This is a press release of the Worker’s Party. Low Thia Khiang is the Secretary-General of the Worker’s Party and the MP for Hougang.
I refer to the HDB’s reply to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP ) in opposition wards published today, titled “Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading”.
[Left: Upgraded elevators in a HDB block. Lift A (LUP) stops at all floors, while Lift B (older IUP/MUP) is an aesthetic update that continues to stop at selective floors. Photo Credit: Mailer_diablo]
The HDB deems it appropriate for the grassroots advisor to announce the LUP because “the adviser gathers input from residents, thereby ensuring that the programme’s plans meet residents’ needs”. The HDB further states that the adviser can propose changes based on residents’ feedback, and seek residents’ support.
On what basis does the HDB assume that the elected Member of Parliament, who has the support of the electorate in the constituency, is unable to do the same thing and is therefore not appropriate to play the same role as the adviser?
The HDB also said that the Town Councils have an in-depth knowledge of the schedule and status of the works in the estate and can co-ordinate other projects in the estate to minimize inconvenience to residents. Why is it, then, that elected opposition members, who are also chairmen of the Town Councils, are deemed less appropriate to announce and to manage the LUP?
Moreover, Town Councils are required to co-pay for the LUP whereas grassroots organizations are not. Why is the chairman of Town Council, the elected MP statutorily responsible for the management of the Town and who must decide to pay for the LUP, deemed to be inappropriate to play a leading role either in announcing the program or in the working committee?
In the concluding paragraph, HDB stated that they understood the advisers are ”working closely with the town council chairmen, that is, the respective Members of Parliament….” In other words, the role of the elected opposition Member of Parliament in this process is relegated to one which is administrative in nature, perhaps merely to authorize payment for the LUP from the Town Council funds to the HDB.
This is the manifestation of the government’s attitude towards elected opposition Members of Parliament, which is, that they are not representative of the constituency but the grassroots advisers are, despite the fact that the grassroots advisers, who were candidates of the People’s Action Party (PAP), were rejected by the voters at elections at Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I understand the LUP is essentially the government’s program although chairmen of opposition Town Councils have to agree to co-fund the program. I suppose the ruling party, the PAP, would want their potential candidates in the next election to claim credit for the LUP, although the money does not come from either the PAP or the grassroots organization. This is playing politics.
I am open and prepared to work with anyone from the government or its appointees for the benefit of my constituents. It does not matter what role I play or that I am seen to be cooperative with the government, so long as the will of the people at the election which returned me as their representative to Parliament is respected.
I feel compelled to respond to this issue because the justification given by the HDB for the role of advisers in opposition wards in LUP touches on the fundamental issue of respecting the will of the people expressed at elections. The elected representative in opposition wards in this instance is reduced to performing a municipal function as chairmen of Town Councils. This speaks so 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
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
They have FAILED the citizen – period !
1) Approving the increase in public transport to benefit a few but cause hardships to thousands – where is the HEART ?
2) How to reconcile earning thousands per day ( cutting ribbons ) to those who earned below $1000 a month ( slaves to employers ) – where is the LOGIC ?
3) They are voted in to take care of the people and not only think of the material
aspect of a few – where is the COMPASSION ?
Blatant profiteering from citizens in their daily lives !
Mountains of greviences ignored and later forgotten !
WORDS ARE CHEAP – Where is our RIGHTS !
I say PAP should keep their pork-barrel politics.
That way enough people would be pissed off to effect
a real change at the next GE
A PR disaster for the PAP is a PR coup for the opposition
To Lim Yuin Chien [Press Secretary for Ministry of National Development],
Your letter [ST Forum, 13 Oct] is not a satisfactory explanation, as it misses completely the crux of the argument put forward by from Muhammad Yusuf Osman [ST 7Oct] which is that the elected MPs for Potong Pasir and Hougang should be the persons to announce the lift upgrading exercise for these constituencies.
Messrs Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low are the outcasts where these two constituencies are concerned and if there is anything to be announced affecting their residential estate the people would rather hear it from the MP they elected, rather than from an individual they officially rejected.
The response initiated jointly by HDB and PA is another example of an attempt that has evidently missed out on the broad picture, presumably because partisan politics is an inherent practice of PAP-controlled institutions.
Your letter states, inter alia, “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 the Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan’s explanation to the media last Wednesday.” Why should the letter from HDB and PA be read in conjunction with MBT’s comments? If HDB and PA had wanted their letter to be read this way why didn’t they state so in the letter? MBT’s explanation was made two-three days earlier, on the same day that Osman’s letter was published.
Your assertion “Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies” is only partially true. While opposition MPs may not be obliged to carry out certain Government’s policies, as MPs they are expected to explain, if necessary, to their electorate any public policy that affects them.
It is not a matter of dispute that cost of lift upgrading for HDB blocks is funded principally by money from public coffers. And such money – being public funds – is to be spent for the common benefit or good of Singaporeans. Do you agree? And do you agree that it was wrong of the Government to say, as it did some time ago, that priority for lift upgrading for HDB blocks should be accorded to those with PAP MPs? The people of Singapore may have voted the PAP into power but they expect the Government to treat all Singaporeans with fairness.
Your assertion “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” is clearly a strawman, and therefore useless as an argument point. Nobody who is rational would think that by having ten opposition MPs in ten constituencies we are having ten separate local governments. Maybe, you are an exception?
This government is morally bankrupt and its days will undoubtedly come to an end.
[a modified version has been sent to The Straits Times Forum, 14 Oct]
I think Singapore has a lot of similarities with China: -
China is the best disguised capitalist society in the world whereas Singapore is the best disguised communist society in the world.
AGAIN!, there IS only 1 way out.
Many Singaporeans were upset with the fact that Mr Sitoh Yoh-Pin and Mr Eric Low were the ones who announced HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang instead of Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang who are the respective MPs for the wards.
I think the fault lies in mis-reporting by rookie reporters. Here are the sequence of events to the best of my knowledge to let everyone know that Mr Sitoh, the advisor to Potong Pasir CCC, is merely carrying out his duty as the PAP representative in Potong Pasir acting as the messenger. The groundwork prior to his announcement was very much carried out by the Potong Pasir Town Council.
June 09- Members from Potong Pasir Town Council ( Town Council Board Committee members including Chairman Chiam See Tong, 3 grassroot residents, SPP members and TC Senior Management) met up with HDB senior officers regarding the LUP at the HDB Hub. HDB management shared the plans with us and listened to some of the Council’s views.
Mid July 09 – Minister of State Ms Grace Foo announced that Potong Pasir and Hougang will be included in LUP.
August 09 – Potong Pasir Town Council deliberated on which blocks to be nominated for the first phase of the lift upgrading. Priority was given to blocks 101-110 as the other blocks have already gone through some inconvenience with last year’s R& R and the council felt that these blocks should be given a break from any construction work for the time being.
The selected blocks were then submitted to Potong Pasir CCC for their “endorsement”.
By this time, most residents of Potong Pasir already know about the impending upgrading.
So when Mr Sitoh announced the plans last week, it was almost a non-event for most of the residents. In fact its nice of him to administrate the rest of the process. Representatives from PPTC will be involved in the committee that is set up by Mr Sitoh’s team to administrate the upgrading.
Wilfred Leung
SPP, Office of Chiam See Tong
Town Councillor, PPTC
Wilfred,
Your letter makes it sound like PAP and HDB have been magnanimous
and accomodating.
There was no misreporting by reporters,and what make you think they
were ‘rookies”?
I suggest you reread and analyse the letters and remarks by
LTK, MBT, HDB and the PS to MND recently and by GCT during
the last GE
That wasn’t the impression most netters felt.
Hi Wilfred,
Your reply makes my heart glad. This shows opposition parties like SPP can be magnanimous and work for the people and not care who gets the credit. Unlike PAP who tries to squeeze every political credit out of every action.
However, credit must be given when credit is due and this credit should be given to Mr Chiam See Tong for his unrelentless championing for the improvement of the estate of Potong Pasir. I am glad that the residents of PP knows about this.
Kudos to your party and all the best to Mr Chiam’s health.
Thank you Mr. Low! Most of our grassroots leaders’ are under PAP, and PAP has all rights to use their pawns, agree?
The lifts are working. MPs are still pawns. Nothing changed. May I suggest we turn our attention to more urgent issues please?
Like, emergency evacuation plans for high-rise and HDB buildings in the event of a quake or something? Why are they not planned out? HDB – what say you? Town council – what say you? MP – what say you?
I say this because I was the only one in the whole HDB building to feel the floor shake on Sept 30th. I came outta my house and asked my neighbours. None felt anything! I tweeted my experience:
http://twitter.com/qutequte/status/4494067160
http://twitter.com/qutequte/status/4494054882
4 hours later the news reported about the quake in Indonesia. What and where are our evacuation plans? Will the lifts be of any use for emergencies? What should we do? How do we communicate evacuation plans to our neighbours?
I learned that WP did a FREE lift adding to 5 HDB blocks in 2005.
There were appilication to add new lift without charges to 22 more blocks when 2006 GE was called. HDB left these application stuck in KIV tray, pending for election result.
Eric Low lost again to Low Thia Khiang and MA Bow Tan changed the game rule right after the 2006 GE, he said that all town council must maintian proper fund minimum margin and therefore all life adding must be charged to resident.
Once again, PAP changed rules in the middle of the games, especially when they failed to accomplish their belittled opposition rivals could do.
This is less than a level play and hence, PAP has lost its credibility in the hearts of HG residents。
The main stream Straits Times, did not run the story on this…. 无耻！
Mr Low Welcome you competition Aljunied GRC for 2011 election I’v been wating for you to take
care our GRC since last election.
You & Ms SL done a good job in the parliament for the singaporean.
I will fully support your A team in this Election. You make a right move to this GRC.With your good leadership WP become strong and forceul. Please chase away the people with white & white from this GRC
Chen Show Mao I agree what you said a team that we are seding the world cup is the national team notis the team that wear red & white .It’s not the team wears white & white.
I wating your team to serve our GRC after this election.
YOU HAVE TEN VOTE FROM MY FAMILY—–SUPPORT,SUPPORT,SUPPORT ALL THE WAY.
Your Sincerely
Kel
Just now two so call foreign talent ask me,”is there any place to sleep after lunch time around here?”And i answer them in a very TRUE BLUE Singaporean way,”In Singapore we do not slep at work,we WORK.”..then make me thinking why are we employing these so call foreign talent here to sleep,when they are employed to work here…WE SINGAPOREAN are the talent…