Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam is under fire from netizens for his contrasting responses to town council controversies—defending Nee Soon GRC’s handling of a six-year-long contractor kickback scandal while harshly criticising the Workers’ Party (WP) in 2015 over financial mismanagement at the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), now renamed Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).
The disparity in Shanmugam’s reactions, along with court rulings debunking his earlier accusations against WP, has fuelled accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency.
Nee Soon’s six-year kickback scandal: Blaming a rogue individual
Shanmugam, the anchor minister for Nee Soon GRC, addressed the media on 1 February 2025 regarding a case involving Derrick Ho Chiak Hock, a former operations manager at Lian Cheng Contracting.
Ho was sentenced to 24 weeks’ jail in November 2024 for collecting S$396,440 in kickbacks from migrant workers between 2015 and 2021. The case only came to light after a whistleblower reported the abuse.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, Shanmugam criticised opposition parties and online commentators for “politicising” the matter.
“Some political parties as well as online news sites have gone further and politicised it and made allegations without really understanding what happened,” he said.
He emphasised that the MPs immediately directed investigations once they were informed by the whistleblower and referred the case to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). He framed the problem as an isolated incident involving one rogue employee, adding, “It’s an individual, he has been punished, and since 2021, the company has been taken over by somebody else.”
Shanmugam also defended the town council’s continued engagement with Lian Cheng Contracting, arguing that punishing the entire company would have jeopardised the livelihoods of many Singaporean workers.
However, this defence overlooks the fact that Lian Cheng has a prior record of misconduct. In 2009, the company was fined after being found guilty of failing to provide annual leave for four employees and making unauthorised deductions from their salaries.
The history of labour violations, combined with the long-running nature of the kickback scheme, raises questions about the adequacy of Nee Soon Town Council’s oversight.
Shanmugam’s 2015 attack on WP: Allegations of dishonesty and corruption
Shanmugam’s call to avoid politicising Nee Soon’s kickback case contrasts sharply with his fierce attack on the Workers’ Party in 2015.
Speaking in Parliament during a motion raised by the People’s Action Party (PAP) after an Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) report highlighted lapses at AHPETC, Shanmugam accused WP MPs, including Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang, of intentionally approving payments to FM Solutions & Services (FMSS), a company owned by WP supporters, in a scheme designed to benefit their allies.
He did not hold back, making harsh allegations, including:
- “The Workers’ Party took money from the man-in-the-street to give to their friends in FMSS.”
- “This is not negligence. This is not inexperience. This arrangement was designed deliberately.”
- “No Town Councillor who knew of this structure could have approved this structure lawfully. It is unlawful.”
Shanmugam accused WP of breaching fiduciary duties and alleged that millions in public funds had been misused. He portrayed the lapses as evidence of systemic corruption and dishonesty.
Court findings: WP did not act dishonestly
In 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned many of Shanmugam’s key allegations. The court found that WP MPs, including Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Khiang, and Pritam Singh, did not breach fiduciary or equitable duties and had acted in good faith when awarding contracts to FM Solutions & Services (FMSS). While it did conclude that WP was grossly negligent in implementing a flawed payment system, it rejected accusations of dishonesty or deliberate misconduct.
The ruling was further clarified and affirmed in 2023, when the court reaffirmed that while WP MPs were liable for negligence, there was no evidence of corruption or intentional wrongdoing. The judgment emphasised that the lapses stemmed from poor oversight, not any intent to benefit party associates. Key conclusions included:
The court highlighted that the payments to FMSS were not unlawful and that WP MPs did not profit from the transactions. The court’s ruling included the following key findings:
- “The Town Councillors and Employees did not owe fiduciary or equitable duties to AHTC.”
- “There is no evidence that the Town Councillors acted dishonestly or in bad faith.”
- “The breaches stemmed from gross negligence, not wilful misconduct or corruption.”
Had Shanmugam made these remarks outside Parliament, WP MPs could have pursued legal action for defamation. However, under Singapore’s parliamentary privilege, statements made within Parliament are protected, preventing WP from suing Shanmugam despite the court’s findings that his allegations were inaccurate.
Netizens highlight double standards
Netizens have been quick to point out the stark contrast between Shanmugam’s 2015 rhetoric and his 2025 defence of Nee Soon GRC.
In 2015, he described WP’s management of its town council as a “deliberate” failure, suggesting the lapses were part of a scheme to benefit party supporters. Now, when faced with a six-year-long kickback scheme under his own GRC’s watch, he attributes it to an individual’s misconduct and praises the whistleblowing system for uncovering the issue.
Critics argue that this selective framing highlights double standards. The AHTC matter was continuously scrutinised for years, with Shanmugam and other PAP MPs frequently raising it in Parliament and public discourse.
In contrast, the long-running nature of the Nee Soon scandal—spanning six years without detection—has not attracted the same level of sustained public inquiry. Netizens have questioned why immediate action after a whistleblower report is being used as a defence when the issue had persisted for years under the town council’s oversight.
Additionally, the prior misconduct of Lian Cheng Contracting makes the matter more serious. Given its 2009 labour violations, the town council’s decision to continue engaging the company without heightened monitoring raises concerns about due diligence.
As for his comments about others making allegations without really understanding what happened, isn’t the minister guilty of the very thing he is complaining about, when he shared an allegation from his party volunteer about the Progress Singapore Party while a police investigation was still ongoing as the Minister for Home Affairs? Double standards much?
Driving home the hypocrisy
In both cases, town councils faced serious lapses that raised questions about the role and responsibility of MPs in overseeing town council operations. In 2015, Shanmugam framed the Workers’ Party’s lapses as systemic failures driven by deliberate misconduct and accused WP MPs of structuring payments to benefit allies.
Now, when similar lapses emerge under the PAP’s watch, he downplays the scandal as the result of a rogue individual and defends the integrity of the broader system.
While Shanmugam insists that Nee Soon MPs acted immediately once informed by a whistleblower, the fact that the kickbacks went undetected for six years points to deeper oversight failures.
If the same standards applied to AHTC were applied to Nee Soon, the current scandal would likely have triggered prolonged investigations and accountability demands, along with probes into whether Nee Soon MPs had prior knowledge of or benefited from the arrangements—just as WP MPs were subjected to.
Adding to the controversy is testimony from repatriated workers in the 2014 case involving similar issues at another GRC, which was also connected to Ho’s kickback scheme. Speaking to The Online Citizen (TOC), workers alleged that their company often collaborated closely with MPs, supplying manpower for grassroots activities. They recalled being tasked with setting up and moving items during community events, while the companies made donations in kind during festive occasions.
This raises a critical question: Did MPs have any inkling of the kickbacks or mistreatment of workers? There seems to be no middle ground—either Nee Soon’s MPs were incompetent and failed in their oversight duties, or they were aware of what was happening and chose to turn a blind eye.
As for Shanmugam’s comments about others making allegations “without really understanding what happened,” the irony is hard to ignore. Isn’t the minister guilty of the same when he publicly shared an unverified allegation from a PAP volunteer about the Progress Singapore Party, despite a police investigation being ongoing at the time? Double standards much?
Shanmugam’s measured response to Nee Soon underscores what many see as political hypocrisy, raising concerns that inconsistent standards in addressing town council failures may erode public trust and suggest that accountability in Singapore depends on who is in power.
