Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first.
-
Think MBT's getting a buahing session in PM's office today.Originally posted by dragg:2015?
so they will continue to use this as a threat/carrot for the next few elections?
-
The way I see it, PM just called for all to unite and one of his ministers say divide.
If HDB is not upgrading say my flat but other flats, can I not pay income tax?
Those who want/get upgrading should pay the tax for it. Why should I pay, don't get upgrading and pay the minister's fat salary?
-
i dont need lift upgrading.
we have lift landings on the odd floors - 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15
why should i pay to build lift landings on the even floors? it does not benefit me. (i live on the 9th floor)
only those living on the even floors should pay.
the scheme is really ridiculous. residents on the odd floors pay the equal amount so that those on even floors can have lift landings. -
well, u can vote against upgrading of not benefiting u mah..
-
a lot of people want upgrading.Originally posted by Inzaghi:well, u can vote against upgrading of not benefiting u mah..
moreover there are a lot of old folks in my block.
kns, might have to pay for nothing. -
Those with lift landing on their floor no need to pay.Originally posted by dragg:i dont need lift upgrading.
we have lift landings on the odd floors - 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15
why should i pay to build lift landings on the even floors? it does not benefit me. (i live on the 9th floor)
only those living on the even floors should pay.
the scheme is really ridiculous. residents on the odd floors pay the equal amount so that those on even floors can have lift landings. -
i feel likewise.Originally posted by ditzy:Those with lift landing on their floor no need to pay.
when i bought this flat the advantage of having lift landing is already costed into the cash component.
i hope the residents on the odd floors will use some common sense when voting on the upgrading. -
Ah, so now you admit that your original answer was incomplete after all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Fudgester, don't you read the papers and follow the arguments, even if you disagree with them?
PAP estates deserve to be upgraded first because this project was mooted by the government, not by Opposition Parties who actually were against it at the time. Do your research
I do read the papers and the biased propaganda that they spew. However, the burden is on you to back up your arguments with YOUR research, not mine. When you put forward an argument, you should always assume that the guy reading it is a moron who needs you to explain everything to him. It is not the burden of the reader to have to do the research for you!
If I have to do research just to try to account for your answers, then that goes to show that your answers are incomplete. Just as in the tuition sessions that I give, I never give full credit for incomplete answers.
You're the one who's too lazy to back up his own arguments with his own research. Instead, you try to pin the blame on me by ordering me to do my own research.
You're a real piece of work, boy. I'm done slugging it out with you.
-
dont worry the old folk might die anytime soon. when they die whos going to pay for the upgrading? If the gov take note of this there might be no need for upgrade.Originally posted by dragg:a lot of people want upgrading.
moreover there are a lot of old folks in my block.
kns, might have to pay for nothing. -
u pple can vote against if dun wan upgrading lor..
my blk also going for lift 'upgrading'...i used '' is cos we got lift every flr liao..basically is to renovate the lift nia...if asking we to pay, dun think anyone in the blk will say yes.. -
There is this concept in law called Judicial Review. JR is the way in which executive decision making and discretion is reigned in by the judiciary. Generally, the executive is given wide discretion to decide on policy matters, but nonetheless, the decision making process must only take into account relevant factors. When the executive takes into consideration a matter that is irrelevant, then JR can be taken up against the executive to quash that decision.
So if HDB is in charge of upgrading, the relevant factors for prioritising upgrading will be the age of the flats, the need for upgrading etc. I can't imagine party-partisan votes to ever be considered a relevant factor. Hence, I believe that if HDB prioritises Marine Parade flats over Hougang flats for upgrading because of the votes, it can be quashed by JR.
The issue is who has the locus standi, money and balls to take out JR against HDB. -
From what Mah Bow Tan said, so is it that the Potong Pasir and Hougang people even if they voted for PAP also have to wait till near 2015? Then all the bullshlt regarding the $10m or $15m they say they will give/use for upgrading is like 5-6 years later also?Originally posted by grandeur:
NATIONAL Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has come out to clear the air on the upgrading of opposition wards, saying that their lifts will be upgraded by 2015 at the latest, but PAP wards will still get priority.
His comments will surprise those who thought that the policy of upgrading PAP wards first was ripe for change, after the ruling party failed to win back Hougang and Potong Pasir at the recent polls despite offering $180 million in improvement works for the two ageing estates.
After the election results on May 7, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the People's Action Party (PAP) would have to review its strategy in the opposition wards.
But in an interview with The Sunday Times on Friday, Mr Mah made it clear that this review would not affect the policy of giving lift upgrading priority to PAP wards. 'There is no change, that policy still remains. We've looked at it and we believe that that is still something we have to do,' he said.
Giving PAP wards priority does not mean that the Government intends to deprive opposition wards of upgrading, he added, although this point might have been lost in 'the heat and the noise of the elections'.
The Government has pledged that by 2015, all HDB blocks will have lifts that stop on every floor, with the exception of a small number of blocks whose designs make such works too costly.
Mr Mah said this includes blocks in opposition wards.
'We intend to honour this commitment, 2015, all eligible blocks will have their lifts upgraded,' he said.
The ramping up of the lift upgrading programme means a close to two-fold increase in the national upgrading budget over the next few years, to between $500 million and $600 million per financial year.
About 130 blocks in Hougang and Potong Pasir are eligible for improved lifts but they are not the oldest blocks to have gone without upgrading.
Mr Mah said about 800 blocks in PAP wards are as old or older and have not been upgraded at all. They are located in areas such as Queenstown, Bukit Merah, Tiong Bahru, Marine Parade, Serangoon, Woodlands, Marsiling, Yishun and Kampung Ubi.
'I can't put the opposition blocks at the head of the queue, ahead of these 800. Surely not,' he said.
To select precincts for upgrading, the ministry uses three criteria: the age of the blocks, the geographical spread to ensure upgrading is not concentrated in only a few constituencies and support for the Government.
While acknowledging that many thought it unfair to link votes to upgrading, Mr Mah defended the policy as 'not unreasonable'.
He said the massive and costly upgrading programme was only possible because of the Government's policies, which generated economic growth and the Budget surpluses needed to fund it.
And these policies could only be implemented if the Government received the people's mandate.
'We really need to be fair to the people who voted for the PAP candidate. Upgrading has been a major election platform for the PAP and those who support the PAP candidate expect their MPs to deliver on their promises.'
This news article is extracted from THE SUNDAY TIMES of 11th june 2006. Do you feel his decision is fair for Singaporean?
-
have u pple sign for the petition yet?Originally posted by robertteh:She is only a 17 year-old student but she started a petition-on-line to get people to support petition to help Potong Pasir and Hougang residents get their upgrading.
Visit: http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/
http://www.petitiononline.com/LUPtoAll/petition.html -
i rather to be in opposition ward den to be under ruling parties.
cant stand the ruling parties for using these unfairiness against opposition n so much of empty promises.
-
In order to be fair to PAP wards,the govt has to be unfair to the opposition wards.Otherwise,it would be unfair to PAP wards.
Members,can u see the 'high logic' in the above argument? -
Originally posted by PRP:
It doesn't matter to the ruling party on what we think is logical.
In order to be [b]fair to PAP wards,the govt has to be unfair to the opposition wards.Otherwise,it would be unfair to PAP wards.
Members,can u see the 'high logic' in the above argument?[/b]
All that matters to them is what THEY think is logical. -
Straits Time, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 - FORUM
PAP policy belies 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'
IN THE wake of General Elections 2006, various senior People's Action Party (PAP) leaders pledged to respect voters' choice.
At the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony on May 30, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged that his Government would work with all Singaporeans, including those who voted for the opposition.
Singaporeans who hoped that the PAP would therefore remove its votes-for-upgrading strategy got a lightning bolt of reality with the Minister for National Development's statement over the weekend that, basically, nothing has changed.
Minister Mah Bow Tan's main argument was that the Government had to be fair to those who had voted for the PAP wards. But the bigger question on voters' minds is a very simple one - whether such a promise is a legitimate use of taxpayers' monies. To state the obvious, everybody pays taxes, whether they live in PAP or opposition wards.
Mr Mah had previously said that he could not "look PAP MPs in the eye" if he gave the same priority in upgrading to opposition wards. But how, then, does he look these taxpayers in the eye?
No one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, that is, to jump ahead of PAP wards with older blocks. But, all things being equal, it should not matter whether a PAP or an opposition MP is the incumbent.
The same objections apply to how the public funds entrusted to his ministry under the community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) for estate improvements are disbursed.
Further, to say that disbursing CIPC funds through the citizens' consultative committes is not political because they are made of residents, makes as much sense as saying that residents' committees are politically neutral when they are heavily mobilised to help PAP candidates campaign.
On this vexed questions of selective upgrading, the recent conflicting messages from the PAP are telling. For instance, the day after the Polling Day, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised Potong Pasir and Hougang residents for having loyalty towards their MPs, which was a "better (characteristic) than for them to be chasing after every goodie which we offer them".
After this dose of honesty from SM Goh, what kind of values is the PAP promoting by continuing with its votes-for-upgrading policy ?
The overarching theme of the the PAP's 2006 Election Manifesto is "Staying Together, Moving Ahead".
As a Singaporean who decided to stand with the Workers' Party, I look forward to the day when election campaigns will be fought by all parties over the long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans' lives deeply.
Let Singaporeans reflect and decide elections on these questions, which are surely far more important for the nation's future than the selective use of public funds to ensure that the PAP stays in power.
Sylvia Lim Swee Lian (Ms)
Non-Constituency MP (Elect)
Chairman, Workers' Party -
Now they gahmen liao.
-
Straits Time, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 - FORUM
Ruling party's fiduciary duty is to all S'poreans
I REFER to the article, "Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first" (The Sunday Times, June 11).
The ruling People's Action Party (PAP)'s defence of its lift-upgrading priority is two-fold : First, funds for lift upgrading are generated by government policies, which have brought about economic growth and Budget surpluses, and thus those who have voted for it deserve priority; and second, that PAP MPs have promised to upgrade their constituents' estates if elected, and it is "not unreasonable" for these constituencies to be "in the front" of the upgrading queue.
There is, however, a fundamental difference between the role of a political party when it seeks to win an election, and the role of the same party when it acts as the government of Singapore. As the Government, it has a fiduciary obligation to act on behalf of all Singaporeans, who pay taxes, undergo national service, and so on. It should be completely apolitical in the disbursement of public funds for the betterment of lives.
it is certainly true that good government has helped to generate economic growth and Budget surpluses, and the PAP could, during the election, have campaigned strongly on its track record in this regard, without any necessity to link this to upgrading priority at the constituency level.
Thoughtful Singaporeans would then have to balance its track record - with its implications, among other things, for the availability of funds for the betterment of lives - against other considerations, such as the desire for checks and balances in Parliament.
The discussion would then have revolved around consideration of what is good for the nation as a whole, rather than what is good for my constituency or me. Indeed, a major purpose of a general election should be to help focus voters' attention on the former, which is an important step in our evolution towards a more enlightened society. (The PAP keeps saying it wants Singaporeans to put nation before self, but what happens during election time ? )
The fact that voters clearly differentiated among opposition parties during the election shows that they are capable of thoughtful consideration of the issues.
The foregoing discussion shows up the flaws in the PAP's first defence. The flaws in the second defence follow logically: it was not fair for its MPs to have made such promises, as public funds are involved.
To summarise: the PAP could, and should, have campaigned comfortably on its track record and its plans for the future, without resorting to unfair tactics to unfair tactic. I hope there will be a careful rethink of the policy regarding upgrading priority.
Basant K. Kapur -
Two letters to the Straits Times Forum page - one from the Chairman of the Workers' Party, and the other from a Singaporean.
Both reflect the general feelings of many other Singaporeans on this subject of Upgrading Priority, and the misuse of Public Funds for the benefit of the incumbent political party.
The confusing signals reflect disorganised thinking of those Elites from the Ruling Political Party - that has become accustomed to ruling Singapore without any challenges to their authority.
For the first time, the statu quo is being shaken by an educated electorate, and Singaporean willing to represent Singaporeans with an alternative voice. -
Looking at what MBT said about upgrading and what his boss said about "Staying together, moving ahead", ALOT of HDB dwellers sure are going to be staying together and left behind. -
The best thing the alternatives probably did for this round of elections was to adequately LINK upgrading funds to TAXPAYER'S MONIES.
Certainly the Ruling party had no chance to rebutt this line of argument, and soon the despicable nature of the Ruling Party's campaign sank in.
Now that Mah Bow Tan has clearly seen fit to perpetuate this ugly and self-serving mentality as community development minister, one wonders whether the community is truly developing, or worse, devolving. -
It seems MBT's team is always saying the wrong things, remember Irene Ng?
-
And she has not apologised!Originally posted by ditzy:It seems MBT's team is always saying the wrong things, remember Irene Ng?
Imagine an alternative labelling the Ruling Party as 'out to cause trouble'....guess what they would do? -
even the pap dogs also think it's logical, someone like TF.Originally posted by fudgester:It doesn't matter to the ruling party on what we think is logical.
All that matters to them is what THEY think is logical. 
fudgester, as a malay, how do ur family and friends view pap as a whole?