Sammyboy RSS Feed
31-08-2015, 10:50 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Just read through TRE column regarding MND accusing AHPETC of enriching supporter.
Please enlighten yourself to read an example (recapped below) and compare Pappies vs WP, who really make own people rich!!!
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/30...rs-handsomely/ (http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/30/khaw-accuses-wp-for-rewarding-supporters-handsomely/)
Khaw accuses WP of rewarding supporters handsomely
PAP appoints its supporters to GLC boards
Notwithstanding Mr Khaw’s criticism, PAP appears to treat its supporters even better: it appoints them to GLC boards.
A good example is billionaire Chua Thian Poh from Ho Bee Group. He is a long-time grassroots leader, who has served as Chairman of Bishan East Citizens’ Consultative Committee.
Mr Chua is also the President of the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, Honorary President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Chairman of Ren Ci Hospital, Business China, and sits on the Board of Trustees of the Chinese Development Assistance Council.
According to the Sunday Times (‘Chinese community leader gets top honour’, 9 Aug), Mr Chua had not been successful in business for many years. His fortunes changed after he started the Ho Bee group of companies and ventured into property development.
Ho Bee then became a leading developer of luxury homes, the highlight being its development of the prestigious residential enclave of Sentosa Cove on Sentosa Island. A pioneer developer of Sentosa from 2003 onwards, Ho Bee is today Sentosa Cove’s biggest developer, having built at least 8 high-end condominium, terrace housing and luxurious villa projects [Link].
Controversy
On 1 December 2004, the Business Times reported that Ho Bee had successfully bidded to develop Coral Island on Sentosa Cove (‘Ho Bee wins Coral Island with $38m bid’) [Link] [Link].
Ho Bee’s $38 million bid for Coral Island worked out to $206 per sq ft based on a land area of 184,636 sq ft. It was the sole bidder for the en bloc sale of the Island. The land was said to be able to accommodate 24 bungalow lots. Each bungalow had its own private berth for a 40-ft boat. Coral Island is one of 5 islands created at Sentosa Cove.
The tender for the 99-year leasehold site offered by Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd (SCPL), a subsidiary of Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), closed in November 2004. Ho Bee’s bid was 21% less than the lowest price at which SCPL had previously awarded other bungalow plots, which were sold individually.
At the time, Mr Chua was quoted as saying, “We hope to reciprocate the confidence SCPL has shown in awarding Coral Island to us by developing it into distinctive and exclusive homes for the rich and famous.”
Coral Island was reportedly the third parcel of land that Ho Bee had clinched at Sentosa Cove. For its 2 earlier projects, Ho Bee developed a 200-unit condo called The Berth, and 8 terrace houses. The 2 earlier plots were clinched in a maiden tender at Sentosa Cove by Ho Bee in December 2003, a year before.
For Sentosa Cove, the government eased rules to enable foreigners to buy landed property there. Foreigners are generally not allowed to buy landed property in Singapore.
AGO’s report
In 2006, the Auditor-General issued its report for FY2005/06, which mentioned land sales by SCPL. As stated, SCPL is a company set up by Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI).
It its report, AGO highlighted deficiencies in the procedures for land sales in SDC. It specifically mentioned that in one tender in November 2004, 24 land parcels were sold to a sole tenderer significantly below valuation. It also said that the tender was “neither published nor was the required advice of the Chief Valuer obtained”.
And in the case of the maiden land tender in December 2003, AGO said a former director of SCPL was allowed to tender for sales of land through a company he controlled, about a month after he “retired” from the board of SCPL. Apparently, before his “retirement”, he was already involved as a board member in deliberating on the Sentosa Cove land sales, AGO said.
As it turned out, the said company and director referred to by AGO were none other than Ho Bee and Chua Thian Poh. Mr Chua’s Ho Bee Group was involved in both the Sentosa Cove land tenders mentioned in AGO’s report, in December 2003 and November 2004.
Indeed, BusinessWeek confirms Mr Chua’s directorship in SCPL [Link]:
Mr. Chua holds board positions in many other companies and business organizations, including Board Member of Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd (wholly-owned subsidiary of Sentosa Development Corporation) since November 1996.
As revealed by AGO, 33 days after he “retired” from SCPL, Mr Chua was allowed to tender for the sale of Sentosa Cove land through Ho Bee in December 2003.
PAC felt SDC’s land sales process not fully addressed
Subsequently, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament consisting of MPs examined the AGO’s report and published its own findings in May 2007 [Link].
PAC said that the departure from the normal government procedures in SDC would cause the public to view the Sentosa Cove land sales as “not being transparent, fair and competitive”.
With regard to allowing ex-directors to participate in land sales, PAC said MTI had informed the Committee that “SDC had put in place a set of governance measures since October 2003 to ensure transparency and competition”.
“These include requiring all board members to provide a confidentiality undertaking on all privileged information pertaining to Sentosa Cove and the land sales, and to declare their interest if they intend to participate in the sale of sites. Board members participating in sale of sites will not participate in the evaluation of tenders,” PAC said.
“SDC has further tightened these measures to ensure that directors and ex-directors who participate in Sentosa Cove land sales do not have an unfair advantage,” PAC added.
PAC felt that the inherent weakness of SDC’s land sales by “private treaty” was not fully addressed.
“Direct negotiation with a prospective buyer may not result in the best price as compared with an auction, especially, in a rising market. It is also open to abuse as leaked information on reserve price, for example, puts a prospective buyer with such information at an advantage over others,” PAC said.
PAC also noted, “The additional control of not providing board directors with privileged information will not prevent public perception of conflict of interest as directors and exdirectors participating in the sales of land will have access to more background information than others.”
PAC recommended that the procedures and guidelines in question be further reviewed so that land sales by the SDC not only comply with the principles of fair competition, maximizing total returns to government and transparency, but are also seen as such by the public.
PAC, Singapore’s highest authority in Parliament responsible for overseeing government expenditures and ensuring transparency and accountability in government financial operations, did not penalize anyone for the lapses in SDC, as highlighted by AGO. It merely recommended that the government should “further review” the procedures and guidelines “in question”.
The SDC land sale incidents happened during the transition period from George Yeo to Lim Hng Khiang. George Yeo was Trade and Industry Minister from June 1999 to August 2004. Lim Hng Khiang took over from him in August 2004. The December 2003 SDC land sale happened under George Yeo’s watch while the November 2004 sale took place under Lim Hng Khiang’s purview.
George Yeo, of course, was later voted out by Aljunied residents in 2011.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?214349-PAP-MND-vs-WP-Who-Cause-Own-People-Rich!&goto=newpost).
Just read through TRE column regarding MND accusing AHPETC of enriching supporter.
Please enlighten yourself to read an example (recapped below) and compare Pappies vs WP, who really make own people rich!!!
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/30...rs-handsomely/ (http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/30/khaw-accuses-wp-for-rewarding-supporters-handsomely/)
Khaw accuses WP of rewarding supporters handsomely
PAP appoints its supporters to GLC boards
Notwithstanding Mr Khaw’s criticism, PAP appears to treat its supporters even better: it appoints them to GLC boards.
A good example is billionaire Chua Thian Poh from Ho Bee Group. He is a long-time grassroots leader, who has served as Chairman of Bishan East Citizens’ Consultative Committee.
Mr Chua is also the President of the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, Honorary President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Chairman of Ren Ci Hospital, Business China, and sits on the Board of Trustees of the Chinese Development Assistance Council.
According to the Sunday Times (‘Chinese community leader gets top honour’, 9 Aug), Mr Chua had not been successful in business for many years. His fortunes changed after he started the Ho Bee group of companies and ventured into property development.
Ho Bee then became a leading developer of luxury homes, the highlight being its development of the prestigious residential enclave of Sentosa Cove on Sentosa Island. A pioneer developer of Sentosa from 2003 onwards, Ho Bee is today Sentosa Cove’s biggest developer, having built at least 8 high-end condominium, terrace housing and luxurious villa projects [Link].
Controversy
On 1 December 2004, the Business Times reported that Ho Bee had successfully bidded to develop Coral Island on Sentosa Cove (‘Ho Bee wins Coral Island with $38m bid’) [Link] [Link].
Ho Bee’s $38 million bid for Coral Island worked out to $206 per sq ft based on a land area of 184,636 sq ft. It was the sole bidder for the en bloc sale of the Island. The land was said to be able to accommodate 24 bungalow lots. Each bungalow had its own private berth for a 40-ft boat. Coral Island is one of 5 islands created at Sentosa Cove.
The tender for the 99-year leasehold site offered by Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd (SCPL), a subsidiary of Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), closed in November 2004. Ho Bee’s bid was 21% less than the lowest price at which SCPL had previously awarded other bungalow plots, which were sold individually.
At the time, Mr Chua was quoted as saying, “We hope to reciprocate the confidence SCPL has shown in awarding Coral Island to us by developing it into distinctive and exclusive homes for the rich and famous.”
Coral Island was reportedly the third parcel of land that Ho Bee had clinched at Sentosa Cove. For its 2 earlier projects, Ho Bee developed a 200-unit condo called The Berth, and 8 terrace houses. The 2 earlier plots were clinched in a maiden tender at Sentosa Cove by Ho Bee in December 2003, a year before.
For Sentosa Cove, the government eased rules to enable foreigners to buy landed property there. Foreigners are generally not allowed to buy landed property in Singapore.
AGO’s report
In 2006, the Auditor-General issued its report for FY2005/06, which mentioned land sales by SCPL. As stated, SCPL is a company set up by Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI).
It its report, AGO highlighted deficiencies in the procedures for land sales in SDC. It specifically mentioned that in one tender in November 2004, 24 land parcels were sold to a sole tenderer significantly below valuation. It also said that the tender was “neither published nor was the required advice of the Chief Valuer obtained”.
And in the case of the maiden land tender in December 2003, AGO said a former director of SCPL was allowed to tender for sales of land through a company he controlled, about a month after he “retired” from the board of SCPL. Apparently, before his “retirement”, he was already involved as a board member in deliberating on the Sentosa Cove land sales, AGO said.
As it turned out, the said company and director referred to by AGO were none other than Ho Bee and Chua Thian Poh. Mr Chua’s Ho Bee Group was involved in both the Sentosa Cove land tenders mentioned in AGO’s report, in December 2003 and November 2004.
Indeed, BusinessWeek confirms Mr Chua’s directorship in SCPL [Link]:
Mr. Chua holds board positions in many other companies and business organizations, including Board Member of Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd (wholly-owned subsidiary of Sentosa Development Corporation) since November 1996.
As revealed by AGO, 33 days after he “retired” from SCPL, Mr Chua was allowed to tender for the sale of Sentosa Cove land through Ho Bee in December 2003.
PAC felt SDC’s land sales process not fully addressed
Subsequently, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament consisting of MPs examined the AGO’s report and published its own findings in May 2007 [Link].
PAC said that the departure from the normal government procedures in SDC would cause the public to view the Sentosa Cove land sales as “not being transparent, fair and competitive”.
With regard to allowing ex-directors to participate in land sales, PAC said MTI had informed the Committee that “SDC had put in place a set of governance measures since October 2003 to ensure transparency and competition”.
“These include requiring all board members to provide a confidentiality undertaking on all privileged information pertaining to Sentosa Cove and the land sales, and to declare their interest if they intend to participate in the sale of sites. Board members participating in sale of sites will not participate in the evaluation of tenders,” PAC said.
“SDC has further tightened these measures to ensure that directors and ex-directors who participate in Sentosa Cove land sales do not have an unfair advantage,” PAC added.
PAC felt that the inherent weakness of SDC’s land sales by “private treaty” was not fully addressed.
“Direct negotiation with a prospective buyer may not result in the best price as compared with an auction, especially, in a rising market. It is also open to abuse as leaked information on reserve price, for example, puts a prospective buyer with such information at an advantage over others,” PAC said.
PAC also noted, “The additional control of not providing board directors with privileged information will not prevent public perception of conflict of interest as directors and exdirectors participating in the sales of land will have access to more background information than others.”
PAC recommended that the procedures and guidelines in question be further reviewed so that land sales by the SDC not only comply with the principles of fair competition, maximizing total returns to government and transparency, but are also seen as such by the public.
PAC, Singapore’s highest authority in Parliament responsible for overseeing government expenditures and ensuring transparency and accountability in government financial operations, did not penalize anyone for the lapses in SDC, as highlighted by AGO. It merely recommended that the government should “further review” the procedures and guidelines “in question”.
The SDC land sale incidents happened during the transition period from George Yeo to Lim Hng Khiang. George Yeo was Trade and Industry Minister from June 1999 to August 2004. Lim Hng Khiang took over from him in August 2004. The December 2003 SDC land sale happened under George Yeo’s watch while the November 2004 sale took place under Lim Hng Khiang’s purview.
George Yeo, of course, was later voted out by Aljunied residents in 2011.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?214349-PAP-MND-vs-WP-Who-Cause-Own-People-Rich!&goto=newpost).