Eight officers referred to police after review of MRT-linked home purchases

Eight public officers have been referred to the police after a government review of 191 officers’ past property purchases near locations later announced as MRT stations. Chan Chun Sing, the minister in charge of the Public Service, disclosed the referrals in Parliament on 6 October 2026.

The referrals matter because the Public Service Division (PSD) could not clear those eight cases using the information available. But they are not findings of wrongdoing: the police will examine the facts independently and decide what, if anything, should happen next.

Eight cases emerged from a review of 191 officers

PSD reviewed officers who had worked in public agencies involved in rail planning and bought properties from 2007 to 2014 near places subsequently announced as MRT station locations.

For each case, PSD considered the officer’s role, possible access to relevant non-public information, and the timing and circumstances of the purchase. Eight cases warranted further examination either because of the purchase circumstances or because there was insufficient information to rule out further review.

That wording is important. A referral means PSD believes more examination is needed; it does not establish that an officer possessed confidential information, used it to buy property, breached public-service rules or committed an offence. Chan said the police would investigate independently and observe due process.

The eight referrals represent about 4.2% of the 191 officers reviewed, based on the figures given to Parliament. The purchases themselves date back roughly 12 to 19 years, so the review concerns decisions and records from well over a decade ago.

No officer, property, housing development or MRT station was identified publicly in the parliamentary reply. There is therefore no verified basis for connecting the referrals to a particular neighbourhood, transaction price or possible financial gain.

An academic paper prompted the review

The government began its checks after a working paper by Tomasz Piskorski, Amit Seru, Jian Zhang and Chun Zhao reported a statistical relationship involving home purchases by people the researchers classified as civil servants linked to rail-planning agencies and locations of planned MRT stations before their announcement.

That research examined a broad pattern in data rather than determining what happened in any individual transaction. PSD therefore used government records to review officers and purchases case by case.

The government also said it could not independently establish some aspects of the paper’s proprietary data and buyer-matching method. This matters because the researchers’ classification exercise and PSD’s records-based review were separate processes using different information.

The paper focused on purchases from 2007 to 2011. PSD extended its review to 2014 because locations of new MRT stations continued to be announced after 2011.

Research, administrative review and police examination

Three distinct stages have brought the matter to this point.

First, the academic paper identified a statistical pattern that raised questions for further investigation. Second, PSD conducted an administrative review of 191 officers using government information and identified eight cases requiring closer examination.

Third, the police will assess those eight referrals independently. This is the stage at which investigators can examine the relevant facts and determine whether further action is warranted; PSD’s referral does not predetermine that outcome.

The distinction explains why the number eight is significant but incomplete. The cases have progressed beyond PSD’s internal review, yet no conclusion about misconduct or criminal liability has been announced.

Why property purchases near future stations require scrutiny

Plans for future MRT stations can be sensitive because transport access may affect how buyers and sellers assess nearby homes. Access to material information before it becomes public could therefore create an unfair advantage in a property transaction.

Existing public-service rules require officers to declare purchases of private property. An officer with relevant non-public information must also obtain approval from the head of the agency before transacting; these requirements extend to an officer’s spouse and financially dependent children.

PSD will consider whether its wider review reveals gaps requiring stronger safeguards. That system-level question is separate from the police examination of the eight individual cases.

For now, the verified position remains narrow: eight of 191 reviewed officers have been referred to police, but no wrongdoing has been established. The next meaningful development will be whether the independent examinations end with the cases being closed or lead to further formal action.