October 14, 2009 by admin01
In a letter published in the Straits Times Forum on 13 October 2009,
the press secretary to National Development Minister Mr Mah Bow Tan,
Mr Lim Yuin Chien tried to explain why the LUP in Hougang was
implemented by the PAP grassroots adviser Mr Eric Low instead of its
elected MP Mr Low Thia Kiang. (read letter here)
Let us dissect and rebut the reasons given by him one by one:
1. "These programmes have to be implemented through government
channels. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers
to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government."
LUP has to implemented through official and not party channels. The
grassroots organizations should be non-partisan, apolitical
organizations staffed by civil servants or civilians with no party
affiliations.
Mr Eric Low is neither an elected MP or a member of the government. He
was appointed as a grassroots adviser by the PAP who is rejected by
the residents of Hougang in the last general elections.
A clear demarcation must be drawn between the party and the state. The
government of Singapore is not the PAP. Only the cabinet is made up of
PAP leaders while the bureaucracy as well as grassroots organizations
are supposed to remain politically neutral.
2. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they
obliged to carry out and explain the Government's policies.
Opposition MPs are answerable to the residents who voted for them to
be their representatives in Parliament. Therefore, the opposition MPs
are obliged to carry out and explain the government's policies to
their constituents.
In all the PAP wards, the MPs automatically become the grassroots
advisers. Why is there a discrimination here in non-PAP wards?
The question we should ask here is whether one needs to be a PAP
member in order to explain government's policies to the people.
Mr Low Thia Kiang has already indicated his desire to liaise with the
government to serve the people of Hougang and so HDB should implement
LUP through him instead of adding one additional layer of bureaucracy
through the PAP grassroots leader.
3. Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the
Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies.
It is not right for the PAP government to claim credit for the budget surpluses.
While their policies do play a contributory role, it is ultimately the
hardworking and thrify people of Singapore who is responsible for our
budget surpluses.
The residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir pay taxes like the rest of
Singapore. They should be given equal access to LUP too.
It is the duty of the incumbent government of the day to ensure that
all Singaporeans have a pleasant and comfortable place to live in
regardless of their political affiliations.
4. Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses.
There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP – a
national programme funded mainly by the Government.
If opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses,
then in what ways are the two losing PAP candidates responsible?
Hence, there is no basis for Mr Eric Low to lead the LUP too. Again,
who is responsible for generating the budget surpluses? It is the
people of Singapore and not the government who only plays a regulatory
role in the process.
The residents of Hougang have chosen to lend their support to Mr Low
Thia Kiang not only to represent them in Parliament, but to manage
their estate for them and therefore it is only right and legitimate
for Mr Low Thia Kiang to lead the LUP.
5. 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.
Singapore MPs serve two roles – one, to be a voice for their
constituents in Parliament and two, to manage the town councils which
is a form of local government for each constituency.
If the will of the people expressed in general elections is not to
elect a local government at all, then Town Councils can be outsourced
to private firms to run with no inkling at all to any political
parties.
Likewise in the PAP wards, the Town Councils are usually headed by the
grassroots advisers which are the MPs.
It is strange that HDB choose to liaise with PAP MPs while ignoring
the presence of opposition MPs altogether. Has HDB been instructed to
do so by the government?
Since Mr Low is in charge of Hougang Town Council, isn't it easier for
HDB work together with him directly instead of an outsider with no
business in it?
What if the opposition were to form the government one day? Will HDB
reverse the process and opt to work with government-appointed
grassroots advisers and not the PAP MPs?
This LUP fiasco is only part of a systemic flaw which has grown to
afflict our nation after decades of one-party rule: the blurring of
the boundary between the party and the state.
The PAP has used its incumbency to entrench itself in all levers of
the state from the bureaucracy, police to grassroots organizations.
As it control the purse-strings, it is in a position to curb the
growth of the opposition by hampering its work at the grassroots level
and punish Singaporeans who voted for them.
The folly of such a "practice" whereby PAP losers are entrusted to
explain and implement the government's policies on the ground is
easily shown up in the unlikely event that the PAP is reduced to a
minority government or voted out of power altogether.
We will end up in a situation where the non-PAP MPs are mere
figureheads in their constituencies while PAP losers continue to call
the shots in running the estates. Is this the way the will of the
people is being respected by the PAP?
It is time that the government defined clearly the roles of the
elected MPs vis-a-vis the appointed grassroots advisers.
Since the MPs have won the support of the majority of the
constituents, it follows naturally that they should be the grassroots
advisers and not non-elected personnel being parachuted from outside
by a political party.
It is clear by now that unless the incumbent is voted out of office,
it will be almost impossible for any alternative political parties to
serve the people who voted for them without impediment or harrassment
even in such a simple and straightforward task like explaining and
implementing the LUP in a small constituency.
No comments:
Post a Comment