Here’s a bombshell that’s bound to shake up the wellness industry: a billion-dollar project in Singapore has just been awarded to a company accused of inflating its credentials in a previous deal. But here’s where it gets controversial—the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has publicly defended the decision, stating there was ‘no misrepresentation of track record’ in Therme Group Singapore’s bid for the S$1 billion wellness attraction at Marina South. This comes after a New York Times exposé in April claimed Therme Group exaggerated its experience to secure a similar project in Toronto, Canada, with Ontario auditors later deeming the selection process ‘unfair and opaque.’
So, what’s the real story? Let’s break it down. Therme Group, a European spa operator led in Singapore by former minister Mah Bow Tan, won the tender to build Singapore’s first dedicated wellness attraction, slated to open by 2030. The NYT report alleged Therme misrepresented itself as an experienced operator with six European spas, when in reality, it had only built and operated one outside Romania. But Therme fired back, citing endorsements from Ontario’s premier and infrastructure minister, who confirmed their proposal met all standards. And this is the part most people miss—despite the controversy, new investors like CVC Capital Partners have since backed Therme, forming a €1 billion joint venture called Therme Horizon, which includes flagship projects in Germany and Romania.
Is this a case of redemption or a red flag? The STB insists the Singapore tender underwent a ‘comprehensive evaluation process,’ including due diligence checks to verify Therme’s claims. The winning bid was judged not just on track record and financial strength, but also on its development concept, infrastructure quality, and alignment with surrounding projects. Yet, the question lingers: Can past controversies be fully brushed aside? And what does this mean for the future of Singapore’s wellness landscape?
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: Should past accusations of misrepresentation disqualify a company from future projects, or does proven financial backing and a rigorous evaluation process outweigh previous controversies? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
