COI on Chua Tian Poh Nomination Scandal

I had so many calls on his nomination in the last few hours. People in the know were shocked. It shows how bold the PAP govt has become or how detached it is from society or both to have the audacity to nominate him.

In 2007, the auditor general who reports to the President pointed out on his report that Chua was sold land in Sentosa without a tender being called and the valuation was below market value. There was no attempt to remediate the situation or recover the difference. Chua made no attempt to pay the difference and all Singaporeans were short changed. Chua who was chairman of SDC and privy to its plans resigned just prior to the land acquisition. Which by itself is scandalous.

Chua seconded the current President during the presidential nomination process. The. Auditor General who is directly accountable to the President and his staff who uncovered the Sentosa. Cove land debacle are now in a difficult place.

There should be a parliamentary inquiry or commission of inquiry on how this person was nominated for the National Day honour. Truly disgraceful. We have NS men who lost their lives or have been maimed for life and have done more for this country than this guy who basically got handout from the state.

If I was given state land below valuation without going thru a tender exercise and not given appropriate level of dispensation, I would have been charged in court for criminal conspiracy together with public servants that handled this transaction. I can offer no reasonable defence because I know that this is not the practice of any government institution, it is not appropriate practice and I would have made a wrongful gain at the expense of the taxpayer.

As the values involved are high, I would have been expected to do valuation to protect my interest and would have known that the state was selling way below valuation. I would have been duty bound to notify the state. It is no different to I erroneously receiving additional credit to my bank account and then misappropriating it.

Here is the bullshit to cover up the sale of state land by private treaty with no tenders called and the price below valuation.



GOVERNMENT CLARIFIES AGO'S FINDINGS ON SENTOSA COVE LAND SALES


1. On 5 Mar 2007, the Minister for Trade & Industry, in his reply to questions at the Committee of Supply for his Ministry�s budget, explained the background on Auditor-General�s findings of the deficiencies in land sales procedures in Sentosa Cove. This press release sets out the facts on the issues highlighted by Auditor-General.

Sentosa Cove

2. Sentosa Cove is a unique development comprising not just condominium parcels, but also individual bungalow lots, hotels, shops and even a marina.

3. Based on past experiences, selling land in such a complex mixed development using the normal government methods would not achieve the best value. Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) therefore formed a private sector company, Sentosa Cove Private Limited (SCPL), to undertake the land sale, adopting practices commonly used in the private sector to better meet market needs. These have proven to be effective, and Sentosa Cove has done well over the past few years.

4. However, Auditor-General found that such practices do not comply with the Government�s Instruction Manual (IM), which SDC as a statutory board has to follow.

Lapse in land sales procedures

5. There were three non-compliance incidents cited in the Auditor-General�s report.

Audit observation 1

6. For the first incident, 24 bungalow parcels were awarded to a sole bidder, Ho Bee Developments Pte Ltd, at a price below valuation. This tender exercise took place in November 2004, the year after the SARS outbreak. As it was the first en-bloc sale of bungalow plots, it was then unclear how much risk premium developers were prepared to bear for such en- bloc sites.

7. The SCPL thus made a commercial decision, which took into consideration the prevailing market sentiment and the fact that the bid price was still substantially higher than what SDC had paid the State for the land. In addition, being the first en-bloc sale, the valuation process may not have adjusted adequately for the higher perceived risks and uncertainties.

8. SCPL�s key consideration was to maximize the returns from the overall portfolio of land sites in Sentosa Cove, and not that of individual plots. What happened subsequently bears out SCPL�s judgement, as their decision to proceed with the award was followed by the steady build up of market confidence and sales momentum for Sentosa Cove.

Audit observation 2

9. The second incident involved the sale of 33 bungalow land parcels in August 2005 using an �Expression of Interest (EOI)� - an approach commonly practiced in the private sector. SCPL had sent a letter of invitation to all 170 REDAS developers to participate in this exercise, of which only 15 developers indicated interest and subsequently obtained the marketing brief and EOI kit from SCPL. These 15 developers were thus informed of the EOI details, including the award criteria as well as the subsequent extension of the deadline. This is similar to normal tendering procedures, where the practice is to notify only the registered prospects of changes in specifications.

10. In addition, in response to a specific query by some REDAS members during the EOI exercise, SCPL clarified, before the EOI deadline, that they reserved the right to make a counter-offer to the highest bidder should the received bids were below expectations. This was duly made known to all 170 REDAS developers on the same day that the query was received.

Audit Observation 3

11. The third incident involved a former board director who participated in an open tender for land sales at Sentosa Cove after he had retired from the SCPL Board. The tender was launched on 22 October 2003.

12. To put things in context, SDC and SCPL Board members are not disqualified from participating in Sentosa Cove land sales. It would not be fair or practical to do so since we had invited respected individuals with real estate experience to sit on the Board. Instead, to ensure transparency and fair competition, Board members wishing to participate in any sale of sites have to declare their interest in writing, and submit a confidentiality undertaking.

13. In this particular instance, the said director, Mr Chua Thiam Poh, completed his term of duty as a board member on 31 Oct 2003. He was thus no longer subject to the disclosure requirement. Notwithstanding that, he declared his interest and submitted a confidentiality undertaking on 2 December 2003, and participated in the open land tender exercise on 3 December 2003. Mr Chua�s company, Ho Bee Developments Pte Ltd, submitted bids for 4 land parcels, and won the tender for 2 plots, as it was the highest bidder (out of 3 bids for each parcel).

14. Following the Auditor-General�s observations, SDC has reconciled its sale practices with the requirements of the Government�s Instruction Manual (IM), and obtained MOF�s exemption from certain provisions. SDC will also further review and tighten the procedures for its Sentosa Cove land sales.



Issued by: Ministry of Trade and Industry
Date: 6 Mar 2007

In mafia terminology, chua is a "Made Man."

Here is the part Public Accounts Committee report relating to the land sales in. Sentosa.


Deficiencies in Land Sales Procedures and Accounting Controls

23 The Committee was concerned about the observations made by the Auditor-General on the procedures for land sales and the lapses in the systems for payroll, computer access and grant accounting of the Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC).

In particular, the instances of deficiencies in the land sales procedures, a departure from the normal government procedures would cause the public to view the land sales as not being transparent, fair and competitive.

The Committee sought further explanation as to how these lapses came about and the measures taken by the SDC to prevent their recurrence. The Ministry of Trade and Industry informed the Committee that besides the usual tender and auction processes, there are two modes of land sales viz. Expression of Interest (EOI) and Private Treaty.

The Committee was informed that procedures have been put in place to ensure that the two modes of sale comply with the principles of fairness and transparency. The sales of sites are widely publicised so as to reach the widest pool of potential buyers.

Details of the sites and the award criteria are not released until the sites are launched for sale. In respect of the EOI mode of sale, the Ministry stated that price is the only criterion and an award is made to the highest bidder.

For certain strategic sites, developers are also required to submit their proposed concept and the best overall proposal will be accepted. This is similar to the two-envelope system adopted for sales of certain Government sites.

In respect of the Private Treaty mode of sale, the Ministry stated that a list price which is higher than the reference market price is set for every land parcel for sale and displayed for the information of all interested prospects. If demand is strong, SDC will adjust the list price upwards. The approving authority for private treaty sales is Sentosa Cove Pte. Ltd.

24 As regards allowing ex-directors to participate in the land sales, the Ministry 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. SDC has further tightened these measures to ensure that directors and exdirectors who participate in Sentosa Cove land sales do not have an unfair advantage.

In particular, board members will no longer have access to privileged information pertaining to Sentosa Cove land sales. Board members will be reminded to declare their interest before the close of a sale exercise and those who have done so must excuse themselves from participating in the evaluation of proposals. The Ministry is therefore of the view that there is no need to impose a moratorium period on ex-directors transacting with SDC as they would not have had access to privileged information.

25 Notwithstanding the actions by the Ministry and the efforts made by SDC to review its governance structures and sales of land procedures, the Committee is of the view that the inherent weakness of its 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.

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. The Committee recommends 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.

scroobal said:

In 2007, the auditor general who reports to the President pointed out on his report that Chua was sold land in Sentosa without a tender being called and the valuation was below market value.

Click to expand...

6. For the first incident, 24 bungalow parcels were awarded to a sole bidder, Ho Bee Developments Pte Ltd, at a price below valuation. This tender exercise took place in November 2004, the year after the SARS outbreak. As it was the first en-bloc sale of bungalow plots, it was then unclear how much risk premium developers were prepared to bear for such en- bloc sites.

Click to expand...

hahaha...scroobye, told u to go back to kindergarten.....
tender was called and there was sole bidder...is different from no tender called...

kukubird58 said:

hahaha...scroobye, told u to go back to kindergarten.....
tender was called and there was sole bidder...is different from no tender called...

Click to expand...

Bo siao kan is one thing. No brain is another. Fuck your mother puah cheebye!

Only a new government will be able to reopen this, and many other cases, for a thorough forensic accounting exercise. Many many cans of worms. Many many crooks will leave this beautiful island of ours before the cans are opened for the worms to see daylight. Wait. Just wait.

This one of those Hard Truths that is not in books but open secret. If you are rich and influential, and you know how to connect to the PAP pipeline to the trough, you can be airlifted upstream all the way to the source to drink. What's more, if you help to put money in the govt's pockets, not only do you eat drink beside the mini-gods , but you can get a National Day award.

When it comes to PBM and BBM, Singaporeans generally know that its basically awards for porlumpars. Fair enough that they do things that no one with self-esteem would even con side. So an award is certainly a good recognise these low lives. Not the rest of the awards.

songsongjurong said:

In mafia terminology, chua is a "Made Man."

Click to expand...

Haha yes indeed....good example

In imperial sinkapoor, its machiam being bestowed the 皇马褂.....status same with members of royal family.

A true risk taker and a singaporean son. Do not be envious of his achievements. His position in office has allowed him to identify an opportunity previously undiscovered by the government. We should congratulate him for making good in life. For that we have to thank the PAP.

Honestly, what has this guy done for the country that he deserves to get the top award? It cheapens the award.

bigboss said:

Honestly, what has this guy done for the country that he deserves to get the top award? It cheapens the award.

Click to expand...

The award is already cheap to begin with!!

enterprise2 said:

The award is already cheap to begin with!!

Click to expand...

Hear hear except those medals given to the FTs who saved the victims in hotel new world......and those given to true blue sinkie sport heroes like APS and fandi.....these medals are cheaper than bottle caps.

Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely......

Blame the 60.1% ...... but do they actually care?

How come no coi with changi airport sold below valuation

Force 136 said:

... Blame the 60.1% ...... but do they actually care?

Click to expand...

dey care ...

oni about demselves ...

as loong as their lives r not affected personally, dey fail 2 care ...

This is too hot a political potato for anyone to handle. Chua is head of the Federation of Chinese Clans. It is political Goliath and Wee Cho Yaw kept it straight for years and he did not allow it into the political arena.

Chua on the other had brought it to the fore when the. Federation for the first time declared it support for Tony Tan for President. That was the first time.it threw its support behind a candidate.

Watch even WP will not touch it.

Reddog said:

Only a new government will be able to reopen this, and many other cases, for a thorough forensic accounting exercise. Many many cans of worms. Many many crooks will leave this beautiful island of ours before the cans are opened for the worms to see daylight. Wait. Just wait.

Click to expand...

Actually other than the PBM and BBM, which are the classified porlumpar awards no crony or porlumpar has been given state awards. It is a known protocol. This is deliberately done not cheapen state awards.

This is the first time that such an award has gone to porlumpar. There have been many appeals in the past including many who donated couple of millions to charity, universities but were not given the awards.

Interestingly there have been some upright peopl who have done genuine community work that have refused PBM because it is a known porlumpar award.

enterprise2 said:

The award is already cheap to begin with!!

Click to expand...

This guy made it big because of Sentosa Cove.

Not only was he given state land at below market value, his sale of property was tied with free PR and the best part was that it's marketing was immensely helped by EDB and the related Govt entities who were trying to bring in investors.

The only thing that was missing was that the Government did not help wash his backside after he went to the toilet.

mojito said:

A true risk taker and a singaporean son. Do not be envious of his achievements. His position in office has allowed him to identify an opportunity previously undiscovered by the government. We should congratulate him for making good in life. For that we have to thank the PAP.

Click to expand...