A confused Aljunied GRC MP?
Saturday, 10 May 2008, 8:41 pm | 60 views
Andrew Loh
Earlier, Leong Sze Hian and I wrote an article questioning Aljunied Town Council’s (ATC) intention to raise its Service and Conservancy charges (S&CC) to address “hardcore litterbugs” in the “dirtiest precincts”.
On Sunday, Aljunied Town Council Chairman Cynthia Phua clarified that the town council will not be raising its S&CC.
However, Phua’s clarification is a confusing one.
It shows up the lack of communication between her, the chairman of the town council, and the officials at the town council (TC).
It seems that the officials at the TC did not understand the purpose of the “trash index” which ATC intends to introduce next year. They thought the index would be used to identify the dirtiest precincts which will then be made to pay higher S&CC.
But Phua now says that the index is only to be used to identify such precincts so that “the staff can clean them and residents encouraged to maintain cleanliness.”
Lets recap what the Straits Times reported Phua as having said on May 5 and her clarification on May 11.
Here is what Phua said on May 5 and on May 11.
May 5, 2008, Straits Times, “Aljunied trash index aims to wipe out litterbugs.
Conservancy fees may be tied to index, with dirtiest precincts paying more”:
TIRED of hardcore litterbugs, Aljunied GRC plans to start measuring the cleanliness of its precincts under a new litter index to be introduced in October.
Officials also said they will consider raising the conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them.
Aljunied Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua said that the index would be based on the cleanliness of lifts, the condition of public property and how large pieces of rubbish are disposed.
She told The Straits Times yesterday that the council would tie conservancy charges to the index only if it found an objective measure of cleanliness.
The plan is under consideration and would not be confirmed until next year, she said.
(Emphasis mine.)
May 11, 2008, Straits Times, “Litter index not linked to conservancy charges”:
Clearing the air yesterday, Madam Phua told The Sunday Times: ‘I mentioned that the litter index and conservancy charges can be linked in terms of dollar amount because there will be an increased cost to cleaning dirtier estates.
‘However, that does not mean that the Aljunied Town Council intends to link them. I would like to make it very clear that the Aljunied Town Council never had the intention of punishing the residents with higher conservancy charges.’
She added that the town council may use the index to identify the dirtiest precincts. The staff can clean them and residents encouraged to maintain cleanliness. The index has not even been drafted.
(Emphasis mine.)
This whole mini-fiasco brings into question the accuracy of what the ST reported, besides the confusing statements from officials at ATC, including its chairman’s latest clarification which itself is a confusing mix of rhetoric and contradicting statements.
According to Phua, the index can be linked to the S&CC charges – but ATC does not intend to do so.
Nonetheless, the index will be introduced next year.
Still, it does not explain why Phua said the following, if the ST’s report is accurate:
She told The Straits Times yesterday that the council would tie conservancy charges to the index only if it found an objective measure of cleanliness.
I guess we’ll all have to wait till next year to know the truth. In the meantime, it’ll be good for Aljunied residents to keep a copy of the two ST reports for future reference.
In the meantime, just take it that it was all an honest mistake.
Read also: Aljunied Town Council – Taking the easy way out?
——————-
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
someone needs to apologies - wither Mdm Phua or Straits Times - and apologise loud and clear. We cannot stand for this poor type of journalism, where singaporeans get more confused.
PS - congrats on your 1000000 readership.
This is trait of Singapore government:
“If policy does not confuse you, it is not effective. It is effective only if people just accept it and simply move on”.
Another trait is:
“To be or not to be but then things are not simple.” (But then when are things are simple for government. How come things are so simple when the coffers raised their millions dollars salary and talk Bullshit ?)
This is our pathetic government. Can’t even make up and defend their decision, and only how to make use of MSM to “move on”.
A statement to describe our government ”
A pile of weeds located in a pot of Bull’s shit on the street covered by ShittyTimes paper to prevent the sickening sight.
Andrew, this is a side observation: You might want to improve on your writing style and tone, so as to lend your arguments the authority that they potentially deserve. That at a minimum, distinguishes an amateur blogpost from an aspiring online editorial.
Hi Tankem,
Indeed I am trying to improve on my writing. I agree with you that I need to improve. Maybe I have to take more time writing a piece..
Nonetheless, thanks for the advice and I appreciate it. Will work on it, I promise… :))
Regards,
Andrew Loh
Pace yes, but also inspiration. I’ll suggest essays/journalism by literary writers - Martin Amis, Gore Vidal, JM Coetzee, Cynthia Ozick, VS Naipaul, Saul Bellow, even Virginia Woolf and DH Lawrence etc. (one can quibble which to list but that’s not the argument). Reading the bland prose of today’s journalists makes for retching occasions, and one seldom get more erudite a people than literary artists who write elegant prose. Better still, read their fiction.