*

* AAA

*
* AAA

3
10 20 50 500

-
50

AAA

1
56
(56 man-years10 to conduct a complete valuation of the physical assets, even though he had already
produced the listing (without valuation figures).#

2
no need to revalue all State properties#
3, ; ,
(revaluation would be a waste of resources)

REIT

AAA

AAA


Information gap

AAA

1
2

356

50
50 56

#
http://app.mof.gov.sg/reserves_sectionthree.aspx
http://app.mof.gov.sg/reserves_sectiontwo.aspx

Q18. Did the Government fail to provide former President Ong Teng Cheong with sufficient information to protect the Past Reserves?
A misperception that crops up from time to time is that former President Ong had been denied the information needed for him to perform an
effective role in protecting the Past Reserves. In fact, President Ong was given all the information required for the purpose. This information
included the value of all the Governments financial assets, as well as a listing of physical assets, such as buildings and land.
At his 16 July 1999 press conference, President Ong spoke of how he had been informed by the Accountant-General that it would take "52
man-years" to produce the value of the full list of physical assets of the Government.
The facts of the case were explained by former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in Parliament on 17 August 1999, as summarised below:

The President's Office had requested a listing of physical assets from the Accountant-General on 18 Jun 1996. At a meeting with the
President on 14 Aug 1996 (i.e. less than two months later), the Accountant-General provided a listing of State buildings, while the
Commissioner of Lands provided a listing of State lands. Updates were subsequently sent to the President's Office.

It was at this meeting that the President remarked that to protect the Past Reserves, the reserves should ideally be denominated in dollar
value. To this, the Accountant-General said that it would take 56 man-years10 to conduct a complete valuation of the physical assets, even
though he had already produced the listing (without valuation figures).

The Attorney-Generals Chambers subsequently advised that there was no need to revalue all State properties at each changeover of the
term of Government, as the question of whether Past Reserves were being drawn did not arise unless a piece of land was actually about to
be sold off or alienated. At the point of sale, land is valued, and the Reserves protection framework requires only that the land be sold at fair
market value.

Furthermore, the proposed revaluation would be a waste of resources. First, the reality was that much of State land would remain as
State land, i.e. unsold. Second, the value of each piece of land depended on planning and zoning restrictions, which the Government could
change.