# 8 public officers referred to police over property buys near unannounced MRT stations: Chan Chun Sing

- **Source:** The Business Times
- **Published:** 2026-10-06T04:09:50.000Z
- **Author:** Chong Xin Wei
- **Original:** https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/8-public-officers-referred-police-over-property-buys-near-unannounced-mrt-stations-chan-chun-sing
- **Topics:** Commercial & Industrial, Government & Policy, Transactions & Deals

## Featured rationale

The referrals signal increased scrutiny of transactions linked to future infrastructure, which could prompt stronger disclosure controls and reinforce confidence in equitable property-market access.

## AI summary

Eight of 191 public officers reviewed were referred to police over property purchases near unannounced MRT stations, while researchers identified 113 purchases worth S$138 million.

## Original article

[SINGAPORE] Eight public officers have been referred to the police following a government review of property purchases near locations subsequently announced as MRT stations, Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing said in Parliament on Tuesday (Oct 6).

The eight were among 191 officers whose property transactions were reviewed by the Public Service Division (PSD), with further checks still ongoing.

Their cases warranted further examination either because of the specific circumstances surrounding the purchases, or because there was insufficient information to exclude them from further review, said Chan, who is also the minister for defence.

“Let me emphasise that a referral does not mean that wrongdoing has been established,” he added. “The police will look into the facts independently and due process will be followed.”

He was responding to questions from nine Members of Parliament on the government’s review of claims that civil servants disproportionately bought properties near planned but unannounced MRT stations, and whether existing safeguards against the misuse of non-public information are adequate and should be strengthened.

The questions followed the publication of a working paper in September by the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which reported a statistical association between civil servants working in agencies connected to rail planning and purchases of private property near planned MRT stations before their locations were publicly announced.

The researchers found that the pattern was concentrated among mid-level civil servants and in the one to two years before station locations were announced. They estimated that civil servants made 113 such purchases worth about S$138 million.

The pattern was observed for MRT station announcements made in or before 2011.

While the NBER paper identified the period of concern as 2007 to 2011, PSD extended its review to 2014 “as a matter of prudence”, as the locations of many new MRT stations continued to be announced in the years after 2011, Chan said.

Using government records, PSD identified officers who worked in agencies involved in rail planning and made property purchases between 2007 and 2014 close to locations that were subsequently announced as MRT stations.

For each transaction, PSD examined available records, including the officer’s role at the time, whether the officer had access to relevant non-public information, the timing and circumstances of the transaction.

Responding to questions about safeguards against misuse of non-public government information, Chan said: “Public officers must never use information obtained through their official duties to advance their own private interests or those of others.”

He added that depending on the circumstances, unauthorised use or disclosure of official information may also constitute an offence under the law.

Existing safeguards include controlling access to sensitive information on a need-to-know basis, and declaration and approval requirements governing officers’ personal interests and transactions.

“The public service regularly reviews its rules and has strengthened them over time,” said Chan. “We will consider what the present review tells us about their effectiveness and whether there are gaps to address.”

He added: “Any further measures should be proportionate to the risks and practical to implement, while allowing legitimate personal transactions to proceed with appropriate oversight.

“Even with strong safeguards, no system can eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing entirely. We must therefore continue to reduce the opportunities for abuse, maintain effective means of detection and act firmly where evidence of wrongdoing emerges.”

On whether checks should extend to other infrastructure projects and property deals, including schools and land-use decisions, Chan said that PSD has not undertaken such a general review, and officers with access to non-public information should not be assumed to have misused it.

He added that PSD would complete its review “as soon as possible”, and if there were relevant findings, they would be published in full.

On safeguards against the misuse of sensitive government information for investments beyond property, and whether the government would increase the frequency and intensity of checks rather than take a “reactive stance”, Chan said that the same rules applied to property, financial and other transactions.

“Be it property or any other transactions that pertain or may involve sensitive information, we take them all in the same spirit, which is that no officers should use any non-public information for their personal gain.”

Asked whether owning multiple properties should be considered a red flag, and whether limits should be placed on the number of properties public officers can own, Chan said: “We have to be fair to the public officers... They have legitimate housing needs. They have legitimate needs to make investments and manage their own finances.”

He added that having more than one property is not necessarily a red flag, rather the key question was whether they had misused non-public information.

Separately, asked whether property declaration requirements should be extended to public officers’ parents and financially independent children, Chan said that there was a need to strike a balance over what officers were required to declare.

Current requirements cover public officers, their spouses and financially dependent children. But regardless of whether a person was an immediate or extended family member, using non-public information for personal gain was “still wrong”, he added.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: openai_codex_cli

### 陈振声：8名公务人员因在未公布地铁站附近购房被移交警方

他们属于公共服务署审查交易的191人之一；核查仍在进行中

[新加坡] 公共服务统筹部长兼主管公共服务部长陈振声周二（10月6日）在国会表示，政府对后来公布为地铁站的地点附近的房地产购买进行审查后，8名公务人员已被移交警方。

这8人属于公共服务署（PSD）审查房地产交易的191名人员之一，进一步核查仍在进行中。

同样也是国防部长的陈振声表示，他们的个案有必要进一步审查，原因要么是购买相关的具体情况，要么是资料不足，无法将他们排除在进一步审查之外。

“我要强调，移交并不意味着已确认存在不当行为，”他补充说。“警方将独立查明事实，并会遵循正当程序。”

他是在回应9名国会议员关于政府审查相关主张的问题，即公务员是否不成比例地购买了计划中但尚未公布的地铁站附近的房地产，以及现有防止滥用非公开信息的保障措施是否足够、是否应予加强。

这些问题是在美国国家经济研究局（NBER）9月发表一份工作论文之后提出的。该论文称，在车站地点公开公布之前，任职于铁路规划相关机构的公务员与计划中地铁站附近私人房地产购买之间存在统计关联。

研究人员发现，这一模式集中在中层公务员以及车站地点公布前一至两年。他们估计，公务员进行了113宗此类购买，价值约1亿3800万新元。

该模式见于2011年或之前作出的地铁站公告。

陈振声表示，虽然NBER论文将受关注时期确定为2007年至2011年，但公共服务署“出于审慎考虑”将审查范围扩大至2014年，因为2011年之后多年仍有许多新地铁站地点陆续公布。

公共服务署利用政府记录，识别出2007年至2014年期间在参与铁路规划的机构任职、并在后来公布为地铁站的地点附近购买房地产的人员。

对于每宗交易，公共服务署审查了可得记录，包括该人员当时的职务、是否接触过相关非公开信息，以及交易的时间和情况。

在回应关于防止滥用非公开政府信息的保障措施问题时，陈振声说：“公务人员绝不能利用通过公务取得的信息来推进自身或他人的私人利益。”

他补充说，视情况而定，未经授权使用或披露官方信息也可能构成法律下的罪行。

现有保障措施包括按“知情需要”原则控制对敏感信息的访问，以及规范人员个人利益和交易的申报与审批要求。

陈振声说：“公共服务部门定期检讨其规则，并随着时间推移不断强化。我们将考虑此次审查对这些规则有效性的启示，以及是否存在需要处理的漏洞。”

他补充说：“任何进一步措施都应与风险相称，并具备实际可行性，同时允许合法的个人交易在适当监督下进行。

“即便有强有力的保障措施，也没有任何制度能够完全杜绝不当行为的可能性。因此，我们必须继续减少滥用机会，保持有效的侦测手段，并在出现不当行为证据时坚决采取行动。”

在被问及核查是否应扩展至其他基础设施项目和房地产交易，包括学校和土地用途决策时，陈振声表示，公共服务署并未进行此类一般性审查，不应假定接触非公开信息的人员曾滥用这些信息。

他补充说，公共服务署将“尽快”完成审查，如有相关发现，将完整公布。

在被问及防止滥用敏感政府信息进行房地产以外投资的保障措施，以及政府是否会提高核查频率和强度，而不是采取“被动立场”时，陈振声表示，同样的规则适用于房地产、金融和其他交易。

“无论是房地产，还是任何其他涉及或可能涉及敏感信息的交易，我们都以同样的精神看待，那就是任何人员都不应利用任何非公开信息谋取个人利益。”

在被问及拥有多套房地产是否应被视为警讯，以及是否应限制公务人员可拥有的房地产数量时，陈振声说：“我们必须公平对待公务人员……他们有合法的住房需求。他们有合法的投资和管理自身财务的需求。”

他补充说，拥有不止一处房地产不一定是警讯，关键问题在于他们是否滥用了非公开信息。

另外，在被问及房地产申报要求是否应扩大至公务人员的父母和经济上独立的子女时，陈振声表示，需要在人员被要求申报的事项上取得平衡。

现行要求涵盖公务人员、其配偶和经济上受其供养的子女。但他补充说，无论一个人是直系还是旁系家庭成员，利用非公开信息谋取个人利益“仍然是错误的”。