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

S’pore to do away with six-member GRCs, increase number of electoral divisions in next GE

Singapore will cease having six-member Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in the next…

PVP chief Lim Tean challenges DPM Heng Swee Keat to one-on-one live debate on CPF, unemployment among S'poreans and other economic issues

Lawyer and People’s Voice Party (PVP)’s founding chief Lim Tean has challenged…

“美丽求求你”讽刺视频引发网友激烈讨论

近日闹得沸沸扬扬的网红“美丽求求你”拍摄讽刺视频,亦引起许多争议。内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根日前批评网红的行为“已过界“,认为该说唱视频有意侮辱新加坡华人,试图挑拨少数民族对华人产生愤怒。 美丽求求你的说唱视频长达2分50秒,于周一(29日)上传至社交网络平台上,其歌词内容相信是针对日前充满争议的epay的宣传照而讽刺,但同日下午就已撤下,在撤下前获得1100个赞和110则留言。 视频内普丽蒂批评新传媒拍摄的广告传递刻板印象,艺人打扮成印度人不好笑也看起来很傻,至少可以选用不同的人拍广告;至于她的哥哥苏巴什则揶揄“干嘛要妒忌他的肤色”,而怎么选谁都是华人赢;再者上一次屠妖节还有华人打扮成锡克族,令他感到受不了。 视频中两人也有作出比中指手势和粗口。不过在片尾普丽蒂声明,并不是针对指所有华人都是种族歧视的。 该视频是调侃早前新加坡华裔艺人周崇庆,为电子付费平台epay拍摄的宣传照片。周崇庆在广告中一人分饰四角,包括印度人和穆斯林妇女。有关宣传照被指制造刻板种族形象,欠缺敏感度。 对此,资讯通信媒体发展局(IMDA)发表文告表示,经判定后,认为该视频内容含禁止内容,基于公众利益与社会和谐,已指示发布者将其撤下。目前该视频已从各大社交网络平台撤下,包含原视频与重新上传的视频。 另一方面,针对具争议性的广告,新传媒亦撤下广告并致歉,epaysg也同时撤下。尚穆根承认尽管广告新传媒拍摄的广告“低俗”,惟网红的视频“已过界”,让警方要介入调查。   不过,有部分网民认为政府有“双重标准”的嫌疑。针对新传媒的争议广告,只需要致歉,然而对网红兄妹的惩罚反而“严正以待”,甚至出动警方调查。   网友Adam Mikhail…