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 Workers’ Party is pleased to note that the sub-prime crisis affecting Singapore is behind us and the economy appears to be on track to a healthy recovery.

The Workers’ Party is of the view that it is time for employers to reward workers for the sacrifices made during the economic crisis in the past years. The National Wage Council should review the current wage structure and propose an upward wage revision. The reduced employers’ Central Provident Fund contribution rate should also be restored.

It is noted that the Ministry of Manpower statistics show the employment situation has improved and the outlook is promising. However, the widening income disparity and upgrading of lower income workers to improve their skills and wages remain a challenge.

Although the government has pledged to improve the income of workers through a productivity drive and training, the workers must see real improvements in their employment prospects and incomes rather than simply being put on a treadmill of attending course after course.

Creating value-added jobs which will pay workers better is a key outcome of a successful productivity and training effort. In the long term, the only sustainable way to create value-added jobs is not just about enhancing productivity, but that of supporting continuous innovation.

To this end, having innovation and business incubators to house fledgling firms and ply them with ideas and contacts with financiers has proven successful in other countries to grow new companies and create jobs. For instance in the USA, at the University of Texas, the non-profit Austin Technology Incubator’s 20-year record grew more than 150 companies and created thousands of jobs. As Singapore’s economy moves, continuous innovation through new businesses must be supported, and facilitated by the government.

The Workers’ Party also notes that the conscious effort by the government to modify its policy and slow down the inflow of foreign manpower has somewhat eased the anxiety amongst Singaporeans. It has also reduced the tension and resentment on the ground. However overpopulation is still a concern. This is because it causes stress on our infrastructure and social facilities. Furthermore overpopulation also leads to unfair competition for the Singaporean Worker. WP will continue to monitor these issues.

In the midst of a positive outlook and relative optimism, the Workers’ Party salutes the Singaporean Worker who has again braved the economic storm and weathered the dark clouds by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We should move forward together as a nation towards a brighter tomorrow.

The Workers’ Party wishes all a Happy Labour Day!

Eric Tan Heng Chong
Treasurer
The Workers’ Party

I refer to the reply from the Minister for National Development’s Press Secretary on Tuesday entitled: “Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading”. I am responding to it as Mr Low Thia Khiang is currently out of town.

MND states that HDB’s letter published last Friday “should be read in conjunction with” the Minister’s earlier explanations to the media. This impliedly acknowledges that the reason given by HDB to Mr Muhd Yusuf Osman, who had pointedly asked why protocol seemed to be ignored when HDB worked with the unelected candidates in opposition wards to announce LUP plans rather than with the elected MPs, does not stand up to scrutiny.

It is not disputed that the LUP is a government programme. After all, it is to rectify a design flaw in public housing which does not cater for an ageing society. Given this imperative, the public interest should trump politics.

Mr Low’s letter was not about wanting credit for the programme. He has stated that he is prepared to work with the government’s appointees for the benefit of his constituents, and indeed has met the grassroots advisor several times over many months to give input on the LUP plans for Hougang.

It was HDB’s unjustifiable answer to Mr Yusuf – that the grassroots advisor was more appropriate than the MP to announce the LUP plans because he was able to gather residents’ input and marshal support for the plans – which compelled Mr Low’s response. HDB should have just given the real reason in its letter and not beat around the bush.

MND’s letter goes further to state that the LUP is funded from budget surpluses which Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating. However, the budget surpluses are hardly the effort of the government alone, as they include significant contributions from the public through taxes, levies and stamp fees, which the government simply reaps.

Finally, MND also appears to interpret the General Elections as an event where the only outcome which matters is who forms the government. This shows the respect the government has for the people’s choice of Member of Parliament, who is vested with the Constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.

SYLVIA LIM (Ms)
CHAIRMAN,
WORKERS’ PARTY

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”.

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

9 October 2009

Webmaster’s note: This is the full version of the letter appearing in the Straits Times Forum on 10 Oct 2009.

The Workers’ Party unequivocally condemns the fresh charges pressed by the Myanmar military regime against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Workers’ Party urges ASEAN, including the Singapore government to apply group pressure and influence on the Myanmar military regime to stop political harassment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and to free all of its political detainees.

The Workers’ Party further urges the pursuit of a peaceful and truly democratic process, to determine the collective will of the Myanmar people in their choice of government and the determination of their future.

Yaw Shin Leong
Organising Secretary
The Workers’ Party

The Workers’ Party strongly condemns the vicious and senseless act of terrorism in Mumbai, India, which claimed the lives of at least 195 people including 28-year old Singaporean lawyer, Ms Lo Hwei Yen.

We would like to convey our sincere condolences to the families of Ms Lo Hwei Yen and the innocent victims of the attacks.

Lee Li Lian
Deputy Treasurer, The Workers’ Party 

2008-12-04: Webmaster’s note – death toll has been revised to 188 (Straits Times: Gunmen used code names) 

I note that some investors of the structured deposit linked to Lehman Brothers are contemplating a class action suit against the financial institutions (FIs) concerned, despite MAS’ advice to lodge their complaints with the individual FIs, and then with the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre or Fidrec which will now hear cases involving $50,000 or more. I am concerned that such investors may end up paying huge legal costs. In my view, seeking legal redress should only be resorted to if investors are unhappy with the ruling by Fidrec.

Many of these investors are uncertain and lack confidence in what the FIs will do with their complaints and whether they will be treated fairly, as inherently the FIs would also be concerned to protect their own interest.

I urge the MAS to issue a detailed standard guideline on how the individual FIs should handle the complaints and publish the process involved i.e. how the complaints will be classified, what possible outcomes investors can expect, as well as the procedure for further recourse to Fidrec should they disagree with the decision of the FIs.

MAS should also require the FIs and Fidrec to set a time frame for handling such cases before them, so that affected investors have some certainty to allay their anxieties and to decide at which point of time they should consider other options.

Low Thia Khiang
MP for Hougang
22 October 2008

The Workers’ Party is greatly saddened to hear of the passing of our immediate past Secretary-General, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, early this morning. 

Mr Jeyaretnam’s commitment and contributions to public service are well-known.  

After leaving the Subordinate Court judiciary as District Judge and First Magistrate, he went into private law practice, where he represented many clients of limited means, particularly in cases of public interest.

In 1971 Mr Jeyaretnam rejuvenated the Workers’ Party by becoming its Secretary-General. He then led the Party to contest successive General Elections since 1972. In the 1981 Anson By-Election, his 6th electoral contest, the voters elected him as the sole opposition Member of Parliament, rupturing the ruling party’s total control of Parliament since Independence. He was re-elected in the 1984 General Election with an increased majority. Even though he was disqualified from office in 1986, he remained committed to the cause of democracy and empowerment of the people, contesting in the 1997 General Elections as part of the Workers’ Party team in Cheng San GRC, thereby becoming Non-Constituency Member of Parliament until 2001. 

Despite the difficult political environment under which the Workers’ Party operates, and bearing the brunt of the ruling party’s attacks as the Party’s Secretary-General, he led the Party through a number of crises and assured WP’s continuance on its political path.  

Throughout the decades, Mr Jeyaretnam has remained unflinching despite the many obstacles he faced and the sacrifices made by him and his family.   

The Workers’ Party mourns the passing of a giant in Singapore politics and sends its deepest condolences to Mr Jeyaretnam’s family on their bereavement. 

LOW THIA KHIANG
SECRETARY GENERAL
30 Sep 2008

We refer to Mr Seng Han Thong’s reported response to WP’s Labour Day press release.

It seems that Mr Seng, a labour MP, has conveniently forgotten to address WP’s questions about his ex-boss Minister Lim Boon Heng’s insensitive comments. Instead, he side-steps them by querying whether all employees of Hougang Town Council (HGTC) are Singaporeans.

For the record, the staff of HGTC are all Singaporeans. However WP recognizes the contribution of foreign workers and is not against their employment. For instance, HGTC does not object to its contractors deploying foreign workers in the estate.

The WP Labour day message raised three issues pertaining to workers in Singapore in view of the changing economic circumstances, the government policy on foreign manpower and the government’s attitude towards the employment of foreigners.

WP said, first, the government’s attitude should be to put Singaporeans first; secondly, we should resist any erosion of Singaporeans’ societal standing; and thirdly, it is the government’s responsibility to show compassion for the plight of the workers facing the pressure of high inflation.

Therefore, the issue here is not of foreign workers’ employment per se but rather how the Singapore Government and the Labour Union will ensure that the dignity and societal position of Singaporeans workers are not compromised in view of globalization and labour mobility.

Yaw Shin Leong
Organising Secretary
The Workers’ Party