Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram
On September 17, 2026, on chrisram.net, I published a letter entitled “CHPA and its Performance,” raising questions about the quality of financial and performance reporting by the Central Housing and Planning Authority. I indicated then that I would examine the Government’s 2026 Mid-Year Report more fully. Having now done so, the housing section – and the role of Dr. Ashni Singh, the Minister Responsible for Finance – reinforce those concerns.
The Report states that $89.9 billion of the $159.1 billion housing-sector allocation was spent in the first half of 2026, describing the expenditure as being “to expand affordable housing for citizens.” That description is misleadingly broad, since the housing programme also encompasses major infrastructure, community facilities, Silica City and other expenditure which cannot simply be equated with affordable housing. If the $89.9 billion includes expenditure on roads, drains, street lighting, industrial areas, recreational facilities and major developments still in progress, then the Report should say so and identify how much was spent on each major component. Without that breakdown, the reader cannot tell what proportion of the $89.9 billion actually went to houses or house lots, what went to infrastructure and community works, and what went to longer-term projects such as Silica City.
Clearly, the problem is not a shortage of numbers. It is that, presented as they are by Singh, they make very little sense as an account of expenditure. They are neither reconciled nor adequately explained and, for purposes of determining what the $89.9 billion actually purchased, are largely meaningless. Instead of a coherent account showing where the money went, the reader is given a succession of disparate statistics: lots allocated, titles distributed, houses constructed, developments completed or in progress, street lamps installed, subsidies provided, applications processed, and recreational spaces and industrial areas under development.
The sheer quantity of numbers should not be mistaken for accountability. What Dr. Singh fails to provide is the information that matters: expenditure by programme and project; the cost of completed works; expenditure to date on unfinished works; the relationship between money spent and physical progress; material variations from budget; and some basis upon which the National Assembly and the public can judge the use made of nearly $90 billion.
The deficiencies are therefore not merely matters of presentation or drafting. When expenditure of this magnitude is reported without the information necessary to assess it, public scrutiny is weakened and financial accountability is reduced to a cash spent statement. A country dealing with public expenditure on this scale is entitled to considerably better reporting.
That responsibility cannot simply be laid at the door of CHPA. Dr. Singh presents both the annual Budget and the Mid-Year Report. The Budget sets out the Government’s account of past performance and its policies, allocations and targets for the current year; the Mid-Year Report is intended to report on their implementation. The defective quality of that financial reporting therefore falls squarely within the portfolio for which Dr. Singh is responsible.
On top of this, there is a curious institutional confusion surrounding the finance portfolio. Dr. Singh’s formal – and cumbersome – title is Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance. The Office of the President stated on his appointment that responsibility for finance was placed within the Office of the President, which would retain its oversight role. Yet the 2026 National Estimates contain “Agency 03 – Ministry of Finance”, and identify Dr. Singh as the Minister responsible for that agency, and describe its functions as those of “the Ministry”.
The Government also operates a Ministry of Finance website and issues its Budget documents under that name. The Gazette arrangements recognise a Ministry of Finance, but there is no separately styled Minister of Finance: the political responsibility remains with Dr. Singh in his capacity as Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance. The problem may therefore be wider than the housing numbers. The Government’s own documents do not present a wholly coherent institutional picture: finance is retained within the Office of the President, while for budgeting and administration a Ministry of Finance continues to exist and operate under Singh’s responsibility.
Whatever explains that strange arrangement, accountability cannot be allowed to become equally confused. Dr. Singh presents the Budget and the Mid-Year Report, while President Ali retained oversight of finance within the Office of the President. Between them, there should be no uncertainty about who bears responsibility for ensuring that the country receives a clear, coherent and intelligible account of how its money is being spent.
Discussion