CIPC Funding in Opposition Constituencies: The AHTC Experience

Facebook Post dated 23 Oct 2019:

In his Facebook post of 19 Oct 2019, Mr Chua Eng Leong, Grassroots Adviser, Aljunied GRC alleged that I had made “unsubstantiated comments” about the delays to the completion of the Barrier Free Access (BFA) ramp at Blk 108 Bedok Reservoir Road. He also stated that my comments were “politically divisive” and “factually inaccurate”. He also argued that any insinuation of a delay to the completion of the BFA ramp because it was mooted by the opposition was “unjustifiable”.  Finally he stated that it was “politically mischievous” to suggest proposals by (opposition) MPs were commonly ignored by the CCC.

In light of these serious allegations, I have collated a substantive summary of all communication pertaining to CIPC funding since 2012 that I have sent to or received from PA-appointees – from Grassroots Advisers, CCC Chairmen, PA Constituency Directors and CCC appointed consultants since 2012 for public scrutiny. The facts speak for themselves. Mr Chua’s position on the matter is untenable.

Non-exhaustive TL;DR of CIPC communication –

1. CCC fully aware of AHTC’s proposal for Blk 108 Bedok Reservoir Road BFA ramp and Blk 633 Bedok Reservoir Road shelter from 2012.
2. Multiple chasers sent by AHTC MP to PA representatives over seven years, including calls for meetings with PA representatives, Grassroots Advisers or CCC representatives.
3. AHTC’s new CIPC proposals dating 2016 ignored, despite repeat reminders.

As I stated in my original post, no matter who is in Government or who is in the opposition, Singapore and Singaporeans deserve better.

Useful Links:

1. Summary of CIPC-related communication: https://singapore2025.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/cipc-funding-in-opposition-constituencies-the-ahtc-experience/
2. Written answer by MND on disbursement of CIPC funding: https://www.mnd.gov.sg/mso/newsroom/parliamentary-replies/view/written-answer-by-ministry-of-national-development-on-disbursement-of-cipc-funding

Date	Source	Remarks
4 Apr 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to PA Constituency Director querying: 1.    Cancelled CIPC projects carried over from previous Town Council. 2.    Need for linkway for residents of Blk 633 to MSCP and Blk 108 BFA and whether CCC would be willing to consider these two projects for the upcoming year.
29 April 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to PA Constituency Director on proposal dated 4 Apr 2012. No reply.
3 Jun 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to PA Constituency Director on proposal dated 4 Apr 2012. No reply.
5 Jun 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Zainal Abidin Rasheed, PA Adviser to Eunos GROs on two CIPC proposals for Eunos, namely linkway at Blk 633 and Blk 108 BFA.
14 Jun 2012	Zainal Abidin (former MP for Eunos, Aljunied GRC)	Entire email reply: “Warm Greetings. We will be working to work with anyone for the benefit of residents. There is already an established procedure for CIPC funding n I suggest we keep to that”
14 Jun 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Zainal enquiring: 1.     Any specific forms to fill out for proposals, and specifically what the established procedure is. 2.    Plans PA has for CIPC specific projects and invitation to PA to team up with Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to bring CIPC projects to fruition.
14 Jun 2012	Zainal Abidin	Email to Pritam on queries: 1.    For proposals for possible CIPC funding, write to CCC. 2.    Blk 633 linkway. Acknowledged previous resident feedback but there were difficulties such as siting of overhead shelter too close to 2nd floor homes. “However if you feel strongly abt it and would like to resurface it, pls put up yr proposal to the CCC or HDB.” 3.    On Blk 108 BFA, “previous TC had also done some other BFA on their own without needing to resort to CIPC. Please ask the TC to do it, as it does not require a large budget.” Email reply to Zainul from Pritam on 15 June 2012. “I will do so (put up both projects)”.
17 Jul 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman: 1.    Request for CIPC funding to construct overhead shelter to connect Blk 633 to 635 to overcome difficulties in building a shelter from 633 to 634. 2.    Enquire if any additional submission relevant to proposal is required.
5 Nov 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman enquiring: 1.    Status of overhead shelter request for Blk 633 2.    Which projects were raised for CIPC funding for the Eunos ward of Aljunied GRC prior to May 2011. Town Council would like to bring these projects to fruition to benefit all residents. 3.    Requested meeting to discuss matter at a time of CCC Chairman’s convenience.
23 Nov 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Zainal Abidin: 1.    No update on correspondence 6 months ago re: CIPC funding for linkway. “…as you would know, I have written on this matter on a number of occasions, but no reply has been forthcoming. Would you be so kind to drop a note to the CCC Chairman on my behalf, so the Town Council can discuss the specifics of how to improve the living environment in Eunos? That would be much appreciated.”
23 Nov 2012	Zainal Abidin	Email to Pritam Singh “…with reference to yr email below, I suppose it is now superceded by Mr Sim’s reply to your earlier email. I am sure Mr X (Eunos CCC Chairman) will give your request it’s due attention.”
23 Nov 2012	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam Singh: “We are currently awaiting MND’s notification for next year’s CIPC budget and will give your request due consideration.” Email to Eunos CCC Chairman from Pritam Singh on same date enquiring: 1.    Likely date/month information would be made available by MND going by past experience. 2.    Allocation of CIPC budget for Aljunied GRC for current year. 3.    Prospect of a joint meeting to prioritize projects in joint consultation with CCC “from hereon. Let me know what is a good date or time to meet up.”
27 Nov 2012	Pritam Singh	Email to Zainal: “I have sent another mail to Mr X (Eunos CCC Chairman) with some queries…I hope a response is forthcoming in view of the 6 month wait so far. Needless to say, as intimated earlier, I am willing to meet to discuss this in person so as to reach an understanding that does not subject residents to bureaucratic or political red tape. Do let me know how we can best achieve this.”
18 Mar 2013	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam Singh: 1.    Apologizes for late reply to queries. 2.    Reiterates support for funding for Blk 108 BFA and shelter for Blk 634. Informs that MND/HDB not supportive for Blk 633/634 shelter/linkway when former Aljunied GRC MP Zainal raised issue because “residents in the lower floors were concerned about their apartments’ safety.” 3.    MND to advise CCCs on CIPC in the new financial year. “We will get back to you once MND has advised.”
25 Jun 2013	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman enquiring possible meeting date. Open to hosting CCC Chairman at Town Council office at Blk 136 Bedok Reservoir Road.
27 Jun 2013	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam Singh: “I am in active discussion with HDB and my fellow grassroots volunteers on the matter, to ensure that good CIPC projects will continue to be carried out in Aljunied GRC for the benefit of residents. I seek your understanding and patience on the matter.” Email to CCC Chairman on same day: Reminder that first email on 2 CIPC proposals was 14 months ago. Propose to meet, since residents give feedback to both RCs under PA and to MP through Town Council. Request to discuss Blk 108 BFA and shelter at Blk 633/634. Email reply from CCC Chairman on 28 Jun 2013 – “we should be able to meet soon but not at this point in time.”
15 July 2013	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam Singh: 1.    Confirms Eunos CCC proposing linkway projects at Blk 108 and 634 for CIPC funding. 2.    Other CCCs in Aljunied GRC / Hougang / Punggol East had shortlisted CIPC projects for submission to MND. AHPETC would have to maintain these as common estate property. 3.    To highlight by end-July if AHPETC wishes to raise some deserving project. Email to CCC Chairman on same day: 1.    Request for a face-to-face meeting to discuss matter after CCC Chairman’s return from medical leave.
25 Jul 2013	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam confirming meeting between Victor Lye (Bedok Reservoir – Punggol), Raymond Lye (Punggol East), Eunos CCC Chairman and PA Constituency Director on 7 Aug at WaWaWa Bistro at Bedok Reservoir.
7 Aug 2013	Meeting Minutes as recorded by Secretarial Assistant to MP Pritam	Issues discussed (amongst others): 1.    How is a proposal put forward to CCC and MND if TC is interested? –       There is a form but a lack of guidelines on how to fill the form. –       Issue is not specific to Eunos division but entire Aljunied GRC –       Victor Lye suggests that ideas be taken to individual CCCs. 2.    MND provides funding to CCC for 90% of the cost, while CCC is responsible for coming up with the remaining 10%. Pritam suggests that Town Council come on board these projects, and provides funding for the remaining 10%. 3.    Victor says the Town Council’s deadline for CIPC proposal submission for other wards in Aljunied is around the end of August 2013.
7 Aug 2013	Eunos CCC	Letter to AHPETC Chairman Sylvia Lim on 14 proposed CIPC projects (includes 2 proposals put up by Pritam for Eunos in April 2012)
14 Aug 2013	Pritam Singh	Email to Victor Lye to follow up on joint racial harmony emergency committee as raised at meeting on 7 Aug 2013. No reply.
30 Aug 2013	AHTC	Letter to Eunos CCC Chairman on 52 proposed CIPC proposals from Hougang SMC and Aljunied GRC MPs.
11 Oct 2013	Eunos CCC Chairman	Letter to Pritam informing that out of 52 proposals, CCC would be putting up 17 to CIPC Committee, including some put up by AHPETC.
9 Aug 2014	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman on: 1.    Large number of anti-haze masks sponsored by Temasek Cares given to each AHPETC MP. Offer to give a box each to Eunos RCs through PA. 2.    No update of CIPC projects CCC was supposed to put up in 2013. 3.    Town Council wishes to put up new nominations for FY14/15 and requests a meeting on this matter and an update with regard to last year’s nominations.
9 Aug 2014	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam: 1.    Will check and revert on CIPC nominations as soon as possible. 2.    No requirement for anti-haze masks as grassroots had already distributed them to all households and welfare homes.
18 Oct 2014	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman querying status of nominations for last year and new nominations for current year.
1 Nov 2014	Eunos CCC Chairman	Email to Pritam: 1.    CCC has appointed Implementing Consultant (IC). IC working on scope of works required for sites for 2013 proposals. 2.    CCC will work with designated TC staff if any queries and update Pritam accordingly. Email reply to Eunos CCC Chairman on same day from Pritam querying when a meeting can be held to determine CIPC nominations for current year.
17 Nov 2014	Pritam Singh	Email to Eunos CCC Chairman enquiring about a meeting to discuss CIPC nominations for FY 14/15 and to confirm results of 2013 nominations.
3 Mar 2015	PA Constituency Director	Email to Secretary AHPETC to seek a meeting on 5 Mar or 6 Mar to discuss CIPC projects.
6 Mar 2015	Secretary, AHPETC	Email to Pritam Singh on meeting with PA Constituency Director and 2013 CCC nominations for CIPC funding. No specific difficulty raised for 2 Eunos projects. All 2013 CCC proposals to be tendered out as a “design and build project” in April 2015. Consultants to CCC confirmed.
12 Nov 2015	Pritam Singh	Reminder to CCC’s appointed consultant about status of linkway between Blk 633-635 (sic. 633-634)
2 Nov 2015	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Email to Pritam Singh and AHTC GM: “we are in the process of submitting to MND to obtain fund for CIPC projects.” “MND requires us to submit the undertaking to take over for maintenance with the clear indication of the scope of work for the project therefore the previous undertaking letter which was given two years ago (by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council) could not be used for the submission. Appreciate your assistance to provide letter of undertaking for maintenance of each and every project.”
30 Nov 2015	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Email to Pritam Singh: “we had informed Eunos CCC regarding change of linkway location. The revised costing had already submitted to Eunos CCC to prepare their submission.”
15 Jan 2016	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Email from Consultant to Pritam Singh, addressed to GM AHTC: Confirms linkway changed to Blk 633 to 635. Requires amendment to letter of undertaking by TC “to make it consistent with the application form.”
7 Mar 2016	Pritam Singh	Email to CCC’s appointed consultant: Request for update on commencement date of CIPC projects in view of resident feedback.
7 Mar 2016	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Email to Pritam Singh: Contract awarded. PA Constituency Director to arrange first meeting with grassroots leaders.
6 May 2016	Pritam Singh	Email to CCC’s appointed consultant to request for an update.
13 Jul 2016	Pritam Singh	Email to Constituency Director CIPC proposal to put up all the children’s playgrounds in front of PAP Community Foundation facilities (kindergartens etc.) in Aljunied-Hougang town up for upgrading in line with Government’s call for more challenging playgrounds in HDB estates. Reply by PA Constituency Director on 15 Jul 2016 to Pritam Singh: “we will get back shortly.”
29 Nov 2016	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Email to GM AHTC: Consultant confirms that for the two Eunos projects – the linkway at Blk 633-635 and the Blk 108 BFA, “adviser of the cluster needed more time to communicate with residents.”
14 Jun 2017	GM, AHTC	Email to CCC’s appointed Consultant to arrange for a meeting on 22 Jun 2017 for an update on progress and schedule. Meeting took place.
17 Jul 2017	GM, AHTC	Email to CCC’s appointed Consultant: “to date we have not received any further updates with regards to submission for approval to relevant authorities for Blk 633 to 635 linkway and BFA at Blk 108 in Eunos division.”
28 Aug 2017	Constituency Director, PA	Aljunied and Hougang CCCs seek Town Council’s agreement to maintain and upkeep 5 BFA ramps in Bedok-Reservoir Punggol division, 2 BFA ramp in Paya Lebar division, 1 linkway in Bedok-Reservoir division and 2 BFA ramps in Hougang SMC, as proposed by CCCs for new round of CIPC funding.
4 Sep 2017	GM, AHTC	Town Council communicates to PA – No objection to CCC’s new BFA and linkway proposals, subject to confirmation relevant to AHTC’s maintenance related responsibilities, post-construction. Town Council reminds PA, no update to TC Chairman’s (Pritam Singh) email requesting information on 2013 CIPC projects. Informed PA that CCC’s appointed consultant and contractors have shared that they are awaiting approvals from CCC to proceed. Town Council reminds PA that TC Chairman wrote to PA on 13 Jul 2017 (correction: 13 Jul 2016) to discuss upgrading of playgrounds close to PCF kindergartens. On 15 July 2017 (correction 15 Jul 2016), PA Constituency Director responded to say it would reply. Despite reminders and emails, no reply forthcoming to date.
16 Oct 2017	Pritam Singh	Email to CIPC Exco, MND. Informed committee that AHTC has not received any indication whether all 2013 CIPC projects would be proceeding. Shared that CCC’s appointed consultant has communicated with TC that approval has not been given for CIPC projects for AHTC that were already pre-approved. Request to CIPC Exco: 1.    Intercede and confirm which CIPC projects would not be carried out and why? 2.    Request CCC to reply to TC GM’s email on projects recommended by CCC. 3.    Discuss TC’s CIPC proposals re:upgrading of playgrounds outside PCF kindergartens.
26 Oct 2017	CIPC Exco Chairman	“Thank you for your email. I have asked the relevant CCCs from Aljunied and Hougang to look into your requests. You may wish to check with them on your queries. Thank you.”
10 Nov 2017	Pritam Singh	Email to CIPC Exco Chairman. Aside to PA Grassroot Adviser for Aljunied GRC, Victor Lye: “….please see the Town Council’s request for information on the status of the approved CIPC projects from 2013. In addition to the TC’s queries on its playgrounds upgrading proposal, and finally our request for information and position on the latest proposals by the CCC. Do let me know if you require any information in this regard and I will endeavor to provide the needful. An early reply, in light of the significant delay/s would be appreciated. Thank you.”
10 Nov 2017	Victor Lye	“I will revert on Town Council’s request for the status of CIPC proposals”
7 Dec 2017	Victor Lye	Email to Pritam Singh: On CIPC projects from first batch of 17 originally approved by PA as announced during 2015 General Elections: “…there are 6 ongoing CIPC projects. Another 5 projects were shelved while another one was undertaken by the LTA.”
11 Dec 2017	Pritam Singh	Email to Victor Lye – Enquiry about current status of remaining CIPC projects and how soon before works would start. Reiterate that TC ready to meet CC/CCC/CIPC personnel to discuss new CCC-approved BFA projects since their maintenance would come under TC, and separately, that TC is supportive of CCC-proposed BFA projects.
20 Dec 2017	Victor Lye	Email to Pritam Singh: Have asked PA Constituency Director to verify details further. Delays to both Eunos projects due to “design changes by the contractor”. As for Blk 108 Bedok Reservoir Road BFA, Constituency Director has clarified that delay was because of “Eunos CCC’s request to retain the existing staircase….subsequently, the new design by the contractor was found to be non-compliant and a new design had to be drawn up again. We are unclear as to the dates given that it is subject to the authorities approval.” Appreciate the Town Council’s in-principle support for CCC’s BFA proposals.
8 Feb 2018	Pritam Singh	Email to Victor Lye: Enquiry on any updates from contractor on outstanding design changes and approval from various authorities.
16 April 2018	Pritam Singh	Email to Victor Lye: Query whether new design for had been approved for Blk 108 BFA.
1 May 2018	Victor Lye	Email to Pritam Singh: Had asked PA Constituency Director to check on outstanding approvals for CIPC projects. Designs approved for all, except for one (Blk 108 Bedok Reservoir BFA). On CCC proposed BFAs, seek Town Council agreement to maintain ramps. Once approval given, will seek approval from CIPC.
3 May 2018	Pritam Singh	Email to Victor Lye: Suggest meeting with agencies involved with regard to Eunos linkway from Blk 108 BFA to move thing along more speedily. Reminder that ramp is a longstanding item that will benefit residents living in upto 8-10 blocks. Reiterate TC’s support for CCC’s new BFA proposals. Clarify that TC requests information on materials and finishing (e.g. non-slip tiles etc.) of BFA since TC would be taking over maintenance of BFAs after construction. Advise that QS/architects/consultants can start work and TC will facilitate, but TC does require details for final approval. Gives assurance that TC will respond within 14 days upon receipt of the necessary information.
4 May 2018	Victor Lye	Email to Pritam Singh: Confirms that design for Blk 108 BFA has been approved. Acknowledges support for CCC’s BFA proposals, subject to confirmation of materials.
24 May 2018	CCC’s appointed Consultant	Confirmed in a meeting with AHTC GM that BFA for Blk 108 scheduled for completion end-2018 to Mar 2019. EU linkway from Blk 633-635 also scheduled for completion end-2018 to Mar 2019. Consultant unable to provide update on new CCC-proposed BFA projects.
24 May 2018	Pritam Singh	Feedback to PA Constituency Director about condition of futsal court located at Petal Gardens in Eunos (one of 26 community sites handed over by HDB to PA after 2011 elections) and decision to turn off lights at this court at night. 30 May 2018 – Constituency Director emails to say “we are working on the lighting issues and the repair of the futsal court.” 30 May 2018 – Query by Pritam Singh to PA Constituency Director on estimated date for completion of repair works to communicate to residents. No reply. Separately, to date, repairs not undertaken.
6 Jul 2019	Pritam Singh	Email to Chua Eng Leong querying delay in the completion of Blk 108 BFA. Construction substantially completed 3-4 months earlier, but not open for resident use.
16 Jul 2019	Chua Eng Leong	Entire email reply to Pritam Singh: “It is regrettable that the project is delayed. We have done our investigations and will continue to follow up on the matter. Thank you.”
29 Jul 2019	Pritam Singh	Email to Chua Eng Leong: 1.    On recent announcement of the conversion/construction of a PCF kindergarten to a Ministry of Health Senior Care facility at Blk 650, Jalan Tenaga in Eunos – In discussion between Pritam Singh and Ministry of Health officers in months prior, access difficulty to the proposed Senior Care Centre at Blk 650 was brought up. Proposal put forward for CIPC funding for BFA at Blk 650 for ease of access for senior citizens to and from Senior Care Centre from Bedok Reservoir Road. 2.    Request for update on status of CIPC linkway approved for construction from Blk 633-635. To date – no reply to above email.
2 Oct 2019	Pritam Singh	Email to Chua Eng Leong enquiring when Blk 108 Bedok Reservoir Road BFA would be open for resident use. In late August and early September 2019, substantively constructed BFA at Blk 108 was partially demolished by CCC-appointed contractor and reconstructed.
7 Oct 2019	CCC Appointed Consultant	Consultant received Certificate of Statutory Completion for Blk 108 BFA. Ready to handover BFA to Town Council on 8 Oct 2019.
16 Oct 2019	CCC Appointed Consultant	Blk 108 BFA handed over to AHTC, subject to additional gas pipe diversion works by CCC appointed contractor.
19 Oct 2019	Chua Eng Leong	Confirms in a Facebook post that Blk 633 to 634 (error: should be Blk 635, thus far uncorrected) linkway “should be completed in the course of next year”.

 

Facebook Post: Influencing Local Politics; Looking beyond the Foreign hand – 2 Aug 2017

In response to a parliamentary question in Parliament yesterday, Minister Chan Chun Sing said Singaporeans should recognise that foreign campaigns to influence local politics and electoral processes exist, and that such campaigns can take many forms. He added that foreign influence campaigns can also take place online and through social media, in the form of fake news. When asked by WP MP Mr Png Eng Huat whether there had been any incidents of foreign interference in Singapore’s elections, the Minister did not cite any specific episode.

As I listened to the parliamentary reply and exchange I could not help but recall a picture that made its rounds online and via whatsapp during GE2015, inciting emotions.

Until today, I don’t think anyone knows who was responsible for the alleged act the picture communicated. Many felt the picture was photo-shopped. But that critical possibility/probability was not contemplated by most in the first instance. And that left open an opportunity for someone. But maybe the act was real? Either ways, an opportunity nonetheless.

Was it a foreign hand? Or a local one?

We will never know.

Useful Links
—————-

2 Aug 2017: Singaporeans should be vigilant of foreign interference in elections says Chan Chun Sing – http://www.straitstimes.com/…/parliament-singaporeans-shoul…

6 Sep 2015: Defaced election posters; Three assisting police in investigations – http://www.todayonline.com/…/three-assisting-investigations…

Some comments about THAT picture on Facebook
—————————————————————

1. Kheng Tan Still no idea who did it? Might be political sabotage. Where’s e high tech surveillance Kamera?

2. Danny Chin This is a disgrace! I am a WP supporter and if this is the doing of one of us, i am ashamed and I apologise on behalf of those “bad apples” We can disagree in our political agenda but we should never disrespect the national flag.

3. Clifford Lee Mind your words, they are likely Singaporean. They could be PAP supporter trying to stir. So just relax and concentrate on Election.

4. Eng-Joo Gay This is of course not right but no thanks to you for igniting anger among Singaporeans with different political views.

5. Melissa Yong I believe he hedge his statement pretty well. He didn’t direct to any opposition party but he should’ve replace “what kind of politician have such hooligans as supporters” with something milder. Secondly, supporters of the PAP have the highest chances of not doing so. You may want to argue that there’s a slight chance. With a little common sense, it’s as close to 0. Everyone of legal age has their decisions to make which concerns of the future of Singaporeans and Singapore. If you have young children, I believe you will go for the most suitable candidate to secure a better future for your children. It’s a factor after all. Lastly, your decision is ought to be respected just like anyone.

6. Ronnie Ho May also be ownself staged, many possibilities lah! Do not jump into conclusion.

7. Jamestankee Hin Do you really think it’s the work of your fellow Singaporean ? They will be mad to do it . Surely this needs investigation . From the picture I can tell its not heartland where we stay and the poster and flag are just too new

8. Zainal Abidin Ownself put then take picture.

9. EL Lee So fast blame your opponent’s supporters. Don’t do that without proof. For all you know it’s the work of anarchists who don’t give a care who wins.

10. Catherine Virnala Opposition parties posters also damaged or torn by someone. Is common to see this during this period before GE, just like past years

11. Siv Raj Winston Singaravelloo It could be work of PAP supporters trying to stir emotions amongst voters….. Will not come as a surprise to me as the “Night Flyer Distributors” from PAP could be out at a New Mission….

12. Soong See Choo A Good citizen who see this flag and poster will just ” rescue” them on the spot quietly and not try to score any agenda points. Common sense prevail. Keep calm and vote wisely. Respect our national flag and respect your opposition. Relak lah !

13. Daniel C K Tan It is photoshop. The campaign board will not stand in that manner in the bin. It will topple and fall out of the bin. The fabric of the flag too will not be drab in that manner if the flag is in the bin. Some very boliao people play a digital prank and everyone fell for it and start blaming each other. Tsk tsk tsk.

14. Felix Yeo I think it was most probably staged to incite anger and blame or it could be the work of vandals (nationality or age unknown)… But one thing is clear, no true blue Singaporean regardless of his/her political affiliation would ever do such a despicable thing…

15. John Goh WP hooligans I presume. Even state flag they also trash. Really bunch of MFers

16. Don Tan Chee Tjer This photo looks so fake and with no evidence, accusations are flying all over the place. Well done, keep it up.

17. Shawn Shawket Staged like they do in third world countries to smear their political opponent. Very common trick. Only village bumpkins fall for this ruse…..LOL !!!

18. Samsudin Kasmat Look properly..are those things been thrown or been put nicely??? Maybe those was put for foto shot. If true , what adirty politic game l’ve never seen in S’pore before.

19. Chew Weaven Doing this get sympathy vote for the pap in aljunied ?

20. Nex Cyanic There are 2 possible scenarios.

1. WP did this.
2. PAP supporters did this to make it seem like WP supporters did this.

Whichever is the case, we can debate/argue for an eternity but never know who did it in the end.

 ______

Facebook Post: Some thoughts on the Reserved Presidential Elections 2017

During the Presidential Elections Amendment Bill debate that took place in Parliament in February this year, I spoke specifically on the prospect of Reserved Presidential elections, zeroing in on the issues that the the Community Committee would have to grapple with, particularly issues relating to race and language, amongst others. Many of these matters were part of the public discourse and had already acquired some traction on the ground since changes to the Constitution to effect the Government’s amendments to the Elected Presidency were debated late last year.

Shortly after the debate, the Straits Times’ Political Editor wrote (7 February 2017: Taking a broader view of race) to say it was important that Singaporeans take a broader view of race, lamenting the issues I raised in Parliament as “less than inclusive sentiments”. Later, the same piece also predicted, “(q)uestions like those Mr Singh raised may surface again among a vocal few. But it would be a pity if they did.”

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also chimed in on the Straits Times piece, posting the following on his Facebook page, “Excellent article! The heart warming broad mindedness of Mr Thomas Chua stands in stark contrast to the cynical narrow mindedness of WP’s Pritam Singh. Sorry to be so forthright but this is an issue I feel very strongly about. Given the current state of the world, this is a time to be more inclusive, more open and more tolerant.”

I don’t think any reasonable Singaporean would disagree with the Minister that inclusivity, openness and tolerance would be values that represent the direction Singapore should head towards – a position, which taken to its logical end – would ironically question the necessity of reserved Presidential elections in the first place.

But the fact of the matter is that Singaporeans have always been socially conditioned along racial lines. In fact, this has been central to how the state has defined our individual identities – Chinese, Malay Indian and Others. Of greater significance is the point that the Elected Presidency has now been defined through racial lenses, with the Government’s latest constitutional tinkering resulting in the legislation of Reserved Presidential Elections for specific minority races.

Fast forward some six-odd months after the publication of the aforesaid piece in the Straits Times, misgivings continue to abound about the upcoming Reserved Presidential Elections. More tellingly, even the Straits Times has appeared to take a more circumspect position.

In a new opinion piece on the subject published over the weekend (30 July 2017: Mixed marriages should debunk idea of pure race), far from identifying the matters I raised in my parliamentary speech in February as being the remit of “a vocal few”, a more reflective and grounded perspective has been pursued, one which acknowledges that “a sizeable number of people” assume that Singaporeans can be neatly divided into pure Chinese, Malays or Indians and that “people may have inadvertently been viewed more in terms of their race than by their individual merits”. It added separately that “racial classifications have governed how many Singaporeans see themselves, and continue to affect how our neighbours see us.”

Even so, this return to reality is timely one.

It is timely because there is a real prospect of serious damage being wrought to Singapore’s multiracialism should the upcoming Reserved Presidential Elections go awry. Some Singaporeans have privately suggested that they would spoil their votes in the event of a Reserved Presidential election, while some netizens have encouraged their fellow citizens to do likewise with a view to teach the PAP a lesson.

However, while a sizeable number of spoilt votes would have serious short-term consequences for the PAP, it would have unthinkable long-term consequences for Singapore. Regardless of one’s political persuasions, the group of Singaporeans who would be taught the cruelest lesson in the event of a large percentage of spoilt votes is our Malay community. Beyond general damage to our multiracialism, such an outcome could most worryingly be interpreted by some of our Malay friends and compatriots as a lack of faith or trust in them by their fellow Singaporeans of other races.

In my mind, the political system in Singapore hardly represents a desirable state of affairs. But the upcoming Reserved Presidential Elections or any Reserved Presidential Election for that matter should not be mistaken for a platform where the political differences of rational and reasonable Singaporeans are contested. Nor should it serve as the arena where political lessons are dished out. Whether it is a vocal few or a sizeable number of Singaporeans who share this view, the price of such a lesson would be much too high for Singapore’s future as a multiracial society.

Useful Links
————

7 Feb 2017: Taking a broader view of race – http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/taking-a-broader-view-of-race

30 July 2017: Mixed marriages should debunk idea of ‘pure’ race – http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/mixed-marriages-should-debunk-idea-of-pure-race

Parliament: Strengthening Singapore’s fight against Drugs – Motion (Pritam Singh) – 4 Apr 2017

Introduction

Mr Deputy Speaker, like most Singaporeans of my generation, having been born here and socialized to uncompromising anti-drug messages throughout my growing years, I have not experienced the reality commonplace in other countries where drugs are available to teenagers in schools or in bars and university campuses without too much difficulty. Singapore’s small size, tough laws and the dedication of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to their mission have made this possible. But Singapore is an outlier.

The reality of governments in other parts of the world is very different. At best, this has to do with being a larger polity and the difficulty in ensuring that the writ of the state extends across hundreds and thousands of kilometres, different political cultures, different social circumstances and different norms that govern individual freedoms and liberties. At worst, it is a self-evident reality that the worldwide war against drugs has failed. Whichever perspective one takes, these realities have precipitated a new and different approach now taken globally to deal with the drug problem. A major plank of the new approach calls for the legalization of drug use, particularly medical marijuana on health grounds and in some jurisdictions, the legalization of recreational drug use per se.

Legalization around the world and in Southeast Asia

As many Americans went to polls in 2016 to decide between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton as their next President, a parallel vote took place on the legalization of marijuana. This resulted in 9 states, including California, Florida and Massachusetts passing laws that allowed for either regulated medical or recreational marijuana use. Today, 44 states in the US have legalised some form of drug use.

In 2001, an Economist article titled ‘The Case for Legalization’ argued that a legal market for drugs would be the best guarantee that drug taking would be no more dangerous than smoking and drinking, even as it acknowledged that legalization would not easy. Fast forward just about 15 years and the first sentence of a piece on the legalization of drugs in the same publication went like this – “The argument for the legalization of cannabis has been won.” Insofar as global trends are concerned, the movement to legalize drugs is now effectively mainstream.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a belief that the movement towards legalization is a Western phenomenon. But such an assumption would be a wrong.

Closer to home, attitudes are shifting too, mainly with a view to get a better handle on the drug problem and to undermine organized crime. The Senior Vice Chairman of the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation, Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye in a piece titled ‘Consider less Severe Punishment’ in the New Straits Times last year, noted that despite punitive laws against illicit drugs, capital punishment and spending millions to address the problem, the number of addicts in Malaysia was growing. He called on the Malaysian authorities to consider the road less travelled and to decriminalize drug use and possession, and to treat drug addiction as a medical problem. The writer also reflected on countries like Portugal which adopted less punitive policies towards drug possession more than a decade earlier, and in doing so had not experienced any significant increase in drug use, drug related harm or crime compared to countries with punitive laws.

Separately, late last year, the Thai cabinet approved a proposal to allow hemp, a plant which is part of the cannabis family, but with lesser amounts of the psychoactive substance tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, to be grown as a cash crop as part of a project to use narcotic plants for medical purposes. Prior to the Cabinet decision, Thailand’s then Justice Minister General Paiboon Koomchaya was quoted in the Thai media as saying that he was firm in his aim to remove marijuana from the narcotic drugs list and to treat it as a medicinal herb.

The Arrival of Medical and Recreational Marijuana

The movement towards the gradual acceptance of some drugs, chiefly cannabis for medical purposes is a powerful catalyst in the case for the legalization of drugs, even if medical authorities have not ruled definitively in this area and medical practitioners argue that there are realistic alternatives to medical marijuana. Nevertheless, an international industry has already taken form and a stronger lobby is likely to follow. Late last year, the International New York Times reported that Israel has been a leading player in medical marijuana research as early as the 1960s and that 25,000 of its citizens today hold permits to use medical marijuana to ease symptoms of cancer, epilepsy and other diseases with the number expected to grow rapidly. In fact, the Guardian has also reported research in Israel will transform the medical marijuana industry into and I quote, “a serious endeavour of pharmaceutical research, producing new strains and drugs able to alleviate the symptoms of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, insomnia and other conditions.” (unquote) With advances in technology, many Israeli companies are working to develop medicine that can deliver precise doses of THC so as to regulate its psychoactive effects with a view to bringing relief to those in chronic pain.

What is being repeated around the world where fierce debates about legalisation are taking place and have taken place, is the emotionally powerful argument that medical marijuana has eased the suffering of those in pain.

It is also fathomable that the research into medical marijuana will have a direct bearing on the use of recreational marijuana for which precise doses could also correspondingly be marketed as a safer means of drug consumption. To that end, a recent Business Monitor Online article notes that with the growing legalization of marijuana for recreational use, entirely new industries for consumer-related companies will be created, including transport and through social media. It assessed that while medical marijuana will be an important part of the market, recreational use of marijuana will create new opportunities for consumer industries especially food and beverage with derivatives of marijuana potentially added to beer, chocolates and candy.

What is also likely to accelerate the legalisation of drugs worldwide is the potential of regulation and taxation with recreational usage potentially killing off the profits earned by drug cartels and moving them into state and corporate coffers – the challenge being setting the appropriate tax rate. I would hazard that the attraction of taxation may prove irresistible for those governments that have not been able to successfully keep drugs out of mainstream society in the same way Singapore has been able to.

Singapore – Preparing for the Future

What the global trends suggest, and I turn to the language in the motion, is that Singapore will find it even more difficult to keep drugs out of the country and in the consciousness of our children and people in view of the seismic cultural shifts in attitudes towards drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes in many jurisdictions around the world. Our tough laws will continue to serve as a deterrent for some drug traffickers but I am concerned we will find it increasingly difficult to persuade younger Singaporeans particularly those who venture overseas for studies or business about the dangers of drug abuse. The somewhat emotionally persuasive argument about medical marijuana, in spite of currently more established medical opinion, will make this even harder.

At this point, Singapore can and should stick to its time-honoured position of a strong ant-drug policy, in view of the still evolving global environment, of our unique circumstances, and because we have been able to get a handle on the drug problem and successfully kept drugs out of our schools. However, with a large population of foreigners, many of whom are transient residents living and working in Singapore and a significant number of overseas Singaporeans who may have a very different cultural attitude towards drugs, the argument for a drug-free Singapore may increasingly come under strain.

Nonetheless, we should and must begin preparing for a much tougher environment in the immediate term, and this not only if the research on medical marijuana turns decidedly positive. As drug syndicates are put out of business because of legalization, some drugs traffickers or abusers may paradoxically choose to target Singapore from the safe confines of other countries if there is money to be made here. Those who will fall foul of our tough drug laws will not be the kingpins, but the couriers, many of whom seek to make a quick buck.

We also may expect to see a rise in the number of marijuana abusers. In fact, a Facebook page titled Singapore Cannabis Awareness has already generated close to 4000 likes and it makes a point to track changing norms about the legalization of cannabis around the world, recently posting a story about the state of New South Wales in Australia funding the world’s first clinical trial for the use of cannabis in alleviating chemotherapy induced vomiting and nausea. This is not fake news, for such trials are indeed ongoing, but the practical effect of such developments around the world I fear will likely result in a more relaxed attitude towards the usage of cannabis.

The rise in the arrest of cannabis abusers as reported in the CNB’s drug situation report of 2016 may portend such a trend. For those who believe a more permissive environment for recreational consumption of drugs in Singapore would not necessarily be hazardous, I would say, be careful about what you wish for. The research-based evidence is sobering. According to Lancet Psychiatry, in a 2015 article which reviewed annual and repeated cross-sectional surveys on medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the US from 1991 to 2014, almost a 25-year period, it found territories which decriminalised illicit drugs or where the laws were generally permissive saw an increase in drug abuse amongst teenagers and young adults. And that prospect – should there be arguments made about a drug-tolerant regime in Singapore – is scary and wholly unwelcome. As it stands, the argument for the legalisation of drugs in Singapore in particular, is not compelling or persuasive at all.

Conclusion

To conclude Mr Deputy Speaker, strict laws can only do so much, even if they host a deterrent effect. Stepping up rehabilitation is the right thing to do. However, in view of the new global approach towards drugs, the Government would have to significantly step up education about the slippery slope of drug abuse. In my ward of Eunos in Aljunied GRC in years past, I have worked with the Central Narcotics Bureau and conducted preventive education talks at our local mosque with the permission of the mosque committee and I thank them for their support. At schools and tertiary institutions in particular, we will have to significantly step up preventive education to prepare our children and young adults for the world of tomorrow where access to drugs will become more commonplace than ever before and firmly in our mindshare. The Government would also have to focus more squarely on the permissive attitudes that are hardening in favour of supposedly softer drugs like cannabis. There is nothing soft about cannabis. It is harmful to one’s health and not every citizen will have ready access or support from family members to rehabilitative resources. As is usually the case with illegal drugs, the poor and low-income will be the hardest hit.

We must all say no to drugs.

Thank you.

Parliament: Budget Speech (2017) Pritam Singh – 28 Feb 2017

Water – Understanding how it is priced in Singapore

Mr Deputy Speaker, this year’s budget has brought the focus on cost of living issues by way of an increase in water prices. This increase comes on the back of a 15%-odd increase in HDB car park charges, higher electricity and gas charges and the announcement of higher Service and Conservancy rates all in the space of about three months. The Straits Times noted that the government feedback channel REACH, had identified cost of living as a key pre-Budget concern among Singaporeans.

I have a few questions for the Minister so as to understand the decision-making processes around the latest round of increases in water prices. The last time an announcement was made to raise water prices in 1997, prices were raised by 120% for households and 30% for industrial and commercial users over a four-year period.

Singapore’s Water Pricing Principle – Long Run Marginal Cost

The Government has stated in previous parliamentary replies that its prices water according to its Long Run Marginal Cost or LMRC. To this end, the water tariff, water conservation tax and used water charges or waterborne fees are priced to reflect the cost of producing the next drop of potable water, which is (I quote) “likely to come from desalination and NEWater.” (unquote)

In announcing the opening of the 5th NEWater plant last month, the Minister for Environment and Water Resources noted that there has been upward pressure on costs because of increases associated with asset replacement, energy and manpower. Can the Government share details on how the components of Long Run Marginal Costs for water pricing are computed by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and how it assesses when to increase the price of water? Can the Government also clarify if the maintenance and upkeep, and the associated manpower costs of current PUB assets, including thousands of kilometres of transmission networks etc. would have already been factored into the calculation of LRMC before the latest round of price hikes? Even so, it would be helpful to understand which variables of LRMC have changed from 1997 when the last price hike was announced, what is the range within each variable, and how often is the LRMC determined or re-determined. Can the Government also share how much it costs each desalination and NEWater plant to produce water today, especially since some of these plants operate on a private-public partnership basis? How do they compare with plants run directly by the PUB?

Finally, when the PUB refers to the long-run in LRMC, what sort of time horizon is used for projection purposes and what are the population parameters for these projections? Are we looking at 2061 when the Water Agreement with Malaysia comes to an end, or is it when the PUB expects a doubling of Singapore’s consumption in absolute terms for a much larger population and when 85% of our needs are projected to be met by NEWater and desalination? If this is so, what are the projections for expected water price hikes as the population grows?

It is noteworthy Mr Deputy Speaker that PUB was able to bring down the cost of NEWater production from 2002 to 2004 from $1.30 to $1.15 per cubic metre as a result of more competitive membrane technologies. In 2003, a Straits Times article quoted then Prime Minister Goh assuring Singaporeans that (and I quote) “the price of PUB water, which now costs $1.52 a cubic metre, would stay below $2 for some time, reversing all earlier projections. The sums were redone because desalinating sea water was cheaper than thought; and NEWater, even cheaper to produce.” (unquote) The same year, it was also reported that the Tuas desalination plant desalinates water at the cost of $0.78 per cubic metre. This compared very favourably against about $0.90 per cubic metre produced by the Ashkelon desalination plant in Israel, considered in 2003 to be the one of the cheapest producers of desalinated water. In 2008, Sembcorp, which secured the bid to design, build, own and operate the fifth and largest NEWater plant submitted a first-year price of about $0.30 to produce a cubic metre of NEWater. A 2011 Business Times report also noted that Singapore would produce the world’s cheapest desalinated water by 2013. How does the PUB adjust its Long Run Marginal Cost projections with the advent of new technology so as to keep the prices of water affordable and to keep its profits within reasonable limits, on an ongoing basis?

From parliamentary replies in the past, it would appear that energy is the real cost variable that can be difficult to track with a sufficient degree of accuracy. In view of the lower cost of producing water over the years, can the Government reveal how much NEWater and desalination costs have fluctuated over the years as a result of energy prices? In 2008, the Siemens Water Technologies Team was awarded a $4m grant from the Environment and Water Industry Development Council (EWI) for successfully designing a more energy efficient desalinisation technique which produced a cubic metre of drinking water on 1.5 kWh of power as compared to PUB’s current desalination method uses 3.5 kWh. In addition, the 2015 PUB annual report highlights PUB’s collaboration with a US water technology company which has piloted electro-deionisation technology which has achieved reductions in energy consumption in the desalination process by more than 50%, and this pilot would be expanded in 2016. Can the Government share details of this project and its prospects going forward?

The Linggiu Reservoir Factor

Separately Mr Deputy Speaker, the announcement of an increase in water tariffs bookends a two-odd year period when Singaporeans were repeatedly reminded of water scarcity issues as a result of very low water levels in the Linggiu reservoir in Malaysia, a water supply source five times the size of all of Singapore’s reservoirs. At the start of each respective year, the water levels were at 84% in 2015, 49% in 2016 and 27% in 2017. We have been informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in response to a parliamentary question in January this year that there is a significant risk of the water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir falling to 0% this year should there be a dry spell in Johor.

In view of the low water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir from 2015 onwards in particular, how often has Singapore drawn less than the 250 million gallons a day it is legally entitled to under the 1962 Water Agreement and what has been Singapore’s average daily rate of abstraction from the Linggiu Reservoir since 2014? To that end, what role, if any, have the low water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir played in the latest water price revision especially since the Government’s position as late as 2013 confirmed no need to raise water prices?

In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week, a PUB official stated that should the Linggiu Reservoir fail, there ought to be no cause for panic in Singapore as there were new and indigenous capacities in Singapore to meet such a contingency in the form of NEWater and desalination. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs last month stated that the failure of the Linggiu Reservoir would cause severe problems for Singapore and Malaysia. Can the Government elaborate what are its contingency plans in the event of such an eventuality – do these contingencies include the possibility of another rise in water prices, especially the water conservation tax since its policy rationale is aimed at reminding the taxpayer about the importance of saving water and separately, to account for the Long Run Marginal Cost of desalination and NEWater? That would also prompt a corollary question as to whether the latest water price revision was set with a view to account for the complete failure of the Linggiu Reservoir.

Even so, in the middle of 2016, it was reported that Johor was studying plans to divert water from two rivers into the Linggiu Reservoir. The first proposal was to build a low wall to channel about 50mgd of water from the Sayong River catchment area at the cost of about RM$250m. The second plan called for the building of a dam at the Ulu Sedili Besar River to transfer about 110mgd to the Johor River at the cost of RM660m. At the end of the last Leaders Retreat between Prime Ministers Lee and Najib in December last year, it was reported that Malaysia was looking at measures to increase the supply of water at the Linggiu Reservoir. Can the Government comment, in the event Malaysia successfully diverts water to the Linggiu Reservoir allowing Singapore to draw its full entitlement of 250mgd or more, would such an outcome end up reducing the price of water for consumers in Singapore? If so, would Singapore consider co-funding the diversion of the two rivers or renegotiating some aspects of the Water Agreement with a win-win prospect in mind especially since Singapore has not hesitated to supply Malaysia with more treated water than it is required to in its time of need particularly during times of drought and over the Ramadan period last year?

Is Water Scarce Or Not?

This brings me to my final point about the public messaging on water conservation policies and the outcomes the Government seeks from the water conservation tax and how these outcomes can be improved. About a month before the 2015 General Elections, the Prime Minister said and (I quote), “In Singapore, water will always be a precious resource. Never take it for granted or waste it.” (unquote) In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week in a piece titled How Singapore Will Never Go Thirsty, the PUB CEO announced that Singapore, in spite of being water-poor, had (I quote) “significantly overcome the challenge of water scarcity” and later on that “Singapore is not short on water” (unquote). While I understand the PUB official was showcasing to an international audience the good work over many decades of our water specialists, there is a risk that over amplifying self-sufficiency can have a dampening effect on efforts to encourage water conservation. The fact is that self-sufficiency comes at a high price for the consumer.

In fact, Singapore’s per capita water consumption rates have been dropping steadily from 2005 when it was 162 litres per day to 151 litres per day today. It would appear that the answer to the question of whether we can reduce consumption without price increases is a yes – perhaps not as resounding a yes as the experts would wish for – but a yes nonetheless. Even with our hot and humid climate and cultural practice of not using dishwashers, perhaps as result of the spices, sauces and seasonings in Asian cooking, progress on water conservation has been steady and continuous. Rather than to look solely at water pricing to promote conservation, the Government should look at new policies to further tighten regulations on the sale of sanitary appliances such as mixers and shower heads which discharge excessive water so as to nudge consumers to use more water-saving appliances.

Some experts have also proposed pricing strategies used elsewhere like Spain which hosts a pricing structure that provides for a 10% rebate should a household’s water consumption pattern show a 10% decrease compared to the year before. What these creative pricing strategies suggest is the prospect of a different approach towards water conservation taxes to promote a more efficient usage of water. We already see PUB nudging Singaporeans in this direction by informing consumers of the consumption patterns of their neighbours and the national average in our monthly bills. What may truly push a renewed commitment to a water conservation drive is to significantly alter consumer behaviour towards a tax regime that differentiates between efficient and inefficient usage of water by lowering taxes for consumers who use less water.

For example, a household of four which meets the national average consumption can have their water conservation tax remain at the current 30% of the tariff rate. Depending on additional usage, PUB could establish an ascending and descending scale relative to consumption. This has better prospects for water conservation as real savings would be given to individual households, building on the current two tiered approach set between households that consume more or less than 40 cubic meters of waters. This approach would also be more targeted and would cohere with the objective of saving water as opposed to the budget announcement which bluntly increases the water conservation tax from 30% to 50% or 35% to 65% for all households.

Conclusion

To conclude Mr Deputy Speaker, a piece in the Straits Times last week argued that the water price only reflected the reality of increasing water stress worldwide and that bigger hikes were needed to curb wastage. The comments to that story were unexpectedly, rather animated. I believe a deeper explanation from the Government about how it prices water and its long-run cost imperatives would enable the public to better understand and rationalise this water hike in addition to improving public understanding on this issue. This would be important as the water price hikes occurred on the back of many other municipal prices increases which could arguably have been better phased to reduce the impact on the average Singaporean for whom cost of living issues are an increasing concern. There remain concerns among Singaporeans who fear the knock-on effect of the water price hike on daily necessities and I hope the Government will address this point too.

Thank you.

Parliament: Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill – Reserved Elections for the Presidency: Does Form follow Function? (Pritam Singh) – 6 February 2017

Introduction

Madam Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill. The Workers’ Party believes that Singapore is best served by an appointed President and a system that would allow the Government to appoint a President, regardless of race or religion.

One of the most significant aspects of this Bill is the establishment of the Community Committee that ensures that in a reserved election, only persons who see themselves as belonging to a particular community for which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for the Presidential election.

As the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC), and by the extension the Community Committee’s decisions are not justiciable in a court of law, Parliament is effectively the last place for Singaporeans to gain some insight into how the Community Committee will operate in practice. The decision-making processes of the Community Committee and it sub-committees will be the focus of my speech.

Considering oneself a part of a minority community: How are minority applications assessed?

Clause 8(G) is scant on detail as to how the relevant Community Committee sub-committees would assess a potential candidate as to whether he or she is a member of a particular minority community.

With the prospect of reserved elections for minorities, it should be reasonable to assume that the Government expects form to follow function. It cannot be the Government’s intention that a bare declaration stating that a candidate considers himself or herself to be part of a particular community as stated in clause 8(F), would carry overwhelming weight for candidature to the highest office in the land.

To this end, Clause 8(G)(4) states that the Committee must be guided by the merits of the application by a prospective Presidential candidate. But what defines a meritorious application and on what basis will an application be deemed so? What factors are assessed to determine if an applicant sees himself or herself as a member of a particular community?

Is language a relevant consideration?

To begin with, and in step with the Government’s decision to institute reserved elections, the Government must concede that language is an important criteria that is intricately tied to race. To that end, does a minority applicant’s language abilities in his or her mother tongue matter to the relevant Community sub-committees, the same way it does for Singaporean students through their educational journey?

Would an applicant be expected to have passed his or her mother tongue at the ‘O’ or ‘A’ level? For example, should a Presidential candidate who sees himself as part of the Indian community pass muster if he or she can barely get on by in Tamil or the other MOE-recognized Indian languages for example? Can the Minister confirm if language proficiency is a consideration of the Community Committee? And if it is not, why not?

Ought the President’s spouse be a member of the same community?

Secondly, the President’s spouse is, for all intents and purposes a customary but central part of the Presidency, reflected most vividly with the portraits of both President and First Lady prominently displayed in all government buildings. Former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi put it differently when he told the Straits Times about his possible candidacy in the upcoming reserved Presidential elections (and I quote), “I’d be lying if I say that friends have not been asking me about it….if you look at the people who qualify, it is not that big a pool…..I have got to think of my own preferences, my life, my family and my privacy. This is not a journey I take myself.” (unquote) The last point is worth repeating and needs to be stressed, “this is not a journey I take myself.”

On that note, has the Government deliberated whether the background of an aspiring President’s spouse is a factor for Community Committee’s consideration in assessing whether the applicant is a member of a particular community? For example, in the case of an interracial marriage, what if the spouse of the applicant does not see himself or herself to be a part of the Indian community whereas the aspiring Presidential candidate does? What if a spouse has converted to Islam in order to marry but does not partake in the practices of the faith? Madam Speaker, these questions are central to the symbolic role of the President as a unifier of the country, and even more so after the Government has determined that some Presidential elections ought to be reserved for specific races. Should there be residual doubts about how Community Committee makes its decisions, the Presidency could be anything but a unifying office not just for Singaporeans in general, but the respective minority race in particular.

Is prior community work a requirement of candidature?

A third aspect of this Community Committee I wish to clarify with the Minister is whether the Community Committee would expect an applicant to be active in community work and what this entails. This expectation has also been referred to by one academic who was quoted in the media as saying that if an applicant has not been (and I quote) “in the public eye and is not active in community work, it is much harder to make the case for seeking election to the highest office of the land.” (unquote) What are the expectations of community service among the candidates and if so, are the expectations the same with regard to all four classes of candidates, namely the public sector track, public sector deliberative track candidate, private sector or private sector deliberative track?

A National Service requirement for male candidates?

Fourthly, during the recent debate on the Constitution, one PAP MP suggested that the presidency ought to be reserved for individuals born in Singapore. The Government did not address this point during the debate but perhaps it can today. Can the Government at least affirm that the Presidential Elections Committee shall not issue a certificate of eligibility to any male candidate who has not performed his two years of national service? This would be in line with the reality that National Service brings Singaporeans of all races together towards a common purpose and would serve as an important foundation for the life experience of any future President.

Not lowering the bar for minority candidates: the public sector deliberative track

Fifthly Madam Speaker, I take the position that because minority candidates are likely to be few to begin with, many candidates are likely to enter Presidential elections through the public sector track or public sector deliberative tracks rather than the more stringent private sector track with its $500m threshold. This may render hollow the Government’s claims that it is not relaxing the criteria to make it easier for minorities to assume the Presidency as a result of the latest constitutional changes. If so, the more accurate statement would be that the stringent private sector requirements simply do not apply for public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates, minority or otherwise. What this point does reiterate however, is the importance of the Government sharing what criteria will be used by the PEC to determine if a public sector deliberative track minority candidate qualifies for candidature as President in the first place.

What happens when a minority MP steps down from a GRC?

Finally, the very idea of race poses other considerations in certain cases of reserved elections involving public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates. For example, in the case of Madam Speaker, should the Honourable Speaker decide to stand as a candidate, what happens to the very existence of the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, which by law requires a Malay MP as one of its political representatives in parliament? Should it be passed, does this Bill herald a new precedent in marked contrast to the scenario in Jurong GRC some years ago when the late PAP MP Mr Ong Chit Chung passed on? Does the Bill, and the prospect of reserved Presidential elections change the Government’s thinking on this question: Would a by-election be called in a GRC when the minority member of a GRC steps down to contest in a Presidential election? Can the Government set its position out on this matter in light of the introduction of reserved Presidential elections?

Thank you.

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.

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.

 

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.

_____

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

(c) General amenities which include landscaping of roadsides and open spaces.

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.

_____

 

Interview with Lianhe Wanbao (7 Aug 2016)

Original Wanbao Interview (Mandarin): Pritam Singh

REFLECTIONS BY PRITAM SINGH ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE 2015 ELECTION RESULTS: OPPOSITION UNDERESTIMATED THE IMPORTANCE OF GRASSROOTS WORK

Pritam Singh (40 years old) attracted some attention after being elected into the Workers’ Party’s (WP) Central Executive Committee (CEC) with the highest number of votes in June. He was also appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary General, and officially took office on the 7^th of July.

Four days later (11^th of July), he agreed readily in the morning to be interviewed by this newspaper in the evening. He did not ask for the interview questions to be sent to him beforehand, but instead attended the interview with candour, at a coffeeshop near his Meet-the-People Session (MPS) venue.

Singh looked back on the year after the General Election (GE). He spoke vividly when talking about the moment when the election results were announced.

“I was at the assembly centre at Hougang Stadium when I saw the look of disappointment on the faces of our volunteers of Punggol East. After the results of GE 2011 and the two by-elections in the following 2 years, many young volunteers and members, including myself, have not tasted “blood in our mouth”. This defeat is an important lesson. I feel that in the face of uncertainty, keeping faith is very important. But sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you may not be able to cross the finishing line”.

On the factors which affected the opposition’s performance, he said: “2015 was a unique year, the passing of our founding prime minister was still fresh in people’s mind, the nation was in a somber mood, and this was an affirmation to the many contributions he made to Singapore”.

He also revealed that discussions within WP concluded that the impact of the Pioneer Generation (PG) Package on many elderly Singaporeans was very significant.

He believes that the Town Council (TC) issue is also a factor, but “I’m not certain as to whether it really affected the voting outcome as compared to the PG Package.”

He thinks another “extremely underrated factor” is that PAP changed course after GE 2011 to invest more on social spending through the budget.

Finally, he felt that most importantly, the PAP had been work harder and putting more effort into grassroots activities.

“There has been very little discussion on this, but I believe it (grassroots activities) has a great influence, whether through publicity in social media or through other channels. The opposition should remind ourselves that it is not sufficient just to appear when the GE is round the corner, publish your manifesto, and expect the public to vote for you.”

SINCERITY IS THE KEY TO THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES

Pritam Singh admitted bluntly that Singaporeans are “seasoned” voters.

“You really need to do house visits and knock on doors earlier if you have interest in a constituency. This is an important lesson for the opposition. Winning the elections is not as simple as appearing on nomination day.”

He emphasized that this was a lesson the opposition must ponder over, “The key is that we have to internalize these lessons.”

Speaking about preparations for the next GE, “It depends on whether we can find enough candidates, and now, even the so-called blue-collar workers have a better understanding of politics than we imagine them to have. They can tell whether a person is sincere. If the candidate is judged to be insincere, even with impressive qualifications, I think the people will not vote for him”.

He also pointed out that WP looks out for candidates who can interact well with people and who love the country.

“If one does not have impressive qualifications or experience, but is able to interact well with and is passionate about serving people, we are also interested in you. The key qualities are service to the people and the country.”

DOES NOT MIND TO BE LIKENED TO THE PAP

Pritam Singh said that because of low unemployment, the anti-establishment sentiment is not strong in Singapore. “This is credit to the PAP, and they do well at many levels. It is difficult to say whether the next generation will crave for more checks and balances and a pluralistic political system. However as the ruling party, the PAP has the advantage of incumbency”.

The reporter pointed out that the PAP often say they represent the whole population. In this context, what is the population segment that WP represents?

“If you want to be a nationally inclusive political party, you must represent everyone. It is obvious that we have much fewer MPs. However, we will try to do as good a job with our existing resources despite the asymmetry of information and resources. We play the game according to the cards that we have been dealt. Even if the cards are not good, we have to fight this battle and try our best to represent the voices of Singaporeans.”

When talking about the future of the opposition, Pritam Singh highlighted that impact of new citizens should not be underestimated.

“If you come from another country to sink roots in Singapore, and the government gives you the red passport, it is normal for new citizens to be grateful. I cannot say that they will definitely vote for the PAP, but I certainly know that it is a natural advantage for the ruling party. Since 2007, we have seen an annual inflow of twenty thousand new citizens (and many before that). You do not know how they vote, but I feel that the PAP has an advantage in this. Looking at this situation, we may have fewer or even no opposition representation in the future”.

In response to criticisms that the WP is becoming more and more like the PAP, he said “If the purpose of politics is to oppose the ruling party, then we have to ask ourselves why we want to participate in politics. Our aim should be to improve the lives of the people. If this means that we have to be subjected to criticisms that we are too similar to the PAP, then so be it. The responsibility of my party colleagues and I is the welfare of Singaporeans, so even if the opposition is accused of not opposing enough, and being too similar to the PAP, we will continue to work towards that end”.

He believes that the value of the WP to Singapore should be judged using a different set of standards.

“I believe that a rational, responsible and honorable opposition still has a role to play in Singapore”.

ON BEING A FULL-TIME MP

Pritam Singh did not renew his practicing license as a lawyer in March this year to take on the role as the Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), and became a full-time MP.

“The next few months are quite critical for the Town Council (TC). In addition to ensuring the smooth delivery of daily operations to serve the residents, we have to also remedy the problems pointed out by the Auditor General, and audit all transactions made with our former managing agent FMSS. If it is established that there were fraudulent transactions, I, as Chairman of the TC, have the responsibility, together with my team, to get back the lost monies”.

“If I continue to practice law, I will inevitably have no time for the TC. I would rather focus on public service. As WP MPs do not have an extensive grassroots network and strong financial support, we have to spend more time and energy to serve the constituents. Having chosen to serve the public through the opposition, I have voluntary chosen to embark on a road full of obstacles. No one forced me with a gun to my head. Along the way, there will be challenges and we will have to endure some knocks, but my party colleagues and I are willing to go through these for the sake of attaining our objective. We must also remember that whatever we do, we have to accept that we are imperfect, and that sometimes we will make mistakes, but we should always have the mentality of serving Singaporeans as we continue on this path”.

ON FAMILY AND DAUGHTER

“My wife and family know why I chose this path, and they also respect my decision. I’m quite thankful for this. Some people face difficulties and resistance from their family members and loved ones in joining the opposition. This has caused immense pressure and difficulties. Fortunately, my family supported my decision, and my wife is a pillar”.

“I have a 15-month-old daughter, and she is a jovial baby. We all hope she can continue like this. I have to manage my time better. For example, reserving Friday evenings or one day a week for my family”.

“I was 38 years old when I became a father, and I always thought that raising children while having a busy career can be difficult. But with the baby, I feel it is a blessing. It opens your mind into another world, and you become more sensitive. It feels good. I will let nature take its course as to whether I want to have a second child, but I will not rule it out”.

ON MR LOW THIA KHIANG

As the WP Secretary-General, Mr Low is not a one-man show. He has the ability to attract people who are patriotic and believe in political pluralism to join us.

“Since joining politics, Mr Low influenced me the most. I watched him for years before joining the party. I understand what he has experienced, as well as his contributions to WP. I admire him, he prefers to walk the talk. He once told Aljunied team, “Please do not disappoint Singaporeans”. We cannot guarantee the election results, but what he meant is for us to do our best. It is a very simple message, but it tells us what to do, and what we are fighting for, in a profound manner. He also encouraged everyone to “not let ourselves down”. Also, do not expect him to encourage you by giving you a pat on your shoulders. He encourages people the old-school way.”

Ends.

Parliament: Budget Speech (2016) Pritam Singh – 5 April 2016

Budget 2016: Fiscal Prudence and Sustainability – Deepening the Discussion

Introduction

Madam Speaker, this is the first Budget that allows the Government to tap on Temasek’s Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) alongside the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), presenting the Government with a cumulative total of $14.7b. This is a substantial increase of about 48% from the NIRC of $9.9 billion at the Government’s disposal last year and has given this Government more leeway and flexibility to implement its plans, with a $3.4b surplus as well.

Madam Speaker, the focus of my speech is to persuade the Government to consider a deeper discussion of fiscal prudence and the trade-offs in determining our budget priorities. By doing so, we can have a richer discussion on the budget and my speech will seek to provide some suggestions on the contours of such a discussion.

A misplaced fear of Welfare?

As with almost all budget announcements made over the last few years in particular, it is usually followed by a discussion in some quarters – especially in commentaries and forum pages – about whether the government is turning populist, or if welfare is taking root in Singapore, or a combination of similar themes. Very seldom are fears of welfare accompanied by a look at the overall fiscal state of affairs both in the short and long term.

The additional details in this Budget about the Silver Support package exemplify a recognition by the Government that there are many Singaporeans – more than 140,000 of them in fact – who are not adequately equipped for retirement and live precarious lives, perhaps not only physically, but more significantly, even mentally. The total expenditure for this year’s budget comes up to $73b.The $330m (0.4% of the total budget) expended on the Silver Support package will rise in the years to come because of our demographic profile. To put things in some perspective, the state collects $2.2b a year in gaming revenue. Our vulnerable elderly deserve to retire with dignity. That must be a central social objective of the Singapore system.

No discussion of financial prudence can escape the important behavioural question of ensuring our society retains a positive work ethic with permanent schemes like Silver Support and Workfare. However, this question should be posed with a sense of not just perspective, but also proportion, in view of the demographic transition in Singapore and the structural changes that come with economic transformation, both of which will become more apparent in the years to come.

More details to better understand sustainability

How can we better approach a discussion on the budget going forward?
Firstly, the evolution of technology and data analytics ought to make discussions on budget projection generate more light rather than heat. In the same way MINDEF human resource planners can project with sufficient granularity the number of men that will serve National Service in about 20 years time, and as a consequence determine force size and structure to a reasonable degree, a richer public debate on permanent schemes like Silver Support can take shape if we assess the sustainability of such schemes with a longer-term perspective in mind. This would help the public to better understand the overall costs and sustainability of such schemes rather than leave it conjecture.

For example, a more coherent and holistic public debate on the pros and cons of potentially expanding Workfare can also take place if the public is presented with tools to better understand how much such permanent initiatives are likely to cost years down the road. Many Singaporeans have in the past suggested tweaking Workfare to raise the cash component. Currently, a 50 year-old employee earning $1800 on Workfare gets an additional $9 in cash and $13 in CPF contributions every month, with the amount payable every quarter, subject to the number of months he or she remains employed.

However, an important consideration in the context of fiscal prudence, and understanding such permanent schemes better could be, for example, an exercise that compares raising the WIS pay-out amounts as compared against the initiative announced in this year’s budget which increases the income eligibility threshold from $1800 to $1900 (Erratum: from $1900 to $2000). How many additional Singaporeans would benefit by this threshold rise and is there scope to further raise the payouts under WIS, and if so, what would be the specific impact on the budget, and would it be wise? Such enquiries will make the public better appreciate trade-offs and operationalise the meaning of fiscal prudence.

Companies and businesses on “Welfare”?

A second trend that often repeats itself prior to the budget debate are the wishes of specific industries or industry leaders who call for more reliefs or taxpayer support. What we do not see much of in the mainstream media is a debate about whether some companies have grown to expect the equivalence of constant assistance or “welfare” from the state, without the same scrutiny extended to permanent schemes for the needy or less well-off.

Like permanent schemes that help individual Singaporeans, a fuller public discussion on fiscal prudence should also extend to companies and industries, and enquire whether budget initiatives indeed achieve the policy outcomes they were intended for. For example, it would be helpful for the Government to set out how much the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme (PIC) has actually improved national productivity numbers or even spurred innovation, even as this year’s budget heralds a reduction of PIC pay-outs going forward. This is relevant, as even the Government has acknowledged that some companies have used their PIC credits to buy equipment they do not need. Fiscal sustainability would also require accounting for the extent of such leakage and unintended consequences as well.

The lessons learnt from the shortcomings of the PIC scheme should be transferred to the budget’s announcement of the three-year $400m Automation Support Package, specifically with regard to grants, which assist in the rollout of new automation projects and investment allowances. This would ensure that technologies introduced actually improve productivity as envisaged.

Incentivising the Industry Transformation Programme

Moving forward, and specifically on the budget’s announcement of the $4.5 billion dollar Industry Transformation Programme with 20 sectors earmarked for development, it would be worthwhile to consider how companies and sectors that do the most to raise productivity, improve skills and innovation as well as promoting internationalization can benefit more from taxpayer dollars than those that do not. One way to effect this differentiation is to consider a higher cap on corporate income tax rebates than the current $20,000 cap for companies that record real productivity gains. For example, the cap can be progressively lowered or even removed completely for companies that do not meet the policy objectives of the scheme.

It would also be important for any exercise in fiscal prudence to distinguish and incentivize activities that actually create something tangible that have a real trickle-down effect as opposed to economic initiatives that just (I quote) “rotate around the high-finance microcosm enriching the 1% as they buy and sell existing assets to one another, bidding up their value, while failing to invest in research, products, jobs or innovation.” (unquote) – an apt descriptive which I read in a recent TIME magazine article that reviewed a new US primetime TV show, titled Billions.

Keeping Singaporeans at the core of the budget’s priorities

Madam Speaker, even as our businesses are incentivized to transform, they must keep Singaporeans at the centre of their efforts. To this end, the Industry Transformation Programme should identify and thereafter prejudice firms that are what the Ministry of Manpower calls double-weak firms – weak in having a Singaporean core and weak in their commitment to fair hiring practices and the development of Singaporeans. Likewise, these companies should be restricted from benefitting from corporate income tax rebates or tapping on the grants that go up on the business grants portal that is to be established in the fourth quarter of this year. An inclusive Singapore must be underwritten by Singapore-based companies that support the employment prospects of Singaporeans.

Conclusion

In conclusion Madam Speaker, a in recent book titled, Industries of the Future by Alec Ross, the former innovation adviser to Hilary Clinton portends a future where medical technology, robotics, coding, big data etc. will make many jobs redundant, amongst other interesting predictions. In this context, a deeper and more sophisticated public discussion on fiscal prudence, sustainability and accountability of budget expenditure in a more ambiguous future becomes more, not less urgent. It would also have the parallel effect of engendering a more inclusive citizenry that is rooted to Singapore’s long-term success.

Madam Speaker, I support the budget.

Parliament: Human Biomedical Research Bill (Pritam Singh) – 17 Aug 2015

Regulatory Approach of this Legislation

Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Health’s public consultation on the Human Biomedical Research Bill – carried out from November to December 2014 – states that the Bill is light-touch with minimal regulatory intervention. It envisages a system of self-accountability underpinned by risk-based audits and checks.

The Bill covers two major issues – firstly, the biomedical research framework and secondly, the framework governing the use and banking of human tissue.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that with the light-touch regulatory approach, Parliament and Singaporeans will not be sufficiently informed about the nature of biomedical research carried out under the auspices of this Bill, leaving this House in little control over what members agree to once this Bill passes muster. I am also of the view that this Bill provides a unique opportunity to nudge members into exploring and expanding Parliament’s role, through additional scrutiny, to operationalise Parliament’s educative role in society.

At the outset, a vibrant biomedical research scene is in Singapore’s interest. The prospects of cure for cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, correcting of congenital defects and a host of others medical breakthroughs are exciting, and I certainly hope many Singaporeans, and young Singaporeans in particular dedicate themselves to being at the forefront of these breakthroughs.

Nature of Permitted Research

What does this Bill allow, albeit under restricted conditions? Under the Human Biomedical Research Framework, and under the conditions established in clause 3, it allows for: (a) research involving human embryos; (b) human-animal combination embryos created by the incorporation of human genetic material or human cells or entities created as a result of the introduction of human cells into an animal foetus and; (c) the introduction of human neural cells into a post-natal animal and the introduction of human cells into the brain of a living post-natal animal.

Under the Bill, the Ministry of Health’s approval is required should the introduction of human genes into an animal embryo result in an entity that has human consciousness. These prospects can either cause the layman to look forward towards the future of human biomedical research with keen anticipation, or with an acute sense of dread.

The self-accountability framework underpinning this Bill allows for a research Institute, or a biotechnology company or even an SME to potentially set up Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to review and assess the work that is being carried out by its researchers. Consent from subjects is an integral aspect of this Bill before biomedical research is carried out, and rightfully so. However the Bill gives extraordinarily wide powers to the Chairman of an IRB, as exemplified by Part Two of the Fifth Schedule, to waive the requirement for appropriate consent to be obtained for human biomedical research involving human biological material or health information, should the research be reasonably considered to contribute to “the greater public good”, a term that would likely only to be determined affirmatively – and not without controversy – in a court of law.

No room for Parliamentary oversight?

In fact, clause 57 affords the Minister even greater powers by permanently exempting any biomedical research activity from this Bill. Equally of concern, clause 62 gives the Minister powers to amend any of the schedules to this Bill, effectively delegating all parliamentary oversight on the Bill to the Minister after its passage in this House, as the five schedules cover the essence of what this Bill seeks to legislate, namely (a) Human biological material excluded from the definition of human tissue; (b) Research, Studies and Matters excluded from the definition of human biomedical research; (c) Prohibited Human Biomedical Research; (d) Restricted Human Biomedical Research and finally; (e) Waiver of Requirements for Appropriate Consent by IRBs.

Should the Minister choose to exercise his powers by virtue of Clause 62, Parliament would have in effect, completely delegated its powers to the Minister to fundamentally alter the Bill in operation – should the scope of the Schedules as listed in the Bill be modified – without having to go through Parliament.

At the very least, should Parliament not place greater reporting requirements on the exercise of such extensive powers, even as we seek to allow our researchers and research institutions as much latitude as possible to produce cutting edge research work? Clause 62 would make Parliament little more than a mere rubber stamp with regard to human biomedical research in Singapore, as this Bill gives complete latitude to the Minister to change the parameters and scope of biomedical research in Singapore without an amendment bill, and without Members having an opportunity to debate any gazetted changes in Parliament.

Madam Speaker, I recognise that Clause 5 of the Act allows the Minister to establish an advisory committee to advise the Minister on any matter arising out of the administration of this act. In effect, the existence of this clause reinforces the point that we are heading into unchartered waters even for the Minister who oversees this legislation. Parliament and the general public should be kept well appraised of the research and controversies carried out under the auspices of this Bill, should Parliament decide to pass this Bill today.

I make this suggestion because in researching for this Bill, I perused the newly released Ethics Guidelines for Biomedical Research, released in late June this year by the Cabinet-appointed Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC). I found it disconcerting that in the written response received during the public consultation period, the Managing Director of the Lily-NUS Centre for Clinical Pharmacology noted, and I quote,

“…I am quite concerned that there was not more of an effort to engage with stakeholders on this discussion. I was only made aware of the proposed changes when I chanced upon it in a press report, and a couple of investigators in other institutions I spoke with who conduct healthy volunteer research, were not aware of these proposals at all. I would urge a nuanced approach to this matter from the BAC.”

Unsurprisingly, the public consultation on these BAC ethical guidelines revealed that different groups had different views with regard to the conduct of biomedical research. In particular, the comments of the Buddhist Fellowship and the Catholic Medical Guild of Singapore reveal the difficulties in answering the fundamental question of when life begins, and at what point conscientiousness starts – questions that are central to specific aspects of biomedical research.

Regulatory Powers and Proposals

Madam Speaker, in view of the unique nature of this Bill and the significant powers it confers not just on the Minister, but biomedical researchers, institutions and IRBs, it is helpful that clause 63 provides extensive powers to the Minister to make regulations requiring the submission of information, returns and reports as the Director of Medical Services may order.

I would like the Ministry to consider publishing through the media or through Parliament, at regular intervals, the details of research projects rejected by the various institutional review boards and the reasons for their rejection. This is in addition to the details of projects that are submitted to the Ministry of Health for special approval, including details of serious adverse events as identified in clause 2. This is chiefly to keep the public informed and aware of the workings of the self-regulation framework, particularly since this is a highly specialized area that requires significant intervention for the effects of this Bill to be understood by the layman. More specifically, in view of the importance of clause 63 as a regulatory tool for this Bill, I would also like to ask the Minister how the penalty threshold of a $20,000 fine and 2-year imprisonment term was derived, which in my view is set at a rather low threshold.

Madam Speaker, the Workers’ Party is of the view that Parliament ought to form a select committee to better appraise members of what this Bill entails with specific scrutiny paid on the clauses that confer significant powers to various entities, in addition to a detailed primer into the biomedical research this Bill legislates. Secondly, it recommends that the Government commit to publishing details of the human biomedical research that will be carried out under this Bill’s auspices and recommends that reporting regulations to Parliament be placed upon research institutions and review boards that seek to carry out restricted research. As members have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this Bill closely, and in the event a select committee is not formed, the Workers’ Party will abstain from voting in favour of this Bill.

Thank you.