Dumb letters, Pt 1
June 17, 2006
Upgrading is a unique programme by Govt
I REFER to the commentary by Ms Chua Mui Hoong and the letters from Mr Basant Kapur, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Yee Jenn Jong on the upgrading programme for public-housing estates (ST, June 13 and 16).
The writers argued that the Government has a fiduciary obligation to act on behalf of all Singaporeans who pay taxes and serve national service. I agree. Indeed, the Government has provided all Singaporeans with good and affordable health care, subsidised public housing, equal opportunity to receive a good education, and much more.
However, the upgrading of our older public-housing estates is over and above these basic obligations of the Government. It is funded out of Budget surpluses generated by the PAP Government. No other government in the world has anything similar, in terms of scale and commitment.
>>Ahem, and the budget surpluses come from where? From the sky? Or from the taxes that everyone pays, including Opposition Ward Residents. Also- “PAP Government” subtly conflates the political party with the govt. They are not the same.
The PAP presented upgrading as one of its key programmes during the election. It asked for the people’s support in order to carry out these programmes. Having received a clear mandate, the Government will now fulfil its promise to the people.
Upgrading is a national programme that will be implemented in all constituencies. But we cannot avoid prioritising upgrading, due to limited resources. It is not a question of generosity or otherwise by the Government, as Mr Yee suggested. Between PAP and opposition constituencies, other things being equal, PAP constituencies will go first, as the Government had made clear before the election. Ms Lim herself noted that no one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, i.e. to jump ahead of PAP wards.
>> The question is, should upgrading even be offered as an incentive in the first place? Should not the sole criteria for upgrading be merit and not political loyalties? Again PAP & govt. is subtly conflated. It may be in PAP’s best interest to use govt. funds as an upgrading carrot, but is it in SINGAPORE’S interest to use partisan politics which is clearly divisive and unfair?
Ms Lim stated that election campaigns should be fought over long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans’ lives deeply. Again, I agree. Unfortunately, during the election Ms Lim did not ask voters to think deeply about long-term national policies and support the Workers’ Party because it offered better policies than the PAP. Instead, she told them to go ahead and vote opposition, even if they wanted a PAP Government and its policies, because they could safely assume that the PAP would win, anyway. If enough Singaporeans had taken her advice, the opposition parties would have ended up governing Singapore, even though at least two thirds of Singaporeans preferred a PAP Government.
>>Straw Man Argument. 1) The main platform of WP was to act as a check and balance and not really to form the next govt. Even the WP acknowledges this. 2) No one really is that naive to expect WP to win.
Hence, the need for the HDB upgrading-priority policy, so that Singaporeans’ votes will make a difference to their own lives in HDB estates, as well as decide which party will govern Singapore. Only then can our system of democracy work. Only then can we stay together, and move ahead.
>>Hmm, now the HDB is conflated with the govt. Should the PAP use the HDB, to achieve its political aims? Can you imagine what would happen if, say the Republicans used the FBI to to achieve its political aims? Anyway, the final sentence of the letter is deeply ironic considering that it is in defence of such a divisive and unequal policy.
Mah Bow Tan
Minister for National Development
