Housing and Property | Singapore 2025

Archive for the ‘Housing and Property’ Category

Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC): Waiting for the CCC

Facebook post 7 Sep 2016:

In the run-up to the Bukit Batok by-election, I posted a facebook note about the Neighbourhood Renewal Program (NRP). The PAP later confirmed that the NRP is “fund-neutral” and would be available to any Town Council, a subtle, but significant shift away from its earlier position that should it lose Bukit-Batok SMC, it would not be able to carry out NRP works for the affected precinct. Today is as good a day as any to talk about another source of “upgrading” funds for Town Councils – namely the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding, one year to the date of an article published by the Straits Times last year. For the record, AHTC is still waiting for CIPC-funded works to begin.

Unlike the NRP, CIPC funding is anything but “fund-neutral”. In fact, my experience informs me that CIPC funds are used as a political tool to differentiate PAP town councils from opposition ones, not just physically through readily apparent town improvements, but to reflect better operating surpluses and/or minimise operating deficits for Town Councils in their financial statements too.

With generous CIPC injections, Town Councils are not restricted to to use their finite routine funds and surpluses for town improvement and upgrading. Instead, Town Councils can propose the use of CIPC funds to upgrade or replace older equipment including proposals to build new structures (such as linkways).

In short, CIPC funding is a treasure chest of public monies for Town Councils to tap on, subject to the enthusiasm and commitment levels of the various CCC Chairmen who oversee the ward hand in hand with the Grassroots Adviser (in the case of opposition wards, usually the losing PAP candidate) or MP of the ward.

Even so, the ultimate beneficiaries of CIPC funding have to be the residents of each constituency and town. To that end, AHTC has proposed to the People’s Association (under who the Grassroots Adviser and CCCs are organised) that for CIPC funding for FY16/17 available from MND, the Aljunied and Hougang CCC’s look to upgrading the playgrounds outside PAP Community Fund (PCF) kindergartens in the town in line with the Prime Minister’s call earlier this year for more “challenging” playgrounds in our HDB estates (see facebook post linked below). We hope the CCC Chairmen and Grassroots Advisers in Aljunied and Hougang work hard to deliver this – in AHTC, they will find a ready and supportive partner.

That Singapore is a democracy is exceedingly trite. But the substance of our democracy should evolve to deliver fund-neutral benefits for all our residents. As a PAP pioneer leader, Mr S. Rajaratnam once remarked, we should move to becoming a democracy of deeds, not words. It is time to put Singaporeans first, regardless who they vote for – with you, for you, for Singapore.

Useful Links

Parliament and the CIPC: see selected Hansard debates and questions below.

PM Lee on Playgrounds: https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong/posts/1139832076079497

The Middle Ground: Now you see the CCC – http://themiddleground.sg/2015/07/28/now-you-see-the-ccc/

The Middle Ground: Thank you CCC (not your MP) – http://themiddleground.sg/2015/09/07/thank-ccc-not-mp/

The Straits Times: Budget 2015 – http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-budget-2015-maliki-wps-pritam-spar-over-upgrading-work-in-opposition-wards

Afternote:

Each year, the Ministry of National Development (MND) sets aside about $40m under its budget for all the use of the Citizen Consultative Committees (CCC) in Singapore for Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) upgrading purposes.

Each CCC in Singapore is formed on the basis of its political boundary – for e.g. in Aljunied GRC, there is the Eunos CCC, Paya Lebar CCC, Kaki Bukit CCC, Bedok Reservoir-Punggol CCC and Serangoon CCC. In the usual course of events, once projects are approved by the CCC, CIPC funds are then transferred the parent Town Councils to execute the upgrading works.

From 2009 to 2011 (prior to the 2011 elections), over the course of three years, the Government had pushed about $12m of CIPC monies to the then Aljunied Town Council under the PAP team for upgrading projects.

Over the course of a political term of five years, the Government can potentially extend up to about $200m of taxpayers monies to all the Town Councils under CIPC funding through the CCCs.

It has been suggested to me that the amount of CIPC funding extended for the 17 projects that were tendered out by the CCC sometime in May 2015 (as stated here: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapolitics/ccc-rebuts-wp-claim-of-indifference-says-17-projects-being-implemented) amount to about $2m. If true, it would correspond that Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC were allocated about 1% of CIPC funding over a five year term. It would be useful to know how much taxpayer dollar was allocated to similarly sized constituencies over the course of FY2011-2016. Such questions, have been met largely been non-answers (see parliamentary remarks on CIPC issues below), arguably confirming the political nature of CIPC funding.

_____

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS/ANSWERS AND REMARKS ON CIPC FUNDING

13 JULY 2015: DISBURSEMENT OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE (CIPC) FUNDING TO TOWN COUNCILS

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development how much Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding has been extended to each Town Council through their respective Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) from 7 May 2011.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) provides funding support for improvement projects in HDB estates for the benefit of local residents. Such facilities include covered walkways, footpaths, cycling tracks and playgrounds.

CIPC funding is disbursed through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs). CCCs are close to the ground and can help identify projects which will be most useful for the residents, and through that process, strengthen bonds within the community.

CIPC allocates its budget to the CCCs each year based on the number of HDB residential units of each Town. CCCs have the flexibility to allocate their notional budget and prioritise projects within their Towns based on local needs and which will be most useful for the residents.

Town Councils may approach their respective CCCs if they have any enquiries or proposals.

_____

11 MARCH 2015: HEAD T – MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Let me address the issues raised on Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). Mr Pritam Singh asked about CIPC. To set the issue in context, we must recognise that there is a difference between CIPC under the charge of Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs), and programmes like Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which are nominated by Town Councils (TCs). So, there is a difference….

In the case of the CIPC, Mr Singh would be aware that CIPC funds are disbursed through the CCCs, not the TCs. We have said this in this House many times before. It is therefore incorrect for Mr Singh to say that MND had previously given CIPC funding to the former Aljunied TC, but withdrew it from AHPETC. This is untrue. The funds were never disbursed through any TC. They were disbursed through the CCCs.

Just as we give TCs flexibility over proposals under the HIP and NRP, we give the CCCs flexibility to assess proposals under CIPC and to prioritise them for implementation. The CCCs are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. CIPC is community oriented. Its key objective is to bond residents, working together with their community leaders, to improve the living environment. CCCs also have to raise the 10% co-payment for CIPC, and will have to be prudent in what they decide to do as they have the responsibility to raise the funds, thus the need to consult the residents and know what the residents want and whether the residents are prepared to support the CCCs in their fund raising efforts.

In the case of AHPE CCCs, I understand that it had earlier consulted residents on proposed CIPC projects in their HDB estates and received 90 project proposals. The number of projects residents proposed had busted the CIPC budget for the year and the CCCs needed therefore to prioritise these projects. Notwithstanding this, the CCCs reached out to AHPETC for its nominations; AHPETC proposed 52 projects.

This meant that there was a long list of proposals, 90 that the CCCs received from the residents, plus 52 with some overlaps between them. The CCCs, which comprised community volunteers, needed time to go through all these proposals. Eventually, the CCCs identified 17 projects which could be funded within the allocated budget: 6 were proposed by both the TC and CCCs that is the overlap; six were proposed by the TC and the remaining five were proposed by the CCCs. So AHPETC’s proposals actually accounted for 12 out of the 17 projects selected. And the CCCs have to raise funds for these AHPETC’s proposed projects. The CCCs would need a bit more time to implement the projects.

I do not know why Mr Singh would now turn around, blame the CCCs for tardiness, and unfairly paint them in such a negative light in the eyes of the public, when the CCCs took the time and trouble to seek, go through and as it is clear, gave significant consideration to the TC’s proposals and were prepared to support many of them. I think the grassroots and the local community leaders are fully prepared to work with the TC to serve residents better. But it takes two hands to clap.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Madam, I refer to comments made by the Minister of State. According to the expenditure control document, about $40 million is allocated to MND for CIPC projects, these are national funds and every Town Council should be allocated these funds fairly.

Together, I reject the Minister of State’s call that my cut is a mischievous distortion of the facts. The allocation extended from MND to the CCC for CIPC resources are publicly available through the Government gazette. The facts are that for the previous Aljunied Town Council, about $12 million was allocated to the CCC through MND between FY2009 and FY2011. That is about $4 million a year. Nothing has been allocated to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council since 2012.

The CCC can work much faster as shown by the previous Town Council management. The Minister of State has said that it takes two hands to clap, and he is right. He should be reminded that it was the Town Council that initiated contact with the CCC to seek CIPC funding to benefit residents. I have personally asked for information on the budget and timings of various nominations and when these should be put up to the CCC.

Now, having said that, it is quite clear that the system, the CIPC nominations system, can be improved in Opposition wards, and should be improved. Can I confirm with the Minister of State would be keen to pursue this, or at least to create a forum where CIPC nominations can be discussed more reasonably, and without any concern about some political interference or delay from one party to another because it does not benefit the residents.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mdm Chairman, let me first start off with the issue of CIPC. Yes, it is Government funds, but I think Government decides on the nature of the programme based on different objectives. CIPC, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, is a community-oriented programme. It is community-oriented because we want to build community cohesion through an upgrading programme. Not all upgrading programmes are just purely upgrading.

CIPC is unique. We started CIPC with the intended objective of getting residents together, getting residents to come up and work with their community leaders – who amongst themselves are fellow residents – and bring about the cohesion in the community.

That is one of the reasons why we decided to allocate the funds through the CCC, and not to the TC. There is nothing wrong with the programme, and there is nothing wrong with that objective, because it goes back to the residents. The beneficiaries are the residents. It is a different objective from the other upgrading programmes, like the HIP or the NRP, the LUP and some of the other programmes. The original intent of CIPC must be seen in that context.

That is one of the reasons why community engagement is critical, and we continue to uphold this objective because we have seen it work. We have seen how community leaders engage residents, and how residents respond, and they also have to work towards their 10% co-payment component that has to be borne by the CCC.

The objective of the programme must be understood. It is not just about allocating funds to a TC, because CIPC funds have never been allocated to the TCs. It has always been allocated to the CCCs. The CCCs decide with the managing agent, and subsequently work or discuss with the Town Councils for maintenance of the project that has been completed.

I just want to clarify the objectives of the CIPC programme. It has worked and we will continue to uphold and continue to use this platform, because it is very important for us in building up our HDB estates. Community cohesion is important. Community bonding is important. Residents must want to own the projects that they require. And when we say “own the projects”, it means that they want to work with the community leaders to raise the funds that are required. There is some ownership; there is some issue of responsibility.

_____

10 MARCH 2014: HEAD T -MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): The Community Improvement Projects Committee Funding or CPIC funding is an important source of taxpayer funding to Town Councils to assist in the construction and upgrade of community facilities. The Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) is the entity within the CIPC framework which nominates projects to MND. While the CIPC Committee at MND has to ensure that taxpayers’ monies are prudently spent, in view of the finite amount available and different needs of each town, I would like to ask if there is a distinction made in the percentage of funds disbursed for upgrading existing facilities of Town Councils on the one hand and new projects on the other, for CIP nominations by the CCC. Would the Ministry consider the formation of an appeals forum under the CIPC framework where differences of opinion, if any, about an Opposition Town Council which manages and maintains the community facilities, and the CCC’s nominations can be ironed out?

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan): Sixth, we are actively involving residents and grassroots organisations in shaping their living environments because it is only with the people’s involvement that towns become stronger, cohesive communities. We have been doing so through the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC) and more recently through new initiatives like the “Cool Ideas for Better HDB Living”. The Cool Ideas initiative aims to gather ideas from members of the public to improve the HDB living environment. We will be holding the Cool Ideas Exhibition 2014 later this month. I invite all Members and their residents to participate.

To encourage ground-up proposals for precinct improvements, CIPC was conceived to co-fund grassroots organisations to carry out their community improvement projects. Mr Pritam Singh asked if there can be a better way to nominate CIPC projects with the CCCs. I believe all CCCs consult widely to derive CIPC project proposals and they would be happy to take in Mr Pritam Singh’s suggestions.

_____

8 JULY 2013: GUIDELINES FOR UTILISATION OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE FUNDING

Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development whether the guidelines for the utilisation of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CPIC) funding will be made available in the public domain and furnished to all Town Councils.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) provides funding support for infrastructural and recreational facilities, including general amenities for the benefit of residents in the whole constituency. Such facilities include covered walkways, footpaths, cycling tracks and playgrounds.

CIPC funds are disbursed through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) as they are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. We give the CCCs flexibility to assess the relevance of any proposal and to prioritise them for implementation so that the CIPC funds are optimally utilised. The operating principle for the CCCs is to ensure that the approved CIPC projects are useful, functional, represent value for money, freely accessible to the community and properly planned.

Town Councils may approach their respective CCCs if they have other queries.

_____

7 FEB 2013: INSTALLATION OF LIGHTINGS AT WALKWAY BRIDGE ACROSS KALLANG RIVER CONNECTING ST ANDREW’S VILLAGE AND POTONG PASIR

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider installing lightings at the walkway bridge across the Kallang River that connects St Andrews Village and Potong Pasir HDB flats.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The footbridge is maintained by the LTA on behalf of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). If the Potong Pasir Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) wishes to install lightings on the footbridge, it may tap on the CIPC budget allocated to it. The CCC may appoint the LTA as its implementing agent.

_____

27 MAY 2009: PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS – Debate on the Address: (Third Allotted Day)

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): In his speech, the President said, amongst other things, “we must have social cohesion”. Social cohesion is about arousing the emotions of people to feel a sense of togetherness, unity and closeness, but Government policies do not reflect this, especially in regard to Opposition MPs. We practise one country, two-system policy in regard to CIPC funding for community works and no proper amenities to all the MPs although they are legitimately elected.

_____

12 FEB 2009: HEAD W – MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Town Councils can make use of their CIPC funds to further improve the connectivity within their estates if they choose to.

_____

28 FEB 2008: HEAD T – MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Ang Mong Seng (In Mandarin): Sir, the Community Improvement Projects Committee, or CIPC, fund is established by the Ministry of National Development for the purpose of improving and enhancing the public facilities to enable HDB residents to enjoy better basic facilities and, at the same time, enhance the cohesiveness among the residents, the so-called kampung spirit.

At the moment, the CIPC fund caters only for HDB residents but not the residents of the private estates. I would like to ask the Minister whether MND would consider allowing the residents of the private estates to enjoy these benefits too. If that can be done, I would like to know how much can each unit of the private estates be given and for what improvements can this fund be used.

Can the CIPC fund cover the full costs of such improvement items? I understand the CIPC fund has to be applied for and executed by the CCC of each constituency, and if there is any shortfall, the CCC would have to bear the remaining cost. The CCC is a grassroots organisation, a non-profit organisation, with limited capital. I hope that the Minister would grant higher disbursement for these improvement projects. I suggest that CIPC pay up to 95% or even 100% of the cost, so that the CCC can execute this job more effectively.

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): To allow for smaller scale upgrading works to complement the EUP, Mr Ang Mong Seng may be happy to know that the Government will be introducing the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) scheme for private estates. The scheme is similar in concept to the CIPC scheme for public housing estates, but will be adapted to suit the needs of private estates. It will allow minor improvement works to be carried out on a timely basis. The scheme will be rolled out in FY2008, and more details on this will be made available later.

Beyond EUP and CIPC, the public infrastructural needs of private estates are also met by the regular upgrading and maintenance work undertaken by various Government agencies on an ongoing basis.

_____

3 March 2007: MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Madam, the Government recently announced that it will make available $32 million over five years to implement barrier-free access in housing estates. These funds will be disbursed through the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). Based on media reports, Town Councils will be required to co-pay 5% of the cost of projects using these funds.

The use of the CIPC, coupled with the requirement for co-payment by Town Councils, effectively excludes the Opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir from access to these funds. CIPCfunds are channelled through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees, but the advisers to the CCCs in those two wards are from the PAP and are not the elected MPs, which is the case in the PAP Government wards.

So I think that is very unlikely that the CCCs and Town Councils in Hougang and Potong Pasir will be able to come to an agreement on how to use such funds. This penalises the disabled and elderly folks in those estates. If we are serious about making society more friendly to the disabled and the elderly, then this method of disbursing the funds is unhelpful and unfair. In fact, it directly contradicts the vision of an inclusive society for Singapore, knowing that the use of the CIPC will almost inevitably exclude Hougang and Potong Pasir from access to these funds.

Madam, these funds are for barrier-free access. In an ageing society, that is increasingly a must-have and not a good-to-have, like upgrading. They should not be subject to political considerations such as whether the ward in question is an Opposition ward. I would suggest that a better way to distribute these funds is to make direct grants to the Town Councils for their use. After all, the Town Councils would know the best ways in which to apply these funds and what are the most pressing areas of need for barrier-free access. This would truly further our vision of an inclusive society.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan)Let me now talk about barrier-free accessibility which Mr Siew Kum Hong mentioned. It is an important part of our programme to help the elderly to age in place to make sure that the environment is barrier free and more elderly friendly. My MOS has already updated Members about the progress of the LUP which is also part of the barrier-free accessibility programme, and we are also supporting the Town Councils. We will extend the barrier-free accessibility to all HDB precincts by 2011.

How do we fund it? We have a CIPC fund. The CIPC fund is meant to help or improve projects within the community. So we decided that we will expand the CIPC fund to also fund the construction of the barrier-free accessibility (BFA) items such as ramps, railings and so on. All Town Councils will be invited to draw up their BFA masterplans for their estates and apply for access to the CIPC fund. I just want to make it very clear at this point that we are not excluding any Town Council from applying for these funds. Everybody is welcome to apply for the funds and, in fact, we have written to every Town Council, including to Mr Low Thia Khiang, to apply for the CIPC funds in order to implement BFA. So I do not think there should be any problem in so doing. This is not subject to political consideration, it is just commonsense. Here you have a CIPC fund and you are using it to improve the neighbourhood and the precincts and there we have a need to improve barrier-free accessibility. Why do we not put the two together? So that is the reason why we have expanded CIPC to allow for BFA and the simple procedure is to apply for it through the CCC. Why the CCC? Because they are the ones who are most familiar with the neighbourhood. If all Town Councils do this, follow the procedure, draft their BFA masterplans and apply for access to the CIPC funds, I am sure that by our target date of 2011, all Town Councils will be redeveloped and all the BFA facilities will be put in place.

______

3 MARCH 2006: HEAD T – MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Opposition MPs are completely deprived of CIPC funds while the PAP MPs get the full quota of those funds. The injustice and unfairness is glaring. I hope that the new leadership shall make a genuine effort to rectify the incongruent situation and give Opposition MPs their share ofCIPC funds. There should not be any discrimination against any Singaporean who supports the Opposition. They pay their taxes, observe the law and do their required time for National Service and why should they be treated so shabbily? Also, the Government boasts that no Singaporean shall be left behind and it wants to build an inclusive society. Those are high-sounding aims but we do not see them in reality. The Opposition in Singapore is always left behind and is not included in such benefits like theCIPC funds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Finally, Mr Chiam asked again and pleaded that the Government not be discriminatory against Opposition MPs with regard to CIPC funds. Let me just reiterate again that the objective ofCIPC funding is to improve the infrastructure, recreational facilities and general amenities of the whole constituency. The budget is limited and is allocated to the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) based on the merits of the projects that they proposed. This is because the CCCs interact closely with residents and are, therefore, in a good position to assess the needs of their residents. In response to Mr Chiam’s point that we are being unfair to the Opposition MPs because we give PAP MPs CIPC funds, we do not give PAP MPs CIPC funds. CIPC funds are give to the CCCs to operate the proposed projects for improvements in the constituencies. These projects are then presented to the CIPC Committee which will then evaluate the proposals. Town Councils are responsible for the management and maintenance of the common areas in HDB estates. So if Town Councils wish to put up their improvement projects in their estates they can do so using their Town Council fund.

_____

1 MARCH 2005: ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, the Prime Minister speaks of building an inclusive society where nobody is left out. Yet, in reality, the Opposition wards continue to be discriminated against. In the last 15 years, millions of dollars of CIPC funds have been disbursed to all the PAP-controlled constituencies, yet not one cent of those CIPC funds has been handed to the Opposition wards. Residents of Opposition wards are also Singapore citizens. They do pay their taxes, they pay their fines probably, they do their stint of National Service, they obey the law and do whatever other citizens are required to do under the law. Yet, they do not benefit from the CIPC funds.

I say that it is only right that all Singaporeans should be treated equally. On my part as MP for Potong Pasir, I have applied for such funds many times. Till today, I have not received any of such funds to benefit my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister and his team to look into the matter of CIPC funds and make provisions for CIPC funds to be disbursed to Opposition wards, as all previous applications for support made to the PAP grassroots were futile.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam earlier lamented that ever since he became a Member of Parliament, he did not get a single cent out of CIPC funds. I can also enlighten him that ever since I became a Member of Parliament together with him, all my requests for CIPC funds have never been fully approved. It has been always partially approved. And I have always complained how come my worthy project was not considered appropriately. And since the Minister for National Development had deemed it fit to appoint me into the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC), I can say that when the Committee meets, there are always requests that are at arms-length, and before we can even approve all the projects proposed by the PAP colleagues, the budget had been exhausted. So perhaps, if Mr Chiam tries harder next year, the Committee might have a chance to review his proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now proceed to my —

Mr Chiam See Tong rose —

Mr Speaker: Dr Wang, would you allow Mr Chiam to clarify?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sure.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you. Sir, I have two comments to make. Firstly, at least, Dr Wang has received some money. I have not received any money at all. The other comment is that: does he know that we have to pass through the first hurdle at the constituency level before we can go to the Committee in which he is sitting? That means, we have to go through the person whom I defeated at the last election for permission. What do you think his answer would be?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the process in which the project comes to the review of the Committee. My suggestion is that he works harder with the constituency Adviser so that he can come to see the virtue of the project proposed by Mr Chiam.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan) rose —

Mr Speaker: Dr Wang, would you allow Mr Mah to interrupt?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Yes.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I just want to clarify for Mr Chiam’s benefit that I believe that Potong Pasir has indeed received CIPC funds. CIPC funds do not go to the MP or the Adviser. It goes to the constituencies. I recall that all constituencies in Singapore do receive some CIPC funds.

Mr Speaker: Last interruption, Mr Chiam. I do not want a mini debate on this.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I just clarify? I believe the CIPC funds received by Potong Pasir was awarded to a PAP election candidate.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Through him, at least. And it was for two or three town signs, if I am not mistaken. I think the amount was $6,000. That is all. And to date, I believe a PAP constituency has, on average, received about $1 million.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I just want to reiterate that CIPC funds are made available upon the request of the Advisers of the various constituencies and they go to enhance the facilities within the constituency. In the case of Potong Pasir, I believe funds have been requested for and have been given to Potong Pasir constituency. Of course, the reason why we go to the Adviser is because the request is generated through the grassroots organisations. These requests are assessed by a Committee of which Dr Wang is a member, and all the more deserving ones are given the funds. Therefore, it is not true that Potong Pasir has not received any funds.

On Mr Chiam’s points about treatment of Opposition MPs, his first point was about his experience at the Istana party where somebody asked him where were his grassroots leaders. I do not know what grassroots leaders he has. I know that Potong Pasir grassroots leaders were invited. Maybe not his grassroots leader but, as far as the Government is concerned, the grassroots leaders are the ones who serve in our CCC, RC, CCMC and so on. We did not consider Town Council as part of the grassroots, otherwise the PAP Town Councils would also be involved.

His other complaints about not having a room, having to work at the void decks, not being able to plant a tree, not being able to have CIPC funds, not being able to speak at a dinner, and not getting upgrading in his estate, etc, I think we have been through all that before. Mr Chiam now finally finds a piece of ground to plant the tree, and the reason being that, as he said, that piece of land is managed by the Town Council. But in the public housing estate, the HDB owns the land and, therefore, it is up to the landowner to decide who plants the tree. And every year, we have the tree planting campaign and, therefore, the Advisor is the one who is allowed to plant the tree. We have been doing this for the last umpteenth year since we have the tree planting campaign. This is not something new.

On the conducting of the meet-the-people session, the PAP MPs do not have a room either. The PAP MPs make use of the PCF centres. The PCF is a foundation with $5 million or more of paid-up capital. They set up kindergarten education classes, etc. And, because of the relationship between the PCF and the PAP, the PAP was able to pay a rental to the foundation to make use of one room for our once-a-week meet-the-people session.

On CIPC funds, I am not sure why Mr Chiam brings up CIPC funds because, as far as I know, from what I was told, Town Councils already get grants from the Government and that is for the residents But CIPC funds are for improvement of the whole constituency and therefore it is disbursed through the CCCs, and if they have projects, they can apply to the CIPC for funds. From what I was told, Potong Pasir residents have not been deprived of CIPC project funding. In fact, in 1998, CIPC funds were used for back-lane lighting of Jalan Wangi and Upper Aljunied Road. In 2002,CIPC funding was available to build covered linkways in Potong Pasir Town, but because Potong Pasir Town Council failed to come up with its co-share of cost, the project could not be implemented. Why is this so? I do not know. Only the Potong Pasir Town Council can answer. But as far as PAP Town Councils are concerned, when the CCC gets funding for CIPC projects, the Town Council would have to chip in to pay for part of the cost. It is not completely free, it is not completely at Government’s expense.

_____

11 March 2004: HEAD U – PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I would like to speak on the unfairness of treatment to Opposition MPs. Once, at a function on the grounds of Istana, a PAP MP asked me, “Hey, Chiam, why did you not bring your grassroots along today?” That PAP MP thought that I did not have any grassroots members to bring along to that function. I did not want to embarrass him by telling him that, in fact, my grassroots members were not invited to that function although PAP MPs’ grassroots were invited.

Yes, Opposition MPs are treated differently from the PAP MPs. I think it is appropriate that I speak out on this matter to educate PAP MPs on the matter. I have already complained that I do not get a proper room to hold my MPS. I have to see my constituents in the open at the void deck. I do not mind doing so, but the only problem is that sometimes, I do not have the privacy to discuss some sensitive matters with the people who come to see me with a personal problem. When working in the open, I am always subject to the elements. Void decks, somehow or other, are very windy and I have difficulty holding my pieces of papers together.

When I was first elected MP, the situation then was even worse. I was not even allowed to plant one tree. Today, of course, I can plant as many trees as I like in my constituency or on the land under the jurisidiction of my Town Council. Things have improved a little for me, but on very basic things like application for Government grants, CIPC funds, I still have to apply to the person whom I defeated at the last election, and I believe he shall be competing against me at the next election. In the circumstances, I wonder how I can ever get the support of my rival to support me in getting CIPCfunds which would lessen his chances of getting elected. I would probably think that the answer shall always be never.

My constituency, in a way, has been subjected to scare tactics at election time. They have been threatened that should they vote for me, they shall never get upgrading of their flats, kindergarten facilities shall be scaled down, the MRT station shall never be opened and any precincts that give 50% votes to the PAP shall get upgrading.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I come to Mr Chiam’s question about the GRC. After 16 years of operation of the GRC – we had our first election based on the GRC system since 1988 – we are still talking about the GRC system. Unfortunately, even after 16 years, Mr Chiam is still contesting in a single constituency and has not gone into a GRC. Maybe if he had led a team to the GRC he will then know how he can win a GRC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Do you want me to be in the GRC?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sure. Mr Chiam just asked me whether I want him to be in the GRC or not. He is the leader of a party, he should really decide. And, being the leader of a party, he should lead the charge and not leave it to others to lead the charge for him and he just follows behind and says it is very good.

But to be serious, there is a reason why we have GRCs, as the Deputy Prime Minister explained earlier on in answer to another question concerning the GRC. The reason is that we need the GRC for multi-racial representation. But whether a 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC is to the disadvantage of the Opposition or not, I think it is the same to both the Opposition and the PAP. The PAP would need to put up candidates whether it is a 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC. And so do the Opposition. But the fact that since the Opposition cannot put up enough candidates that surely cannot be the fault of the GRC system.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is not the only reason.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is the fault of the Opposition, for not being able to get enough people to contest for them. Otherwise they would be there in the GRC. And Mr Chiam had the by-election effect strategy, which says that he would rather not contest in all the constituencies. I think that is a very good reason to give for not being able to get enough candidates to contest in an election. But that is very clever.

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Ask him if he would like Potong Pasir to be part of a GRC.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If Mr Chiam says he would like Potong Pasir to be part of a GRC, the Prime Minister just told me that he might ask the Electoral Boundary Review Committee to consider this.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Ask again. Get an answer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Does he want it?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Potong Pasir to become a GRC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Give us time.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Now, and we will tell him the answer.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Better record this, Kan Seng.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It is in the Hansard. Mr Chiam will know that. But, again, more seriously, whether it is a single-member constituency or a GRC, really it is up to the candidates themselves whether they can convince the voters to vote for them. It does not depend on whether it is a 2-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC.

_____

27 Feb 1998: DISBURSEMENT OF CIPC FUNDS

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether, in light of the economic downturn, the CIPC funds will be disbursed to grassroots organisations in the PAP-controlled constituencies at the same level as previous year; (b) how much CIPC funds will be allocated this year; and (c) what is the amount of CIPC funds paid out last year.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, CIPC funds are allocated to all the CCCs and not only to grassroots organisations in the PAP-controlled constituencies. It is up to the CCCs to decide which community improvement projects within their constituencies they want to support. Since its inception, the CIPC scheme has benefited all the CCCs, including the hon. Member, Mr Chiam See Tong’s area. In view of the economic downturn in FY 98/99, the Government has trimmed its expenditure on some projects. CIPC has also carried out a review of its budgetary requirement for FY 98/99. Under this review, useful projects from the CCCs will still continue to receive CIPC funding.

The amount of CIPC funds allocated for this financial year, that is, FY 97/98 is $40 million. My Ministry has asked the Ministry of Finance for a budget of $36 million for the coming financial year. The amount to be allocated for the coming financial year will be tabled for Parliament for debate and approval by the Minister for Finance.

The amount of CIPC funds paid out in FY 96/97 was $39.9 million.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in regard to Potong Pasir, whether the CCC has any outstanding request for CIPC funds?

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, I did not catch the question clearly. Can he repeat the first part again?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I understand that the CCC has been applying for CIPC funds.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Which CCC?

Mr Chiam See Tong: At Potong Pasir. I am only interested in Potong Pasir. I understand that they have been applying for CIPC funds for two covered linkways. Is it still on?

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has not received a formal submission from the Potong Pasir CCC. So I have no record of a submission on the walkway. But the Potong Pasir CCC was given CIPCfunds in financial year 1995 for five estate landmarks in the signposts in Sennett Estate, which is a non-HDB common area. If the hon. Member for Potong Pasir is asking whether his CCC has applied for a walkway, I have no such record.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I wish to clarify. I have got no CCC at Potong Pasir. I am talking about the only CCC that is existing in Potong Pasir and whether they have put in a request for funds. Because I know they have circulated notices asking whether they will get the support of the residents there. I imagine that they would be putting in their case.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: My Ministry has not received any formal submission. It could well be lobbying for support to put in a project.

_____

7 JULY 1995: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE FUNDS

Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for National Development for the period from January 1992 to April 1995, how many Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs), in both the Group Representation Constituencies and the Single Member Constituencies, had received funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee; which were the CCCs which had received such funds; on what projects were the funds given and what was the sum for each project.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang:

a) For the period from January 1992 to April 1995, 77 Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) from 15 GRCs and 17 SMCs had received funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC).

b) The CCCs which had received the funds are listed at Appendix C (Cols. 1413 – 1414).

c) The types of projects that were given the funds are listed at Appendix D (Cols. 1415 – 1418).

d) As there have been already more than 3,000 projects, it will not be a productive exercise to list out each and every project with the expenditure. The sum for each project varies from $86 to $446,687.
7 JULY 1995: APPENDIX – COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE FUNDS

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00064795-ZZ&currentPubID=00069742-ZZ&topicKey=00069742-ZZ.00064795-ZZ_1%2Bid045_19950707_S0010_T00361-written-answer%2B#

_____

23 MARCH 1995: HEAD U – MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Sir, allow me to continue. The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) started life in 1965. Then, it was known as the Urban and Rural Services Committee (URSC). At that time, and since then, the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs), on the ground, will determine what amenities are needed in the constituency and they will consult the PWD, Ministry of the Environment and other departments to request for improvements. If those works are within the budget and within the work plan of the departments, then those works will be carried out. If the requests are reasonable but the budget provided is not sufficient, then the CCC would apply to the CIPC for funding.

The CCC does not decide what they can have. They put in an application and the CIPC will evaluate and consult the relevant departments whether these are feasible, whether they can serve the residents effectively and efficiently and based on the budget available, the CIPC will decide whether the constituency can have the money. This money is given to the CCC to be disbursed.

The Opposition Members asked: why not give this money to the town councils? The answer is very simple. The town councils, by law, can only work within the boundaries of the HDB estates, in particular, within the common areas of the HDB estate and if we give the money to the town councils, then the private estates and privately-run commercial and industrial areas will never get this money.

Why not give it to the MP? The answer is no again because CIPC funds are public funds and in disbursing public funds we have to give them to a public body to be disbursed. No money is given to any MP, Opposition or PAP, for such purposes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, may I seek clarification? First of all, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has gone back to the old story and standard answer of the CIPC. Mr Chiam and I did not say that the money should be given to the MP or the town council. What we are asking is simply the procedure of application to CIPC. Yes, money should be given to a public body because it is public money. Is the town council not a public body?

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, may I clarify? The situation from 1965 has changed tremendously. There are at the moment four constituencies held by the Opposition and probably there will be more in time to come. If you keep to this procedure, on the face of it, it would appear that all these Opposition constituencies will never get CIPC funds for community projects because members of the CCCs are all selected by the People’s Association (PA). Unfortunately, PA is not under the Ministry of National Development. It is under the Ministry of Community Development.

If you look at PA, which is a statutory board, the Chairman of PA is the Prime Minister and Ministers are on the board. It is a very high-powered board. This board will select the members of the CCC. The CCCs will, in a way – I would not say beholden – have to look to the people who have appointed them. These are all political figures. Their action will definitely be politically-biased. They will certainly not approve something which will help the Opposition MPs. I think that is the crux of the matter.

When we wrote to the CCC for support to apply for CIPC funds, they not only refused us but they have not even got the courtesy to give a reason. The usual standard Government answer: We have looked at your application. We are unable to accede to it. We asked three times for reasons because Potong Pasir has so far not benefited anything at all from CIPC funds and there is a need for community projects, because community projects, especially linked walkways, are built in other constituencies. If other constituencies have a need for covered walkways, why not Potong Pasir? It is within the guidelines. That is the problem.

Unfortunately, when I brought up this problem the last time, the Minister conveniently said that CCC was not under his charge. So I should not ask him how they approve and not approve. The Ministry of National Development is the ministry that disburses the funds and yet it is another ministry that gives the approval. Again, there is some irregularity here. Perhaps the CCC should not be made an approving body in the first instance. Maybe, as we have suggested yesterday, it should be the MP himself. Normally, the MPs are the advisors in other constituencies and the CCC in a way will take the advice of the MP. So why not cut away the CCC and let the MP, who is the elected Member, make the application or approve it? If the MP does not know the wishes of the grassroots, then he should not be the MP at all. If he cannot read the ground, I am afraid
he will probably be voted out in the next election. There is no other person who has got more interest in these projects than the MP himself if he wants to remain an MP.

I would suggest that the procedure be corrected and put the MP to be the person either to approve or to make the application. The town councils can make the application and approval given by the MP, just like MPs have approved many other applications. I would suggest this to the Minister.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, I have listened to the comments by both Opposition Members very carefully but they have not listened to my comments carefully. I have said why the money should not be given to the town council. By law, the town council is confined to working within the boundaries of an HDB estate. It cannot do work outside of the estate and it cannot spend money outside of the estate. So giving CIPC money to the town council does not help those who live outside of HDB estates. So that is out of the question.

Mr Chiam’s quarrel with PA and how the CCC is structured, I suggest he raise this under his cut on the CCC. But to suggest that because he is in Parliament, therefore, we must change a long lasting and long established practice which has worked very well is not necessary. The point is, from MND’s position, we have got these funds to subsidize improvement projects. We look for a body within the constituency that can coordinate various requests and help disburse the funds. Where is this body? There is one, which is the CCC, and it was established a long time ago. The URSC had worked very well with the CCCs all this while.

Mr Chiam says conditions have changed. It is not the same as 1965. I am glad conditions have changed. There were more Opposition Members in 1965 than there are now. So his suggestion about changing the rules is not based on sound arguments. All he wants is the control of the money. The CIPC and URSC have never given money direct to MPs. We do not give them to PAP MPs. We do not give them to Opposition MPs. I do not think we need to change the rules.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, on this point that in 1965 we had more Opposition MPs, I think if you read the history of the PAP there was a split at that time and the Barisan Sosialis MPs were no longer interested in being MPs. In that period, they were trying to work their way out and, in fact, they did. In 1965, they all walked out of Parliament. So they were not interested in any community projects. But we are. The present Opposition Members are keen to improve all their constituencies.

My quarrel is that under the present system it would appear that no Opposition MPs will get any taxpayers’ fund through the CIPC. That is my contention. As long as you have this checkpoint at the CCC, none of the Opposition Members can get through this checkpoint. They will be blocked right from the start, and no funds will be disbursed to any of the Opposition MPs. That is really unfair, because those funds are not PAP funds. They are taxpayers’ funds. I think there should be a new system. Probably you allocate the fund pro rata. For so many voters in your constituency they will give you this amount. I think that is the fairest system.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says it is not fair if funds are not allocated for improvements in private estates. Is it not true that CIPC also provides funding for community projects which are done in HDB estates? The funds are used for HDB estates.

As regard private estates, is it not also the elected MP’s responsibility to look after the private estates? They could also suggest improvements in the private estate should the need arise. So why is it that application for funds should be given to the CCC for approval because we are also looking after the private estates?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, Mr Low does not understand my answer. I shall repeat it. We cannot give the money to the town council because the town council can only spend money and work within the HDB estate. So if we give the money to the town council, none of this money can be used in private estates.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: No, I am not saying that.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: He is not clear.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary does not understand my clarification. So far, the CIPC has never given any money to town councils, even for the PAP wards. You provide funds for upgrading community projects to the HDB estates. The fund is used for improvement works in HDB estates. What we are asking is that you allow the town council or the MP concerned to submit the application directly to CIPC for funds and the CIPC decides whether it is going to provide the funds for a particular project. That is what we are asking. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has called for fine-tuning of the system yesterday and a proposal has been put forward by us. I would like to know his position on that.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, the town council cannot put up a proposal and ask for money for improvement works outside of an HDB estate. That is the simple position, as provided by the law. Mr Chiam understands that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Thank you. On Mr Chiam’s question, all I want to say is this. Mr Chiam does not want this money to be used in a politically motivated manner. So the best solution for all of us is, let us give this money to the CCC, as we have done since 1965 and let the CCC recommend and decide on its priorities. The money does not go to the PAP MP and it does not go to the Opposition MP. It is fair for all. So my position on Mr Chiam’s and Mr Low’s suggestion is that there is no need to change the present system.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: First of all, yes, the town council’s funds cannot be used outside the HDB estate. The town council could, through the MP, look at the private estate and put up a proposal to the CIPC for improvements. Why can it not be done? Or the MP himself can put up the proposal. What is wrong with that? The fund is not going to the town council. It is a CIPC fund. I am not saying that you give the money to the town council. What I am saying is that you allow the town council to apply. There is no need for the CCC to apply. Allow the town council or the MP to apply for funds for certain projects and you consider whether it is viable. If you do not think so, explain why. Rather than going through the CCC and the CCC says, “We do not support your application.” When we wrote in and asked for the reasons, they replied, “No need to give you the reason.” I think this is not fair.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister talks about the CCC. I have an amendment on the CCC and I will talk more about it. But he says that the CCC is not politically motivated. I think most CCCs, if not all, are highly politically motivated. This is proven by the fact that I have been an MP at Potong Pasir for nearly 10 years and the CCC has not lifted a finger to apply for CIPC funds. The best person to get things moving in a constituency must be the MP. It cannot be anybody else. If he wants his seat, he must do something. If he does not do anything, he will be kicked out. Whereas for the CCC, it makes no difference to them. So the CCC is not the best body.

I am going to repeat myself. As the system exists now, all the Opposition wards will not get any CIPC fund, and that is the reality. I have already mentioned that even in Hougang, before the Opposition MP came in, they were eagerly applying for funds. As soon as the Opposition Member came in, they say, “No, withdraw all the funds.” That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the CCC has got no interest to improve the constituencies under Opposition MPs. So if you have this system, Opposition wards will not get one cent of the CIPC fund. That is the problem. So if the Minister can solve this problem, I shall be very happy.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: May I suggest to Mr Low that he discontinues with his line of questioning because it makes no sense and he knows it, but he does not want to give up.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: No.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: I suggest that he goes to the library outside, take a look at the Town Councils Act and see whether the town councillors are charged with the responsibility of looking after the entire constituency or looking after the common areas of the HDB estate. After that, he may wish to file another motion or Question and we can have another debate on it.

As for Mr Chiam, his quarrel is really with his CCC in Potong Pasir. I do not hear this quarrel from the other Opposition Members with their own CCC. He has got an amendment under the CCC subhead and I suggest that he brings this up under that amendment.

Mr Chiam See Tong: An easy way out.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: It is not an easy way out. I have said this before, and I say this again. Public funds are involved. Here is the CIPC fund. What do we do with this fund? We want to let the constituencies enjoy the use of this fund. We go to a public body that can disburse this fund and coordinate the projects in a proper manner. The CCC exists for this purpose and we will continue to keep contact with the CCC, look at the recommendations and decide whether they should get the money or not.

Mr Chiam’s proposal does not get the support of the CCC of Potong Pasir. It is not the concern of the CIPC. The CIPC’s job is to look at applications and make sure that the applications are reasonable, feasible and effective, and give the fund in support of these projects.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I do understand the town council’s main responsibility. It is for the HDB estate. It is under the Act. But the private estate is part of the town. Is it not part of the town? You call it a town council. It is part of the town. You cannot, of course, apply for funds for improvement works in a private estate.

An hon. Member: It is only for HDB estates.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, it is only for HDB estates. I understand that. I have no quarrel with that. What I am saying is that private estates, being part of the town, the town council can show concern and put up a proposal if the CIPC allows. We are not talking about using town council’s funds. We are talking about putting up proposal on behalf of a private estate within the town to CIPC for consideration.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): There is no basis.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Why is there no basis? It is part of a town.

The Chairman: Order. Yes, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I think the answer from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is rather unsatisfactory. His Ministry controls the fund and of the two Ministries, MCD and MND, I would say that MND should be the Ministry that should initiate a change on the procedure of application for CIPC funds because it is controlling the purse strings. It is not MCD. So I would urge the Minister not to pass the buck over to MCD and say, “It is none of my Ministry’s concern. Let them solve it.” I would say the buck ends with MND.

I would urge the Minister to take the initiative to change this system of application for CIPC funds. I repeat myself again. If this system is not changed, none of the Opposition MPs would get any assistance fromCIPC for funds for community projects. Can I urge the Minister to initiate the change?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Sir, I just want to clarify from the Member. Before we debate further on whether the responsibility of approving funds for improvement works in the Opposition constituencies should fall with MND or MCD, I think we should get back to the basic question. The general care of the constituency must be the responsibility of the MP. I do not think the Member should pass the buck from our shoulders to MND or MCD. Sir, the complaint made by the Opposition Members, Mr Chiam and Mr Low, is basically that the Opposition wards could not get funds from CIPC for improvement works in their constituencies. In other words, because of this situation, the Members now complain that they cannot do anything to improve the surroundings of the housing estates in their wards. I thought that was the question that was raised because of the current position of funding by CIPC.

Sir, improvements in many constituencies have been made even before CIPC was formed some years ago, and Members of Parliament in this House, whether PAP or Opposition, have done whatever they could to improve their constituencies. The Members of the Opposition have just said that without the CIPC fund, they are ineffective as MPs. They are now trying to pass the buck to MND and MCD. It is not fair.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, we did not say that no improvement works have been done. I think Mr Chiam will agree that the crux of the issue is the system of application which allows only the CCC within the constituency to submit the application. The CCC, given its affiliation to the PAP, will never support Opposition wards and therefore the application of public fund is biased towards the PAP constituencies. As a result, it is unfair. That is the crux of the issue. That is why I was very happy yesterday when the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said, “Well, put up a proposal to fine-tune the system.” Yes, we have put up a proposal to improve the system. Now I would like to know whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agrees with our proposal. If he does not agree, why does he not agree that we change the system to allow town councils or MPs to apply directly to CIPC? Of course, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, being the Chairman of CIPC, we may not get the fund applied for because he can reject it. But never mind. At least he is in Parliament. We can come to Parliament and ask him for justification as to why he refuses to approve certain projects. It is better than going to MCD and MCD says something else. I would like to have an answer.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: I have actually applied for CIPC funds. I am an advisor to the grassroots organisation as well as the MP. As far as most of us are concerned here, I think we are very happy with the system and if we are so happy with the system, why change it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The answer is very simple. This is because you are from the PAP.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Let me finish. I think the grassroots organisations know exactly what is happening in the constituency. They have RC and CCC members, most of whom are local residents. They know exactly which spot to be improved. It is not the MPs because we do not stay in our own constituency. So I think it is better to leave it to RCs and CCCs to come up with proposals which we all are very happy. If Mr Chiam has any proposal in regard to the application of CIPC fund, he should approach Mr Gan and Mr Gan will decide in consultation with the RC and CCC members. If it is reasonable, I am sure the Chairman ofCIPC will be more than pleased to approve.
1.00 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang rose –

The Chairman: Order. I think hon. Members are repeating the same point over and over again. Unless Members have any fresh points to make, I would like to put the debate to an end. Are there any more new points?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M rose –

The Chairman: Do you have any fresh points to make?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Yes, Sir. This fresh point, in fact, was indirectly raised by Mr Low. Now he is saying that it is the responsibility of the PAP Government to help the Opposition Members so that they can win the next election. This was what he said. But that does not come under the MND budget, Sir.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have a fresh point to make with regard to Encik Maidin’s comments. Of course, by virtue of the system of CIPC, it is the PAP Government’s responsibility to make sure that the PAP win the next election and thereby deprive the Opposition wards of funds to improve the estate. Therefore, during the election you can compare and say, “You see, the Opposition has not done much to improve your constituency.”

The other fresh point is with regard to Mr Choo Wee Khiang’s comments. I regret to say that it seems to me that Mr Choo’s grassroots know more about his constituents’ needs than Mr Choo himself. I advise him not to rely too much on the grassroots leaders. Of course, I respect some of them who are really working for the people. But I think that may be his downfall.

The Chairman: Order. We have taken 15 minutes yesterday on this discussion, and almost half an hour today. I will ask Mr Yao to reply and then Mr Chiam can give his concluding remarks.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, with your indulgence, I agree with my PAP colleagues in their unanimous response to Mr Low. Please read the Act and then come back.

Mr Chiam’s point, if I can summarise it, is this. The Ministry of National Development should change the system because under the present system, the Opposition constituencies will never get any funding fromCIPC. That is the point. The day the CIPC approves funding for any project in any Opposition constituency will prove his point wrong. When the day comes, I hope he withdraws all that he says. With that, Sir, at this point, it is not necessary to change the system. It has worked well and it will continue to work well.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, would you like to wind up the debate?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, Mr Maidin, I think, makes the issue stand on its head. He asked why the Opposition wards need CIPC funding when they can carry on with whatever funds they have and do something. I think he should reverse it and say that all the CIPC funds be given to the Opposition wards and let all the PAP wards do the funding on their own. Why does he not reverse the argument?

The other point is Mr Choo Wee Khiang of Jalan Besar GRC said that he is very happy with the system. Of course, he is happy with the system because he is having all the funds and we are not having it. I am astounded that he makes such a statement. As a senior Member of this House, I would advise Mr Choo that if he does not know his constituency better than his grassroots, I think he had better watch out at the next election.

With that, I thank you for your indulgence, Sir, and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $498,806,550 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $11,345,011,200 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

_____

5 DEC 1994: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Acting Minister for National Development: (a) what is the total amount of funds which have been disbursed by the Government for projects by the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) and how much of the said funds have been released to Opposition-controlled Town Councils for such projects; (b) why the CIPC comprises only PAP Members of Parliament and if non-politicians will be included in the Committee; and (c) if there are any guidelines for the Citizens’ Consultative Committees on how to process applications in support of a CIPC project.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) (for the Acting Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the total amount of funds which has been disbursed by the Government for Community Improvement Projects Committee projects since the inception of the scheme in April 1990 is $51.2 million.

We do not have records on CIPC funds released to Opposition-controlled Town Councils as the funds are allocated to the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) and not to the Town Councils.

The CIPC comprises Advisers to the CCCs. The nine Advisers on the Committee happen to be PAP MPs.

As the system works well at the moment, there is no need to change the composition of the CIPC.

General guidelines have been provided to CCCs on how to request for funding support for their projects. However, the guidelines do not specify which projects the CCCs should submit. It is up to the CCCs to decide which projects within their constituencies they should support.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, a question has been put to the Minister to specifically ask how much money has been disbursed to Opposition-controlled Town Councils. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the money was disbursed through the CCCs. My question is: is it not incumbent upon the Minister, once a question has been asked, to find out how much money has been disbursed to Opposition wards in regard to CIPC projects? I think it is his duty to find out. How can he come to the House and avoid the question and say that it is the CCCs who are responsible for getting the funds?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, I did not evade his question. No money was given to any Town Council, PAP or otherwise.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you. So no money has been given at all. The next question I want to ask is: is it the policy to refuse grants for CIPC projects to Opposition-held constituencies?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Not at all, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Then why is it that Potong Pasir constituency has not received even one cent from the Government in regard to these grants whereas PAP wards have obtained $51.2 million? Why was our request for support for a CIPC project, ie, a walkway, refused?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, as far as I know, the Potong Pasir CCC has not applied for any funds. Therefore, they have not been given any funds.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We have to apply through the CCC and that is the rule laid down by the PAP Government, and that is exactly what we did. Permission was refused outright and without reason. Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary aware of the Potong Pasir Town Council’s request for support of a CIPC project?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, I am not aware of what transpired between Potong Pasir Town Council and Potong Pasir CCC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: In view of a question being filed in Parliament, is it not the duty of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to find out whether an application has been made for support of a CIPC project at Potong Pasir? Is it not his duty to do so? He cannot just come to Parliament and say, “I do not know anything about it.”

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, I have answered all his questions, including the one on whether any money was given to Opposition Town Councils. His Question is: how much money was disbursed, plus the composition of the CIPC and other details. I have answered all of them. If he asked whether I knew what happened between the Potong Pasir Town Council and the Potong Pasir CCC, I would have found out. But he did not ask, so I did not find out.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary appears to be rather naive.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, could you get to the point and ask your supplementary question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. He says that since no such question was asked, it is not his duty to answer any question outside the Question asked. I want to ask him another question: do the grassroots leaders’ decisions reflect the policies of the Government?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: I do not know exactly what he means. But I think the grassroots leaders will decide according to the priorities of the residents in the estate and the constituency.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. They must decide according to some guidelines. They cannot just arbitrarily decide on their own.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you ask your question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Do decisions made at the grassroots level reflect the policies of the PAP Government?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, if he is asking a question on how the CCC decides on matters pertaining to the constituency, I think this is the wrong Ministry to ask.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am just asking a question in regard to your Ministry.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, ask your question, please.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I will be more specific. Do grassroots leaders’ decisions made in regard to CIPC projects reflect the policies of the Government?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, we have not given any instruction to any CCC on how to process these applications.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has been reported over TV that most of the CIPC projects will receive Government support if they meet certain criteria and, if I can remember, he said that if they are useful and beneficial to the citizens, they will most probably be given CIPC support. I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is a walkway linking a block of flats to a bus stop a CIPC project?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: If an application for such a project surfaces at the CIPC, the secretariat will evaluate the proposal, whether it links between two points that are frequently used by residents, how much the proposal is going to cost, whether it is ostentatious, using tiles that are unnecessarily expensive. All these things will be evaluated. So I cannot tell him whether a linkway will be approved at all.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the secretariat. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that once an application has been made to the CCC, the CCC will let the secretariat Ž I do not know what secretariat Ž know of this application? Is that correct?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: That is correct if the CCC makes the application to the CIPC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is this secretariat? Can he explain to me?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: The secretariat comprises civil servants and Ministry officials who will process the applications and advise the CIPC on whether the guidelines have been followed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Has the Potong Pasir Town Council’s application for CIPC support in regard to construction of a walkway been given to the secretariat for processing?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not, if that is the procedure?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Let me repeat the procedure. If the Potong Pasir Town Council or a resident or a RC or the Civil Defence Coordinating Committee or somebody in the constituency says, “Why not do this?”, the CCC will evaluate. If the CCC supports this proposal, it will draw up specifications, state the budget and submit it to the CIPC. The CIPC will refer it to the officials for initial evaluation. The Potong Pasir Town Council’s project never surfaced, so we are not aware of it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I want to know why the Potong Pasir CCC did not submit the application for CIPC support to the secretariat.

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: First, I do not know why and, second, if he wants to know why a CCC makes a certain decision, the Ministry of National Development is the wrong ministry to ask.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, do you have any other supplementary questions on this subject? You are straying from the substantive question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: As regards the composition of the CIPC, why should only MPs from the PAP be included in this Committee?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: Sir, if he heard my answer, the nine members are Advisers to the CCCs. They are in charge of CCC projects and whatever the CCCs wish to do for the residents. They happen to be PAP Members of Parliament. This question has been asked many times by Mr Chiam about him being an Adviser. The answer is that he is not an Adviser.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Anyone looking at the composition, with only PAP Members, would it not be deemed that it is very political in nature?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you are asking more or less the same question over and over again. Unless you have something new to ask, I intend to move on to the next Question. Have you got anything new to ask?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I will ask another supplementary question. Can I assume that Opposition wards will never get the recommendation of their grassroots’ organisation in relation to any application for support ofCIPC projects in their constituencies? Can I take that?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: I do not think he can make such an assumption. Anyway, I cannot answer this because the CCCs will decide on the merits of each application.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not believe that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has no control —

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, I think you are still asking more or less similar questions. I will allow you one more supplementary question because we have to move on.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right. Do you have control over your grassroots’ organisation, ie, the CCC, and its Chairman?

Mr Matthias Yao Chih: That depends on what he means by “control”. Anyway, the Ministry of National Development has no control – if he calls it “control” – over CCCs. It is the Ministry of Community Development that is in charge of CCCs.

_____

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Lee Yiok Seng) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister.

The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) Scheme was implemented, in its present form, in April 1990. The total funds available to the CIPC for community projects from FY 90 to FY 93 amounted to $65 million. The breakdown is as follows: FY 90, $10 million; FY 91, $15 million; FY 92, $20 million; and FY 93, $20 million.

CIPC funds are allocated to the constituency as a whole through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs). The constituency has HDB areas administered by Town Councils as well as non-HDB areas which are not administered by Town Councils. The CCC decides on the priority of the various project proposals it receives and what items it should support and submits its requests to CIPC for funding.

From FY 1990 to 1st May 1993, a total of about $42 million or 65% of the $65 million available under the CIPC programme has been committed for various projects submitted by the Town Councils through the CCCs.

The amount of CIPC funds committed for Town Council projects varies from Town Council to Town Council, depending on the types of projects approved.

The Town Council projects which have been allocated CIPC funds fall mainly under these categories:

(a) Infrastructure facilities such as street lightings, covered walkways and footpaths;

(b) Recreational facilities such as cycling tracks, playgrounds, outdoor tables; and

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I think the question asked specifically for the amount given to each Town Council and for which projects were the funds given.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: Sir, as I have stated, about 65% of the funds available under the CIPC programme had been committed for various projects submitted by the Town Councils through the CCCs. If the Member wants the details for each Town Council, he can write to me or to my Ministry. We will try to give the Member whatever information that is available after consulting the respective Town Councils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question asks for the “funds allocated to projects with town council participation and the amount given to each town council”.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: The CIPC fund is given to the CCCs, not to the Town Councils, and I think this is fair. Town Councils receive direct grants from the Government, particularly for the residents in the HDB areas. We know that in each constituency there are many residents who are not in the HDB areas. So this fund also caters for those residents who are not in the HDB areas and it is for the CCCs to decide on the priority for improvements in their own constituency.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is it true that though the fund was allocated to the CCCs, the Town Council uses the fund for their project development? The question here asks specifically for the amount for each project in each Town Council.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: I have stated quite clearly that, under the CIPC programme, 65% of the amount goes to the projects submitted by the Town Councils. And this is the fund allocated to the CCCs. So for the individual Town Council, as I said, he can write to us. We will try our best to give him the information.

_____

30 July 1993: COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMMITTEE FUNDS ALLOCATION 1989-1992

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development if he will state (i) the total amount of funds allocated by the Community Improvement Projects Committee to Town Councils for community projects in the years 1989 to 1992; and (ii) which Town Councils were granted such funds and how much was given to each of them in each of these years.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds are allocated to the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) for projects in the whole constituency and not to Town Councils. Hence, no CIPC funds were allocated directly to Town Councils for community projects in the years 1989 to 1992.

Since the implementation of the CIPC scheme in April 1990, a total of $65 million has been allocated to constituencies through the CCCs. The amount of funds allocated annually ranged from $80,000 to $527,000 per CCC, depending on the size of the constituency. CCCs may propose community improvement projects in HDB areas administered by Town Councils as well as projects in non-HDB areas which are not administered by Town Councils, for funding under the CIPC.

_____

11 MARCH 1992: HEAD U – MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY)

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)(In Mandarin): Sir, every HDB housing estate will be aging after some time. The facilities in the estate would need to be improved, for example, the children’s playground, etc. If these upgrading and improvement works, particularly in the older housing estates, are solely dependent on the town council without funding from any other sources, then more often than not, it will be inadequate.

The Ministry of National Development has a committee known as the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) which is responsible for handling and approving applications submitted by the town councils for community improvement projects. What surprises me is that the application must be submitted through the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) to the CIPC, and the application must first be approved by the Adviser to the CCC. To the best of my knowledge, the establishment of town council is to represent the town concerned. Why is it that application to the CIPC must be made through the CCC? What is the reason for it?

Take my constituency of Hougang, for example. Prior to the General Elections, an application was made by the CCC of Hougang constituency to the CIPC for the construction of a covered link-way. After the elections, I wrote to the CIPC to make enquiry about it. The CIPC replied that the CCC of the Hougang Constituency had withdrawn its application. When I wrote to the Hougang CCC, the reply I received was that they had never applied. Of course, I understand the reason!

In this process, my experience is that the matter involves two very important questions. One, what is the role of the CCC? The CCC, according to my understanding which is also the Government’s open definition, is a community project consisting of community leaders. Since it is for community work, and improvement to town facilities is also for the good of the community, I fail to understand why they withdrew their application.

On the other hand, another matter which warrants our special attention is that the fund to be allocated by the CIPC comes from the taxpayers’ money. Should not all the town councils and all the tax-paying Singaporeans residing in the constituency be equally and fairly entitled to apply for such funds?

Sir, I hope that the Ministry of National Development will announce to the public the total amount of allocations approved by the CIPC, up till this date, and a breakdown of allocations approved for each individual town council. I would also suggest that the Ministry of National Development set up a Town Facilities Improvement Fund to allocate funds to the town councils for improvements to facilities within the constituency.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): I would like to take the points raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang. Since he is a new Member, he needs some explanation about what the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) fund is all about. He may be aware that there used to be a fund called the Urban and Rural Services Committee (URSC) fund. This was really meant to build roads and put up street lights in the urban areas as well as the rural areas. The CIPC is something that developed out of that, and the funds administered by the CIPC are not for Town Councils. I would like to underline that they are not for Town Councils. They are for the constituency as a whole. The constituency has HDB areas administered by Town Councils as well as non-HDB areas which are not administered by Town Councils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: Do you want to give way?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Where do the funds come from?

Mr Dhanabalan: If the Member can just be a little patient, he will know where the funds come from. The funds, of course, are allocated to the Ministry and I am trying to explain to him what the funds are for. Where the funds come from, of course, all the funds allocated under the Budget come from the taxpayers as well as earnings from various investments. So the CIPC funds are for the constituency as a whole. And how the funds are to be allocated for various projects in a constituency has to be decided by some body which has responsibility for the constituency as a whole. Under the old URSC system, it was the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) that decided what kind of projects should be carried out in the constituency. So we are carrying on with the system and if Town Councils have projects for which they want funding from the CIPC, they have to go through the Citizens Consultative Committee; and the Citizens Consultative Committee will decide what are the priority items, what items it wants to support and what it does not want to support. That is the system we have and that is the system we intend to continue to practise.

As to the particulars of the projects in Hougang that were submitted by the CCC and withdrawn, he should address those questions to the CCC in Hougang, because I do not know what priority they set for themselves, what are the more important projects, and how they want to use the money. So I cannot give him an answer why the CCC withdrew the application. The CIPC fund is a block vote. We have, of course, internal guidelines but this really need not concern Members. So far, no Member has complained that reasonable projects have been refused funding. I think I have answered all the questions.

_____

15 MARCH 1990: MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, the second category is more grants for improvement works. Dr Ho Tat Kin has asked for additional grants to provide the improvements in and about a town. For such works, town councils can apply to the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) for funding. This is a new Committee set up to take the place of the former URSC. Under this funding scheme, Government will pay between 50% and 90% of the project cost up to a limit of $1/2 million per project. Already the Committee has approved 16 such projects amounting to about a million dollars. More projects will be evaluated for funding. If Dr Ho has any plans for upgrading the amenities within his town, he is welcomed to apply to the CIPC.

Dr Koh asked whether reserve sites could be converted into recreational area, preferably funded by the Government. Sir, in planning these housing estates and new towns, HDB is always conscious of the need to provide recreational amenities for the residents. Hence, there are adequate open spaces in every HDB estate and new town. These open spaces include town garden, neighbourhood park, precinct garden, and in the case of new towns, sports and swimming complexes. There is no need to make additional provision over and above what has already been made available. Reserve sites are earmarked for future development, as I said earlier, for residential, schools or other commercial uses. These sites are turfed in the interim and residents are free to use the turfed area for their recreational needs, if they like to.

But if a town council is interested in developing additional recreational facility on the reserve site, then the town council should first write to my Ministry to find out what are the plans on the site, whether the piece of land will be available for interim use of about three to five years, or even more. If the land is not needed for immediate development, then my Ministry can consider proposals from town council to lease this land for development as interim recreational facilities. But since these are additional facilities over and above what HDB has already provided to the residents, I think the town council should be prepared to bear the cost of this development. Of course, if it is a project which the town council is very keen and feels that there is great merit, it can submit the proposal to the CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) and seek support from Government for funding such projects. But the town council must remember that if it is only for a short period of time, after which the site will be needed for redevelopment, whatever investment that has been put into it will be lost. This is a decision which the council must decide.

_____

Written by singapore 2025

07/09/2016 at 9:59 am

Posted in Democracy, Grassroots, Housing and Property, Parliament, Public Service, Uncategorized

ST Supperclub: Pritam Singh

Here is the full interview including questions and answers that did not make it to the print and online editions of the Straits Times.

Interview with RazorTV

In part 1 of this Supper Club interview, Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh reflects on where he sees the Workers’ Party (WP), its town council and local political developments about 2 1/2 years after the 2011 general election. He also speaks on whether the recent National Day Rally spells an ideological shift for the PAP.

We’re almost midway through this term of government. Looking back, has the WP delivered on its promises?

The best judge of whether we’ve delivered is our constituents. On Nomination Day, (WP chairman) Sylvia Lim told the public that if we are voted in, we would serve to the best of our abilities. We want to show Singaporeans that if you vote in an opposition party, it doesn’t mean your town is going to descend into chaos. If you compare the number of questions raised in Parliament for this 12th session to the 11th, the number of questions of public interest filed in Parliament has increased quite substantially covering a very broad range of issues. Do we always get straight answers from the PAP on these questions? Not necessarily. Is there room for improvement for the WP, be it in Parliament or at the constituency level? Most definitely.

What are the key areas for improvement?

I don’t think there’s a specific key area that we are particularly weak in. It’s also a question of being new, the first time an opposition party has held a GRC, the first time we’re managing a town of that size. Obviously there’s a lot of things we’ve got to learn very quickly. So far, my personal opinion is it’s been satisfactory but we do want to look into certain areas where we can make things better.

One thing we’re looking at now is, within the town council are our audit processes, beyond the statutory requirements of the Town Councils Act, for example, making sure that S&CC (service and conservancy charges) dollar is spent wisely. We’re looking at checks and balances within our own systems apart from the yearly audit conducted by independent auditors.

Have you set yourself any goals that you would like to achieve by the end of your first term?

I have set myself some goals. But the situation on the ground in Aljunied is very fluid. There are a lot of things happening on the ground. For example, the situation in Eunos is such that not only is there a grassroots adviser, the previous MP Zainul Abidin Rasheed, they also have a PAP branch chairman, Chua Eng Leong, the son of a former minister conducting his own Meet-the-People sessions. But I think I’m keeping my focus on making sure we can deliver both here on the ground in Eunos and in Aljunied more broadly and at least represent to people that it’s very important to also have an opposition in Parliament in Singapore by pushing hard on the parliamentary front as well. So I have set myself some targets, but like the WP’s philosophy with regard to our political strategies, we don’t articulate them, we execute them. So I’ll just leave it at that.

On leadership renewal in the WP, do you see yourself in the running for secretary-general in the future?

You know, when I joined the WP, I didn’t join with the notion of being sec-gen or coveting any sort of leadership appointment. I thank the party for allowing me to contest as a candidate. It is something I will forever be thankful to the party and the party leadership for. The opportunity of public service through the WP is more than I could have ever dreamt of – and at this age in particular, being able to serve in this capacity, I’m very, very satisfied with that.

The WP tends to have an image of being Chinese-dominated and appealing a lot to the Chinese-speaking ground. Has this image changed?

The WP now is not like the WP of the past. Especially after Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East, I think we are appealing to a very broad section of Singapore society, as any party that is establishing itself at the national level has to do. Because Singapore is a Chinese-majority country, it’s almost inevitable that we’d appeal to that segment, but I think we are broader than that also.

Every WP member can bring in a member of any race and religion. I think it’s probably healthy we do it that way rather than play up the racial dimension too much. I think we’re moving away from that and in the WP, no matter what our race, the only way we can move forward and play a role as an effective check and balance is to rally together as a team, regardless of race, language or religion.

Is your membership base more diverse now compared to the past, say in GE2011?

Absolutely. If I look at the volunteers at the grassroots level, I would definitely say it is a diverse bunch.

How would you say the town council has performed so far?

I think it has been satisfactory. Yes, there is definitely room for improvement. I don’t think there is one perfect town council anywhere in Singapore. But we keep a close eye; internally, we look at certain indicators, and we are our own worst critics at the end of the day. I’m quite assured that we’re keeping to Ms Sylvia Lim’s promise that we will serve residents to the best of our ability. That’s what we are striving to do all the time.

Looking back, do you think the hawker centre cleaning episode could have been handled better?

It is my view that most Singaporeans felt this issue could have been resolved with a phone call, being an issue ultimately of sanitation. But the last major article that The Straits Times ran on the issue reported that the hawker representatives pushing the issue at Blk 538 and Blk 511 were PAP members. Ultimately, I saw the episode as an administrative issue that could have been resolved in a very straightforward manner. While I feel that communication between the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the town council could have been much better, ultimately there was a political angle to it that no one can deny.

If, like you said, it could have been resolved with a phone call, why didn’t that happen?

NEA is the Managing Agent of our hawker centres. There was an expectation that they would play a role to bridge differences and be a positive and neutral force for what the Prime Minister called the “right politics”. I would have thought that if something unusual was stated by some member of the town council, anybody in NEA could have picked up the phone and said, hey, I think we’re not sure about this little fact or representation that some property officer has made. Vice-versa, if we were not sure about what NEA had said, we could have done the same. So communication could have been better.

Some of the hawkers asked why the WP MPs didn’t go down to speak to them earlier. Why was that?

At the 511 and 538 markets, the issue had been politicised because the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) under the People’s Association, a political entity, had come into the picture very early on. It wasn’t out of disrespect to the hawkers, but we wanted to have a very clear channel of communication to resolve the matter with NEA, the main agency we were dealing with, since the Town Council is not represented on the CCC. We are on good terms with the hawkers. This talk about the WP treating the hawkers badly, that was a completely political statement. The hawkers became a pawn in a political game, unnecessarily so. This point was made very clearly to me by hawkers in my own market at Blk 630 Bedok Reservoir Road, who said they did not want to be embroiled in any political fights and just want to carry on their business.

On the issue of hawkers becoming a pawn in a political game, do you think the WP contributed to politicising the issue as well?

This whole issue need not have been politicised. Once it was clear that it was not going being resolved administratively, there was not much room for the WP to manoeuvre. As the smaller player in the larger political scheme, if the agencies of the state are being used against you politically, what do you do?

In the course of this episode, you were also criticised by the PAP, including some ministers. There was a chance to stand up in Parliament and defend yourself?

To my knowledge, only one Minister did so. In fact, Ms Lim had already answered all the questions that the Minister (Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan) had asked, and the Minister himself did not wholly address her queries. If the minister had asked me directly, “Mr Pritam Singh, I want to hear your response on this matter”, I would have stood up in Parliament and given him my response – which would essentially have been a repetition of what Ms Lim had already said and asked. But the Minister did not do so in Parliament. He did so through a Facebook post by querying my silence! I am sure if my response was that important to him, he would have asked me for it in Parliament. But like I said, the hawker centre imbroglio was a political issue. I rhetorically asked myself after this month’s parliamentary hearing, surely Dinesh Raman Chinniah’s death in official custody deserved at least the same level of scrutiny, if not more.

This year’s National Day Rally has been billed as a strategic shift. Do you agree with that?

Well, we have to reserve judgment until the details of the policy changes are fully revealed. That said, I would not refer to rally as marking a strategic shift as yet. I expected the PM to address the issue of the Population White Paper, because if there’s going to be a change to any major policy, it will have to be seen through the lens of (that). For instance, when PM spoke of MediShield Life, I expected some reference to an important reality: the number of elderly people is going to grow and immigrants are not raising the fertility rate very much either. Somewhere down the road, Singapore host more elderly people and fewer younger ones. I’m wondering how MediShield Life and front-loading will work in that context.

I didn’t see too much of a shift in education. PM talked about putting aside 40 places for P1 students who don’t have any connections. I expected that to be at least 50 per cent, to be honest. I also expected him to say something like we’re going to move good primary schools out of the rich belts of Singapore or at least that we’re going to move in that direction. That to me would have been a strategic shift. A lot of our education policies are still very eugenically inspired – well-to-do parents produce well-to-do children and put them in these good schools. I don’t get a sense that we’ve really moved away from that.

Housing, there were two caveats: a. non-mature estates, b. the maths says you can afford a HDB flat with a $1,000 income, but the reality on the ground for people who are in that income bracket is that they are usually in a contract job. I think PM’s examples work if you’re a Division 3 or 4 civil servant where, all things being equal, you will stay in that job and you don’t have to worry too much about getting or renewing a contract and you have a paymaster than dutifully contributes to your CPF account since you are not a freelancer, ‘temp’ staff or in a non-traditional work arrangement. Some other Singaporeans that earn around $1000 have many other commitments like raising and schooling children, worrying about the parents and their own health, amongst others – the insecurities with that kind of salary cannot be underestimated. All you need is to be out of job for a few months because of a retrenchment exercise or an illness, and a very depressing picture emerges. That said, whatever moves the government makes to address these insecurities are welcomed for they mean the world to people, especially those who live along the fringes of the poverty line.

The announcement I felt was close to a strategic shift was extending Edusave to madrasah students. Thousands did not receive this previously. But what are the reasons for the change now? Does it mean the Government is also looking into the long-standing gripes of the Malay-Muslim community in the military sphere in particular? I was hoping PM could tell us.

Some observers see this year’s Budget and NDR marking a shift to the left in the PAP government and that this overlaps with the WP’s political turf. Do you agree? Will the WP have to adjust its messaging?

That’s something the PAP will have to square with itself. My own view at the moment is, these are moves that the PAP has engaged in for the sake of political necessity. As far as the WP is concerned, I see ourselves as being consistent with regard to what our message and beliefs are. I don’t see us really responding to what the PAP are doing in that regard. I don’t think the PAP are ideologically changing. But as much as they say they don’t want to be populist, I think they’ve realised that they have to listen to the people. But that’s what government is about.

Earlier you mentioned the phrase, “right politics”. What does it mean to you?

This is one of the things that PM left hanging in the air. At the end of the day, who is the WP? It comprises ordinary Singaporeans who just feel that ultimately, all Singaporeans have a right to determine the direction this country is going. Of course, there are a lot more Singaporeans who believe that checks and balances are an integral part of society, especially now. In this context, what is the right politics? Do you suggest that an opposition party should not clamour for more checks and balances? I don’t think so. I think the right politics is acknowledging that the opposition has a very important role and you respect them for the role they play in ensuring that Singaporeans are looked after. Essentially we want to begin a process where we establish deep roots for the opposition in Singapore, where the presence of an opposition is permanent and it can contribute effectively and positively to Singapore and Singapore society.

You talk about right politics in terms of the ruling party’s attitude towards the opposition parties. But what role does the opposition itself play?

The thing is, it’s easier to answer that question if you look at how the PAP has dealt with opposition parties in the past. The opposition were essentially seen as troublemakers. Our point is, we are not troublemakers. When we believe and we practise a brand of politics which is rational, respectable, responsible, our commitment to that shows you really what the WP is willing to do to introduce the right brand of politics in Singapore. But if we’re going to spend time talking about hawker centres and politicising issues like that, then unfortunately we really have to think what the PAP means by the right politics.

What worries you the most about Singapore’s future?

Sometimes you meet Singaporeans who have this “tidak apa” attitude, the Government will sort it out for me. I think we’ve passed that point where we can give the Government a free hand. The way the immigration policy was introduced over the last decade is evidence of that. I think it’s very important for us to take an interest in politics in Singapore and to speak up when we are concerned and have questions about certain policies. It worries me when people say, it’s okay, let the politicians deal with that. I think we should all play a part in it, because this is the only country we have.

In part 2 of the interview with Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh, he talks about his life after entering politics: his biggest lesson, pet topics, battle scars, his marriage and his dream job when he was young.

What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned since entering politics?

Sometimes, you have to keep pushing a point to be heard. One example was the death of an inmate in custody, Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah. The state coroner discontinued the coroner’s inquiry, but I believe that decision, which invoked Section 39 of the Coroners’ Act, was wrong in law. Section 39 requires that in the criminal proceedings, the causes and circumstances of death are established. While the cause of death was established, I’m not so sure the circumstances were, as evidenced by the varied mainstream media reportage on the circumstances of Dinesh’s death. I went to the Subordinate Courts and applied for the notes of evidence and the prosecution’s statement of facts. After persuing them, there are more questions than answers that emerge. I’m quite disappointed with the response of the Government on this matter.

We took the sections on the coroner’s powers out of the Criminal Procedure Code and put it into a standalone Coroner’s Act a few years ago. One reason given in Parliament then was to serve the public interest – moving from a fault-finding to a fact-finding regime. But with that as the backdrop, you wonder why if we’ve moved to a fact-finding regime, the facts are not so apparent in Dinesh’s case.

If you say you’re disappointed with the response, how did pushing the point advance the issue?

It’s on the public record, it’s something people will remember. It’s also noteworthy that other people, especially in the online space, started talking more about it. It reminds us that all of us as citizens have a right to find out what’s happening in our system. The Government talks a lot about trust. But trust is a two-way street. The currency of trust is transparency. If there’s one important lesson I’ve learned in politics, certain issues have to be pressed not just by politicians but by ordinary Singaporeans, even more so in a one-party dominant state.

You’ve spoken a lot about transparency as an MP. Why is that so important to you?

I recall then-PM Goh Chok Tong speaking of a participatory democracy in the early 1990s. This is participatory democracy in action. For democracy to work, people must know what is happening. Information and transparency from the Government are critical. Only then can the system work and only then can you build strong bonds of trust between the Government and its people.

What are some measures you hope can be made to improve the level of transparency here?

A more proactive Government when it comes to episodes of public interest. The Government should on its own accord understand that people have a right to know what is happening in society and in the country. The most important thing is for the Government to instinctively release more information as the first resort and not have people and civil society question them repeatedly.

In other countries which have the Freedom of Information Act, there’s this recognition that the people are the ones that the government is ultimately answerable to. I’ve also spoken about whistleblower protection, whistleblower legislation, the ombudsman. I think all these are institutions which will buttress trust between the people and the government.

How do you think the WP fares itself in terms of transparency?

We tell people what we know and the facts we have on hand. We’re not in the business of trying to hide things for you simply cannot do that in today’s day and age. There’s nothing in our pockets that we don’t want to share with people.

One criticism of the WP is that it tends to clam up in a crisis – for instance, when allegations arose about former expelled, MP Yaw Shin Leong.

It wasn’t so much clamming up but giving someone the chance to compose themselves and then be accountable. We were willing to give Yaw as much space as he wanted for that. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen, then obviously another course of action had to be taken.

In Parliament, you’ve been criticised by ministers a few times. Do you feel daunted by that?

Well, something would be wrong if I was not criticised! As a young MP, you reflect on it and look at ways to improve. But the majority of the criticism is nothing more than political posturing. It’s the cut and thrust of democratic politics and facing a dominant party in Parliament. It’s in their interest to identify members of the WP as somehow incompetent and not fit to be MPs. That’s the nature of politics in Singapore and you try to not feel daunted by it. If you’re daunted by the PAP, it’s probably better that you don’t join opposition politics. But there’s nothing unpatriotic or un-Singaporean about having a very different view from the PAP. As long as you have the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart, you just move on.

What were the most rewarding and challenging moments of the past two and a half years?

Rewarding moments, when residents drop a note to the property officer in charge of their area and thank him or her for a job well done. Or I get a letter from a resident or government body which says an appeal has gone through. The most challenging times are when certain residents come up to you, they’ve been applying for job after job but they’re not getting what they want, and they become depressed. I try my best to convince them to not give up, to just keep sending out their CVs and not give up hope. It really can be difficult to deal with and I keep assuring them that they can come and see me any time they want and I’ll be happy to intercede on their behalf, write a letter to represent them if need be.

One episode of your political career that sometimes still crops up is the speech you made in 2011 on the ombudsman.

Yes. I put up a statement some time in July in response to this. As I mentioned in that statement, I should have just gotten up and said, look, this has been quoted from this individual and full permission had been given by that individual. In fact, the blogger was honest enough to do it on his own accord when he realised that a political issue was being made of it. But I suppose at that point, looking back at it, my own concern was keeping the identity of that individual anonymous because he was an anonymous blogger. Maybe the wiser thing to have done to prevent the PAP from making political hay out of it was just to say, look, I’ve gotten permission for it. It was an oversight. I learnt a lot about politics from this.

In Parliament, some say you can be quite aggressive. Do you agree?

I wouldn’t say my style is aggressive, quite the opposite – I mean, it’s not a rally. But certain questions have to be asked directly. If that counts as aggressive, then I don’t think things are going to change!

Do you have an interest or hobby that people may not know about?

My wife discovered during a recent trip to Kuala Lumpur that if you plonk me in a bookshop which carries magazines like Air Forces Monthly, Air International or Combat Aircraft Monthly, you can leave me there for 45 minutes and my shopping batteries will be recharged! I’ve always been a huge military aviation enthusiast. When I was young, I would fix model planes. If I wasn’t doing what I’m doing now, I’d probably be a pilot. Unfortunately at a very young age, I suffered from a bad case of myopia like many Singaporean children, so that dream was dashed!

What films have you watched and what books have you read recently?

The last film I watched was Flight, starring Denzel Washington. I tend to watch a lot of movies starring black actors like Samuel L. Jackson, Wesley Snipes etc. One of my favourite actors is probably Forest Whitaker – I enjoyed him in The Last King of Scotland. I also recently watched The Great Gatsby, which I enjoyed.

Since I became an MP, I’ve not read many books. Time is a bit more of a premium. Now, I tend to read shorter articles a lot more. I was in the Parliament library and there was this revealing article written by Lee Kuan Yew in 1982. It’s called The Search for Talent. In showed that even in those days, PAP MPs were raising the issue of professionals on visit passes being allocated public housing while Singaporeans had to wait for the allocation of HDB flats. Mr Lee’s message was, it’s ok, that’s the price you have to pay to get people over. I think to understand the PAP today, the heartbeat of a lot of these policies actually originates from Mr Lee’s thinking, and we have been slow to change course because of it.

What do you do to unwind?

When I run, my mind’s at ease and I really feel like I’m destressing. That’s the non-sedentary option. The sedentary option would be to watch sports. I like all sorts of sports except darts, but inevitably I’ll end up watching soccer. The teams of choice are Manchester United and – since they re-entered into Malaysian competitions – the Lions XII. I hope they qualify out of the group stages of the Malaysia Cup although they’ve done well to win the league. C’mon Lions!

You got married last year. How has married life been?

Marriage is a new chapter. I’ve been lucky because my wife is the one who spends a disproportionate amount of time on our marriage. Time is not something I have in generous quantities and she keeps the house in order. I’m very thankful to her for all she has done for our marriage. She knows that being the wife of an opposition politician is not easy, but she recognises that public service is also open to people who are not part of the PAP and she respects the decision I’ve made and is very supportive of what I do. She has been wonderful.

Do you talk politics with her?

She’s got a feminine perspective on social issues which one cannot ignore. Sometimes, she will look at a person and say, look, they’re saying one thing but their body language is revealing something else. She gives me tips too: you’re not standing straight, bad colour coordination, you’re moving too much – which is a bad habit I have.

Who would you consider your political hero or inspiration?

I’ve got a lot of political heroes. They tend to be people who have emerged from incredible darkness, hopelessness and challenges of their times. People like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, who emerged out of the Cold War. Trade unionists, people in civil society who stood up against tremendous obstacles and still had an enlightened approach to what human society should be like. Closer to home, people like Chia Thye Poh, JB Jeyaretnam. They were among many leftists who paid a very heavy price for their beliefs. Whether you agree with them or not, I’m proud of people who stood up against the odds and tried to make things better. And in my heart, the man who stood in front of the row of tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989 is equally, in my eyes, a hero.

But since I became an MP, I’ve developed an acute respect for politicians in office and what these people stood for. Like the socialist Brazilian leader Lula da Silva, whose message was “I cannot fail because if I fail, ordinary Brazilians will realise that the average person cannot dream or aspire to lead this country and contribute to public service”. Ordinary people who aspire to great heights because of a desire to serve – that’s very motivational for me, particularly if you juxtapose it with our society where our leaders tend to be of a certain class.

Do you see your role in politics here as something similar to your inspirations?

I suppose the WP’s message is, our doors are open to everybody. The main thing we look out for is people who are really committed to serve. It takes all sorts of people to make up a country and a good governing cohort. In the early days, the PAP also had people from all walks of life. I think that’s healthy. We should look at having more balance in our political realm. Everybody should be allowed to dream and aspire to contribute.

Has the PAP moved away from that kind of balance?

Most definitely. Whether you like it or not, the fact is you tend to see more of the scholars coming through the system and that seems to be already ingrained.

Do you think the WP and the opposition face a similar challenge? The electorate also seems to expect the opposition to produce people with “credentials”.

The short answer would be yes. But that’s because the PAP has set the bar as such. It doesn’t adequately represent the spectrum of our society. If you have a society that has all these elites in charge, then you question whether they can really have the pulse of the common man at heart. I’m not suggesting they don’t, but I think it would be good to be more representative in the higher echelons, not just at the party level.

Is that something the WP consciously tries to do?

We try hard to get a mix that is broadly representative of society. But you always need some people who are incredibly intellectual yet so very down to earth – Show Mao is an example. On the other hand, you have people who are just very normal Singaporeans. I think most of us count ourselves in that bracket, including myself.

What was your first brush with politics?

I don’t think there was a first brush per se. But almost 10 years ago, I had a first cousin who ran a transport business. Almost overnight, you had a situation where the doors to a lot more foreigners were opened. Incorporate a company today, buy a lorry on hire purchase tomorrow, and you’re in business. They would undercut the locals. The Singaporeans couldn’t match the price because they had families to feed. A whole industry was ravaged by cheap foreign labour. The only real skill my cousin had was a class five license and some basic qualifications in logistics and supply management. With three children, he realised he couldn’t sustain himself. So he migrated to Canada.

If you have the capacity, are willing to start again and slog, host a network overseas, you can migrate. But for many Singaporeans, that’s not an option. They have to eke out a living in Singapore. It pained me to know that this was the lot of Singaporeans like my cousin. Why should anyone want to leave a country they call home? I can’t say that this was a turning point but it did play on my mind for quite long. I understand the argument of globalisation, but I do feel we ought to look after our locals.

How did you come to settle on joining WP? Did you consider other parties?

I liked the fact that the WP was always measured in its approach. Given the political climate in Singapore, the reality is that the PAP is in control of many different agents and actors in society. So obviously, the PAP’s reach is very broad and widespread. But I looked at the WP and the work that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim did, and that was quite inspirational to me. That’s how I decided. At the end of the day, I’m a moderate, and I felt that the message of rational, responsible, respectable politics was one that I identified with very naturally. We can have differences, but how we deal with the differences is important. With no disrespect to the other parties, the WP’s brand and what it stood for just appealed to me more.

What’s your assessment of the Singapore system?

There are a lot more areas where it can improve. I think we can be a much more egalitarian society. We can pay a lot more attention to people below the poverty line and the elderly. It’s that old “tough love” concept. Sometimes I think we are too tough. I’m not suggesting we move to a system where we are profligate in public spending, but I think more avenues should be made for exceptions to the norm. Middle managers in the civil service must have the confidence and the assurance to say ‘hey, this is a deserving case, I will stand behind this person and go to my directors and say, look, I think this person needs to be given a chance’.

What encourages you the most about Singapore?

The fact that the younger generation are not afraid of speaking up and being heard. They are concerned about the direction this country is going. It’s also good to know there’s more concern about civil liberties. Take the Bukit Brown movement – I thought that was very encouraging.

You have a quotation by Mr Lee Kuan Yew on your Facebook page (“If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.” – Lee Kuan Yew in opposition, 27 April 1955) What’s the significance of the quote to you?

I think it’s a reminder that our views change over time. So rather than be black and white about certain things, there are people with different opinions out there and let’s respect them. Nobody would think of Lee Kuan Yew speaking up for civil liberties the way that quotation expressed it. It just reminds me that even someone who people would later describe as authoritarian, even he had very different views in an era long gone by. But it’s also true that when you’re younger, civil liberties are very important to you. We’re seeing that in our younger generation and we should never lose that.

If you could change an episode of Singapore’s history, what would it be?

We probably would have institutionalised the importance of an opposition earlier had the Barisan MPs not walked out (in the late 1960s). While I respect their reasons, sometimes I get sentimental about the fact that an opposition would probably have taken root much earlier. I think Singapore would have benefited from it, without undermining the development brought about by the first generation of PAP leaders.

The second episode is, when we were in Malaya from 1963 to 1965, I wonder how things would have been if the Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew had been of similar ages. There was a 20-year age gap and I wonder if there would have been a meeting of minds about why each had to do what they did had they been of similar ages, particularly if Mr Lee was around the Tunku’s age.

How has life changed since entering politics, and how do you juggle politics with your legal career?

It’s very difficult to juggle a career and being an MP. I’m keeping my options open on how to achieve a better balance. But I would say that if it ever came to a point where it was difficult to manage, I would drop law and concentrate on the constituency. I’ve not reached that point yet, but if it comes to that, I think the decision would be a very obvious one.

Written by singapore 2025

02/09/2013 at 7:56 am

Posted in Democracy, Grassroots, Housing and Property, Malays in Singapore, Parliament, Public Service, Racial and Religious Harmony, Workers' Party

HDB’s Rental Housing Policy (Part 1): The Malay EIP limit

Sometime in the middle of 2012, I conducted a review of all my Meet-the-People Session cases and sought to identify the issues that repeatedly came up, to understand why they continued to be so intractable, and how the status quo could be improved.

Repeated requests for Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flats from needy Singaporeans was the one intractable issue that kept coming up.

That rental housing stood out was not surprising, as the former Minister for National Development Mr Mah Bow Tan had informed parliament in 2009 that HDB receives more than 500 appeals from MPs for rental housing each month.

In a parliamentary speech delivered in March 2011, Mah announced that the HDB was building another 7000 rental flats by 2012, bringing the total supply to 50,000 (HDB had already committed to this figure in November 2006). In addition, HDB had also moved to tighten the eligibility criteria for rental flats focusing on the most needy families. As a result, Mah stated that the number of eligible applications received per month decreased from about 300 in 2008 to 190 in 2010. In addition, the average waiting time was reduced to 8 months in 2011, compared to 21 months in 2009. The former Minister also said that the HDB received 14,000 appeals from 7,000 appellants for rental flats.

Tellingly, Mah said, “if all the 7,000 cases are granted rental housing. I don’t think we will be able to cope. That said, I have put in place an appeals process, where cases that merit special consideration are put before an Appeals Committee for further review. This committee is headed by my Senior Parliamentary Secretary and includes a panel of MPs. There is an independent assessment of the merits or otherwise of each case.”

Shortly after the 2011 General Elections, Minister for National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan announced at a youth forum at the Woodlands Community Club, “we need to ramp up the building of rental flats as quickly as we can, (and) not just by a few thousand. We need to build by the tens of thousands, and the earlier the better.”

The arrival of a new Minister at the helm suggested that HDB’s rental housing policy was in line for a significant revamp with tens of thousands of rental units anticipated. But in a recent parliamentary reply in November 2012, Khaw has confirmed that the plan is to increase this number to 57,000 by 2015, an increase of 7000, not the “tens of thousands” posited earlier in 2011.

A brief primer on rental housing in Singapore

In 1985, the HDB published a commemorative tome entitled, Housing a Nation: 25 Years of Public Housing in Singapore, and in a short section, traced the eligibility criteria, amongst others, of the HDB’s rental housing policy. See table (right), which is sourced from p.243 of the publication in question:

In 2011, the HDB produced another commemorative publication, titled Our Homes: 50 Years of Housing a Nation authored by current Straits Times editor Warren Fernandez, which better set out more useful facts on rental housing in Singapore.

According to Our Homes, in 1964, before the government introduced the home ownership scheme, all HDB flats were up for rental, and around 18% of the Singapore population lived in flats rented from the HDB. As a result of the government’s plan to nudge Singaporeans to become home-owners and to create a sense of ownership, the HDB launched a host of schemes to help less well-off Singaporeans. Demand for rental housing fell steadily and by 1982, the HDB stopped building rental units and closed the register for 3-room rental flats.

In 1982, the HDB had 135,000 rental flats, of which 110,000 were one and two room flats (today that number is around 49,300).

According to Our Homes again, in Oct 2003, HDB’s rental housing policy was extended to households with a monthly income of $1500, an increase from $800 previously. This change led to an increase in the demand for rental flats, and the HDB received about 350 rental applications a month.

Getting the data: The limits of parliamentary questioning

Since the 2011 elections, the overwhelming majority of residents who came to see me for public rental housing requests and appeals were Malay residents.

Unusually, for those who were fortunate enough to be allocated a rental flat, the wait extended to months, and for some, more than a year even. I realized over time from HDB replies that this was because of the HDB’s rental housing policies, which are also tied to the longstanding Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). A negligible number of replies from the HDB to me stated that the delay was because of an applicant’s preference about the location of the flat etc.

The EIP limits the number of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) households in any given rental block, and at the overall neighbourhood level.

The presence of the EIP necessitated an understanding of what the ethnic limits for HDB rental housing were, and whether Malays had exceeded these limits, resulting in a longer wait for rental housing, or until another Malay household had moved out.

I filed a parliamentary question in July this year and received a useful, albeit incomplete answer.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current percentage of Malays, Chinese, Indians, and others residing in all HDB rental flats, on (i) a block-by-block basis and (ii) zone/cluster-by-zone/cluster basis; (b) what is the current average waiting time for an approved rental housing application for all ethnic groups, for each zone/cluster; (c) what is the longest waiting time that an applicant from each ethnic group has had to wait before a rental flat was allocated; and (d) how often has the Ministry changed its ethnic integration policy (EIP) limits for rental housing since the introduction of HDB rental housing and what are the reasons for those changes.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989 to ensure a balanced mix of the various ethnic groups within HDB estates. The objective is to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves. EIP limits are set at the block and neighbourhood levels and they apply to both sold and rental flats.

The EIP was last revised in March 2010, when the ethnic limit for the Indian/Others ethnic group was increased by 2%-points. This was in response to Singapore’s demographic changes.

The limits are 87% for Chinese, 25% for Malays and 15% for Indians/Others. These are at the block level. At the neighbourhood level, the corresponding limits are tighter by 3%-points. The current rental households comprise 62% Chinese, 25% Malays, and 13% Indians/Others.

The average waiting time for a public rental flat is about four months for Chinese, six months for Indians/Others, and seven months for Malays. At the individual level, the waiting time would vary for different applicants and is a function of factors such as the applicant’s choice of rental zone, type of rental flat, and the EIP quota available.

The Minister did not reveal the current demographic breakdown of households living in rental flats across Singapore. This information was necessary as it would have provided clear details on the absolute numbers of public rental households in Singapore across the different races – data central to fully understand the application of the current HDB rental policies, or even to propose tweaks to the system.

But what the Minister did reveal went a long way to explain why Malay applicants had to wait longer than most for a rental flat.

The Malay quota of 25% had already been reached.

The Malay EIP limit for Rental Housing: On the Ground in AHTC

Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC host a few rental flats. After some checks with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and some of my fellow MPs, I realized that in the case of most of our rental blocks, the percentage of Malay households was greater than 25%, beyond the limits established by the Minister in Parliament.

In fact, the figure hovered around the 30-40% mark for most flats, and for one block in particular, the figure was close to 50%. The EIP limit of 25% for Malay applicants as established by the Minister’s reply in parliament did not correspond with the numbers found in rental flats within the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (one important caveat in the veracity of these percentages is the classification of Indian-Muslim applicants, and whether they come under the Malay or Indian EIP limits).

That the real percentages on the ground were so different from the limits revealed by the Minister was a curious anomaly. It potentially reveals a reality that is difficult to look past – in future, the Malay EIP limit could hypothetically go up to between 30% and 50%, and no adverse consequence is likely, since that is the very status quo, if rental flats in AHTC are anything to go by.

For the August sitting of parliament, I asked a follow-up question to find out how many rental blocks in Singapore had passed the 25% threshold for Malay families. I also wanted to know if the official EIP limit would be increased for Malay families, so needy Malays could be allocated their rental units at the same time as other needy Singaporeans. The reply came to this question came in November, as the question was not answered by the end of question time during the parliamentary sessions in August, September and October.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the ethnic limit of 25% for the Malay ethnic group at the block level in all HDB rental flats has been reached and, if so, when; (b) whether HDB has plans to increase this limit for the Malay ethnic group at the block level; and (c) whether HDB will consider allocating rental flats on a strict needs basis only to avoid rejection or delay as a result of the applicants’ preference of rental zone.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) limits are reviewed from time to time to reflect Singapore’s demographic changes. Currently, about 60% of HDB’s public rental blocks have reached the EIP block limit of 25% for Malay households. We are in the midst of reviewing the EIP limits for rental flats, to take into account the demand from the various ethnic groups.

Applications for a rental flat are assessed and approved on a strict needs basis. As for allocation, rental applicants may prefer certain locations, which are nearer their workplace or their children’s school. We allow them the flexibility to choose the location zone, so that we are better able to meet their needs. HDB will advise them on the estimated waiting time for their preferred zone as well as the zone with the shortest waiting time, so that they can make an informed decision.

Again, only a partial answer was forthcoming, with no clarity about when the 25% limit for Malays had been exceeded, as opposed to “reached”.

But unsurprising to me, the Minister revealed that about 60% of rental flats had reached the ethnic limit of 25% for Malay applicants. What the public continue to be clueless about is whether Malays comprise 30, 40 or 50% of a typical block of rental flats, as the Minister did not answer the question when it was asked earlier. No reason was given why this information could not be released.

Crucially though, the Minister did let in on important detail – that the HDB was reviewing EIP limits for rental housing to take into account demand from the various ethnic groups. This would almost singularly be the result of a large number of Malay Singaporeans requiring rental housing, since the other races are still within the EIP limits.

All said, for Malay applicants, this was welcome news indeed.

Next: HDB’s Rental Housing Policy (Part 2) https://singapore2025.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/hdbs-rental-housing-policy-part-2-reviewing-the-system/

I would like to thank my colleague, Faisal Abdul Manap, MP for Aljunied GRC for his views on this blogpost.

Written by singapore 2025

28/12/2012 at 12:06 pm

Posted in Housing and Property, Malays in Singapore, Parliament, Workers' Party

Smaller HDB flats: 10 years on……”Think small and put the buzz into Singapore”

Today’s article in the Straits Times, Shrinking HDB flats due to need to maximise land and to adapt http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_738271.html got me wondering. Almost exactly 10 years ago, the same argument was employed by the government to justify smaller flats (see article below by Lydia Lim – “Think small and put the buzz into Singapore“). Back then, Singaporeans responded unambigiously – NO to smaller HDB flats.

There is little reason to believe Singaporeans feel any differently today.

All sorts of reasons were peddled by the government to justify smaller flats then and now – the most consistent one being smaller families. But 10 years ago, even more doubtful arguments were pursued – smaller flats would encourage people to go out more (not beyond their means I hope), we would be encouraged to “socialise” (that seems to have been a rip-roaring success), more land could be set aside for parks with smaller flats (building upwards anyone?) etc. None of the HDB’s reasons measured up. But this year, the reasons for smaller HDB flats, most recently revisited by the HDB CEO, appear to focus squarely on smaller families. The other reasons are largely absent the public discussion, as evinced from the mainstream media at least. Perhaps we really live in politically different times from 10 years ago. Or perhaps the HDB’s reasons just do not make sense to discerning Singaporeans.

By the HDB’s own admission, new HDB flats are only “slightly smaller” than older ones. But if this is so, why would any government withstand a barrage of public criticism just for a few square metres of space? Are Singaporeans really asking for an arm and leg? Are our requests a bridge too far for the HDB? If they are, I have yet to hear from anyone in the HDB or government why this is so.

Perhaps the government can be nudged to think counter-intuitively on this one. Whichever way one looks at it, making HDB flats smaller, no matter what the reason, takes away choices from millions of HDB-dwelling Singaporeans. While families may have grown smaller, the longstanding HDB policy of building smaller HDB flats will ensure Singaporean families remain small.

In real terms, what additional costs are incurred if a “slightly larger” (as opposed to “slightly smaller”) flat is offered to Singaporeans? The costs of construction, when split among new HDB buyers ought to be very little when compared with the cost price of their flat. The construction challenge of a 35-storey flat instead of a 30-storey flat does not seem insurmountable. Parks will be spared for sure with taller flats. Perhaps most importantly, in the Singapore context at least, the prospects of an extra study table for the second child ought to jolt urban planners into designing policies that work for Singaporeans. Such a policy would make more sense rather a justification of HDB policy through the logic of similiar housing policies pursued London, San Francisco or Paris. Perhaps we really should not ape the West blindly!

The HDB has done a phenomenal job of housing Singaporeans. Its ability to influence the real estate marketplace in Singapore is equally phenomenal. With one change of policy, it can affect the lives (positively or negatively) of 80% of Singaporeans who live in public housing. Singaporeans want those extra few metres of space in their HDB flats. Our country is small enough as it is. And there is nothing populist about giving Singaporeans more choices.

_____________

Think small and put the buzz into Singapore

17 May 2001

Lydia Lim / The Straits Times

HE SPOKE with passion — and at length — about how to make Singapore one of the great cities in the world to live in, comparable to places like San Francisco and Vancouver.

Mr Jonathon Sze, an engineer, was one of 13 people to speak at a public forum held to discuss the draft of the 2001 Concept Plan, which will guide Singapore’s physical development in the next decade.

He was brimming with ideas on how to make this country more vibrant, more attractive to foreign talent and, therefore, more competitive.

Why not have jetties along the Singapore River so that people can travel to and from their waterfront homes in boats, creating a new kind of “high society living”, he asked.

Why does Hongkong have a buzz but not Singapore? Well, because Hongkongers live close to their places of work, leisure and learning, he said, answering his own question. So after work, they head home for a shower, then head out again.

They are “motivated to socialise”, he said.

In contrast, Singaporeans spend up to an hour commuting and are so knackered by the time they reach their doorsteps, they don’t want to step out again, he added, concluding that this is where Hongkong has a competitive advantage.

At the end of his extended presentation, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who was chairing the forum, said with a smile: “I can’t disagree with any of the points you’ve made.

“I just want to add one point though. Maybe it’s because Hongkongers’ flats are smaller than Singaporeans’ that they spend more time outdoors,” he said, to much laughter from the 300-strong crowd.

Of all the points raised at last Friday’s dialogue, I found this last comment by the minister the most telling.

It said to me that flat size is an issue that is still on the minds of Singapore’s leaders and urban planners. And rightly so.

With so little land to be shared among so many competing uses, housing density — that is the number of housing units on a given piece of land — is a key issue in urban planning.

In September last year, The Straits Times published a front-page article that was headlined “Get set for smaller homes in future”.

It quoted Mr Mah as saying that with shrinking family sizes, it was “only logical” to build smaller homes. However, it would be difficult to get people to accept the idea.

“Human nature being such, I think we still want to have same-size houses even though the sizes of households are getting smaller,” he said in last year’s interview.

“So it does not follow that we will be able to reduce the house sizes too much, but I think over time, this has got to be the trend,” he added.

The article was reprinted in the Chinese and Malay newspapers and set off a feedback frenzy.

Many people called the Housing Board and the URA to register their unhappiness with any plans to reduce flat sizes.

Smaller flats emerged as the top housing issue last year, prompting the most number of responses to the Feedback Unit.

The issue also sparked a heated exchange on the Straits Times Interactive (STI) website, where 200 people posted their views.

Most who called or wrote to the various government departments and the STI were strongly opposed to the idea. Some felt it contradicted the Government’s push to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. Others railed against the unfairness of shrinking HDB flats that kept ballooning in price.

Much of the unhappiness was due to a misunderstanding of what the minister had in mind.

Mr Mah was not announcing HDB’s plans to shrink flats.

He was merely pointing out that if the average size of a Singapore household falls from four to three, which it is expected to do with rising affluence, then it only makes sense to build smaller homes so that more land can be set aside for parks and other uses.

I agree.

I am not suggesting that in the future, all families — regardless of size — be squeezed into the equivalent of a three-room flat. Neither was the minister.

What I am suggesting is that both public and private sectors build smaller homes to cater to the growing number of couples with no children, and singles. This will allow us to house a bigger population, yet preserve the greenery, old buildings and neighbourhoods precious to so many Singaporeans.

To make the idea more palatable, I suggest a name change for HDB homes.

Instead of labelling flats as either five- or four-room, thus bringing with it the attendant associations of first and second class, why not market public housing like private condominiums?

Flats could be named after the precinct they are in, such as Sengkang Cove or Punggol Point. This would go hand-in-hand with the HDB’s pilot build-to-order scheme, which invites flat-buyers to choose flats in specific locations.

The price, of course, would still depend on the size of the individual unit.

I think this would go a long way to assuage the angst against smaller flats, which I believe is due more to material aspirations than any crying need for bigger living spaces.

After all, the average working adult spends very little time at home, as work is likely to swallow up two-thirds of his day.

I think the minister may be right to suggest that if homes become smaller, Singaporeans will change their lifestyles accordingly.

In a recent article, architect and planning consultant Robert Powell argued that old Chinatown enjoyed a vibrant street life because people’s homes were smaller, and so they tended to go out more, transforming the street into “a communal living room”.

My memory does not stretch that far back, but I do recall visiting a friend, a Japanese girl, who lived in the heart of Paris with her family.

Their flat was tiny, her bedroom so cramped that she had no space for a bed. She slept on the floor on a mattress, which she pushed against the wall during the day so that she would have more room to move around.

Yet, I don’t think the size of her flat compromised her quality of life in any way.

On the contrary, she thrived in Paris, a city she knew as well as the back of her hand.

She showed me where to get a top-class panorama of the city, not the Eiffel Tower, but the roof of a shopping centre called the Samaritaine; where to head for the definitive display of Monet’s water lilies, and what to look out for when visiting Notre Dame Cathedral, whose facade she described as “perfect”.

From her, I learnt that it’s not the size of one’s flat that matters but the broadness of one’s mind.

Smaller flats will take some getting used to. But, instead of bemoaning the lack of space, which good design and clever layout can go a long way to compensate, why not look forward to less time spent cleaning up at home, and more time spent meeting and mingling with others, or indulging in a whole range of sports and other leisure activities?

Let’s not close our minds to the idea that smaller flats may mean bigger buzz and broader horizons.

Ends.

Useful link

BBC: Architects say new houses are ‘shameful shoebox homes’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14909066

Written by singapore 2025

26/11/2011 at 11:37 am

Posted in Housing and Property

The PAP’s Retirement Nightmare: 2nd and 3rd Generation PAP policymakers to blame?

Imagine the scene 10 to 50 years from now. Singaporean men and women – confident their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Savings can see them through until they breathe their last – cleaning tables at hawker centres, selling all sorts of knick-knacks trying to make ends meet. And that’s not the bad news. There are countless other Singaporeans who cannot find a post-retirement job because foreign workers are just so much cheaper to employ.

For these jobless Singaporean elders, their CPF Ordinary Account – established by the first generation of PAP leaders to preserve a retirement nest egg for Singaporeans – has long dried out, mainly because of the requirement to service 30-year, perhaps even 40-year Housing and Development Board (HDB) mortgages in their lifetimes.

Credit: http://blinkingbrink.wordpress.com

More worryingly, Medisave balances are precariously low, something old and infirm Singaporeans can ill-afford in their golden years, especially since average mortality rates hover around 90. The “lucky” few have already been sent to Johor Bahru to be put up in old-folk homes, since their children can afford these facilities and are too busy minding their careers. Others wonder if their retirement years could have been better planned for, and what being a Singaporean means, since they don’t even have the energy to play with their grandchildren after they return from work.

This fictitious scenario may not be too far in the future. Some Singaporeans would argue it is already here. Thanks to a number of PAP policies, Singapore’s low to middle income earners stand smack in the middle of a particularly precarious situation. Although they live in a first-world country, they draw third-world wages. In retirement, they struggle to make ends meet thanks to high transport costs and other basic commitments.

MM Lee’s incantations over the last few weeks, ordering Singaporeans not to retire at all was arguably a function of the scenario painted above. In a question and answer on the issue published in the Straits Times on 4 Sep 2010, MM Lee was his usual brusque self, devoid of empathy.

ST Reporter: Some Singaporeans disagree with your view that they should not retire but keep on working. They argue that the end of life is a happy retirement, not more work.

MM Lee: Those who want to engage in new pursuits and develop interests which they could not do so because of work, can do so. They will have no income and may run out of their savings and CPF monies earlier.”

Source: CPF Trends - June 2008 (F1)

Source: CPF Trends - Aug 2010 (F2)

What struck me was how the Minister Mentor used his paternalistic hard-heartedness as a foil to conceal the PAP’s apparent negligence in dropping the CPF ball as a source of retirement income for Singaporeans. A cursory glance at CPF data reveals an overwhelming amount of CPF money withdrawn to fund the purchase of a home for one’s family and dependents (See F1) . With approximately 80% of Singaporeans living in public housing, i.e. HDB flats, any rise in the price of public housing will have an adverse impact on Singaporeans’ retirement nest egg.

One of Singapore’s most astute political bloggers, Tattler, who blogs at singaporedesk.blogspot.com, using data sourced from the CPF board (see F2), revealed “that CPF withdrawals under the Public Housing Scheme (PHS) sucked up as much as $91b in 2009. Meaning more members are using more of their CPF Savings to service housing loans for their HDB flats, leaving little or nought for health or community participation issues.”

In a report published in the Straits Times in early April 2010, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan very shrewdly, dismissed the argument that HDB resale prices had outstripped income growth. Taking 1999 as the base year, and with the Resale Price Index and Monthly Household Income in hand, Mah may have thought he had an unimpeachable case.

Enter Hazel Poa of one of the newest opposition parties in Singapore, the Reform Party, headed by Kenneth Jeyaratnam. In a superb piece of comparative analysis that reached out to the layman, Hazel debunked Mah’s argument and exposed his analysis as nothing more than intellectual duplicity.

If one moved the base year to 2006 (to compare against 2009), Hazel showed that resale prices increased by 45.6% while median household income rose 21.3% for the period in question, before sarcastically concluding, “choosing a suitable base year to support your conclusions is quite a useful trick that we should all learn.”

Hazel’s choice of 2001 and 2006 was a lot more persuasive than Mah’s. Those were election years, where the PAP government secured a mandate from the people of Singapore to govern for the next five years. It also put into distinct relief the answer to that age-old question the PAP puts out to voters – “Is your life better today than it was five years ago?”

Lucky Tan, another erudite observer of Singapore politics drove yet another nail into Mah’s disingenuous use of the base year by mimicking the Minister’s logic. Taking 1990 his base year of choice, Lucky’s chart (F3) speaks for itself.

Source: Lucky Tan's Blog (F3)

The HDB resale market is critical because the PAP uses resale prices to determine the price of new HDB flats. In doing so, the PAP insists that market forces determine resale prices and the government has little ability to dictate housing prices. This is a dubious claim.

As the former CEO of NTUC Income, Tan Kin Lian points out, market forces can be made responsible for fluctuations in price when there is elastic supply, elastic demand and market competition. In the case of HDB flats however, supply is firmly in the hands of the PAP government as it controls all the land banks in Singapore – a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

From 1996-2000, approximately 155,000 new HDB flats were built, and figure which fell dramatically to approximately 55,000 from 2001-2005, precisely at a time when the resident population size in Singapore was expanding thanks to a loose immigration policy. Even worse, between 2006 and 2008, only slightly more than 11,000 new flats were constructed. In 2008 alone, more than 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens made Singapore home. Simple economics informs that prices were bound to shoot up unless the PAP built more flats. But it decided not to do so. Not only did it allow a property bubble to form, it possibly added fuel to fire by withholding supply.

In the meantime, Mah continued to insist, even as recently as April 2010, that HDB flats were affordable. Twenty years ago, a Singaporean would typically take out a 15 to 20-year mortgage on public housing, leaving enough time for a CPF retirement nest egg to build up again. Today, 30-year mortgages are the norm, and if prices continue to follow an upward trajectory, longer mortgage repayment periods cannot be ruled out. Minister Mah would probably be the first to agree that affordability is a question of perspective.

Thanks to a confluence of factors, including loose immigration policies and the pro-active decision to drastically reduce the supply of public housing, amongst others, the PAP now comes out to say, through the Minister Mentor no less, that people should reconsider conventional definitions of retirement. The irony could not have been more apparent especially since the PAP’s housing policies have been singularly responsible for the contraction of CPF funds set aside for retirement.

The first generation of PAP leaders saw the CPF scheme as a central pillar contributing to the retirement income of all Singaporeans while making allowances for Singaporeans to purchase property for residential use.

Like many third-generation family-run businesses, which fritter away the hard-earned wealth and ride roughshod over the fiscal prudence of the first generation, one would not be totally remiss in questioning the governing philosophy of the current generation of PAP Ministers in regard to CPF and HDB policies.

I for one truly wonder how Hon Sui Sen, Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam would have reacted at the PAP’s complicity in manipulating HDB property prices to the detriment of Singaporeans.

In a pre-election report published in the Straits Times on 3 Sep 2010 (On the ground in East Coast GRC – Bracing itself for a battle replay), that covered a prospective battle between the Workers’ Party team led by Party Treasurer Eric Tan against PAP incumbent S. Jayakumar, Straits Times journalists Zakir Hussain, Teo Wan Gek and Chong Zi Liang ended their article as follows:

“Both sides are hunkering down for an electoral fight in the GRC. Residents are expecting one.

How many will stay with an experienced PAP team who have given constituents a better quality of life through upgrading projects? How many will take chances with the WP team?”

If “upgrading projects” represent the choice residents of East Coast will have to make between the PAP and the Workers’ Party, then the PAP should consider doing away with elections completely, and just dish out upgrading projects every now and then to all Singaporeans.

In light of MM Lee’s retirement bombshell and the PAP’s CPF and HDB policies over the last 5 years in particular, the relevant question residents of every constituency where the opposition will contest is a tad more nuanced. For Singaporeans who have already decided to vote PAP, the question they should ruminate over before polling day is this:

Photo Credit: The Straits Times

Is the PAP of today the same one that pulled an entire generation out of poverty in the 1960s and 1970s, introduced sensible policies and kept political salaries within a prudent range – or is today’s PAP one that pays itself millions of dollars, while coasting along on autopilot and shrewdly making use of statistics to justify its policies, with a view to keep itself in power?

Finally, in response to the raft of measures announced earlier this week to deflate the property bubble, Mah was quoted as saying: “If you ask me whether it has got anything to do with the elections, the answer is ‘yes’. Everything has got to do with the elections.” In an uncanny moment of frankness, Mah revealed the overarching governing ethic of the PAP of today. Improving the lives of Singaporeans has got to do with votes. The sacred duty of looking after Singaporeans does not figure as prominently as the first-generation of PAP would have liked it seems.

Useful Links

Lucky Tan: Mah Bow Tan – We don’t fudge the numbers Part 2 – http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2010/04/mah-bow-tan-we-dont-fudge-numbers-part.html

Hazel Poa: Housing Prices vs. Household Income – Alternative ways of viewing the statistics – http://hazelpoa.blogspot.com/2010/04/housing-prices-vs-household-income.html

Tan Kin Lian: A New Pricing formula for HDB flats – http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-pricing-formula-for-hdb-flats.html

Temasek Review: 8,967 applications for 1,429 flats at Punggol Emerald and Punggol Waves –http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/04/8967-applications-for-1429-flats-at-punggol-emerald-and-punggold-waves/

AsiaOne: New flats still affordable – Mah –http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Property/Story/A1Story20100427-212663.html

Singapore Desk: No Golden Years for the Elderly – http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-golden-years-for-elderly.html

Today Online: Rules tightening to return sanity to HDB resale market –http://www.todayonline.com/Business/Property/EDC100903-0000046/Rules-tightening-to-return-sanity-to-HDB-resale-market

Written by singapore 2025

05/09/2010 at 9:30 am

Posted in Foreign Talent Policy, Housing and Property, Mainstream Media

Singapore 2025

Archive for the ‘Housing and Property’ Category

Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC): Waiting for the CCC

ST Supperclub: Pritam Singh

HDB’s Rental Housing Policy (Part 1): The Malay EIP limit

Smaller HDB flats: 10 years on……”Think small and put the buzz into Singapore”

The PAP’s Retirement Nightmare: 2nd and 3rd Generation PAP policymakers to blame?

Workers’ Party of Singapore

Pages

Email Subscription

Top Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

Singapore 2025

Archive for the ‘Housing and Property’ Category

Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC): Waiting for the CCC

Share this:

ST Supperclub: Pritam Singh

Share this:

HDB’s Rental Housing Policy (Part 1): The Malay EIP limit

Share this:

Smaller HDB flats: 10 years on……”Think small and put the buzz into Singapore”

Share this:

The PAP’s Retirement Nightmare: 2nd and 3rd Generation PAP policymakers to blame?

Share this:

Workers’ Party of Singapore

Pages

Email Subscription

Top Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta