Govt reviewing property purchases made between 2007 and 2011 by officers involved in rail planning

The PSD said in a statement on Sept 25 that it is identifying the purchases and will review them to assess if there was actual misconduct.

ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

Published Sep 25, 2026, 06:30 PM

Updated Sep 25, 2026, 06:30 PM

SINGAPORE — The Government is reviewing home purchases made between 2007 and 2011 by officers involved in rail planning at the time, where the properties were close to locations subsequently announced as MRT stations.

The Public Service Division (PSD) said in a statement on Sept 25 that it is identifying the purchases and will review them to assess if there was actual misconduct. If there is evidence that an officer used non-public information to make a property purchase for personal benefit , the case will be referred to the police for further investigation, it added.

“As these transactions took place some time ago, we will need time to retrieve the available records and examine the circumstances of each case,” said the PSD, which sits under the Prime Minister’s Office.

The response came after the release of a research paper which claimed Singapore civil servants , in particular those involved in rail planning, disproportionately bought homes near MRT stations that had not yet been publicly announced. The working paper, which was published by US-based non-profit organisation National Bureau of Economic Research, found that the pattern largely disappeared after 2011.

The PSD said earlier on Sept 14 that it was reviewing the paper’s data and methodology and would refer any issue to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau “if there is a material basis to do so”.

On Sept 25, the PSD said the statistical patterns reported in the paper are a concern, and that it takes the assertions seriously.

However, it noted that statistical patterns surfaced by the paper do not by themselves establish whether any individual officer actually had access to non-public information on MRT station locations at the relevant time, or whether such information influenced a property purchase.

For example, information or speculation about planned MRT lines and stations may already be in the public domain or used to market new property developments, it stated.

“An officer may have purchased a unit in such a development for reasons unrelated to any non-public information,” said the PSD.

“These possibilities do not remove the need for scrutiny, but underscore why each transaction must be examined carefully before any conclusion is drawn.”

The PSD also set out the public service’s rules and safeguards to prevent officers from using non-public information for personal benefit.

It said public officers are required to declare their property purchases. There are also controls over access to sensitive information, as well as established channels for reporting suspected wrongdoing.

These rules and safeguards have been strengthened over time, it added.

Officers with non-public information that may be relevant to a proposed personal transaction – whether involving property, vehicles or financial instruments – must declare this and obtain approval before proceeding, it specified.

The paper, which was published on Sept 11 and has not been peer reviewed, used private-property transaction records from 1995 to 2019 and linked buyers to records of civil servants in the Singapore Government Directory Interactive (SGDI).

The researchers used six SGDI cohorts, from 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2022, to identify civil servants and track their property transactions.

They also used a proprietary dataset containing demographic and residential-address information, as well as the Council for Estate Agencies’ public register of licensed real estate agents. The datasets were combined with private-property transaction records from legal or caveat filings, which included the names of buyers and sellers, according to the paper.

The researchers then identified purchases near MRT stations that had been planned but not yet publicly announced. Their analysis found that civil servants purchased homes near such stations at higher rates than a matched group of non-civil servants, with the difference concentrated in the one to two years before announcements.

On Sept 25, the PSD said the Government expects all public officers to uphold the highest standards of integrity.

“Where there are grounds to suspect that an officer has misused non-public information for personal benefit, the matter will be investigated and appropriate action taken,” it said.

“At the same time, conclusions of wrongdoing must be based on evidence and the facts of each case.”

Public Service Division

公共服务署在9月25日发表声明称，正在核实这些采购情况，并将进行审查以评估是否存在实际的不当行为。

ST 照片：林耀辉

发布于2026年9月25日下午6:30

更新于2026年9月25日下午6:30

新加坡——政府正在审查 2007 年至 2011 年间参与铁路规划的官员购买的房屋，这些房产靠近后来宣布为地铁站的地点。

公共服务署（PSD）于9月25日发表声明称，正在核查相关采购情况，并将进行审查以评估是否存在实际不当行为。声明还指出，如有证据表明有官员利用非公开信息为个人利益购买房产，案件将移交警方进一步调查。

“由于这些交易发生在一段时间以前，我们需要时间来检索现有记录并审查每个案件的情况，”隶属于首相办公室的公共服务司表示。

此前一份研究报告指出，新加坡公务员，尤其是参与铁路规划的公务员，过度热衷于购买尚未公开宣布的地铁站附近的房产。这份由美国非营利组织国家经济研究局（NBER）发布的报告发现，这种现象在2011年后基本消失。

公共服务署9月14日早些时候表示，正在审查该报的数据和方法，如有实质性依据，将把任何问题移交贪污调查局。

9月25日，公共服务司表示，该报报道的统计模式令人担忧，并表示将认真对待这些说法。

然而，报告指出，该报告揭示的统计模式本身并不能确定任何一名警官在相关时期是否实际获得了有关地铁站位置的非公开信息，也不能确定此类信息是否影响了房产购买。

报告指出，例如，有关规划中的地铁线路和车站的信息或猜测可能已经公开，或者被用于推销新的房地产开发项目。

“警官购买此类楼盘中的房产可能与任何非公开信息无关，”公共安全部门表示。

“这些可能性并不能消除审查的必要性，但却强调了为什么在得出任何结论之前，必须仔细审查每一笔交易。”

公安署还制定了公务员的规则和保障措施，以防止公务员利用非公开信息谋取私利。

声明指出，公职人员必须申报其财产购买情况。此外，还对敏感信息的访问进行管控，并设有举报涉嫌不当行为的既定渠道。

声明还补充说，这些规则和保障措施随着时间的推移得到了加强。

该规定明确指出，掌握可能与拟议的个人交易（无论是涉及财产、车辆还是金融工具）相关的非公开信息的官员，必须申报该信息，并在进行交易前获得批准。

该论文于 9 月 11 日发表，未经同行评审，使用了 1995 年至 2019 年的私人财产交易记录，并将买家与新加坡政府互动名录 (SGDI) 中的公务员记录联系起来。

研究人员使用了 2007 年、2009 年、2011 年、2013 年、2015 年和 2022 年的六个 SGDI 队列，来识别公务员并跟踪他们的房产交易。

他们还使用了包含人口统计和居住地址信息的专有数据集，以及房地产代理委员会的持牌房地产经纪人公共登记册。根据该论文，这些数据集与来自法律或产权限制备案的私人房产交易记录相结合，其中包括买卖双方的姓名。

研究人员随后识别出一些已计划但尚未公开宣布的地铁站附近购房项目。他们的分析发现，公务员在这些地铁站附近购房的比例高于一组匹配的非公务员，且这种差异主要集中在项目宣布前一到两年。

9月25日，公共服务署表示，政府期望所有公职人员秉持最高的诚信标准。

声明称：“如有理由怀疑警员滥用非公开信息谋取私利，将对此事进行调查并采取适当行动。”

“与此同时，对不当行为的结论必须以证据和每个案件的事实为依据。”

公共服务部