Andrew Loh /

“Upgrading ‘an incentive to vote for the Govt’” – Straits Times headline, 13 April 2011.

The headline was referring to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s answer to polytechnic student Matthew Zachary Liu’s question about fairness in HDB upgrading programmes during a forum on Channel NewsAsia.

“Mr Lee replied that the programmes were national ones that applied to everyone, including those in opposition wards,” the Straits Times reports.

“However, when a choice had to be made on who would go first, and two estates were of equal merit, then the one that supported the Government at the polls would be chosen,” it reports the PM as having said.

First, the glaring mistake here: Singaporeans do not support “the Government” at the polls. They support the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Second, upgrading programmes are not funded by funds from the PAP but from revenues collected by the Government from all Singaporeans, including those in opposition wards and those who have not voted for the PAP in other constituencies.

Granted that the PAP, after having won the elections, then becomes the ruling party, the Government. However, this only means that with this elevation from political party to Government, the PAP is tasked by the people to care for all of them – everyone of all persuasions, political or otherwise.

And therein, really, lies the crux of the matter.

Should a political party such as the PAP use public funds to further its own partisan and discriminatory political agenda through prejudicial policies and practices?

The obvious answer is no, and for several reasons:

  1. Not everyone who pay taxes, where Government funds come from, support the PAP. They do so because of Singapore, the nation and country, which the Government is tasked to look after as caretaker.
  2. It is morally reprehensible that Singaporeans are discriminated against because of their political beliefs by the very Government which is supposed to be caring for them and protecting their rights to support any political party they wish.
  3. The Government should respect the people’s choice in voting for the opposition and allocate public funds fairly.

To accept and allow the Government to continue to perpetuate its selfish practices is to give it a stamp of approval on discrimination. Further, the Government could, by its same flawed reasons, extend this discriminatory practice to other areas. Perhaps it would next refuse to build car parks in opposition wards, or not to build kindergartens in non-PAP constituencies (which incidentally it had threatened to do in the past in Hougang).

Yet, in the midst of all this debate, one very important point is lost – in HDB upgrading programmes, there has to be a 75 per cent support from residents in a precint before the programme is undertaken by the HDB. A poll is conducted among residents in the area to determine the level of support. If it is less than 75 per cent, the programme will not be implemented.

If during a general election, the voters in a particular constituency vote overwhelmingly for the PAP which dangles the HDB upgrading carrot before them, residents in precints within that constituency will still need to vote in a separate poll for the upgrading. Only when 75 per cent of residents support the programme will it be implemented.

So, the question is this:

Does this mean that despite giving their votes to the PAP during a general election, voters in PAP-held areas may still not receive the promised upgrading?

Indeed, this happened in 2003 when a precint in Marine Parade voted against the main upgrading programme in the constituency in a poll after the general elections in 2001 where the PAP had a walkover win in the constituency. (See here.)

It would thus seem that the PAP’s enticement to get voters to vote for it because of the upgrading programmes during a general election is a smokescreen – it is not a guarantee that such programmes will be implemented even if voters had voted for the PAP.

And one final question which is best asked of the HDB itself:

As a Statutory Board, shouldn’t the HDB be serving all Singaporeans fairly, or should it allow itself to be used as a tool by a political party for its own political agenda?

Perhaps the HDB should clarify its role in this matter.

At the end of the day, PM Lee’s explanation leaves much to be desired, and it is hoped that Singaporeans can see through the smokescreen and more importantly, the danger of allowing one political party to hold voters to ransom.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

‘Opposition’ versus ‘ruling’ party on 2nd May and a simulation for the next General Elections

KRC on AWARE’s EOGM this Saturday.

Thai parliament opens to discuss pro-democracy protests

Thailand’s parliament opened Monday for a special session to discuss the growing…

屡劝不听? 马国军队周日起助警执行管制令

邻国马来西亚自18日起,全国实施行动限制至31日。但国内仍可以跨州,甚至可以看见人民“趴趴走”的迹象。马国国防部宣布,将在来临的周日(22日)开始出动军队,协助警方执勤,确保人民遵守行动管制令。 马国国防部长依斯迈沙比里今日(20日)召开记者会指出,这是国家安全理事会会议今早所做出的决定。他强调马国政府仍无意戒严,但若人民依然不遵守行动管制令,不排除会采取更严厉的执法行动。 依斯迈沙比里说,根据1988年疾病控制法令第5条文,卫生部长有权可以让任何他认为有必要执法的单位进行维持秩序,而警方就是在这个条文下获得卫生部长的授权。 除了严格限制人民行动,由于我国与马国仅一水之隔,许多马劳也在我国工作,在管制令宣布之际,对这些马劳也造成极大的影响,许多人纷纷在禁令生效前赶往我国。 而马国劳工的住宿也掀起争议,不少雇主不得不仓促安排住宿,甚至有者被迫露宿地铁站。依斯迈沙比里表示,新马双方仍在商讨马国客工返回新加坡工作岗位的事宜。 国务资政兼国家安全统筹部长张志贤,昨日(19日)与马来西亚国防部长依斯迈通话,双方同意在马国行动管制期间,在获得妥善健康检测和住宿下,马国工作准证持有者仍可留在新加坡工作。