Eight public officers referred to police over their property purchases near later-announced MRT stations after government review
Eight public officers have been referred to the police after a government review of property purchases near locations later announced as MRT stations, Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing said in Parliament on Tuesday (6 Oct).
Source: MDDI Singapore on YouTube
191 officers covered, eight warrant further checks
The eight officers were identified through a Public Service Division (PSD) review of property transactions by officers involved in rail planning.
The review covered 191 officers, with further checks still ongoing.
In Parliament, Mr Chan said: “This could be due to the specific circumstances surrounding the purchase, or that we currently do not have adequate information to exclude the case from further review.”
“We have referred these cases to the police.”
He stressed that a referral does not mean wrongdoing has been established.
The officers’ transactions were examined based on factors including their roles at the time, whether they had access to relevant non-public information, and the timing and circumstances of the purchases.
Police will independently examine the facts and determine the appropriate course of action.
Review follows NBER paper on MRT station purchases
The Government’s review follows a September working paper by the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
The paper reported a statistical association between people classified by its authors as civil servants and purchases of private properties near planned MRT stations before the station locations were publicly announced.
The pattern was observed for MRT station announcements in or before 2011.
According to NBER, working papers are not peer-reviewed.
Source: Richard L on Pexels
The Government said the statistical patterns were a concern, but did not, by themselves, establish that any officer had access to non-public information.
Nor did they establish that such information influenced a property purchase.
For example, information or speculation about future MRT lines could already have been publicly available or used to market property developments.
The Government therefore said each transaction must be examined individually before conclusions could be drawn.
Mr Chan says public officers cannot use non-public information for personal gain
Mr Chan said the fundamental rule for public officers is clear.
“An officer must not pass non-public information to a relative, friend or any other person for private gain,” he said.
“Doing so would breach the applicable rules and may also constitute an offence under the law, including the Official Secrets Act.”
Depending on the circumstances, unauthorised use or disclosure of official information may also constitute an offence.
There are several safeguards in place, including restricting access to sensitive information on a need-to-know basis.
Source: MDDI Singapore on YouTube
Sensitive information is also subject to security classifications, handling requirements, system and physical access controls and, where appropriate, audit monitoring.
Public officers are also subject to declaration and approval requirements for personal interests and transactions.
Mr Chan said officers have been required to declare purchases of private property since the 1990s.
“These requirements have been progressively tightened over the years,” he said.
“Today, where an officer possesses non-public information relevant to a transaction that he or she proposes to undertake, the officer must seek approval from the Head of Agency before proceeding.”
This applies not only to property purchases, but also other personal transactions.
The rules also cover transactions involving officers’ spouses and financially dependent children.
Safeguards could be strengthened if gaps are found
Mr Chan said the Government would strengthen safeguards if the current review or subsequent investigations uncover gaps.
He added that the Government takes allegations involving misuse of official information seriously.
However, action must be based on evidence and due process.
The PSD review is an administrative exercise to establish the relevant facts.
It does not determine criminal culpability.
Source: PSD Singapore on Facebook
Where the facts disclose grounds for concern, cases can be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency, be it the police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
Mr Chan said the Government would also consider whether existing safeguards are effective and whether there are gaps to address.
Any further measures should be proportionate to the risks involved while allowing legitimate personal transactions to proceed with appropriate oversight.
He added that no system could fully eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing.
The Government would therefore continue working to reduce opportunities for abuse, maintain effective detection measures and act firmly where evidence of wrongdoing emerges.
Government will publish findings if relevant
MP Alex Yam Ziming, who had asked whether the Government would release the findings of its review, also asked how many transactions would ultimately be examined.
Source: MDDI Singapore on YouTube
Mr Chan said the review would be completed as soon as possible.
If information emerges requiring the Government to review more transactions, it will do so.
He added that the Government would publish the findings if they were relevant.
Meanwhile, MPs including Joan Pereira, Yip Hon Weng, Elysa Chen, Azhar Othman, Terence Ho, Gerald Giam, Lee Hui Ying and He Ting Ru also raised questions about safeguards against the misuse of non-public information.
Source: Parliament.gov website
Their questions included whether property declarations should cover family members, whether transactions should be cross-checked against officers’ access to sensitive information, and whether additional transaction-clearance requirements were necessary.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from MDDI Singapore on YouTube and Richard L on Pexels.
