By Gangasudhan
This morning a TODAY report (No hike, say some town councils) proclaims that “(r)esidents in at least seven People’s Action Party (PAP) town councils can breathe a sigh of relief for the time being”. Never mind that the article is celebrating a non-issue – the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) WILL be raised and it is just a matter of time – and distracts from the more pertinent question of how the residents affected by Aljunied and Jurong town councils’ decision to raise their S&CC fees will cope.
Never mind too that this feel-good article of no tangible newsworthy value is incomplete – apparently, “Hong Kah, Marine Parade, Pasir Ris-Punggol, Tanjong Pagar and West Coast – did not reply to MediaCorp queries by press time” and “Hougang and Potong Pasir town councils, which are under the purview of the Workers’ Party and Singapore People’s Party respectively, also did not respond by press time” (i.e. only 7 out of the 14 town councils who have not mentioned a raise in the fees were contacted).
Glaring Distastefulness
And whilst this latest report takes pains to remind us that Hougang and Potong Pasir town councils increased their S&CC fees in 2007 from “$2 to $9 and $2.50 to $8 per month, respectively”, it makes no mention whatsoever of the impending increase of 50 cents to $4.50 that happens within a matter of days in April 2010.
In spite of all these shortcomings though, two points in this article particularly stand out. Firstly, why are town councils being labelled according to the political party that manages them? Town Councils are agencies of the government and whether a member of the PAP manages one or even if an NMP manages one is just a matter of fact, not of consequence. To deliberately demarcate them throughout the article as ‘PAP town council’ or ‘SDA town council’ serves no purpose other than to create misunderstanding.
Do you see the terms PAP, SPP, or WP here?
It would be akin to a news report that keeps highlighting that the victim is of one race and the perpetrator is of another when the ethnicity has no impact on the crime itself. If the media itself is going to use this sort of ‘PAP=government; government=PAP’ rhetoric in its news reporting, then when will the masses get around to making that distinction?
The Amazing Mind of Politicians
The second issue in this article that hits you squarely in the face is MP Halimah Yacob’s observations that “costs incurred over the last few years mean that if we don’t increase the fees … our service quality will be affected”. The irony of this comment can be contrasted against our ‘consummate joker‘, NTUC chairman Lim Swee Say’s comment in parliament that “the cheaper are getting better, and the better are getting cheaper … the only option is to grow cheaper, better, faster“. If everything is getting cheaper and better, then why are costs going up then? Why is the CBF concept to ‘do more with the same people‘ not being applied to the town councils such that the residents benefit (where the real impact will be felt – with gratitude to boot)?
It is mind-boggling how the same well-paid and talented (or so we are told) people who can point out that “profiles and needs vary, and they will have different cost structures as well” – MP Hawazi Daipi (right), chairman of Sembawang Town Council and Senior Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Manpower, can fail to to extrapolate this simple and straightforward logic to the issue of workers’ wages. Just as the costs for town councils will vary according to factors such as age, location and background, so too will the Singaporean with a family of 4 to feed need a higher wage as compared to a young unmarried foreigner living alone here – immaterial of the ease or difficulty of the job concerned.
And just as the town councils headed by the very people who decide on policies in parliament do not write off or begrudge a mature estate that requires higher maintenance, so too should this same logic be applied to Singaporeans who have larger responsibilities and higher financial commitments as compared to cheap foreign labour.
____________________________________________________
Firstly, it is naive & foolish to expect the PAP and MSM not to equate the working depts & ministries with PAP and vice versa. LKY himself said that PA and RC entities are extensions of PAP. Heck the PAP will want all of us to believe that Singapore = PAP, and PAP = Singapore.
Secondly, how come no reporter or CASE fire hard questions on the sinking funds of town councils and how these sinking funds are being used? There is a total of $1 Billion of sinking funds, and for many town councils the size of their sinking funds can be equal to many years of operating expenses. If so, why is there a need to raise S&CC so soon after a recession? And many people are still in recession, still unemployed or in unstable jobs with lower pay and all.
Thirdly, the town councils should provide detailed breakdown of the costs and expenses. Show the previous costs and the new or projected costs. Are the cost increase due to internal staff salary increase or bigger bonuses? How big is the increase? Is it 8.8% like the ministers? Are the increases in contract costs for cleaning, maintenance, repairs justified? How did they call their tenders? It is open and publicly announced to whole Singapore e.g. on GeBIZ? Or just calling up the same old network of in-the-know companies?
In other countries, the press and consumer protection groups will be whacking for answers already. Even their politicians will be grilling the town councils. But I forget. We are uniquely singapore.
Wasn’t it just not too long ago when it was the Town Council that announced the lift upgrading projects, bypassing LTK? So.. if Hougang TC does raise its fees, what has that got to do with WP?
“Hougang and Potong Pasir town councils increased their S&CC fees in 2007 from “$2 to $9 and $2.50 to $8 per month”
Wow it is amazing that the Opposition wards can manage the upkeep of the estates with so little. PAP should really from these two wards. Under the PAP, the smallest 2 room flat pays $28.00.
Imagine if Hougang and Potong Pasir residents decide to vote in PAP, their S&CC will increase from $8-9 to more than $28.00…wow!
Imagine if Bedok or Toa Payoh were to vote for Oppositions, their S&CC will drop significantly…wow!
it is quite clear who has productivity and who has not ….
SG is a tale of 2 cities.
Singapore GDP to public debt is 110%.
UK is only at 70% and there is a crisis already.
Even if the economy were to grow at 10% next year, public debt will still grow at 2.5%.
Meaning that it is not going to even out in 2 years.
The funny thing is if our govt had really been fiscally responsible with budget surpluses, the debt ratio should have been at the level of HK which is less than 50%.
or Taiwan less than 40%.
How did this happen?
The govt will need to grow at 10% per year for 5 years in order for this ratio to go down to 60%.
Anyone think this is possible?
I think this worrisome statistics explain why the govt of LHL is trying to do without much success.
They have been driving GDP in the hope that this ratio will become smaller to the normal level.
The fact that GIC/TH loses huge amount of monies didn’t help them
Aljunied GRC in Bedok/jalan Damai/Tenaga area are repainting the blocks. It is still on going.
And Aljunied TC is increasing the conservancy charges after that. A smart way to recover at the expense of the poor residents.
mon, what is public debt? can elaborate?
Seow,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_debt
you can refer to this link to read about public debt. Also you may be surprise that Singapore is 5th in term of public debt only behind Zimbabwe, Japan, Lebanon, Jamaica
that is what i like about forums like this. We share information that will make us more aware of what is going on in the world and in Singapore. Only then will we be able to discern alittle better what the truth is and not just rely on what our leaders tell us
Mr. Hawazi Daiper, I think you’re too old, that’s why you’re unable to extrapolate facts correctly.
Why not apply “PAP MP Ong Ah Heng logic” and axe some elderly politicians in Parliament? :>
hi sgcynic,
i like your idea very much!! ^.^
@mon
can you elaborate where you get the statistic of 110%?
and if possible, who do we owe money to?
the number seems unrealistically high… we will have collapsed if that is the case.
mon Mar 11, 2010 15:48,
Hello, stop spreading unfounded fears. You don’t even know the context behind our public spending. So unfortunately, your “conclusion” is complete bullshit.
One sentence will debunk your conclusion – our public debt is smaller than our public revenue. Please look up what’s our revenue.
//Jack
Opposition wards have fewer amenities, bad upkeep and facade?
3 points:
1. it is not true they have fewer amenities and bad upkeep. Go around and check. Nobody here takes your comment seriously.
2. Some of the extra amenities are found in special wards where we have the pm, dpm there and more importantly hardly exploited by the locals.
3. you should go around Toa Payoh central in the mid night. You will rubbish every where and rats so big that cats do not want to catch.
//RW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
We are morally bankrupt already given the number of lies /statistics sprouted by our ministers.
If you look at the statistic, you will understand why GDP was grown at all cost during the last decade. Coz, without that this ratio is even worse. (although I think GIC/TH losses contribute tremendously to this ratio)
Also the minimum sum and the lowering of the interest rate are done to ensure that we the lenders keep lending to the govt while they screw us with FT policies.
It never occur to them that if we behave normal after the 90s, we would have increase our productivity so that this GDP growth is sustainable and of quality.
With their exploitation, if the old people die suddenly in mass and leave their fortune with the young who dislike S’pore and pack and leave, I tell you, the govt will panic.
As if the old living long is a problem.
This article has a great comment.
By extension, because the cost of a minister has increase in comparison with the past ministers, they must be worse than the past ministers because the better has become cheaper.
by extension, we can see that LKY has become worse because the better has become cheaper and LKY’s salary has increased over the years.
Is this LSS way of slapping LKY?
Seow, check the above website.
You will see the definition.
sometimes i wonder,are these so called politician still serving their citizens or exploiting them.
All SPH “journalists” are merely employees of PAP.
To even suggest that they are journalists insults the profession
Maybe the increase is necessitated by the loss in investments in mini bonds.
Not worth paying a single cent to the TC’s.An example, their foreign talent(Bangala) holds the broom but just sweep the air at my corridor,heart pain…
The TC’s which invested in the money bonds should already get their stomach-bloated refund.With that they should decrease the S&CC not increase it.
My friend Mon, don’t be so jittery. In Singapore’s case, public debt is a non-issue.
Singapore has budget surplus for countless years. That means that we earn more than we spend. So, there’s no need to borrow money at all.
So, why does Singapore go into “debt”? Well, for Singapore, debt is issued as a fiscal instrument. That means that Singapore issues these debts to regulate the supply of money, the interest rates and so on.
Singapore isn’t debt ridden. She doesn’t need that money at all. She’s just controlling the money supply and the interests rates. She can become debt-free overnight. But that would mean credit will be tighter for businesses and interest rates will shoot up.
The current system is not tenable.
We have people making 10K a month doing nothing and sleeping in parliament.
The pigs make a mockery of our parliament.
Why so surprised? The local mainstream media is nothing more than a ‘nation-building’ propaganda tool for the PAP regime. True journalism is about investigation and being a watchdog, about not fearing censorship, raids or forced shutting down when a piece critical of the incumbent government and/or its policies is published.
You folks who work for SPH, Mediacorp/CNA, especially those covering local politics, should be ashamed of yourselves. How does it feel to trade one’s conscience for a paycheck and sully the name of what was supposed to be a noble profession? How do you live with yourselves, you contemptible running dogs and poor prostitutes?
Thanks mon and swineflu
“Public debt can be categorized as internal debt, owed to lenders within the country.
” – I guess that means our CPF is one of the biggest lender. It surprises me very much as I thought our Government had been selling us that they are very prudent and every year except for last year that we had surpluses. The surpluses had also been “saved” for “rainy” days. I guess TH and GIC uses the surplus to invest and when that is not enough, they borrow from CPF. I know of a friend who has $5k in the pocket but he will invest $50k with high risk borrowings to maximise his leverage. He was not so lucky in the recent financial crisis.
abc Mar 12, 2010 0:52,
“Singapore can become debt-free overnight. But that would mean credit will be tighter for businesses and interest rates will shoot up.”
Sorry, I made a silly mistake. If Singapore decides to redeem all her public debt overnight (which she’s definitely capable of), the opposite of what I said will happen – credit will increase and interest rates will go down. This will result in credit-driven inflationary pressures in the market.
//abc
Budget surpluses must be kept somewhere.
Where is that? You mean releasing those surpluses will clear the public debt once and for all. I don’t think so. GIC/TH is not that big and selling the asset of TH once and for all, will depress prices.
Public debt is more than GDP means that we are living above our means.
The latest issues of bond by TH demonstrates that.
if your cash engine is producing cash that well, why borrow in US$?
especially when US$ against is so low against S$…
//seow and abc
I don’t think the surplus is the main source of financing for GIC/TH.
CPF is the main source.
That is why they kept trying to lower the interest rate for CPF and extending the withdrawal time and increase the minimum sum:
There are tools to :
1. lower the interest cost to them
2. force you to keep lending them your monies when they acknowledge that the interest rate is still too low, for a larger sum and over a longer time.
All the talk about HDB prices going up is crap. the fact it they wanted to keep it high:
1. to keep their banks safe coz they own them
2. to keep the prices of those condo and hdb flats whose prices had been sold expensive to stay high.
3. more importantly, to allow them to sell land at an expensive prices because the prices of existing and nearby condo and flats provide a minimum support for the bidding price for land.
Why does the govt need so much monies? Why does the govt wants to grow at all cost? Just look at the ratio you can get an idea.
Further evidence that the govt has no intention to lower hdb prices or to keep it stable in the long run:
1. take a look at the sky line in S’pore later, especially in the city center. You will not fail to see the number of condos which have been built over the last 2 to 3 years.
If HDB were to suddenly decide to build low cost housing at low rate quickly (if the private constructors can, I don’t see why HDB cannot build as fast), you will see a plunge in the demand of these expensive condos.
These condo used to bought by the rich and the foreigners. With Foreigners becoming new citizens, they can actually buy the new low cost housing, draining the demand of the new condos.
Then we will see a repeat of the year 2000-2004, where there are condo lying around where no – one buy because of over-construction.
That bankrupted (at least politically) Yeo Chow Tong.
MBt and the other pigs probably bought a lot of these condos as well. You think they will do that to themselves?
Their interest always come first. Never yours!
//Jack
To mask the external debt problem, Govt got TH to borrow monies instead.
It is all about manipulating your statistics as we all know.
Instead of losing millions of sinking funds to lehman bonds, why would not they instead use them alleviate S&C and other cost and not increase charges.
If oppositions can keep S&C charges at a fraction of PAP wards, something is very wrong?
Is TC another profit machine like GLC?
Foreign Talents and migrants and PRs go up.
HDB prices go up.
Ministers pay goes up.
ERP goes up.
COE goes up.
Everything goes up.
But wage is stagnant or comes down.
Despite all these crabs, they still win every election and people who complain like bitches still vote them.
Strange phenomenon….
//Jack
if public debt to GDP is not an issue, the british pound would not have sunked this low.
mon Mar 13, 2010 14:29,
“You mean releasing those surpluses will clear the public debt once and for all.”
I don’t understand “those surpluses”. You are referring to the reserve?
Mon my friend, there is no need to touch the reserve at all to clear public debt. The simple solution to clear the debt is : don’t borrow. Every year, the revenue is already more than enough to cover expenditure, so there won’t be any long term issue if there is no borrowing. Right?
mon Mar 13, 2010 14:29,
“You mean releasing those surpluses will clear the public debt once and for all.”
I don’t understand “those surpluses”. You are referring to the reserve?
Mon my friend, there is no need to touch the reserve at all to clear public debt. The simple solution to clear the debt is : don’t borrow. Every year, the revenue is already more than enough to cover expenditure, so there won’t be any long term issue if there is no borrowing. Right?
mon Mar 13, 2010 15:00,
“To mask the external debt problem, Govt got TH to borrow monies instead.”
The government has enough revenue to cover its expenditure. My friend Mon, why are you so adamant that Singapore is so hard pressed for money that we definitely must borrow by hook or by crook?
CPF is not an eternal source of cheap funds for a profligate government…
What happpens when our generation ages and starts to withdraw our CPF, then the debt which is owed to us will come creeping up and it will be Greece, Portugal and Iceland all over again
@mon, abc
thanks for the enlightening exchange on the topic. i asked an economist friend and was given the same answer- that singapore’s ‘debt’ is to decrease money supply in the market- because when they sell bonds, they soak up liquidity. it is merely one of the tools that the govt use to moderate interest rates.
i did a fact check on abc’s statement that if we want to, we can pay off our debts.
as it turns out, our GDP is 182billion, so 110% is approx 220billion.
checking MAS website, we have 187 billion in cash reserves (excluding assets).
http://www.mas.gov.sg/data_room/reserves_statistics/Official_Foreign_Reserves.html
so abc’s statement about paying off overnight is not totally true.
but we definitely can afford to pay it and are, in reality, not in debt.
because what we owe people is less than what we have.
think of it the same way as people selling their HDB and upgrade.
some people just simply prefer to keep the cash from the old house and take bank loans for the new house because they want to have cash on hand. those people are not in as much debt as you think because if they pay off with the cash they have, their debt will be much smaller. so it is just paper debt.
and this makes sense too- because given all this info is out there, we will have icelandic/greek panic by now if Singapore’s economy is borowing beyond its mean. The reason why trained economists and bankers don’t panic and run (given then info out there) is that they know it’s paper losses in reality. Put it another way, with KJ (an economist) in opposition party, if there is any merit to this argument, he will be the first to pick it out.
nevertheless, thanks for the interesting observation, mon.
Is there any interest bearing on the debt?
Any problem if GDP growth not sustainable in long run to meet the obligations carried with the debt?
RW Mar 13, 2010 18:51,
Thanks, RW. With due respect, I feel we can pay off that public debt easily.
Since we don’t need to use the money that we borrowed because we already have more than enough revenue, the borrowings must be sitting somewhere in the balance sheet.
Maybe it’s not in the reserve, but another item? Some liquid funds in statutory boards or ministries? I don’t know, but that’s just my deduction. Do correct me if I’m wrong. =)
TC should get NTUC to teach them how to be cheaper, faster, better.
Helping to post this article from a ASIAONE Forum about abuse by Town Council.
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=28272
AMK-YCK Town Council Abuses Singapore Citizen HDB Resident – 13-03-2010, 05:18 PM
I am starting this as a new thread to highlight this very serious case of abuse by the Ang Mo Kio – Yio Chu Kang Town Council and the Area MP Inderjit Singh’s not responding to this case because he is the AMK Town Council Chairman as double standards exercised by the PAP Government’s “highly paid” civil servants’ insensivity.
There are already two town councils trying to raise service and conservancy charges citing high costs of maintenance etc. I think this is an excuse to raise their own salaries of the CEO and their senior managers so as to keep “unique talents” who are there to carry out such abuse of Singapore Citizens.
Originally Posted by Dato Jude
One of my client was a bankrupt and did not pay his Service & Conservancy charges for the period of his bankruptcy. When he was discharged, he paid prompt and sometimes in advance. What happened was that the AMK-YCK Town Council used what he paid to settle the arrears incurred during his bankruptcy. That resulted in him being a current default and delinquent.
My client is a Singapore Citizen.
I helped him to draft the letter to the Auditor-General to complain about the acts of the Town Council. The reply from the Auditor-General was the usual “cut and paste” format. No need to elaborate.
I helped him draft the letters to his MP, Inderit Singh, setting out the case in proper perspective. That is, how can the AMK-YCK TC imposed penalty and fines on bankrupts for outstanding. It was clear that the arrears incurred during his bankruptcy. The Town Council’s position is that they are imposing the fines and penalty on “current” outstanding.
The next thing he got was a court summons under Criminal Procedure Code citing the Town Councils Act which attracted a fine of $1,000. I believed that the the Town Council chose to “charge” under the CPC and not the usual civil suit because they wanted to make sure they flex their muscles. The hatchet carrier is a lawyer, Jeffrey Beh from Lee Bon Leong and partners.
The MP for Kebun Baru was silent – he did not even bother to respond. The Town Council’s CEO, Wan Chong Hock, responded with “instructions from the Town Council’s chairman, i.e. the MP” citing the usual threats fo suit etc. and how to get the cancellation, i.e. pay the arrears and the fines penalty etc. More will be added if he did not pay.
The conclusion in the CEO letter was the usual please approach for financial assistance from the …. In short, “beg for mercy!”.
The summons and not a civil suit is definitely an abuse of power and I hope the CPIB picks this case up.
Asiaone Moderator, please highlight this posting in your front page.
Friends of this forum, please help to highlight the plights of the people who are now suffering from acts of civil servants employed by the elected PAP MP and the Government.
Some forumers IM me and asked why I used the word “abuse”. Here are my reasons:-
1. From the message posted by Dato Jude, he wrote that his client was a bankrupt and owed S&CC during his bankruptcy not when he was discharged.
2. The client paid promptly and sometimes in advance.
3. The Town Council used what was paid to offset the arrears. This means that the resident was in “delinquent” but in actual fact, he was current in his payment.
4. The Town Council filed a “criminal charge” under the Town Council Act instead of a civil action for non-payment. That created an offence which means that the Town Council has an “upper hand”.
The above are records of “abuse” of authority. The Town Council is an office created under the “Elected Member of Parliament”. So, the MP becomes the chairman and has a “conflict of interest” even if he pleads on behalf of the resident. He is already the “highest office” and so does not need to plead.
That laid on him the accusation that “he failed to take care of his resident” and that he endorses the acts of “abuse” by his staff, namely the CEO of the Town Council namely, Wan Chong Hock.
I have every reason to believe that this is a real story because the names are cited and I believed that tomorrow if Dato Jude signs in, he might want to add more detail to this story.
Thanks KayPoh,
I am a volunteer social worker. This is a REAL story. You can just do a summons check at the courts registry and find this story. I do not need to divulge more details. I have also come across other similar stories.
You will find to your dismay that the Town Council CEO does not answer or report to anyone. He is the BOSS! He can do whatever he wants even investment millions of the “sinking funds” in his control.
Spread the story and broadcast on all available internet portals. Bring down the hatchet carriers and make the Town Council CEO answerable for all his actions. For the two Town Councils that have annouced raising the Service and conservancy charges, make all the noise and file complaints for the slightest mistake.
@ abc
oh no, you are probably right.
the amount i cited are liquid cash reserves.
obviously there are investment in other assets probably in bonds, shares etc.
if you count those in, Singapore’s reserves will be much higher.
@Feverguy
Given the whole recent hoax thing, i have been a little more cautious about what i believe on the internet. Since your story is someone heard from someone, heard from someone, it is difficult to put too much stock in hearsay especially when the original person in question is not even the person who posted in the first place.
I pasted them all together you probably want to try the forum itself and read the whole story. I am not surprised that TC is willing to charge such cases under criminal proceedings that civil case. I just wondered how low can they go.
//abc
//Mon my friend, there is no need to touch the reserve at all to clear public debt. The simple solution to clear the debt is : don’t borrow. Every year, the revenue is already more than enough to cover expenditure, so there won’t be any long term issue if there is no borrowing. Right?
If that was the case, as we have a persistent budget surplus over the last 2 decades, how come this public debt didn’t get smaller but get bigger instead.
//abc
//The government has enough revenue to cover its expenditure. My friend Mon, why are //you so adamant that Singapore is so hard pressed for money that we definitely must //borrow by hook or by crook?
The govt do not have enough to cover future expenses.
That’s why they are not paying off the public debt and holding on to your cpf monies.
The size of the public debt has grown over the last 2 decades, contrary to what you claimed.
This begs the question, how come the govt didn’t choose to pay down public debt?
Also, our gdp is not going to grow like 10%. It is going to be like 3-5%. If the public debt is not paid down, our gdp to public debt ratio will take a long time to come below 100% if ever since we are paying interest on the public debt as well.
That’s why interest rate for CPF is reduced.
If GIC/TH were to be drawn down to pay down this debt, we will probably end up had to realise lots of losses.
To think that GIC/TH losses had nothing to do with the wellbeing of our economy is naive. Especially when the losses are to foreigners.
If the govt lose monies in S’pore, a large part of the monies is lost to S’poreans.
So no big deal.
But when the monies is lost overseas, the loss is to a foreigners and S’poreans get nothing.
We just end up working for the foreigners for free.
//RW
Thank you for the information about interest rate control which I had written on, primarily using land sale to suck up all the liquidity and to keep interest rate low.
The sad thing is if the govt were to pay down the public debt, releasing liquidity to S’poreans, interest rate will have to be increased.
That will hurt the GLCs who have been borrowing cheaply from the govt.
indirectly hurting the govt’s holding of the GLCs.
The value of the govt holding is probably not worth as much if the govt was to pay down the public debt.
If you think that having a gdp:public debt ratio>100% is a good idea, then we should be seeing that from many countries.
Too bad, it is not the perfect tool.
I didn’t even want to go into the detail how good our assets are …