While Dr. Teo Ho Pin may have accidentally leaked about the investments on SCC (service & conservancy charges), it’s anybody’s guess who told him to shut up (the sudden revelation that the TC accounts are “private and confidential” and that he can’t reveal anything else). And a guess can be right and it can be wrong!

Patriot said,”If there’s indeed such excess funds with TC, then stop taxing us as our salary would soon be cut (special effort driven by government and DBS). Maybe some will even loose their jobs next year!”

TOTALLY AGREE!

Another thing, TC said they have earn a sum of money about S$24 million throughout the investment period. Again, where is this profit go to? And are this sum of money reported to the government. And will government reduce the budget to TC due to this earning from this investment?

Can TC allow to investment in HIGH RISK investment using country money? Should someone needed to be responsible for this losses of Singaporean money? Should our Ministry be notify about this investment before it taken place? 8 million is not a small sum of money use to investment a HIGH RISK Invesment, moreover IT IS SINGAPORE MONEY.

Where is the TRANSPARENCY where PAP everytime told us. Should TC give us a Yearly Finacial Reports every year to let us know how & where they spend our money to?

A friend of mine finally has to attend court hearing as he was shown a lawyer’s letter for failing to pay the town council’s bill for almost six months due to lack of funds.

In the end, he has to borrow to pay off the bill or else they want to put him in JAIL!!! It’s a criminal offence not to pay your town council’s bill but they can use your money to wager on the stock market!

I have also heard of extreme cases whereby people go to jail for failing to pay excessive town council’s bills.

Sad case our country…

I am alright with our GIC handling our country reserves by investing, but town council…? Now i am quite perplexed. Are there ministries or government bodies having so much in their reserves also doing some investment too? In order to fill so many coffers in tiny Singapore, no wonder cost of living in Singapore is going up.

Talk so much also meaningless……like Jack neo recent movie mentioned Singaporeans only KPKB, complain and complain, with no action taken, slowly it becomes none of my business and the issue will die down eventually.

Furthermore, what the hack of this sanitary appliance fee for 2 fittings, shouldn’t that consider our home mortage when we purchased the so called subsidy flat. Lastly, waterborne fee, look i am ready sick of our government sucker mentality money driven strategy company.

They can and will come up just about anything and everything to collect any extras $$$ from the citizens, all these applies to all garment and semi-garment or related companies all these years since the last GE. So now you know who you would vote coming next GE.

The covered walkway, the fancy (but slippery) tiles at the void deck, the expensive designer playground are redundant for the average commoners. What I would like to see is the money being used to subsidize our poor old folks who live in poverty after toiling almost all their lives for Singapore. Why are we still asking them to work, work, work? Why not just spare a bit of that $1b as welfare for them? I’m appalled.

It is interesting to note that Town Councils actually use public funds to invest, and that there is $1billion in town council funds? It is appalling to learn that Town Councils, with example of Holland-Bukit Timah Town Council’s investments, should even invest using public funds that are meant for common area maintenance. In addition, nothing is done to pass back the huge amount of earnings back to the residents as savings. In fact, the conservancy charges seem to increase at every opportunity available, e.g. increase in GST.

On this note, with references to Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong’s letter on “Why higher fees for empty flat?” (on ST Forum, Sep 29, 2007), as well as the news article “Hougang Council Raises Conservancy Charges” (by Jeremy Au Yong on ST, on 3 Oct 07), I’m writing this letter to the Town Councils to query their rationale for the current differentiation of Service and Conservancy Charges (SCC) rates based on the type of flat. I opine that the logic behind this design is fundamentally flawed, as the system is not consistent with its very purpose for which it is used for.

1) Purpose of SCC. SCC that are “collected by the Town Council monthly are for the maintenance and enhancement of the common areas. This does not include collecting and removal of refuse.” (ref: http://services.spservices.sg/cs_faq.htm#Qn8b) Purpose of SCC is to provide for funds needed for the maintenance of common areas in the estate (i.e. the corridor, walkways, playground, etc). How then does each individual flat area fall under the definition of “common area”? Each flat is an area that is “privately utilised” by each owner. Unless Town Council is intending to maintain the individual flat’s premises, there is no grounds to include each individual flat area as “common area”.

2) Property Tax & Refuse Removal. Property tax is already differentiated based on the type of flat that one stays in, and this is consistent since personal property is not shared common land. Thus, it is fair that property tax be based on the size of the flat and its share value. However, there is no reason that the SCC, which is for the maintenance of “common areas”, should be based on the same principle used in property tax calculation as well. Likewise, the refuse removal charges for each property owner are paid to the SembWaste Pte Ltd in the monthly utilities bill.

As such, I think Town Council should be clear on what “common areas” constitutes. Common areas in the estates (in both private estates or HDB estates) are, as the name suggests, utilised by everyone regardless of the size of property they stay in. i.e. someone staying in a 3-room flat will also use the same corridor, same lift, same walkways, same playground, same void deck, as another person staying in a 5-room flat.

I opine that SCC, based on its purpose of maintenance of common areas, should be a flat rate for all flat owners regardless the type of HDB apartment that he or she owns.

I have raised this issue to Town Council since Nov 2006, but have yet to receive a satisfactory reply on this query. I would appreciate that Town Council will review the logic behind SCC (i.e. the “why” of SCC, and not the “what” of SCC), and correspondingly review the existing system of differentiated SCC charges.

Senja Link
Bukit Panjang

Furthermore, what the hack of this sanitary appliance fee for 2 fittings, shouldn’t that consider our home mortage when we purchased the so called subsidy flat. Lastly, waterborne fee, look i am ready sick of our government sucker mentality money driven strategy company.