How to run a GRC Town Council...

7 HUDC blocks in Hougang to be privatised
By Lynda Hong | Posted: 16 April 2011 1747 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 A lot of questions remain unanswered Mr. Low.

SINGAPORE: Seven blocks of HUDC flats in opposition-held Hougang will be privatised, after residents voted strongly for the move.

They are blocks 344 to 350 in Hougang, Avenue 7.

In the mandate exercise conducted in February, 81.5 per cent or 233 out of 286 units voted for privatisation.

The results were announced by the protem committee at Hougang Community Club on Saturday.

The road to privatisation took two-and-a-half years.

Hougang Grassroots Organisations adviser and member of the People's Action Party (PAP), Eric Low, said that during the process, one issue was over the estimated amount from the sinking fund set aside for the estate.

"My understanding, which I empathize with them (residents), is that until today, they have still not heard from the town council the estimated amount that they have put aside...the residents are asking, 'We are now going to privatise. Well, we are going to take over the estate'. Of course, I do understand their concern. Where do we start? If we don't have enough sinking fund, then they will need to do some fundraising, or to that effect," he said.

The PAP candidate for Hougang in the upcoming General Election, Mr Desmond Choo, said he will help residents sort out existing issues with the privatisation exercise. This includes working with current MP Low Thia Khiang.

"They've just brought out to me and Eric (Low) that there is some sinking funds issues that they want some clarity from the Town Council......we will be working very closely with Mr Low Thia Khiang to see whether we can help them through the process. I think the key thing here is that we must work for the benefit of the residents, not just whether you are from the Workers' Party or PAP," said Mr Choo.
---
How do you expect to run a GRC Town Council when you can't even administer a small SMC Town Council Mr Low?

It has been reported in the mainstream media, that Hougang SMC Town Council has been unable to provide to the protem committee with how much money has been set aside for that particular cluster of blocks.

The residents have gone through the trouble of calculating how much it will cost to buy over the common areas, fence up the estate and convert the estate into a private one, they have canvassed for more than the required 75% of votes agreeing to the privatisation and have made the application to the HDB.

The next step would be for Hougang Town Council to transfer 40% of the sinking fund that has been apportioned to that estate to the protem committee.

1) Why does it take so long Mr Low? Surely a man as distinguished as yourself can handle the administration of a small town council like Hougang SMC's?

2) Where is the money Mr Low? Are you delaying because the money isn't there?

3) Mr Low, you say you are a businessman. Yet, most Singaporeans don't know what business you are in. Why is that so? Would you mind illuminating them on the business you conduct?
 Or is it too nefarious?

Low Thia Kiang responds to Minister George Yeo

In an interview this morning, Minister George Yeo highlighted how the Worker's Party(WP) team contesting Aljunied have failed to come up with any concrete plans to help Aljunied residents specifically.

Below is a report on the TODAYonline newspaper.

WP's Low Thia Kiang: Is Foreign Minister, George Yeo, concerned about WP's "A" team?

by Joanne Chan

01:45 PM Apr 29, 2011

SINGAPORE - Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang, said on Friday he moved out of his Hougang stronghold to contest Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to give voters a choice.

He was responding to Foreign Minister George Yeo, who had said in an interview that the WP was forcing Aljunied residents to pick between self-interest and pushing the Opposition cause.

This morning, 10 WP members and volunteers hit the streets of Geylang Bahru for over two hours meeting and greeting residents of the newly created Moulmein-Kallang GRC.

Mr Low introduced the party's candidates for the constituency to them.

Speaking to reporters later, he rebutted comments by Mr Yeo, who is leading the People's Action Party (PAP) team in Aljunied GRC.

Mr Yeo said the WP was causing an "emotional dilemma" for residents by sending all its top candidates to Aljunied.

Said Mr Low: "I also faced dilemma, tremendous emotional dilemma in moving out of Hougang. So, I don't know if Minister George Yeo understands the emotional dilemma which I face in a struggle to move out of Hougang. Is he concerned?"

He also responded to the accusation that the WP had not produced any plans on how it intends to improve the lives of residents in Aljunied.

Mr Low said: "I would ask if it's Mr George Yeo's plan, or is it the Government's plan, let's make clear here. And if it's George Yeo's plan or the PAP's plan, where the money comes from, let us know. We are not the Government, so we currently would not be able to give you a local plan until we take over the town council, and we will be able to tell you what we want to do. But for sure, I've been in Hougang for 20 years, and if you look at Hougang yourself, Hougang is not a slum."

Addressing concerns that improvement plans announced by the PAP may be stopped if the Opposition won, Mr Low said town councils get their funds from service and conservancy charges collected and also from the Government.

This would be the same whether the PAP or the Opposition was in charge.

Mr Low added that the election was not just about municipal issues, but broader national concerns, such as the next generation of leaders in Parliament.

---

Said Mr Low: "I also faced dilemma, tremendous emotional dilemma in moving out of Hougang. So, I don't know if Minister George Yeo understands the emotional dilemma which I face in a struggle to move out of Hougang. Is he concerned?"

I'm  sorry Mr Low but it is not Minister Yeo's duty to understand your emotional dilemma. As the MP for Aljunied GRC, it is his responsibility to understand and address the emotional dilemma you have put the residents of Aljunied in.
Allow me to illustrate this in a clearer fashion for you. Let's say, in the best case scenario, you actually do have concrete plans to address municipal issues in Aljunied, these plans coupled with your National issues would be a fair basis upon which the merits of your party can be addressed. As it stands, by only pushing national issues and not even showing an awareness of local issues facing the residents of Aljunied, all you're demonstrating is that you're making use of the residents to further your own political cause. It certainly looks like your intention is to ride the momentum from the 2006 General Elections to win yourself a GRC. Not that it is wrong to want to win a GRC, just that you might want to consider the people who are voting for you. Are they voting for you simply because the weight of expectation from opposition supporters all over Singapore lies upon them? Are they expected to sacrifice a better living space for themselves and their family to ensure that there is an opposing voice in Parliament?


Mr Low said: "I would ask if it's Mr George Yeo's plan, or is it the Government's plan, let's make clear here. And if it's George Yeo's plan or the PAP's plan, where the money comes from, let us know. We are not the Government, so we currently would not be able to give you a local plan until we take over the town council, and we will be able to tell you what we want to do. But for sure, I've been in Hougang for 20 years, and if you look at Hougang yourself, Hougang is not a slum."

Mr Low, you have been the MP for Hougang for many years now. You know exactly how money for government projects is raised. It would be very concerning if you didn't.(Oh, wait, you do..."addressing concerns that improvement plans announced by the PAP may be stopped if the Opposition won, Mr Low said town councils get their funds from service and conservancy charges collected and also from the Government.") Regardless, let's assume that you didn't have the resources as yet. From your working of the ground, you should at least be able to demonstrate an awareness of these issues. This however was has been very much lacking in your interactions with the media. You are right, Hougang is not a slum, but just take a simple walk across the road from Hougang to any other neighbouring ward and you will be able to see that there is a stark contrast between Hougang and the rest of the estates. This is what 20 years of opposition rule will do to your housing estate.


Mr Low added that the election was not just about municipal issues, but broader national concerns, such as the next generation of leaders in Parliament.


You are right, the election is not just about municipal issues, but broader national concerns, however, if you want the residents of ALJUNIED to vote you in, you certainly don't expect them to blindly vote for you at the expense of their living conditions no? Have you at least demonstrated an awareness of the issues that the residents of Aljunied in particular are facing? I'm sorry, but that's just selfish...

And so it begins...

The first day of rallies has started and as expected, the hottest battle will be in Aljunied GRC where incumbents Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yong-Boon Yeo, Second Minister for Transport and Finance and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hwee Hua, Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed, Mdm Cynthia Phua and PAP's new candidate Mr Ong Ye Kung are contesting the A Team of the Worker's Party led by their Secretary-General Mr Low Thia Kiang, Chairperson Sylvia Lim, their star candidate Chen Show Mao, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal.

The Worker's Party (WP) held their first rally today and as you can see from the image above, it was well attended. People were watching from the ground and even up from the HDB flats. As expected, they were very strong in their rhetoric and were extremely effective in putting their points across very simply.

Unsurprisingly, as seen in their manifesto, they harped on having an alternative voice in parliament. Based on their definition of "Towards a 1st World Parliament", they urged the residents of Hougang and Aljunied to vote them in such that by virtue of having some blue shirts in parliament as opposed to a sea of white, they would have made inroads toward a 1st world parliament.

They also made the case for checks and balances within the current government using the analogy of a driver and his co-driver; that it's important for the co-driver slap the driver whenever needed. What they're looking to get is a "driver's license" and for this, they'll need the residents of Aljunied and Hougang to vote for them.


More importantly, they sounded a call to action citing the turnout at their rally in 2006 being as good as it was today, however when it came to the voting booths, the support did not translate into votes. As such, they urged everyone to turn their support into action.


Chen Show Mao then spoke, in 4 different languages, Malay, English, Mandarin and Hokkien. Very impressive! His China style of mandarin and Taiwan style of hokkien however seemed to put some people off. Low Thia Kiang then pacified the residents of Hougang by explaining his reasons for leaving(to contest a GRC as he feels the time is ripe) and the audience seemed to be very receptive and supportive of his decision.


Yaw Shin Leong, the candidate for Hougang SMC then exhibited his credentials and explained how in 2006 he led the WP in Ang Mo Kio and managed to secure a good margin of votes. He also spoke of his various roles in Hougang since 2001 up to present day. He mentioned how the Hougang Town Council has done a good job and maintained the area well citing that rubbish isn't stacked up 3-Storeys high. The audience seemed to take to him very well.

Next up, Gerald Giam got up to address the audience but he didn't seem to get as warm a response. Maybe this was because he prefered to use a more logical and rational tone compared to the rhetoric of the previous speakers. The WP proposed to do away with the PSLE in an effort to reduce stress on both the children and the parents to lukewarm applause.

So far, the WP has failed to highlight its plans for Aljunied GRC on a local level and has instead chosen to fight it's front on the national level issues. This begs the question as to whether or not they're in it to genuinely help the residents of Aljunied GRC. Are they instead using the residents of Aljunied GRC to further their own political agenda? Aljunied GRC famously saw the closest contest in the 2006 GE and it certainly seems that Low Thia Kiang and gang intend to ride on the momentum created in the last GE and ride the wave into Parliament. It is their chosen strategy and a strategy nonetheless and I respect that. I do feel for the residents of Aljunied though.

The decision that the residents of Aljunied have to make in the coming week is whether or not to sacrifice Singapore's Foreign Minister and his team for a largely untested group. Take nothing away from the WP team; even FM George Yeo called them worthy opponents. But looking at the PAP lineup for Aljunied GRC, Foreign Minister George Yeo who is arguably the stand-out minister from the last Cabinet. Personally, I can't see anyone who would do a better job than Minister George Yeo in the Foreign Minister post. I'd go so far as to say that in time to come, he's a potential PM. There's also Minister Lim Hwee Hua who has championed women's rights in Singapore and Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed who is well loved by the Malay community. Is Aljunied GRC willing to sacrifice these 3 MPs for what in essence would be an alternative voice in Parliament which effectively can't walk the talk. Furthermore, Minister George Yeo and his team have been working the ground relentlessly since their close contest in 2006. The WP team has only been visibly working the ground in the 6 months leading to the elections. Personally, I don't think the residents of Aljunied will be hoodwinked into believing that the WP are contesting in Aljunied to serve the residents of Aljunied. That's just my thoughts and views for now.
Enjoy the campaigning period! It's going to be exciting!

Response to the Silent Minority

I recently came across a post that responded to my introductory post on this blog.

I just thought I'd share it with all of you.


Dear Silent Majority,

Great effort in trying to present what might be an unpopular view on cyberspace. 

I personally have no qualms with the high pay, but it must commensurate with the talent possessed. 
Likewise I am also not against the PAP, but it doesn't mean that I don't question the system. In fact, I am of the view that we SHOULD question the system, but only with the intent to make it more robust, not to tear it down.

Your argument puts forth a few assumptions, that
1. All our Ministers are of necessary calibre. 
2. By stating that the system allows US to attract the cream of the crop you have suggested that the everyday Singaporean got to vote these Ministers in (that is still up for debate), unless of course you're speaking in a different capacity? 
3. That GDP is the one and only indicator of a government's performance. (http://www.google.com.sg/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=limitations+of+gdp)

I'm sure we have brilliant, hardworking Ministers in our government. The public is questioning though, if that applies to all our Ministers for which we are paying top dollar for. The "noise" says no, our lean and efficient yacht is bloated, and we need to toss some of them to keep moving at the pace that we want. 

If even PM Lee, with his intimate knowledge of his ship, admits that they are having trouble finding competent people to do the job with their current selection process, who are we to say otherwise? ;) (http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/micacsd/speech/S-20110407-2.print.html?AuthKey)


There are some questions we need to ask then -

Is our current system up for questioning? Is there space to question the system and do we have enough transparency and information for us to make critical assessment?

Is there room for improvement with the current selection process if it's not yielding the expected results? How is it that we were able to find such a capable team in 1960s with a population of 1.6mil but in today's Singapore with 5mil we're short? (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html)

Are all our Ministers up to the task of running their ministries to justify their pay? If not, how can they be held accountable to the public (their paymasters) and what recourse does the public have? 

Can we improve the system by which our MPs and Ministers are employed? Do all potentials get a fair chance at being hired? This is an important question we need to ask because by depriving these potentials a fair chance, we are actually depriving ourselves of a fair chance at getting real leadership.

Come Together

You are right, there is a lot of noise out there, but shouting a different tune doesn't solve the issue. What's necessary is to take a measured approach to filter through this noise and listen for the real issues. We need to tackle what's really pressing and crucial for improving the current system. 
To do that we need to be working TOGETHER. There's no "Opposition camp" or "PAP supporter", we are all SINGAPOREANS buying into ONE government. We, as Singaporeans, should be sitting down as a family, with diverse views no less, to decide what's right and what's best for the household so everyone benefits and no one gets left behind.

Regards,
The Silent Minority

Thank you for your response my friend. This is exactly what we need. Like yourself, I am certainly not against the PAP. I feel that they have done a great job thus far. Is the system perfect? Certainly not. I don't think any government can claim to be perfect. As such, the implication is that there is room for improvement and there are aspects to be critiqued. I completely agree with you that we should critique it with the intention of making it more robust rather than tearing it down. Which is why when I see online platforms presenting contrary views to the incumbents, simply for the sake of it(everything the government does is bad, and so on and so forth), I get filled with such disdain.

If I may clarify my position from the 3 questions you posed earlier on,

1. All our Ministers are of necessary calibre. 
Yes, I am working on the assumption that they are of necessary calibre. In my opinion, it would be foolhardy for any government to appoint a cabinet minister for a particular role if he/she is not the best person available for the job.

2. By stating that the system allows US to attract the cream of the crop you have suggested that the everyday Singaporean got to vote these Ministers in (that is still up for debate), unless of course you're speaking in a different capacity? 
I don't mean to say that the everyday Singaporean gets to vote these Ministers in. What I mean to say is that this particular system of remuneration makes it easier for a potential ministerial candidate to decide whether or not to sacrifice the income he would receive from the private sector as he would not be making too big a sacrifice. Take for instance an example where he would have to take a 50% cut in income. It would be unlikely that he would choose to become a minister should that be the case. I'm certainly not suggesting that everyday Singaporeans get to vote these Ministers in and that is certainly another debate altogether.
3. That GDP is the one and only indicator of a government's performance.
 This is a fair point. I don't feel that GDP is the only indicator of the government's performance. I don't believe that the system is perfect and hence, it is certainly up for questioning. There are other benchmarks upon which their performance should be appraised. This could affect a variable portion of their income for instance. But certainly, my belief is that in order to attract people of calibre, we need to be able to offer them something similar to what they would be getting in the private sector.



Is our current system up for questioning? Is there space to question the system and do we have enough transparency and information for us to make critical assessment?
As mentioned above the current system is definitely up for questioning. It is certainly not a perfect system and as mentioned, we need to move from a GDP oriented remuneration structure, to a more holistic results based system.  

Is there room for improvement with the current selection process if it's not yielding the expected results? How is it that we were able to find such a capable team in 1960s with a population of 1.6mil but in today's Singapore with 5mil we're short? (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html)
 My post wasn't really about the current selection process but since you mentioned it, I'll touch on it just a little. My view is that in the 1960s we did have an extremely capable team. Singapore was a young nation having been through occupation and being part of the Federated Malayan States. We had an exceptional leadership and this in my opinion was a culmination of a number of factors. Despite the lower population numbers of 1.6mil people, Singaporeans we far more politically attuned then than now(though things have improved over the past few years). We had also come to a point where we were complacent and this also contributed to the masses being apathetic. Without going into too much detail yet, these are just a few of the factors that occur to me off the top of my head.


Are all our Ministers up to the task of running their ministries to justify their pay? If not, how can they be held accountable to the public (their paymasters) and what recourse does the public have? 

I'm afraid I'm not in a position to appraise the performance of all our Ministers. I will however  vouch for the ones who I feel are doing an exceptional job. Amongst the cabinet ministers that we have today(well, not really because Parliament has dissolved) the two that I feel have), the ones that I feel have done an exceptional job are the Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo and Minister of Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Every Minister has their KPIs within their ministries and if the electorate are unhappy with any of the ministers they are free to not vote for him in the elections. Of course then this becomes a slightly more complicated matter. The opposition has to provide credible candidates such that the electorate can actually choose somebody credible to vote in.



Can we improve the system by which our MPs and Ministers are employed? Do all potentials get a fair chance at being hired? This is an important question we need to ask because by depriving these potentials a fair chance, we are actually depriving ourselves of a fair chance at getting real leadership.


The current system by which our MPs and Ministers are employed is by no means perfect. You have made references to how come PAP candidates are given a free pass into Parliament by riding on the coat-tails of their anchor candidate. I feel that the system can be further refined. Whether or not all potentials get a fair chance at being hired is not a question that I can answer. What I will do is paint a scenario. If the opposition has a candidate that has the potential to be a Cabinet Minister. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that he is the best person for the job. We also have to assume that he is voted in, whether through a GRC or an SMC. Will he be considered for the job? I don't have the answers for you but it's definitely something worth exploring.




Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with your final 2 paragraphs and you echo my sentiments exactly. Let me just state for the record, I am not a supporter of the PAP or any other party in particular. I don't believe that the system is perfect. On the contrary, I believe every system can be refined and further refined and then further adapted as a result of the inevitable change that will occur. I can't profess to know everything about politics. As a matter of fact, I have to admit that I have much to learn. Thank you so much for the response. I hope you keep reading and keep spreading the word about this site. I look forward to having more discussions with you and the rest of the readers.


"You are right, there is a lot of noise out there, but shouting a different tune doesn't solve the issue. What's necessary is to take a measured approach to filter through this noise and listen for the real issues. We need to tackle what's really pressing and crucial for improving the current system. 

To do that we need to be working TOGETHER. There's no "Opposition camp" or "PAP supporter", we are all SINGAPOREANS buying into ONE government. We, as Singaporeans, should be sitting down as a family, with diverse views no less, to decide what's right and what's best for the household so everyone benefits and no one gets left behind."

A huge thank you...

As if the people at hardwarezone couldn't wait to prove my point, almost immediately after the first blog post came up, a thread criticising the creation of this blog to represent the silent majority was created.

You can find it here...

I am absolutely astounded by the baseless vitriol dispensed by the netizens there. I certainly am flattered, but as I expected, their noise was base, baseless and without substance. Well, the joke is on them because I certainly am no Tin Pei Ling.

Let's talk about something with a little more impact on the lives of Singaporeans though. A lot of noise has been made about Ministerial salaries being to high. Or Singaporean Ministers being the best paid office holders in the world.

The principles of how we remunerate our ministers have been extensively debated ad infinitum. The substance however is easily lost in the noise.

I believe that when selecting someone to run a country, you want to have the best that you can possibly get. It only makes sense doesn't it? We live in this country. If I were to select someone to run the country I so dearly love, I wouldn't want someone who is incompetent or inadequate to do so. It's an age old adage that some might have heard before. If you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys. Let's try to practise a little empathy here and put yourself in the shoes of someone who has the calibre to run a country. Why would you choose to be a minister if you can earn much much more in the private sector. This is why civil servants and ministers are remunerated based on a benchmark, DISCOUNTED to private sector professionals of the same level. This will obviously be  higher wage than what most public servants in other countries get. As such, the system that we have allows us to attract the cream of the crop into public service and even then they still have to sacrifice by earning less than what they would in the private sector.

Bear in mind as well that these salaries are all encompassing. Even gifts have to be declared. Compare this to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt where the recent protests happened, Mubarak was a politician and a military commander, yet his personal wealth was estimated at between 40bn - 70bn dollars. Surely he wasn't living on his salary alone. This might be an extreme example, but it is a scenario that happens all over the world. When you look at salaries of ministers in places other than Singapore, take some time to consider the fact that they may have other less legitimate sources of income. Oftentimes public servants in many countries are very rich despite their low salaries, even if the system is not corrupt. Take the United States for instance. Many opportunities arise for their high ranking public officials to make a lot of money after they leave public service through lobbying for special interest groups or to speak on the lecture circuits.

As a result of our remuneration system for public officials, Singapore ranks highly on having an efficient Government and the absence of corruption(Transparency International Survey 2010: Singapore was ranked joint first with New Zealand and Denmark)

Based on this then New Zealand and Denmark are good countries to compare ourselves to?

Let's take New Zealand, the government budget for New Zealand is 43% of GDP. In Singapore it's 17%.
In 1960, New Zealands's GDP was 3 times that of Singapore. Now, Singapore GDP is much higher than New Zealand's. Let's think about all these things the next time we're being quizzed about ministerial salaries.

Have you ever...

Have you ever felt like something needs to be said but you chose not to say it for whatever reason?
This is me, doing what I feel needs to be done in order for us to progress as a nation. The internet landscape in Singapore is such that, most of the people who talk about politics are detractors of the government. In reality, as evidenced by election results, the majority of people in Singapore are happy with the government. Why is it then that you don't see more people sticking up for the government on websites like The Online Citizen(TOC) or The Temasek Review(TR)(Search Engine Optimisation at work here hahaha)?

The reasons for the majority being silent are manifold. For one, they may fear being abused online for expressing a differing opinion by the multitude of empty vessels that are online(of course here, I refer only to the empty vessels. Those who have many words to say but nothing of substance to contribute). Just a quick visit to sites like these(TOC and TR) and you'll notice an overwhelming tsunami of negativity. The moment someone even begins to show hints of support for the government, he/she is struck down and crushed like a cockroach(You'll have to imagine it like it's being said by Margaret Chan in Masters of the Sea). It's no wonder you'll almost never find a platform where rational discourse can be conducted about the state of Singapore politics.

Secondly, and more likely, they may be too comfortable in thinking that regardless of what the opposition supporters might say online, the support for the PAP is too strong for it to have any effect and thus, they don't need to do anything. Why expend energy on fighting a fight you think you'll win regardless of whether you do anything or not.

The consequence of allowing this to go on is far too tragic for me to sit idly by. If the Silent Majority doesn't speak out, net-savvy neutrals will be easily swayed to the nonsense(I am of course by no means suggesting that everything the opposition puts forth is nonsense) of the opposition and slowly but surely, if they don't hear a balanced perspective this will result in the real life effect of the incumbent government losing much valued votes simply because these neutrals are only exposed to one point of view and not because the opposition are necessarily better or more competent.

This is where I stick my neck out for my country. I'll take the flak, I'll take the criticisms, I'll take people calling me a PAP dog. As long as I can get even some people talking rationally and neutrally about the state of Singapore politics, I believe my job is done.

Here on this blog, I intend to be the voice of The Silent Majority. The views that I will express will entirely be my own. Some in the silent majority might disagree, in which case, they're more than welcome to express their own opinion and in doing so, the objective would have been achieved because they finally speak out.

The empty vessels of our little city state have carried on their cacophonous refrain for far too long. This is the first step to constructive discourse.