Corruption Concerns Emerge Over Civil Servants' Home Purchases Near Future MRT Stations

Singapore's Public Service Division (PSD) is reviewing an academic paper alleging civil servants disproportionately bought homes near planned MRT stations before their locations were publicly announced.

"We take any integrity concerns extremely seriously," a PSD spokesperson said, adding that the matter would be referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau if there is a material basis to do so.

The paper, published by the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), examined private-property transactions in Singapore and compared the purchases of civil servants with those of other buyers.

The researchers alleged that civil servants made more purchases near planned MRT stations in the one to two years before the stations were publicly announced, which they said could indicate access to non-public information.

The study, titled "Do Social Norms Substitute for Enforcement? Evidence from Public Officials' Home Purchases in Singapore", identified civil servants by matching property transaction records with information from the Singapore Government Directory Interactive.

The researchers found that civil servants made about 50 additional purchases near unannounced stations two years before announcements and 63 additional purchases one year before, compared with a matched control group, based on their statistical modelling.

The authors also said the pattern was more pronounced among officials in agencies involved in rail-line planning.

Journalist Bertha Henson also weighed in on the paper, stressing that it was academic research intended for discussion and further testing, rather than a finding that Singapore's civil service is corrupt.

She also highlighted that the paper was an NBER working paper and had not been peer-reviewed, urging readers to view its findings as research to be examined and debated rather than a definitive verdict.

The news also comes as two National University of Singapore (NUS) professors have distanced themselves from the paper, saying they were unaware of the study and had asked its authors to remove their names from the acknowledgements.

The NBER paper is a working paper circulated for discussion and comment. It states that the research has not been peer-reviewed or undergone the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.