Exchange of letters between Workers’ Party’s MPs and the National Development Ministry’s Press Secretary on the Lift Upgrading Programme, which began with a concerned Singaporean, all in the Straits Times Forum section in the past week.
MPs should front initiative
7 October 2009
I REFER to last Saturday’s report, “Non-PAP wards get lift revamp”, and Sunday’s article, “Lift upgrading for six blocks in Hougang”, both of which stated that the two opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir would be getting their lifts upgraded.
I am glad the Government has decided to proceed with the lift upgrading programme in these constituencies.
The programme comes under the Housing Board, a government statutory board, and it is gratifying to note that Potong Pasir and Hougang residents will benefit.
What disturbed me is the fact that news of the programme came from the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) unelected candidates in the two wards – Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low.
Mr Low justified his announcement of the programme by saying it was the usual practice, even in PAP wards, for the grassroots adviser to lead the programme.
My question: Under what authority did both Mr Low and Mr Sitoh act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?
Why did the HDB choose to work with unelected candidates instead of the elected MPs in the constituencies?
I agree that the needs of the residents would be served either way, but shouldn’t the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs be respected? The proper protocol would have been to have the elected MPs act as grassroots advisers and announce such programmes.
Muhammad Yusuf Osman
* * * * *
Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading
9 October 2009
WE REFER to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter on Wednesday, “MPs should front initiative”. It is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.
Working closely with the grassroots leaders, the advisers regularly engage the local residents to understand their needs and concerns.
In the case of the Lift Upgrading Programme, the adviser gathers input from residents, thereby ensuring that the programme’s plans meet residents’ needs. The adviser may also propose changes based on residents’ feedback, and seek residents’ support when the programme’s package is finalised.
Therefore, it is appropriate for the adviser to announce the programme precincts and lead the programme’s working committees in all constituencies.
On the other hand, the town councils have an in-depth knowledge of the schedule and the status of works in the estate. The town councils will be able to provide input about work on the programme that can be coordinated with other projects in the estate to minimise inconvenience to residents.
We understand the advisers to Potong Pasir and Hougang are working closely with the town council chairmen, that is, the respective Members of Parliament, to bring the Lift Upgrading Programme to residents.
We thank Mr Muhammad Yusuf for his feedback.
Chee Kheng Chye
Deputy Director (Upgrading Programmes Management)
Housing & Development Board
Sanjai Devmurari
Deputy Director (Corporate Communications)
People’s Association
* * * * *
No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading: Low
10 October 2009
I REFER to the HDB’s reply yesterday (”Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading”).
The HDB deems the grassroots adviser as the appropriate person to announce the lift upgrading programme because he gathers input from residents, ensures that the plans meet residents’ needs, can propose changes based on residents’ feedback, and seek residents’ support.
On what basis does the HDB assume that the Member of Parliament, who has the support of the constituency’s electorate, is unable to do the same and is therefore inappropriate to play the same role as the adviser?
The HDB acknowledged that it is the town councils that have an in-depth knowledge of the schedule and status of the works and can coordinate other projects to minimise inconvenience to residents.
Moreover, town councils are required to co-pay for the lift upgrading programme whereas grassroots organisations are not.
Why is the chairman of the town council, the elected MP statutorily responsible for town management and who must decide to pay for the programme, deemed inappropriate to play a leading role in it?
The role of the elected opposition MP in this process is relegated to an administrative role, perhaps merely to authorise payment for the programme from the town council funds.
This is the manifestation of the Government’s attitude towards elected opposition MPs, that they are not representative of the constituency but the grassroots advisers are, despite the fact that the grassroots advisers, candidates of the People’s Action Party (PAP), had been rejected by the voters in Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I suppose the PAP wants its potential candidates in the next election to claim credit for the programme, although the money does not come from either the PAP or the grassroots organisation. This is playing politics.
I am prepared to work with anyone from the Government for the benefit of my constituents.
However, I feel compelled to respond because the HDB’s justification for the role of advisers in opposition wards in the programme touches on the fundamental issue of respecting the will of the people expressed at elections.
The elected MP in opposition wards is here reduced to performing a municipal function.
This says much of the respect of the ruling party for the will of the people expressed at general elections and how mature we are as a democracy.
Low Thia Khiang
Member of Parliament for Hougang
* * * * *
Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading
13 October 2009
I REFER to last Saturday’s letter by Member of Parliament for Hougang Low Thia Khiang, “No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading”.
The joint letter last Friday by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the People’s Association (”Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading”) should be read in conjunction with Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan’s explanation to the media last Wednesday.
As Mr Mah highlighted, HDB’s upgrading programmes are carried out and funded by the Government. This is no different from other government programmes such as the building of roads and schools.
These programmes have to be implemented through government channels. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies.
The Government pays up to 90 per cent of the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), with the rest shared between the residents (5 per cent) and the town councils (5 per cent). Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies.
Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses. There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP – a national programme funded mainly by the Government. Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the “will of the people” expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang. The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.
Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People’s Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.
However, MPs do have a role in running town councils. Their role in town management and maintenance is clearly defined in the Town Councils Act, and does not extend to implementing government programmes such as the LUP.
Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the
Minister for National Development
* * * * *
WP rebuts ministry’s reply on lift upgrading
15 October 2009
I AM responding to the reply from the Minister for National Development’s press secretary on Tuesday (”Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading”), as the Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, is currently out of town.
The reply states that the Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) letter last Friday (”Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading”) “should be read in conjunction with” the minister’s earlier explanations to the media.
This acknowledges that the reason given by the HDB in reply to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter (”MPs should front initiative”, Oct 7) does not stand up to scrutiny.
Mr Muhammad Yusuf had pointedly asked why protocol seemed to be ignored when the HDB worked with the unelected candidates in opposition wards to announce lift upgrading programme (LUP) plans rather than with the elected MPs.
It is not disputed that the LUP is a government programme. After all, it is to rectify a design flaw in public housing which does not cater for an ageing society. Given this imperative, the public interest should trump politics.
Mr Low’s letter on Saturday (”No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading: Low”), responding to the HDB’s reply, was not about wanting credit for the programme.
He has stated that he is prepared to work with the Government’s appointees for the benefit of his constituents, and indeed has met the grassroots adviser several times over many months to give input on the LUP plans for Hougang.
It was the HDB’s unjustifiable answer to Mr Muhammad Yusuf – that the grassroots adviser was more appropriate than the MP to announce the LUP plans because he was able to gather residents’ input and marshal support for the plans – which compelled Mr Low’s response.
The HDB should have just given the real reason in its reply and not beat around the bush.
The Ministry of National Development’s (MND) reply on Tuesday further states that the LUP is funded from Budget surpluses, which opposition MPs are not responsible for generating.
However, the Budget surpluses are hardly the effort of the Government alone as they include significant contributions from the public through taxes, levies and stamp fees, which the Government simply reaps.
Finally, the MND reply also appears to interpret the general election as an event where the only outcome which matters is who forms the government.
This shows the respect the Government has for the people’s choice of MP, who is vested with the constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.
Sylvia Lim (Ms)
Chairman
Workers’ Party
* * * * *
Lift upgrading: We will agree to disagree
17 October 2009
I REFER to Ms Sylvia Lim’s letter on Thursday, “WP rebuts ministry’s reply on lift upgrading”, in response to the Ministry of National Development’s (MND) earlier explanations on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) in Hougang.
As we have pointed out, the LUP is carried out and funded by the Government, not the local Member of Parliament. The Government tasks the local adviser to grassroots organisations to work with all interested parties, including the MP, to implement the LUP. This is not a matter of protocol, but because of the need to implement government programmes through persons and agencies answerable to the Government. Opposition MPs do not answer to the Government, and implementing the LUP is not one of their constitutional or legal duties.
We do not expect the Workers’ Party to accept these basic facts, and we will agree to disagree. In the final analysis, the people of Singapore will decide. In the meantime, the interests of Hougang residents are best served by concrete actions, not words.
The MND and HDB will continue to work with the grassroots adviser and other stakeholders in Hougang to implement the LUP in the constituency.
Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the
Minister for National Development
Comments