town council logos Feb 2014By Andrew Loh
The People’s Action Party (PAP) has been attacking the opposition town council of the Workers’ Party (WP) these past weeks and months over the latter’s alleged “30 per cent” arrears in service and conservancy charges (S&C) owed by its residents.
The WP has been accused of being inept in running the town council, allowing such a high rate of arrears in S&C charges.
Ruling party Ministers have been leading the attack for weeks now, with their accusations geared towards trying to discredit the ability of the WP town council, and by extension those who run it.
But a check with past reports reveals that the WP does not seem to be the only one, or the first one, to have been owed such high amounts of S&C charges.
Back in 1987, the chairman of the Ang Mo Kio West Town Council, Lim Boon Heng, had “expressed his concern in the amount of arrears in his council”, according to a Straits Times report then.
The newspaper reported:

“He [Mr Lim] said one in 11, or 4,000 residents, owe his council. Although the number of residents in arrears have [sic] dropped slightly, the amount owed has increased, from $246,000 in December last year to $328,000 in April.”

Mr Lim recently expressed concerns about the WP situation.
“I’m personally quite disturbed,” Mr Lim said in November of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) S&C arrears. “To be in arrears by so much means that things are getting out of control. If it’s less than 10 per cent, you can probably manage. But once you go beyond that, you have to worry. And beyond 20 per cent, I think, is alarming.”
Well, perhaps Mr Lim was similarly alarmed when the town council in the PAP-run Bedok estate incurred a reported arrears sum which was 50 per cent of what it collected in a month.
The Bedok Town Council then was reported “to have the single largest figure of $500,000” owed to it in S&C arrears, The New Paper reported in October 1989.
“This figure is about half the $1.1 million collectible by the council every month,” the paper said.
It reported that “about 20 per cent of the account-holders” in Bedok were “responsible for the arrears of the council” that year.
But Bedok and Ang Mo Kio West town councils were not the only ones which had incurred such high S&C arrears.
The Bo Wen town council was also owed $397,200 in arrears in 1987, reported the Straits Times then.
bowen
In a 1989 New Paper report, several town councils were “owed $1m in charges”.
Besides Bedok Town Council with its hefty arrears, there was also Redhill Town Council, also run by the PAP.
The council then was “owed about $130,000.”
There was also the Cheng San Town Council which had “about $260,000 in arrears.”
“This is half the amount it collects every month,” The New Paper said. This is similar to the sum owed to the Bedok town council then.
Cheng San GRC then was, incidentally, led by Minister Lee Yock Suan, the father of PAP Minister of State Desmond Lee, who had been leading the attack on WP in recent weeks.
The other three PAP town councils which also had high S&C arrears were Bukit Batok (about $230,000), Tiong Bahru (about $200,000), and Ang Mo Kio West (about $175,000).
It seemed that this was the second time the Ang Mo Kio West Town Council had incurred such high S&C arrears, after the first case in 1987 as mentioned above.
Even in 2004, town councils – the majority of which were run by the PAP – were owed S&C as much as $24 million, as this report by TODAY highlighted, although it did not give the breakdown owed to individual town councils.
PAPTCs SCC
So, the question is: Are S&C arrears something out of the ordinary? From these past news reports, it appears that even PAP town councils had incurred rather large S&C arrears as well, with some incurring arrears rate which appears to be rather substantial amounts.
Is the PAP playing politics here, picking a fight with the WP town council over S&C arrears, while knowing full well that its own PAP town councils had also incurred rather significant amount of arrears in the past, some as high as 50 per cent of what a town council collects every month?
Read also: “PAP town council “incurred huge deficit” in 1997“.
Town councils owed charges - TNP 11Oct1989 NLB archivesPenalty late payments - ST 23Jun1987 NLB archives
 

Subscribe
Notify of
44 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Sarawak Report admonishes PM Lee’s legal team for giving bad advice regarding Leong Sze Hian case

The Sarawak Report published an article on 15 December that questions the…

学者料新法将颠覆本土公共论述模式

对于近期各界热议的《防止网络假消息及网络操纵法案》,学者刘浩典也加入论战,认为有关法案可能会改变新加坡公共辩论的模式,也担忧会长久下营造自我审查的大多数群体。即使部长不出手,这个群体只要遇到令他们不舒服的事物,就会马上要求动用此法来整治。 他指出,科学领域特别是社会科学的进步,鲜少是因为发现新论据,更多是得益于研究者们不断攻坚和挑战即成的理论常识。诚如物理学家汤玛斯库恩所言,对既定事实(或他称之为典范)的否定,是科学进步的主要动力。 他认为,二元对立区分真假只不过简化了其中的复杂问题,所谓的事实,也是经常经受挑战的。 他前日透过脸书贴文,分享他对新法案的观点。在帖文中也转载了来自网络媒体RICE的文章,分析在新法之下,“自我审查”将成为常态。 刘浩典目前是香港科技大学领导力和公共政策学高级讲师,此前也是李光耀公共政策研究院前副院长,曾在新加坡公共领域服务,包括担任财政部财务政策主任。 刘浩典举例,有医疗学者也认为吸电子烟对健康的危害,不比传统香烟少,且助长吸烟习惯;有者却坚信吸电子烟能助烟民戒烟,至今仍有人在争辩此事。 “如果我写说:电子烟的危害比香烟少、有助戒烟,所谓助长习惯的效应不过夸大其词,所以应该把前者合法化”,“那我算不算散播假消息呢?” 支持电子烟的学者,会把以上三个陈述视为事实;但可能普通民众只是当作一家之谈。再者,新加坡政府严禁电子烟,认为其对健康的危害和传统香烟一样;反观日本不这么认为,英国公共卫生机构却认为,电子烟的危害比传统香烟低95巴仙。 此前,律政部长尚穆根曾指,法案只会对付假消息,不包括个人观点、批评或讽刺。但若照以上刘浩典的陈述例子,他的个人观点中也涵括一些事实陈述,算不算抵触了防假消息法? “即便部长不会警告我撤下文章,你可以想象一些反对者也会向部长施压。” 他认为,法案带来的其中一个被忽略的深远影响,就是改变新加坡公共讨论和辩论的模式。“好的一面,可能让人在发言前,先想想是否属实;但糟糕的是,与此同时,那些来自保守建制派、自诩为思想审查的卫道者,找到一个可以施压部长的管道。” “用以迎合党内强硬派”…

Dr Tony Tan’s speech at the Singapore Management University

Dr Tony Tan’s Principles for the Future of Higher Education

人权律师拉维:有违议长应保持中立精神 陈川仁对部长声明表态不妥

撰文:人权律师M.Ravi  翻译:北雁 在本周二(2月12日),国会议长陈川仁在脸书发文表示,同意卫生部当初不把艾滋病患数据泄漏事件公之于众的决定和考量。 陈川仁表示“密切”聆听了颜金勇的解释,最后又把问题抛给群众,询问他们如果在相同情境下,他们会怎么做。当然本文并非要讨论群众该做什么,而是针对身为国会议长的陈川仁先生,指出他的可为和有所不可为。 身为议长,陈川仁就是国会中的首席官员,他有责任主持议会,确保议会事务顺利进行,而不是卷入议会和议员们的辩论,他有责任保持公正不偏袒。 2017年,他受委为第十届国会议长,也承诺在主持议会事务上会保持“不偏袒、中立和客观”。诸君也可到国会网站,上面也阐述了议长必须对所有议员一视同仁不偏袒。 然而,他在脸书对课题发表上述声明,是否已贬低了议长的身份,形同摒弃了他强调、也理应维护的客观公正? 以下为陈川仁对艾滋数据泄露事件发表观点的脸书贴文: 根据《议会法》(特权豁免权和权利)(第217章)第3(1)条,议长的豁免权和权限,自共和国创立以来就和英国国会类同。在厄尔斯金梅(Erskine May)撰写的《议会惯例》–一本有关议会程序和守则的权威教科书,也提到下议院院长的主要性质,即是保持权威和公正。 那么假设国会议员、在此情况下就是议长本身–若藐视议会程序,那么有几个方案可以遵循。 一,提呈违反特权动议,交特权委员会审理议长。…