Ridout Road: Kenneth Jeyaretnam Is Doing This For Self-Promotion
He makes it too obvious that he didn’t read the Ridout Report by CPIB, Teo Chee Hean, and the PMO.
When Kenneth Jeyaretnam first brought this issue to light, I saw some validity in his arguments (you can read my previous piece here). If his claims are true, they are indeed concerning. CPIB has since given their verdict on those claims — that the ministers did not get any preferential treatment when it comes to those deals. Their rent meets the guide rent, they paid for additional renovations that they wanted, and their lease (3+3+3/3+3+2) falls within SLA’s standard lease period for such rentals.
However, it seems like Kenneth Jeyaretnam didn’t read the report from CPIB thoroughly.
Despite being the main target audience of CPIB’s report, he didn’t bother going through the report thoroughly. This is obvious from his arguments after the Ridout Report has been released.
For example, he said that the 3+3+3/3+3+2 lease terms was “generous” for the ministers, even though SLA’s standard is that tenancies can be granted up to a maximum of 3+3+3 years.
He also nit-picked the fact that the ministers’ bids were close to the guide rent. (While quoting wrong figures).
The Ridout Report informed that Shanmugam informed his property agent that he would like to bid above his neighbours, and his property agent told him that his neighbouring unit was going at $26k (hence his $26.5k bid).
As for Mrs Balakrishnan, she asked SLA’s managing agent for a quote. The MA quoted her $19k, and hence that was her bid (above the $18.8k guide rent).
Everybody can find information on each unit’s managing agent via SLA’s website, or employ their own property agents to do exactly what the ministers/their spouses did. Yet, Kenneth Jeyaretnam is still questioning how the ministers decided on their bids, despite the report already having the answer to that. He also quoted the wrong numbers by saying that Shanmugam bid is $24k when it was $26.5k.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam claims to represent the interests of the people, but his actions often seem more driven by self-promotion and personal gain.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, in my opinion, is an ineffective and opportunistic politician. He is using this Ridout Road as another opportunity for him to score political points and for self-promotion. If it were really about checking on the government, he should have minimally read the report and not skipped any details.
Instead, he is trying to milk this Ridout issue for as long as possible, offering attention-grabbing comments against the ministers because this is one of his most high-profile confrontations with the PAP.
That fact alone undermines his credibility. Instead of fostering a constructive political environment, he often fuels divisive rhetoric and perpetuates a culture of negativity. His confrontational approach and tendency to resort to personal attacks rather than engaging in substantive policy debates are disappointing, and it perpetuates a culture of negativity.
While a healthy opposition is essential for a robust democracy, his lack of effectiveness and questionable motives make it challenging to take him seriously as a viable alternative to the ruling party.
