Workers' Party's Aljunied GRC team
Workers’ Party’s Aljunied GRC team

By Howard Lee

It would appear that the campaigning has begun in earnest even before nomination day, as the ruling People’s Action Party went all out to remind citizens on what the general elections should be about – not democratic participation, but how to run a town council.

So far, we have had two Ministers – Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean (not once but twice) and Law Minister K Shanmugam – lay out for voters why Aljunied GRC residents should have the best and brightest to manage their town.

“Basic facilities – who can run them well?” said Mr Shanmugam. “Do you trust people with your money? Do you think they are people of integrity? Can you look at them in the eye and believe that these people will deliver on their promises? I think underlying it all, it’s really a question of honesty, integrity and trust. Those are the choices for the people.”

Both Ministers seem to be harping on the fact that Worker’s Party is not fit to be elected because they have not been able to manage a town council well. The logic is that, if you are not able to tell where your money is going, you have integrity issues. Mr Teo also suggested that WP is now eyeing Fengshan SMC in order to swallow its sinking funds.

As if that wasn’t enough, the recent political dialogue at NUSS saw the People’s Action Party’s Sim Ann, who is not even standing in a ward under threat by WP, go head on with WP’s Gerald Giam over the same issue.

Say again, who’s running your town council?

Let’s just put aside the facts behind the Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council saga, and assume that WP Members of Parliament really did mismanage its town council funds. The charges brought against the party was in relation to how the sinking funds was lost because it was allegedly siphoned away by its managing agent. So let’s just assume that the managing agent was really a crook and the WP MPs were either in cahoots with them or were ignorant enough to be fooled by them since, as Mr Teo suggested, they did not have the financial and legal background.

town council logos Feb 2014Assuming then that we need greater accountability in town councils, what then do we do? The quickest way would be to have the MPs themselves personally accountable – in effect, cut out the middle man.

Which is actually what WP is currently doing in AHPETC. It is also worth noting that the Chaims have stuck to this model of self-managing a town council in Potong Pasir, and would likely do so again should they win any constituency. Other parties, such as the Singapore Democratic Party, have also proposed to move away from the current model of out-sourced estate management in favour of self-management.

So what exactly is PAP’s strategy in harping endlessly about town council management? If it is trying to win back Aljunied GRC by slapping some “hard truths” into its residents, then it could be missing out on the real truth, as opposition parties are showing interest in abandoning a less accountable system of management – a system which the PAP, ironically, is still using for almost all the town councils under its charge.

Integrity or trust?

Perhaps the PAP is trying to say that opposition parties as a whole are not fit to be elected, since their (or WP’s) experience with running a town council has shown them up as being questionable in integrity. If so, then such a broad sweep might just backfire.

For the greater part, citizens have very little reason to worry about how town councils funds are managed. We pay our service and conservancy charges (S&CC), hope that the charges do not increase obscenely, and just trust the town councillors to do their job. Similarly for Aljunied GRC, as an earlier report by The Straits Times notes, in stark contrast to a more recent commentary in the same paper, Aljunied citizens are just as relaxed about how WP manages the estate.

Is the PAP now introducing more doubt and scrutiny into this established system of trust? Is it that sure that its own record has stood up to the test? Citizens will not easily forget the AIM saga.

LKY Parliament 230305 02MPs are the cheapest, smartest, most honest… estate cleaners?

The town council “issue” is at best nothing more than an interesting side show where parties take pot shots at each other. Mud-slinging and character assassination is fun to watch, but does little to address our everyday concerns. The real and bigger issue is that the PAP has thus far not demonstrated a more compelling reason for winning back votes from the opposition other than niggling about who is best, cheapest, smartest and most honest at sweeping the streets clean.

Once again, we see the PAP intent on turning a nation-wide general election into a municipal contest. For a party of its size and much-vaunted calibre of candidates, is this the best that it can manage?

Oddly, the opposition parties seem to have a better grasp of what their role is in government. National Solidarity Party’s Hazel Poa noted that the law-making role of an MP is just as important in Parliament as what she can do on the ground for residents, if not more so.

We even see a Non-Constituency MP, Mrs Lina Chiam, speak up against the ban on alcohol and opposing the Bill in Parliament, arguing against broader issues like legislative overkill. Have PAP MPs measured up to that level of debate?

But if we are happy to go with the logic professed by the likes of Mr Teo, Mr Shanmugam and Ms Sim, then we are effectively paying S$16,000 a month for a neighbourhood care-taker. Is it really cost effective?

If anything, this non-issue of an issue only highlights what the role on an MP should be vis-a-vis what they are being elected and getting paid to do. The management of town councils would be more effectively done by a centralised agency, such as MND, or by an independently commissioned or elected body.

The key role of our Members of Parliament should be to represent us in the highest institution of democratic participation we have. By harping endlessly on town council management – which no one, not even residents of Aljunied who are supposed to have “suffered” from, bothers about – the PAP has only demonstrated how little it understands elections and democracy.

Or perhaps the biggest party of our land never really bothered about democracy.

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

If Liew Mun Leong and Teo Eng Cheong’s roles are so crucial to Surbana Jurong, why have no replacements been announced?

Temasek owned Surbana Jurong seems to be losing quite a few of…

港新两者差异大,香港照抄狮城组屋计划意义不大

香港多年来身陷公屋严重短缺问题,近年来因地域、历史与经济方面条件相似,更向我国看齐,多次向我国的公共组屋(HDB)体制取经。 然而,香港大学客座教授邝健铭早前在南华早报发表文章表示,香港不能照抄新加坡的模式,因为狮城房屋能成功应付增长人口,绝不仅仅是增加土地空间那么简单。 他认为,新加坡之所能够成功建制组屋系统是更多是赖于新加坡于60-70年代时代的已故总理李光耀实行独立的主权国家,而香港则是中国的特别行政区。两者之间有诸多差异,故要强行照搬公共组屋模式,只会东施效颦。 而学者刘浩典教授与作者李欣(译音) 日前于南华早报发表文章,针对邝健铭教授的言论作出解释,认为大部分的新填海土地适用于建立机场、工业园、码头与休闲场所,仅小部分的土地是用于组屋计划。 刘浩典教授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。李欣则是新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院博士生。 我国组屋政策始于50年代末,由已故总理李光耀于1959年到1990年推行的政策,当时因房屋短缺问题,而造成在市中心的棚屋区过度拥挤。据文章指出,约50万人面临住宿问题,而约40万人需从市中心搬出去。 当时英国政府设立了新加坡改良信托局(SIT)解决问题,但仅规划在32年内建立23万间组屋。而人民行动党当选执政后,将新加坡改良信托局改为建屋发展局(HDB),以建造公共廉价房屋,安顿人民。 以强权实施政策 文章也指出,表面上,我国与香港有众多相似之处,但组屋计划成功的背后,包含着香港无法想象的土地改革与财富再分配课题。 作者认为,纵观新加坡的自主权,一向奉行强政府,弱社会的制度,不管是增进社会福利或是推行一项政策模式,从生意市场到劳动市场、土地业权、地产发展商或任何涉及金融财政的领域皆有政府掌握控制,而人民接受政府说法,认为政策的推行将有利于他们的生活。 为有效达到改善,建屋发展局接管组屋系统的管理,从规划、设计、发展到定期维修,皆由该局一手包办。建屋发展局以提供城外更多廉价房屋为首要目标,自1960年起建立了逾50万套住房来解决住宿短缺问题,并超标完成。…

【国会】用于刑事调查 警可获取合力追踪便携器数据

警察部队在进行刑事调查时,可获取合力追踪便携器的数据。 内政部政务部长陈国明在今日(4日)国会答复议员质询时表示,刑事程序法赋予警方权力,可获取任何数据,包括合力追踪便携器的数据。 而政府则是合力追踪便携器数据的保管人,并采取了严格的措施来保护个人数据,其中包括只允许获得授权的官员查阅数据,而且数据必须用在经授权用途上,以及储存在安全的数据平台。 根据公共服务监管法令,未经授权披露或滥用有关资料的公务员将面对高达5千元罚款、或长达两年监禁、或两者兼施。