Singapore law minister says he asked deputy secretary for rental list to ensure ‘total transparency’ on Ridout Road bungalow

SINGAPORE, July 4 — Law Minister K Shanmugam said he asked his ministry’s deputy secretary for a list of public properties to rent, rather than approach the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) directly, so as to maintain “total transparency” on the Ridout Road matter.

Any issues related to the matter could also be raised by the deputy secretary, who is a senior Administrative Service officer, to higher authorities including the Prime Minister, added Mr Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said in Parliament on Monday (July 3).

“I could have asked SLA directly, and I know that SLA has given this information to others who will fall within the category of credible prospective tenants like embassies, companies and business persons,” Mr Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said in Parliament yesterday (July 3).

“But I asked the deputy secretary, a senior admin service officer, so that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) knew and there was total transparency.

“He (the deputy secretary) 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 anything needed to be brought up to that level.

“So I believed it was better to ask him than to ask SLA directly.”

The SLA is a statutory board under MinLaw. The Administrative Service is made up of senior public service leaders heading ministries or statutory boards.

Last week, findings from separate probes by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean cleared both Mr Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan of any wrongdoing in relation to the rental of the Ridout Road properties.

Mr Shanmugam and his family rented 26 Ridout Road while Dr Balakrishnan and his family rented 31 Ridout Road.

While the CPIB review did not name MinLaw’s deputy secretary at that time, public records show that the role was filled by Mr Han Kok Juan from Nov 1, 2015, to Sept 15, 2019.

In his statements yesterday, Mr Shanmugam was responding to a supplementary question posed by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Member of Parliament (MP) for Potong Pasir Single Member Constituency.

He had asked whether it was appropriate for Mr Shanmugam to have approached the then deputy secretary of MinLaw, instead of SLA, for a list of public properties available for the public to rent.

During the debate yesterday, several other MPs, including those from the opposition Workers’ Party (WP), also asked questions relating to Mr Shanmugam’s choice to obtain a list of public properties for rent through a senior administrative officer from the public service.

Responding to Mr Sitoh, Mr Shanmugam added that some of the comments on the matter were based on a failure to realise that SLA gives out such lists to others, and the misunderstanding that he had somehow obtained “secret information” from SLA.

“They are not secret or privileged information. If they are secret, SLA cannot rent out its properties,” Mr Shanmugam said.

Addressing the same question, SM Teo said that said that CPIB had found “no evidence” of any abuse of position for personal gain in the process, and that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had also concurred with the findings.

Mr Teo submitted his report on wider potential process or policy issues to Parliament on June 28 and delivered a ministerial statement on his findings earlier yesterday.

Mr Teo is also the Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security.

Information obtained through deputy secretary not privileged

During the debate, several other MPs asked further questions on why Mr Shanmugam had chosen to obtain the list of public properties through his ministry’s deputy secretary rather than through the SLA.

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh said that Mr Shanmugam’s decision to ask a “very senior civil servant” for a list of properties related to Mr Shanmugam’s personal use gave the appearance that he had obtained privileged information.

Mr Singh also asked how Mr Teo’s report reconciled this action with the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Prime Minister’s rules for MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party requiring that ministers keep their private and official affairs separate.

“Should Singaporeans conclude that such actions by ministers as instructing civil servants on personal matters and using official information for personal use is appropriate, above board and has been going on for a long time in the public service?” said Mr Singh.

In his response, Mr Teo reiterated that the information could be accessed by any credible potential tenant and that it is not privileged information.

However, Mr Teo said that Mr Singh’s comment that such actions have been going on for a long time was a “general comment” and that Mr Singh should not make such comments unless they can be backed up.

He asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement.

Mr Singh, as well as other WP MPs, also asked why Mr Shanmugam had not asked SLA for the list of public properties available for lease through an agent.

For example, Mr Leon Perera had asked how it was not “problematic” that Mr Shanmugam had asked for information on property in a consolidated factsheet through his ministry’s deputy secretary when some of this information, including the 26 Ridout Road listing, was not available on the SLA’s online portal for state property information.

Mr Perera is MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

In his response, Mr Teo said that the questions posed suggested that there was a “secret list” of properties for lease and that renting such properties conferred a benefit or privilege that others could not access.

“I think the investigation and what I have stated dispels both of this. First of all, there is no secret list. It’s public information what properties are available for lease,” he said.

“SLA wants to maximise its rental... and to do its best for the state in doing so. There’s no reason for SLA not to want to provide a list of those properties,” Mr Teo added.

He said that while the information of a property listing might not be on the online portal, any credible tenant who wanted to rent those properties would know which are available.

“And second, the properties are rented out at market (value) and so there is no great benefit from being able to rent out these properties. So let us dispel these two things and put it to rest,” added Mr Teo.

In response to WP MP Gerald Giam’s question on whether Mr Shanmugam had informed his deputy secretary that he was doing so in the interest of transparency, Mr Shanmugam said that the “context was clear”.

MinLaw’s deputy secretary had told Mr Shanmugam that he would keep the permanent secretary informed of the request, he added.

“So everybody understood this is why I’m asking him (the deputy secretary), he will keep the permanent secretary informed, he will get me a list and then we’ll see how we proceed,” Mr Shanmugam said.

Mr Giam is also an Aljunied GRC MP.

In his supplementary question, Mr Dennis Tan of WP said that it was important to clarify why Mr Shanmugam had approached the deputy secretary so that senior civil servants know where to draw the line on answering a question from a political office holder.

Mr Tan, who is MP for Hougang Single Member Constituency, also said that the deputy secretary could have told Mr Shanmugam to get his property agent to direct the question to SLA.

On this, Mr Teo reiterated that Mr Shanmugam had not sought to obtain privileged information.

“If he had got an agent to go and approach SLA and... in the end they discover that actually the person behind it was the minister, and the minister didn’t say anything about it — the question is whether that’s better or worse.

“But in this case, it was done openly and transparently, so I think that is important,” said Mr Teo.

Similarly, Mr Shanmugam said that he had done so with the intent of being transparent.

“It’s better to ask the deputy secretary rather than going directly to SLA. If I had gone direct to SLA, and SLA receives a letter, is that better? Or is it better that there is the deputy secretary who, together with a permanent secretary, knows that this is happening, gets the list and I look at it? And then I recuse myself if I want to proceed,” he said.

“So everything is transparent, above board. I think it was important for me to have told my ministry. So this is not on a private errand or something,” said Mr Shanmugam. — TODAY