A Woman’s Battle Against Eviction: The Complex Journey of Ms. Jasmine Gowrimani Daniel

In the heart of a legal tussle lies the gripping story of Ms. Jasmine Gowrimani Daniel, who faces the haunting reality of eviction from a flat she had purchased back in 2001. The Housing Development Board (HDB) took action against her due to alleged significant mortgage payment defaults amounting to a substantial sum of S$106,000 by May 2020. This eviction saga has unraveled through a series of events, legal notices, appeals, and judicial decisions, culminating in an ongoing battle for possession and justice.

Background of the Case

According to CNA, Ms. Daniel’s saga dates back to the early 2000s when she acquired the flat with financial assistance from HDB. Over the years, she encountered personal hardships leading to arrears in mortgage payments. Her plea for understanding due to her circumstances was met with temporary deferrals and reduced payments. However, as time progressed, her debts escalated, leading to notices of eviction.

HDB’s Notifications and Attempts at Resolution

The HDB, in attempts to address the situation, served multiple notices, granting options to settle the arrears or sell the property. Ms. Daniel engaged in negotiations with HDB and the Ministry of National Development (MND) seeking mediation and a feasible payment plan. Despite back-and-forth discussions, a mutual agreement remained elusive.

The Proceedings Over the Years

The case unfolded through various correspondences, offers, rejections, and demands for payment. With arrears mounting to a considerable sum, MND rejected Ms. Daniel’s proposed payment plan as inadequate, hinting at the uncertainty of her income to sustain monthly payments.

HDB’s Execution of Eviction

After extended back-and-forths, HDB proceeded with the eviction process, granting deadlines for Ms. Daniel to either sell the property or settle her dues. Subsequently, the scheduled eviction took place, leading to a standoff between Ms. Daniel and HDB, entailing legal action and requests for a judicial review.

Legal Proceedings and Judge Toh’s Decision

In a critical turn of events, Judge Toh dismissed Ms. Daniel’s application, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court deemed her appeal frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, ordering her to pay costs to HDB. Despite her appeals against these orders, the legal battle persists.

Conclusion

The convoluted journey of Ms. Jasmine Gowrimani Daniel stands as a complex narrative of an individual’s struggle against eviction, intertwined with legal complexities, administrative decisions, and personal predicaments. The unresolved conflict continues, marking a precedent for legal interpretations and tenant rights.

Unique FAQs

1. **Why did Ms. Daniel face eviction?
   • Ms. Daniel faced eviction due to significant mortgage payment defaults, accumulating to around S$106,000 by May 2020, as alleged by HDB.
2. **Did Ms. Daniel receive any options before the eviction process?
   • Yes, HDB provided Ms. Daniel with options to either sell the property or settle the arrears to avoid eviction.
3. **What was the Ministry of National Development’s role in this case?
   • The MND attempted to mediate and establish a payment plan but rejected Ms. Daniel’s proposed plan due to its inadequacy to settle the arrears within a reasonable time frame.
4. **What led to Judge Toh’s decision against Ms. Daniel’s appeal?
   • Judge Toh’s decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the district court over the matter and deemed her appeal frivolous and an abuse of the court’s process.
5. **Is the legal battle over for Ms. Daniel?
   • No, Ms. Daniel has appealed against all of Judge Toh’s orders, and the conflict is ongoing.

The leader of the Reform Party, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, has been issued his 5th POFMA correction order this year by the POFMA office under the instruction of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Lawrence Wong.

This is in relation to an article that Jeyaretnam posted on several platforms on 22 October about the Ridout Road issue and Net Investiment Returns Contribution (NIRC).

The POFMA order from the Ministry of Finance

Issuance of Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam

1. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office to issue a Correction Direction to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam in relation to his article on The Ricebowl Singapore, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X, published on 22 October 2023.
2. Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam will be required to publish the correction notice on The Ricebowl Singapore, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X.
3. 3 For the facts of this case, please refer to the Factually article, “Corrections regarding false statements of fact in article, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X posts published by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam on 22 October 2023” (https://www.gov.sg/article/factually021123)
   
   Issued by:
   Ministry of Finance
   Singapore
   2 November 2023

Govt’s clarifications

1. The article published on The Ricebowl Singapore by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam on 22 October 2023 and his subsequent reposts of the same on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X (formerly known as Twitter) on the same date contain false statements of fact.

False Statements of Fact

2. First, the article states that most of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) has been transferred into long term funds and therefore does not contribute to actual spending. This is untrue. 

• The NIRC comprises the investment returns of our reserves, which supplement the annual Budget each year to fund public spending. ^[1] For the financial year which ended on 31 March 2023, the NIRC was approximately $22.4 billion. How our reserves and the NIRC have benefited Singaporeans has been highlighted at various platforms, including the MOF website ^[2] and the CNA documentary on reserves. ^[3]
• NIRC, combined with operating revenue, form the total revenue that is used to meet annual public spending (i.e., the annual Budget), and contributes to the government’s overall fiscal position. The NIRC has provided an annual revenue stream of about 3.5% of GDP on average over the past 5 years. No proportion of the NIRC is earmarked for specific spending items, or for transfer into any specific fund(s). Instead, a portion of the annual Budget as a whole may be used to top up funds. Hence, it is incorrect to state that most of the NIRC has been transferred into long term funds.
• Furthermore, it is false to imply that moneys transferred into such long term funds do not contribute to “actual spending”. Moneys transferred to all funds, including long term funds, contribute to the disbursements from such funds, and accordingly contribute to “actual spending” which benefit Singaporeans. Moreover, how the moneys set aside for funds to support the Majulah Package, the Pioneer Generation Package, and the Merdeka Generation Package entail real spending has been previously clarified in a Factually article published on 30 August 2023 – please see:

Corrections regarding false statements of fact in article and posts published by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam on 21 August 2023: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually300823-a

3. Second, the article claims that SLA had given preferential treatment to Minister K Shanmugam and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan by renting out 26 and 31 Ridout Road below market value while charging the Housing and Development Board (HDB) inflated prices for land. This is untrue. 

• Mr Jeyaretnam made similar false statements of fact in earlier publications that have already been clarified: see https://www.gov.sg/article/factually020823 and https://www.gov.sg/article/factually300823-a 
• He continues to make such statements with utter disregard for the facts. He repeatedly omitted the facts and clarifications, rather than provide them and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Mr Jeyaretnam’s campaign of posting false statements misleads Singaporeans on the way that SLA works, as well as on the State’s land sale and property rental policies. 
• As established in the review conducted by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, the rentals for both 26 and 31 Ridout Road were based on fair market value and not below market valuation. There was no evidence that the Ministers were given favourable rental rates due to their position. Details on how the market value was arrived at have been given in Parliament. The rental paid by the Ministers for both 26 and 31 Ridout Road were not less than the respective Guide Rents for the properties, which were determined by professional valuers, who adhered to established principles and methods for valuation. Indeed, the professional valuer from SLA who determined the Guide Rent for 26 Ridout Road did not know the identity of the prospective tenant for 26 Ridout Road at the material time, and only learnt that the tenant was Minister Shanmugam after the matter was reported in the media. It was also stated in Parliament that Minister Shanmugam had recused himself, in respect of the rental transaction. The CPIB had found that no preferential treatment was given to the Ministers and there was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain. 
• SLA sells state land to HDB for the development of public housing at the fair market value. Fair market value is assessed by the Chief Valuer (and not SLA), who makes the professional assessment independently in accordance with established valuation principles. SLA does not charge HDB inflated prices for the land.
• The underlying principle used by the Government for determining the value of land for sale to the public and for rental of the Ridout Road properties is the same – it is to transact at fair market value. Whether for short-term rental or longer-term sale, the valuation seeks to establish the price that the market is willing to pay in each case, so that the Government transacts at fair market value. 
• The matter of the rental of the Ridout Road properties had been independently and extensively investigated by CPIB and SM Teo Chee Hean. The facts have already been clarified and published. Please see: 

a. For the Press Statement from the Prime Minister’s Office dated 28 June 2023: https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/Rental-of-State-Properties-at-Ridout-Road-by-Min-Shanmugam-and-Min-Vivian-Balakrishnan

b. For the Reports by CPIB & SM Teo Chee Hean: https://www.pmo.gov.sg/-/media/PMO/Releases-PDFs/20230628-ridout-report-pdf.ashx

c. For the Ministerial Statement & Round up Speech by SM Teo Chee Hean: https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/Ministerial-Statement-by-SM-Teo-Chee-Hean-on-Ridout-Road & https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/Round-up-Speech-by-SM-Teo-Chee-Hean-on-Ridout-Road

d. For the Ministerial Statement by Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=ministerial-statement-2198

4. Third, the article states that of $17 billion in healthcare expenditure, only $8 billion was used as subsidies for Singaporeans. This is untrue.

• There is no factual basis to state that of $17 billion in healthcare expenditure, only $8 billion was used as subsidies for Singaporeans. 
• For example, over the last three financial years, healthcare expenditure has ranged from $16.88 billion to $17.32 billion per year, and subsidies for Singaporeans have ranged from $9.54 billion to $10.93 billion per year. This is reflected in the Government Budget Book which is publicly available on the Ministry of Finance’s website. Excluding COVID-19 expenditure which is transitory, more than 70% of total healthcare expenditure was spent on subsidies for Singaporeans.

5. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Lawrence Wong, has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act Office to issue a Correction Direction to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam in respect of his article and his Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X posts.

Additional Clarifications

6. The article also states that the Government uses “subsidies from the Budget for HDB purchases to enable HDB to pay a higher price for land” and that Singaporeans pay “inflated prices for smaller and smaller HDB units”. The following clarifications are necessary. 

Land prices 

7. State land is disposed of at fair market value (FMV). In the case of land for public housing, the FMV is independently and professionally determined by the Chief Valuer (CV), using market valuation principles.   

8. The CV’s valuation does not factor in housing subsidies or grants provided to HDB. The intent of housing subsidies is to keep flat prices affordable, and not to increase land price.  

Pricing of BTO flats

9. HDB does not sell flats at “inflated prices”. BTO flats are not priced based on cost, instead they are priced to ensure affordability. HDB first establishes the market value of the flats by considering the prices of comparable resale flats nearby, which is influenced by prevailing market conditions, as well as the individual attributes of the flats. 

10. HDB then applies a significant subsidy to the assessed market values to ensure that new flats are affordable for flat buyers. 

HDB flat sizes

11. HDB flats are designed to provide a living environment that is functional and comfortable. HDB flat sizes have not changed since 1997, but average household sizes have decreased.

–

^[1] See Q24 and Q25 in the Section on “How do Singaporeans benefit from our Reserves?” on the MOF website.

^[2] For reserves-related FAQs on the MOF website, please see: https://www.mof.gov.sg/policies/reserves/how-do-singaporeans-benefit-from-our-reserves.

^[3] For the CNA documentary series on reserves, Singapore Reserves Revealed, please see: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/topic/singapore-reserves-revealed.

In a recent incident on November 1st, Singapore’s public healthcare institutions faced an extensive disruption. This disruption was not a mere technical glitch but, in fact, a sophisticated cyber-attack in the form of a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, according to Channel NewsAsia.

What is a DDoS attack?

A DDoS attack is a malicious act aimed at disrupting online services by overwhelming the target with an unusually high volume of data traffic. It is a common tactic used by cybercriminals to render websites and online services inaccessible.

The impact of the DDoS attack

The consequences of this DDoS attack were severe, with internet connectivity at public healthcare institutions being disrupted for hours. The disruption, which occurred from 9.20 am to 4.30 pm, affected a wide range of services, including websites, emails, and staff productivity tools.

During the attack, critical services that required internet connectivity were rendered inaccessible. However, it’s worth noting that despite this chaos, patient data and internal networks remained secure, ensuring that patient care was not compromised.

Synapxe’s response and security measures

Synapxe, the agency responsible for managing the technology infrastructure of Singapore’s public healthcare institutions, swiftly responded to the attack. They employ a layered defense mechanism designed to detect and respond to cyber threats, including DDoS attacks.

In addition to a layered defense, Synapxe utilizes redundancy and system backups to ensure resilience against such attacks. They also subscribe to services that can block abnormal surges in internet traffic before they can penetrate their public healthcare network.

Detecting the abnormal surge in network traffic

The attack commenced at 9.15 am when Synapxe detected an abnormal surge in network traffic. This surge managed to bypass the blocking service and overwhelmed the firewall behind the blocks. This ultimately resulted in the filtering out of traffic, rendering all websites and internet-reliant services inaccessible.

Once the cause of the attack was identified, Synapxe collaborated with service providers to implement measures to block the abnormal traffic, allowing legitimate internet services to resume. Services were progressively restored from 4.30 pm, alleviating the disruption that had persisted for several hours.

Synapxe statement

Investigations on the internet connectivity disruption for public healthcare institutions which happened on 1 November 2023 showed that the outage was caused by a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack, where the attackers flood servers with internet traffic to prevent legitimate users from accessing online services. Synapxe has found no evidence to indicate that public healthcare data and internal networks have been compromised. 

2. Internet connectivity at public healthcare institutions was disrupted between 9.20am and 4.30pm on 1 November 2023, with most of the affected services restored by 5.15pm. During the disruption, services requiring internet connectivity at public healthcare institutions, including websites, emails, productivity tools for staff, were inaccessible. 

3. Throughout the incident, Synapxe was able to sustain the mission critical systems needed for clinical services and operations at the public healthcare institutions, including access to patient records. Patient data and the internal networks remained accessible and unaffected. Patient care was not compromised. 

4. Synapxe’s networks are protected in a layered defence designed to detect and respond to cyber threats, including DDoS attacks. Our systems are also designed with redundancies for resilience, and these include system backups. To minimise the risks of being overwhelmed by higher-than-usual internet traffic, Synapxe subscribes to services which block abnormal surges in internet traffic before they enter our public healthcare network. In addition, once the traffic is cleared by the blocking service, firewalls are in place to allow only legitimate traffic into the network. 

5. On 1 November 2023, an abnormal surge in network traffic was detected at 9.15am. This surge circumvented the blocking service, and overwhelmed Synapxe’s firewall behind the blocks. This triggered the firewall to filter out the traffic, and all the websites and internet-reliant services became inaccessible. Once the cause was identified, Synapxe immediately worked with service providers to deploy measures to block the abnormal traffic in order to allow legitimate traffic required for internet services to resume. Services were restored progressively from 4.30pm.

6. The DDoS attacks are continuing, and we may see occasional disruptions in internet services as a result. Synapxe is working with relevant parties to actively defend against the attacks, and expedite the recovery processes. Investigations by Synapxe and the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) are also ongoing.

7. The measures put in place by Synapxe to protect our systems have enabled us to withstand the attacks with no compromise to healthcare data and internal networks. 

8. The incident is a stark reminder that DDoS attacks are on the rise, with changing attack methods. DDoS attacks cannot be prevented, and the defences against DDoS attacks will have to constantly evolve to keep up with advancements. 

9. The public healthcare sector will take this opportunity to review our defences against DDoS attacks, and learn from the episode to further strengthen our cybersecurity . It is important that we continue to remain vigilant against cybersecurity threats.