevant documents being made public as part of the government’s review, will be necessary to address the key questions that have emerged over the rental of state properties along Ridout Road by two Cabinet ministers. 

Transparency is key to dispelling speculation about any potential conflict of interest and if there was any preferential treatment in how Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan came to be the tenants of the houses on Ridout Road, the observers added.

“There is the need not for any doubt to linger as it would undermine the standing of the government,” said Associate Professor Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University (SMU).

The scrutiny over the Ridout Road black-and-white colonial bungalows first arose in early May following a series of online articles by opposition politician and Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam who questioned if the ministers were “paying less than the fair market value” for the properties.

In response, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which manages these state properties, said on May 12 that both ministers had bid above the “guide rent” – a reserve rent based on market rates as determined by qualified valuers – and the two leases were completed in “full compliance” with relevant procedures.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong then announced on May 23 that an independent review headed by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean would be done “expeditiously” on the matter, with the findings to be released in time for the next scheduled parliamentary session in July.

The two ministers, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, have said they requested the review and welcome the planned debate on the matter in parliament.

QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUST

Observers said that the scrutiny over the Ridout Road properties stems primarily from questions around accountability and any potential conflict of interest.

For one, the SLA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law which is helmed by Mr Shanmugam.

Key questions, according to Assoc Prof Tan, include whether rules relating to the leasing of the state properties were complied with “both in form and in substance”, how was any conflict of interest dealt with, and did the state maximise the rental it could get from the leasing of the two properties.

“Underlining them is whether the high standards of probity were observed in the leasing of the two properties and the SLA’s processes robust enough,” he told CNA.

Ms Nydia Ngiow, managing director for Bower Group Asia Singapore, said the public backlash seemed centred around a “perceived lack of transparency” over the bidding and approval decisions for the properties.

SLA’s statement on May 12 provided details about how the ministers came to rent the two colonial bungalows – in 2018 in Mr Shanmugam's case and from 2019 for Dr Balakrishnan. Both ministers subsequently renewed their leases three years later.

But the statement did not indicate how much the two ministers were paying as rent nor specify the guide rent. Past rental transactions for both 26 and 31 Ridout Road were also not publicly available.

“The entire saga seems to have called into question whether these ministers were given preferential treatment. It has cast doubts about whether such transactions were above board,” said Dr Felix Tan, political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

Mr Shanmugam has said that he has “nothing to hide” and called the allegations that have emerged “outrageous”, while Dr Balakrishnan has said that he was "very glad" that Mr Lee agreed to the review and to publish all relevant facts and findings before a full debate in Parliament. 

SMU’s Assoc Prof Tan said the Prime Minister’s announcement of an independent review seeks to assure the public that “there will be no cover-up” but it could have been “more forthcoming”.

“Its seeming belated nature can come across as a reaction to the swirling public opinion,” said the university’s law don and political commentator.

There was an initial prompt response with the statement from SLA, but a lack of additional information beyond that may have resulted in surging interest, especially as public opinion was shifting to “concerns of probity” in the rental of the state properties, added Assoc Prof Tan. 

With parliament typically taking a break in June, the wait until July to reveal more details could also have promoted the spread of misinformation and disinformation, he told CNA.

ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION MUST BE SHARED

In assessing how the government has handled the matter, analysts have said that the time between the issue emerging and detailed information being released would fuel more talk and speculation. However, rushing to respond has its drawbacks when there is a need for accuracy.

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and three lawmakers from the ruling People’s Action Party have already tabled questions on the matter.

More importantly, the release of the review’s findings will allow a “thorough and meaningful debate”, said Assoc Prof Tan, adding that the government “is not in the habit of drip-feeding information and also does not want to be seen to be caving in to all demands for further particulars”.

NTU’s Dr Tan called for an “honest” debate about the details of the review and how it was conducted.

Beyond that, all relevant documents and correspondence relating to the two leases should be made public, the political observers said.

“As a country that prides itself on its stringent stance against corruption, Singapore and its officials must of course take steps to ensure that there is no perception of bias in favour of its policymakers and officeholders,” said Ms Ngiow.

“A possible resolution could be for the government to take a radically transparent approach through the publication of all relevant and supporting documents in parliament to reassure the public that no special treatment was involved in the process,” she added.

These documents would include lease agreements and documentation relating to the disclosure of interests, as well as the trail of correspondence within SLA and between the agency and the lessees of the two properties.

“These documents can be appropriately redacted such as for market-sensitive information or confidential information,” said SMU’s Assoc Prof Tan, adding that further information on the guide rent and the number of bids submitted for the properties could also be provided.

Dr Tan from NTU said the government’s report should provide clarity on how the decisions for the rental transactions were made by SLA, for example by providing a timeline for how and when the approvals to rent the two properties to the ministers were reached and who was involved in these approvals.

“There is a need for some kind of thoroughness in the investigation and the report,” he told CNA.

The identity of the “senior Cabinet colleague” whom Mr Shanmugam had notified in 2018 about his bid for the property should also be made known.

Doing so will help to provide transparency and due diligence in establishing the facts of the matter, said Dr Tan. 

“The revelation of the identity of this senior Cabinet colleague would also ensure that he or she was not complicit, in any way, with regard to this matter”, the political analyst from NTU added.

UNDERPINNING THE PUBLIC SCRUTINY 

The matter has since attracted a range of reactions from both ends of the spectrum.

In an article published in digital magazine Jom, Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal wrote that the “optics of a minister entering a transaction with an agency under his oversight are less than favourable”.

Noting that there should be “scrupulous observance” of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, he added: “It’s not even a matter of actual wrongdoing - as long as a transaction involving a minister can create the perception of special treatment, it must be avoided.”

Mr Singh also made the point that any government transactions involving ministers or their family members must be subject to “important caveats” and have robust processes in place to deal with any conflict of interest.

On the other hand, lawyer Joel Shen, who currently co-leads Withers’ technology practice in Asia, said the allegation that Mr Shanmugam has breached ministerial conduct by renting a property overseen by an agency under his ministry is “troubling”.

Applying that same logic to other ministries would mean that the Minister of Health, for example, should not use public hospitals or the children of an Education Minister should not be allowed to be enrolled in public schools, he wrote in a LinkedIn post.

SMU’s Assoc Prof Tan said negative sentiment on this matter could have also been driven by the politics of envy.

“The premise for the envy is that ministers are elected to serve the people and some view the accommodation as being too luxurious. The negative view is also driven by a latent anti-elite attitude that sees the lifestyles and achievements of people as derived from improper or unfair means,” said the political commentator.

“These can account for the visceral response to the matter in some quarters and amplified through social media.”