The President of UNSW Asia was also a board member of the EDB. This created a possible conflict of interest with the EDB being a major financier of UNSW Asia. Management advised us that the President completed the necessary conflict of interest declarations, although those documents could not be located. We were concerned how the University could satisfactorily conduct a review of its operations in Singapore while the President remained an EDB board member.

- New South Wales Auditor-General’s report, May 2008 [pdf], p. 50 (emphasis mine)

The Sydney Morning Herald breaks news from the New South Wales Auditor-General that the catastrophic University of New South Wales (Singapore) venture cost the Australian state A$47.6m (~S$61.5m).

That much is clear. However, the article does not state clearly that this total figure includes A$26m (~S$33m) in grants and loans from the Singapore government that the university “was forced to reimburse”. Not very nice language, eh?

How much exactly did Singapore lose out over the failed deal? Here’s the original text of the Auditor-General’s report:

Following the closure of UNSW Asia, the University signed a settlement agreement in December 2007 with the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB), the Government of the Republic of Singapore, the JTC Corporation and UNSW Asia. This resulted in the University assuming $47.6 million of UNSW Asia’s liabilities and closure costs in 2007, including a $16.9 million ANZ Bank loan, a $11.9 million EDB loan and repayment of a $13.8 million grant to the EDB.

The closure costs included $3.5 million for staff termination payments. The amount of taxation liable on these payments is being confirmed with Singapore authorities.

The information above is sufficient to account for A$25.7m paid out by the Singapore government. Whether or not there were additional monies written off remains unclear, considering that the four big-sticker items in the report amount to A$46.1m, leaving A$1.5 not explicitly accounted for in that paragraph.

All in all, it seems that Singapore didn’t lose out materially over the failed deal, which is a good thing for us as citizens and taxpayers, although it still sucks for the employees and students to have the university back out after just ten weeks.

So far so good. But what’s more damning, though, is the conflict of interest that had not been made public. Quoting the Herald:

The university’s Asia president, Greg Whittred, was also a member of Singapore’s Economic Development Board, the main creditor when the campus collapsed.

Huh? Hello, conflict of interest!?

The Auditor-General’s report is also rather scathing, considering its neutral stance on things:

The President of UNSW Asia was also a board member of the EDB. This created a possible conflict of interest with the EDB being a major financier of UNSW Asia. Management advised us that the President completed the necessary conflict of interest declarations, although those documents could not be located. We were concerned how the University could satisfactorily conduct a review of its operations in Singapore while the President remained an EDB board member. After discussions with management and our sighting available documents we were satisfied that the University managed this matter satisfactorily.

I honestly hope that the Auditor-General’s office really did a thorough job of making sure that no credible conflict of interest was indeed present, because I do not trust either party of doing a good job of raising and monitoring such issues. It’s pretty damning that the conflict of interest documents were lost. Seriously, what were they thinking?

This paragraph simply raises more questions that are not mollified by the weak “satisfaction” of the Auditor-General’s report. One glaring omission is that no mention is made of when exactly Whittred was the UNSW (Asia) president, and when exactly was he also on the EDB board? It makes a huge difference whether he was affiliated with EDB before the deal was brokered, or only after. What executive powers did Whittred have in controlling the UNSW(A) budget: did he have absolute authority or did the budget still have to be approved by a higher authority in the state of New South Wales? (Remember, UNSW is a state university, not a private one.) And considering the gravity of the potential conflict of interest, why was there such lax monitoring of the situation on either side, to the extent that even signed documents went missing?

Thanks a lot, Singapore, for not even bothering to mention such irregularities to us.

Even if the questions to all the above were satisfactory, still, having one person who is (even partially) responsible for both doling out money and spending it simultaneously is just asking for trouble. Shortcircuiting the checks and balances in democratic institutions for whatever reason, including “efficiency”, represents a blatant violation of the fundamental tenets of democracy and a failure to appreciate the distinction between a functioning democratic society and the populist tyranny of the majority.

References

  1. Harriet Alexander and Brian Robins, Sydney Morning Herald, Failed Asia campus cost $47m, 2008-05-15.
  2. Peter Achterstraat, Auditor-General, New South Wales, Australia, Auditor-General’s Report, Vol. 2, 2008 [pdf], 2008-05.