Following the Conference of Organisers held on 4 Jul 2010, the Workers’ Party new CEC held a meeting on 6 Jul 2010 and decided upon the following positions:

Workers’ Party held a Conference of Organisers on 4 July 2010 at the Party HQ and elected the following:

The following 13 Council members were also elected to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) : (in alphabetical order)

I refer to the press report on the subject matter on 17 June 2010.

SMS Grace Fu said the Lift Upgrading Program would add to the responsibilities and operational costs of town councils. However, we are talking about estate maintenance here. In the context of the TCMR, operation cost is not measured. In fact, newly installed lifts are less likely to break down and will have lesser maintenance issues. In any case, I am not aware of any town council that would embark on an upgrading exercise in its estate, such as building a swimming pool, under the IUP or MUP to significantly increase its responsibilities and potential maintenance issues.

I have been talking about Interim Upgrading program (IUP), Main Upgrading program (MUP) and CIPC funding for projects on this issue in relation to estate maintenance thus far. To clarify the issue, SMS Grace Fu should let the public know how much each town council has benefitted from the above upgrading programs cumulatively since the inception of these programs up to 2009.

I have asked in Parliament, and again in my press release of 14 June, for the information on the amount of funding each PAP Town Council received from the various upgrading programs to be made public. I am disappointed that MND has kept silent on this.

Based on MND’s written reply to my question in Parliament, the budget for the IUP was $4,000 per flat and the followings are the distribution of the IUP precincts by Town Councils:

However, the above funding is only part of the story. There are also other types of upgrading programs like MUP and IUP Plus, as well as CIPC funding for projects carried out by PAP TCs.

What I know is that the PAP government has spent huge sum of monies over the years to upgrade HDB flats in PAP constituencies, which in turn has benefitted the PAP TCs immensely. They could have saved substantial sum of expenditure in cyclical works and routine maintenance as a result. The savings would have contributed to the operating surplus and higher sinking fund over the years. These savings, when invested, would have further generated investment income for the TCs.

The public should know how much additional funding is given to PAP TCs directly or indirectly via the upgrading programs. Singaporeans can then judge for themselves whether this could affect the outcome of the town management and financial position of the town council.

The same press report stated that “only few arrears are written off”. However, I noted that in FY 2007/08, Jalan Besar, Tampines, Holland-Bukit Panjang and Hong Kah town councils wrote off $240,090, $172,468, $103,560 and $106,307 respectively. What is the cumulative figure of the SCCC arrears written off by each PAP TC over the years?

I refer to Senior Minister of State Grace Fu’s response to my comment that opposition Town Councils which had never received either IUP, MUP or CIPC funding to improve and rejuvenate the estate would be in a disadvantaged position compared to PAP TCs.

She was quoted in today’s press report to have said that “criteria for HDB’s upgrading programmes are clear and not all PAP wards qualify too.” And that “upgraded estate also faces maintenance issue as covered walk-way, for example, could need more effort to maintain than a clean patch of grass”.

SMS Grace Fu is sidetracking the issue I raised and attempting to mislead Singaporeans to believing that the PAP government is fair to all Town Councils including those managed by opposition parties. Is she saying that upgrading programmes has no impact and implication on estate maintenance?

Upgrading programmes such as IUP and MUP do not just build additional facilities like covered walk-ways as she mentioned. The upgrading programme also include upgrading of common areas like re-screeding of common corridor and replacement of lift lobby tiles as well as upgrading of playgrounds etc. One will not expect to find missing or worn off screws, nor floor mat being ripped off in new playgrounds. If the staircase railing is replaced with stainless steel railing instead of the existing mild steel railing inherited from the HDB as part of the upgrading program, one will not expect the railing to become rusty and corroded to become a maintenance issue.

SMS Grace Fu also said that “not all PAP wards qualify for upgrading programme” and that “how much a town council gets from the government depends on the number and types of flat, not whether it is run by PAP or the opposition.” The funding she is referring to is SC/CC grants. What I am referring to in my statement is funding received by the PAP TCs via upgrading progamme.
I have filed questions for written answers in Parliament twice, one in November 2009 sitting and another in April 2010 sitting asking for the amount of funding each benefitting PAP Town Council received from the various upgrading programmes. The answers given were the number of precincts upgraded at each PAP TCs and the estimated cost of the upgrading per unit. I am puzzled by this.

It is time the Ministry of National Development let the public know how much additional funding each PAP TC has received through the various upgrading programmes funded by the national budget or has benefitted from the programme up to the financial year 2009 so that Singaporeans can have a clear idea of which PAP TC did not qualify for the upgrading program as mentioned by Grace Foo. The public should know how much additional funding is given to PAP TCs via the upgrading programs and hence can judge for themselves whether it could affect the outcome of town management.

On the issue of SCCC arrears where the opposition TCs had exceeded the criteria set by the MND on TCMR. I noted that although MND had issued a “guideline” on writing off of SCCC arrears in 2008. PAP TCs had written off SCCC arrears. When SCCC arrears are written off, it is incomes written off and it will affect the bottom line. PAP TCs can do it perhaps they have more surpluses and are in a better financial position due to additional funding received through upgrading program? This is also why some PAP TCs are then able to use their own TC funds to help residents to pay SCCC arrears to reduce the number of months in SCCC arrears by way of offering part time employment. However, the more serious question is whether this is fair to other residents who pay promptly.

I would suggest two more new criteria for TCMR for MND’s consideration. They are funding either directly received or indirectly benefitted from government programmes to improve and upgrade common areas managed by town councils; and amount of SCCC arrears written off by town councils. Band 5 being for the most funding and SCCC amount written off.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, when he was the Prime Minister once threatened voters not to vote for opposition candidates as opposition wards would become slum overtime. Both Potong Pasir and Hougang have not become slums today after more than a decade managed by opposition parties and the PAP must be rather disappointed with the outcome. The result of TCMR is a consolation prize to them.

The power of Parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote.

The Vote18 Campaign is a public campaign organised by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing which seeks to raise awareness, advocate and kick-start a public discussion on the lowering of the legal voting age from 21 to 18.

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing believes that this is a meaningful and constructive cause to advocate as any change to the legal voting age will have wide-ranging implications on Singapore’s political system as well as the nation-building process.

Understand
You can find out the basis for the call by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing to lower the existing legal voting age from I am 18. Where’s my vote?

Participate
You can participate in this campaign now by taking a survey designed to find out your views on this issue.

If you believe that Singaporeans at the age of 18 should have the right to vote, to determine their future and to chart the path of Singapore’s future, this campaign is for you.

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing looks forward to your interest and support for this worthy cause.