We refer to the announcement by the Ministry of National Development (MND) on 27 May 2011, that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) would henceforth permit void decks to be rented out to elected Members of Parliament for use as MPs’ offices to conduct Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) at the concessionary rates extended to non-profit organisations.

This announcement currently affects only Workers’ Party (WP) elected MPs, as PAP MPs employ PAP Branch Offices and PAP Community Foundation kindergartens for their MPS. While the WP appreciates HDB’s gesture, it is nothing more.

In order to properly assess the option, the WP sought further details of the brief announcement from HDB, to which the HDB replied via emails dated 10 June, 16 June and 28 June 2011.

In its replies, the HDB affirmed that it would not bear the construction cost of the office. In addition, the HDB also stated that MPs would have to pay for the reinstatement of the void deck to its original condition in the event the space was no longer required. The tenancies would also be from month to month for the duration of the MPs’ term of office.

The draft tenancy agreement furnished by HDB provides that the premises should be used for the Meet-the-People sessions and administrative tasks associated with an MP’s duties, and not for any other purpose except with the prior written consent of the HDB. While HDB’s email dated 28 June 2011 states that the MP may use the office for “some community activities, bearing in mind the space limitation”, there is uncertainty as to what kind of community activities would require the prior written consent of HDB, which consent can also be withdrawn at any time.

It is noteworthy that prior to 1991, all MPs were designated an office space at HDB void decks, before the HDB changed this policy. In 1981, the HDB built the MP’s office for the WP MP for Anson, J B Jeyaretnam. Mr Jeyaretnam initially conducted his MPS at a HDB void deck, and moved into the MP’s office built by the HDB upon its completion.

The WP has carefully considered the latest HDB’s change of policy as announced on 27 May 2011. The Party has concluded that it would be a financial burden to build offices for its MPS sessions at HDB void decks.

The six WP MPs are currently conducting MPS at eight locations (two each for Bedok Reservoir-Punggol and Serangoon wards of Aljunied GRC) to be accessible to residents. The construction of eight offices would be a significant expense, not to mention maintenance and other running costs. As WP does not have access to limitless resources, prudence dictates that WP be conservative in spending.

Some individuals have encouraged us to set up kindergartens akin to those under the PAP Community Foundation (PCF), and use these charitable institutions to host our MPS sessions. Singapore has already experienced the politically debilitating effects of kindergartens divided along party lines. This was raised by then Defence Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee on 24 Dec 1965 during the second reading of the People’s Association (Amendment) Bill. It is the WP’s current position that the encouragement of kindergartens and other educational institutions along party lines could inadvertently encourage the political polarisation of Singapore society.

In addition, in view of the constant redrawing of electoral boundaries by the Government, the long-term viability of the construction of offices for WP MPs is open to question. This is a serious consideration in view of the history of re-drawing of wards into and out of Aljunied GRC in 2006 and 2011 by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, without any explanation. Offices built by WP MPs today may be rendered obsolete in five years.

We thank the residents of Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC for their understanding of the situation. We will continue to monitor closely the comfort level of the MPS at the void decks and take appropriate action if needed.

The Workers’ Party
21 Jul 2011

———
Media Contact:
Pritam Singh
Vice-chair, WP Media Team
Email: media@wp.sg

Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew recently criticised the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposal for a not-for-profit National Transport Corporation to replace the current two listed public transport companies.

Mr Lui claimed that WP’s proposal had “serious downsides, chief amongst which commuters and taxpayers (yes, even those who don’t take public transport) are likely to end up paying more, and possibly, for a poorer level of service over time”.

He added that “it is the profit incentive of commercial enterprises that spurs efficiency and productivity improvements”.

Market failures in public transport

These are simplistic and tired old arguments about the virtues of private enterprises which fail to fully appreciate the economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.

Firstly, taxpayers who do not take public transport already contribute to the provision of public transport in the form of taxes that pay for the construction of roads, the development of rail lines and the purchase of the first set of trains on every new MRT line.

Secondly, public transport is an industry rife with market failures which the Minister seems to ignore.  The current regime where SMRT Corporation (SMRT) and SBS Transit (SBST) each provide both rail and bus services provides an illusion of competition.

The reality is that SMRT and SBST have clearly delineated areas of responsibility with no route overlaps.  This makes each of them a de facto monopoly provider in their own particular areas.

Commuters do not have the freedom to switch between providers whenever they choose to, nor do we see public transport operators (PTOs) fighting to acquire and retain customers like airlines do with promotions, discounts and loyalty programmes.

The monopoly status is also reflected in the consistent high returns these companies earn. Freed from the discipline of genuine market competition, they have few incentives to raise service standards and keep prices low.

To say that shareholder discipline will create such incentives is naïve at best, and wrong at worst.  Shareholders seek higher profits, not better or more affordable services.  The government must examine whether a public utility should be owned and operated by what are effectively private monopolists earning monopoly rents.

Mr Lui claims that the current regulatory regime is a “robust” one that does not allow operators to benefit at the expense of commuters.  This is a remarkable assertion once we consider the profits of PTO’s—$215.4 million last year alone.  The fines imposed for not meeting service standards pale in comparison to these profits.

SMRT and SBST have consistently enjoyed high returns on equity (ROE) of above 15 per cent.  For SMRT, it has been above 20 per cent in most years.  In contrast, the median ROE for a Singapore listed company is about 9.5 per cent.

A company that provides a public good should not earn such excessively high returns, as these invariably come at the expense service quality and benefits to commuters.  The overcrowded trains and buses show how companies which do not face genuine competition can increase profits and raise shareholder returns at the expense of the commuting public.

As a result of such profit-oriented behaviour, the two PTOs’ high returns have been enjoyed by their shareholders.  For example, SMRT has paid out close to 80 per cent of its net income in recent years. These generous dividends could instead have been used to provide better services or reduced fares. However, it is not possible for publicly-listed firms to do this, as their obligations are to their shareholders.

Public transport as a public good

Mr Lui mentions the “serious” downsides of a nationalised public transport system, while ignoring workable examples—even locally—where the government heavily subsidises public services or even provides services directly to the public.

Schools, for example, are mostly government run. Public hospitals and clinics are heavily subsidised.  Even public housing is subsidised by public money.

Yet when it comes to public transport—an essential service for the majority of Singaporeans—the government advocates its provision by listed corporations, whose first priorities are to their shareholders.
Public transport is a public good that serves a national purpose, in the same way as healthcare, education or public housing.  Thus running it on a cost-recovery basis will create positive externalities if it benefits the overall economy, for example, by getting people to work on time and in comfort.
In the face of the pressing need to provide this public good, it is clear that the present public transport model needs to be overhauled.

WP’s National Transport Corporation proposal

WP has, since 2006, called for the MRT and public buses servicing major trunk routes to be brought under a National Transport Corporation (NTC), which will oversee and provide universal transport services.
NTC should aim to provide safe, affordable, accessible, efficient and reliable universal public transportation services, on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery.  As a not-for-profit corporation owned by the government, NTC will serve the needs of the public and not that of listed company shareholders.
WP’s proposal recognises public transport in Singapore as an inherent monopoly and as a public good.  A well-managed NTC can provide superior outcomes compared to the present profit-oriented monopolies.  We would expect no less from NTC, in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, compared to the way any other statutory board is managed by the government.
To achieve these outcomes, the government should set stringent key performance indicators (KPIs) for the NTC.  These KPIs could include:

• Affordability of fares to ordinary Singaporeans;
• Containment of costs;
• On-time bus and train performance;
• Customer satisfaction ratings (through independent surveys);
• Percentage of public transport ridership;
• Productivity improvements and innovation.

To incentivise their performance, the bonuses and pay increases of NTC executives should be pegged to the achievement of such KPIs, and there could be negative consequences for not meeting them.  This will be more effective in ensuring service standards compared to the present regulatory regime, where the fines imposed on the companies for failure are a pittance compared to their profits.

Conclusion

The current model of provision of public transport has produced many undesirable outcomes, as evidenced by the “crush loads” experienced by commuters every day and the public outcry each time fares are increased.

It would do Singaporeans no good if the government sticks dogmatically to its narrow philosophy of the virtues of privatisation and the profit motive, without considering the true economic reality of the public transport industry in Singapore.

GERALD GIAM
Chair, Media Team
Workers’ Party

–
Workers’ Party Media Contacts:
Email: media@wp.sg

Gerald Giam
Chair, Media Team

Pritam Singh
Vice-Chair, Media Team

The Workers’ Party (WP) held its first Central Executive Council (CEC) meeting post-General Election 2011 on Tuesday 7 June 2011.

At the meeting, newly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Pritam Singh, as well as Non-constituency MP, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, were co-opted into the Council.

The Council was also re-organised as follows:
1. Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim
2. Vice-Chairman: Mr Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob
3. Secretary-General: Mr Low Thia Khiang
4. Organising Secretaries: Mr Muhammad Faisal bin Abdul Manap (new appointment) and Ms Ng Swee Bee
5. Treasurer: Mr Yaw Shin Leong (new appointment)
6. Deputy Treasurer: Mr Yee Jenn Jong (new appointment)
7. President, Youth Wing: Ms Lee Li Lian (new appointment)
8. Chair, Media Team: Mr Gerald Giam (new appointment)
9. Vice Chair, Media Team: Mr Pritam Singh (new appointment)
10. Webmaster: Mr Koh Choong Yong
11. Deputy Webmaster: Mr Png Eng Huat
12. Members: Ms Frieda Chan, Mr Chen Show Mao, Ms Glenda Han, Ms Jane Leong, Dr John Yam

Gerald Giam
Chair, Media Team
8 June 2011

The Editor
Straits Times Forum

Dear Sir,

I refer to Ms Indranee Rajah’s letter (‘WP’s fictional First World Parliament’, ST, 19 April). The Workers’ Party (WP) does not share Ms Rajah’s cynicism of democratic politics.

The fact that WP’s vision of a First World Parliament does not model itself after any particular developed country should not be surprising to Ms Rajah. After all, we do hear, ever so often, the People’s Action Party (PAP) proclaiming that it runs a First World Government. After which country’s government, then, does the PAP model itself? Does the PAP not instead trumpet itself as a model for other governments to follow?

Ms Rajah states that having Constitutional amendments blocked will be ‘preventing effective governance’. Perhaps she misread the media reports, which correctly quoted WP chairman Sylvia Lim as saying that opposition party MPs would vote against Constitutional amendments made for partisan advantage.

How many democracies have amended their Constitutions as frequently as in Singapore, in ways which fundamentally change the political system and power balance in governance? In fact, having another political party to defend the Constitution against amendments which are not in the national interest is fundamental to safeguarding the rights and interests of the people.

Ms Rajah suggests that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme can act as a check on the Government. A Parliament with NCMPs and without elected opposition MPs will be in danger of becoming a national feedback unit and not what it should be—an organ of state with diverse representatives, each carrying a political mandate from the people.

WP has explained its vision of First World Parliament to Singaporeans. How the First World Parliament will evolve eventually depends on Singaporeans—on how voters vote. The PAP would understandably want to muddy the waters and cause confusion. We believe that Singaporeans are educated and mature enough to see through this.

GERALD GIAM YEAN SONG
Executive Council Member
The Workers’ Party

To the ST Forum Editor

Chen Show Mao

I refer to the letter by Dr Ng Eng Hen entitled “Writer’s query on Chen reasonable, says PAP” (19 April).

Voters have every right to scrutinize candidates. However, Dr Ng must know that, even before Chen Show Mao has been formally introduced as a potential WP candidate, he has already been interviewed extensively by various mass media, including Lian He Zao Bao, The Straits Times, Mediacorp TV and most recently, The Business Times. His responses to questions about his decision to return to Singapore, and his motivations for joining the Workers’ Party (WP), have been widely reported. At WP’s formal candidate introduction, there will again be opportunities for the media to pose questions to him.

The fact is that Show Mao’s roots are here. His parents have lived here since 1972. His only sibling and her family are here. He attended our schools, and voluntarily underwent National Service as an infantry officer before he became a citizen. Though he has been abroad due to the nature of his work, he has returned to Singapore typically 4 to 5 times a year, and made contributions to Singapore such as serving on the Advisory Board of the Singapore Management University Law School. He has also said that his wife and children will be joining him in Singapore permanently, and has committed to continuing political work here, regardless of the outcome of the elections.

By again raising the question of Show Mao being outside Singapore for a long time, is the PAP signaling to Singaporeans that the return of a successful Singaporean is not welcome? Or is his loyalty being questioned simply because he is with WP?

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN, WORKERS’ PARTY

To ST Forum Editor,

I refer to the letter by Ms Lee Hwai Jiin entitled `Full voting rights?  Sure, get elected’ (ST April 16).

My comments on the different voting rights between Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) and elected MPs were made precisely to highlight that the two offices are not the same.  I was not arguing for equivalent powers for NCMPs.

The public should therefore also not be confused that having opposition NCMPs is the same as having opposition elected MPs, nor buy into the ruling party’s exhortations in this direction.

If the public wants a more direct and effective check on the ruling party, they should elect opposition MPs who will provide political competition, both in Parliament and on the ground, so that Singapore will have insurance for the future if the ruling party declines.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN, WORKERS’ PARTY

Dear ST Forum Editor,

First World Parliament

I refer to the letter by Eugene Tan (ST 13 April) entitled: “UK, US? Give him a S’pore MP anyday”.

In responding to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) campaign slogan “Vote Workers’ Party – Towards A First World Parliament”, the writer has misunderstood the term “First World” used in the slogan.

It was made clear at the launch of the slogan that WP is not taking any particular developed country as a model. Singapore should evolve its own model which works for Singaporeans. WP’s vision of a First World Parliament was detailed in our media release and Manifesto, as a robust institution which works in the national interest by functioning as a strong watchdog and check on the ruling party. This can be the case even when one political party has a clear majority, so long as there is at least one other party with a significant presence to have political weight as a check.

A First World Parliament would consist of MPs from different political parties with a mandate to represent their constituents. The national interest is served because the government is kept on its toes, thereby promoting good governance. There would be more rigorous scrutiny of government policies, promoting transparency and accountability. Singaporeans would also be building insurance for the future, having established a political party which can develop into an alternative, capable of taking over in the future should the PAP fail.

There is an urgent need at this stage of our nationhood to return to fundamental principles of governance, and ask whether the huge imbalance in PAP dominance in Parliament is good for Singapore in the long run. PAP MPs are subject to their party whip, and they must support government agenda. How far can the government be held to account with an 82-2 majority in the PAP’s favour now?

Even PAP Ministers have acknowledged in recent weeks that a strong, credible opposition is good for Singapore, and that stronger competition just meant the PAP had to work harder. Surely Singaporeans would benefit from having a government which works harder, and from a credible opposition which works in the national interest and does not oppose everything for the sake of it.

Eventually, what shape the First World Parliament takes will depend on Singaporean voters. WP is offering its vision to Singaporeans for their assessment and decision.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN

To: ST Forum Editor

I refer to the letter by Benjamin Chow titled “About Chen: Time will tell”.

Mr Chow has cast aspersions on Chen Show Mao, questioned his motives and concluded his letter with “only time will tell”.

I agree that many things in life are proven by time. There is a famous saying in Chinese, “路遥知马力，日久见人心“. However, why does this apply only to Chen Show Mao and not the PAP’s new candidates as well?

Show Mao has been in contact with the Workers’ Party since 2007. He has participated in WP’s ground outreach such as Hammer sales and other party functions. He is not returning only when “the pickings are ripe” as baselessly accused by the writer.

Show Mao’s decision to come home and stand for election as a Workers’ Party (WP) candidate should be seen in a positive light. There is no certainty that he will win the election. He is at the peak of his career and has nothing to gain being on an opposition ticket. WP is glad that we are able to attract good people today and provide a credible choice to the voters.

Show Mao’s decision has also helped raise the political interests of many Singaporeans including those based overseas. It also stirred an “apolitical 50-year-old native citizen” to write to the ST forum page. This is indeed the positive impact Chen Show Mao has generated.

Low Thia Khiang
Secretary-General
Workers’ Party

We refer to the remarks by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong (SM Goh) as reported in the Straits Times today, 28 Feb 2011.

In attempting to re-cast the boundary changes to Aljunied GRC as more disadvantageous to the ruling party than the opposition, he stated that opposition candidates “have no roots, they can go anywhere” whereas the ruling party candidates would need to cover areas which might be new to them.

It is well-known that the Workers’ Party’s (WP) roots are anchored in the Hougang area and the Party has been working consistently for many years on the ground there and in the contiguous areas. The precincts in Hougang Ave 8 cut out of Aljunied into Ang Mo Kio GRC are in the heart of WP’s root area.

In contrast, the adjustments to be made by the People’s Action Party (PAP) are minimal, as they can leverage on the vast grassroots network of Residents Committees and Citizens’ Consultative Committees under the People’s Association in every part of Singapore, funded by taxpayers’ monies. By comparison, the Workers’ Party works on more limited resources and roots itself in more localised areas.

The shift in the Aljunied GRC boundaries is significant, given the fact that 29,307 voters from WP’s root area next to Hougang Constituency have been largely drawn into Ang Mo Kio GRC, and replaced by 19,549 voters from Marine Parade GRC.

As regards his chilli crab stall analogy, SM Goh must be aware that he is one of the 3 most well-known chilli crab stall operators, besides Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, operating chain stalls all over Singapore in the form of the GRCs (Group Representation Constituencies). WP admits that it is no match for the PAP in this chain-stall setting. The use of the analogy is therefore a red herring to confuse voters that the changes to the boundaries are fair and even “actually disadvantage the PAP more than the opposition candidates”.

The Workers’ Party believes that Singaporeans can judge for themselves.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN

28 Feb 2011

I refer to the Straits Time Insight report on Hougang Constituency published on 24 September 2010.

Mr Eric Low said, “at every wake, he would send a blanket from the town council”. I would like to clarify that blankets and donations to families of deceased residents are given in my personal capacity as MP for Hougang to offer my condolences, not from the town council.

He was further quoted to have invited me for the meeting of HUDC cluster privatisation, to which I have replied, “too busy and didn’t want to come”. Mr Eric Low had brought this up in a conversation when we met at a lunar seventh month dinner. Never had it crossed my mind that a brief casual conversation was actually an official and important invitation to a formal dialogue session and not a grassroots meeting. In any case as I understand it, the dialogue session was organised by the People’s Association (PA) and Mr Eric Low was invited as the Guest-of-Honour. I was not informed nor invited to the meeting by the PA.

Next came the most intriguing point raised in the report, and I quote: “When the opposition lose in PAP wards, where do they go to? Do you see them in the PAP wards?”

These words and the underlying meaning behind them show exactly the kind of political system we have in Singapore.

Let me touch on the first point: “Where do they go to?”

When a PAP candidate loses the election, he is appointed or will remain as “Adviser” to the grassroots organisations. He heads the Community Club (CC) and nominates or endorses members of the Residents’ Committee (RC) whose activities are co-ordinated and routinely administered by the PA which is funded by government budget.

At the party level, he is in charge of the PAP’s branch in the constituency which is closely affiliated to the PAP Community Foundation (PCF). The PAP party office is usually located inside the premises of PCF, which is registered as a charitable organisation and runs pre-education classes for residents in the ward. The PCF premises are granted “concessionary rent” by the HDB.

To summarise, when a PAP candidate loses the election, he goes to the CC under the umbrella of the PA and to his party office under the PCF, where he can conduct meet-the-people sessions in a proper office in air-condition comfort.

Now, when a WP candidate loses the election, he has to, quite simply put it, ‘roam the streets’ if he wishes to continue extending his reach in the ward.

When the WP narrowly lost in the 1997 General Election, the former Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, JB Jeyaretnam, wanted to continue to meet the residents of Cheng San GRC weekly to hear their concerns. This was held in a coffee shop but the coffee shop was soon branded as a place used for political purposes.

The second point: “do you see them in the ward?” makes a mockery out of our supposedly democratic political system.

We see the PAP’s presence in every ward, be it in their own or in the opposition’s.

Firstly, government initiated programs, such as Lift Upgrading Program and HUDC Estate Privatisation exercise, mandate the “Adviser” to play a central role.

The adviser is to assist in implementing privatisation of HUDC estates by endorsing the Protem Committee members and interacting with residents through dialogue sessions, house-to-house visits, etc. In the case of HDB flat Lift Upgrading, the Adviser is to announce the precinct being selected, preside over the exhibition in the ward and oversee the LUP working committee.

The elected MP has no say!

Secondly, the PA assists the grassroots organisations, which include the RCs, Constituency Sports Club, CC etc to organise social and community events and the Adviser is invited as Guest-of-Honour. This gives a great opportunity to the Adviser to be seen and heard by the people in the ward. The Adviser is also invited to other functions such as lunar seventh month dinner organised by the residents and to functions organised by schools within the constituency.

Thirdly, PCF, the charity arm of the PAP which offers nursery and kindergarten classes to residents, also invites the Adviser as the Guest-of-Honour for their graduation ceremonies. This is usually well attended by parents who live in the constituency.

Finally at the national level, the Adviser is invited to events such as National Day Parade, official ceremony of governmental events or campaigns, as well as, events such as the F1 Race.

As for WP, what options do we have? We have applied to Town Councils and CCs managed by the PAP to hold dialogue sessions and block parties for residents previously but these applications were promptly rejected.

Given such limitations, we can only try to enhance our presence in the various wards through house-to-house visits.

Unlike the PAP candidates who lost in the General Election, our candidates have to rely on our own limited resources amidst the constraints and obstacles hurled upon us.

Therefore, I am surprised to hear such sarcasm from Mr Eric Low “where do they go to?” and “do you see them in the ward?” The PAP puts in overwhelming resources to have their presence felt and is equally determined in quelling the opposition’s presence.

Singapore is supposedly at the crossroads of an era where many good things are happening in our country. We talk about the YOG competitive spirit and fairness. We talk about openness and democracy. We talk about empowering our people.

But are we truly promoting the spirit of competition? Can we truly be open with our views? Are we truly empowered?

Low Thia Khiang