Workers' Party Latest Press Release
-
http://www.wp.org.sg/news/press_releases/20041003_sp_util_vouchers.htm
I refer to the response from SingPower on the above issue published in Straits Times and Zaobao on 2 Oct 2004.
Schemes of assistance to needy families on such a nation wide multitude should be made known to the relevant stakeholders who may need them. A public announcement should be made on the availability of such help so that those in need will know where to turn to. This is to ensure transparency of any help scheme and also to ensure impartiality by those who administer them.
Even if SingPower deem that as an elected Member of Parliament for Hougang Constituency who regularly receive requests for help from residents, I am not in the best position to disburse the vouchers, I should be at least informed of the availability of the scheme. I can then refer those in need of help to the people administering the scheme but I have no knowledge of this prior to the press report.
SingPower now says that "it is left to the discretion of each grassroots unit how they want to administer the utility vouchers". I wish to reiterate that the press reports stated that distribution of the vouchers was left to the discretion of MPs and area's grassroots units. Perhaps SingPower can enlighten me on the PAP MPs who were also in the dark about these vouchers.
SingPower explained that the rationale of giving the vouchers to grassroots organizations was based on its assumption that "these grassroots organizations are best placed to identify those in need".
What makes SingPower think that an elected MP is not well placed to identify those in need? For that matter, what makes SingPower think that the CDCs which are administering assistance schemes from the government and charitable organisations are not well placed to identify those in need whereas grassroots organizations are "best" placed and hence should be given the vouchers to administer?
SingPower also stressed that it distributed the vouchers to grassroots organisations based on the list obtained from the People's Association. Their distribution is thereby "even handed" and "non-partisan", and there is nothing furtive at all.
To justify its support of funding and resources for grassroots organisations via the People's Association, the PAP government's official position has always been that these organisations are non-political.
In theory this may be so, but the mindset of the PAP political activists who are running these organisations is best summed up by the adviser to Hougang grassroots organisations who was quoted on ST 30 September 2004 as saying that "As advisers, we work with grassroots organisations that were set up by the PAP to serve Singaporeans."
I understand that SingPower gave out the vouchers some time in July 2003. The fact that the availability of the vouchers, who would administer it and how it would be implemented was not made known to the public until now, calls into question the intention of giving out the vouchers through PAP controlled organizations.
Why did SingPower choose to keep quiet about this for more than a year, is for reason best known to them. However this has resulted in the fact that 70% of the vouchers were unused and an extension of the validity period is required. Does this serve the objective of SingPower to "offer help and support to needy families during the economic downturn" as stated in its press response?
SingPower has a lot more to explain and to justify its action to the people to prove that there is "nothing furtive" in the way they handed out the utility vouchers.
Low Thia Khiang
MP for Hougang
3 October 2004 -
I just got a phrase for that : " it's not personal ...just politics"
Just by looking at who controls singpower ....I can guess why the "non partisan" grassroot units can distribute the vouchers not elected MP. I sympathise with Mr Low and the needy residents of hougang , re: the vouchers . -
if we want to rephrase it in good words:
it call political contribution in good faith.
if we want to rephrase it in bad words:
it call corruption, bribery.
we are rule under an iron fist!!! -
so trueOriginally posted by reyes:if we want to rephrase it in good words:
it call political contribution in good faith.
if we want to rephrase it in bad words:
it call corruption, bribery.
we are rule under an iron fist!!!