It was reported in The Sunday Times yesterday that the government's policy of upgrading will not see any major change. Essentially, this means that PAP wards will continue to receive priority in upgrading; opposition wards - Hougang and Potong Pasir - will still be last in line. The announcement comes more than a month after the GE took place on May 6, where the incumbent PAP lost by a greater margin in the two opposition wards compared to its performance in GE 2001. The PAP's offer of upgrading as an election tactic was deemed to have failed, and the PM said the party would have to review its strategy to win back the opposition wards.
One can therefore assume that this reaffirmation of upgrading policy was committed after the PAP had done its post-morterm analysis of the GE results, which includes its embarrassing defeat in the two opposition wards. What, then, made the PAP government decide to stick to the policy, despite the protest and displeasure of seemingly a large segment of the electorate with regard to the perceived unfairness of the upgrading policy? From letters to the ST Forum as well as online discussion, it would seem that a sizable majority of Singaporeans, be they PAP supporters or anti-PAP, are clearly in disapproval of using upgrading as an election tactic. Many Singaporeans are incensed that the two opposition wards are unfairly neglected and denied upgrading simply because they are represented by opposition parties. Upgrading, they argued, should not be a political issue exploited by the party in power; the funds for upgrading are government (which is different from party, nevermind that the government is almost synonymous with the PAP) funds which all tax-paying Singaporean voters - regardless of where they live - deserve access to, on a fair and equal basis.
One can therefore assume that this reaffirmation of upgrading policy was committed after the PAP had done its post-morterm analysis of the GE results, which includes its embarrassing defeat in the two opposition wards. What, then, made the PAP government decide to stick to the policy, despite the protest and displeasure of seemingly a large segment of the electorate with regard to the perceived unfairness of the upgrading policy? From letters to the ST Forum as well as online discussion, it would seem that a sizable majority of Singaporeans, be they PAP supporters or anti-PAP, are clearly in disapproval of using upgrading as an election tactic. Many Singaporeans are incensed that the two opposition wards are unfairly neglected and denied upgrading simply because they are represented by opposition parties. Upgrading, they argued, should not be a political issue exploited by the party in power; the funds for upgrading are government (which is different from party, nevermind that the government is almost synonymous with the PAP) funds which all tax-paying Singaporean voters - regardless of where they live - deserve access to, on a fair and equal basis.
From the front page article "Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first":
"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 Minister is quite mistaken. It is not that that point had been lost in the 'heat and noise of the elections'; it is that what difference is there between giving priority to PAP wards and 'depriving' opposition wards of upgrading. Precisely because since GE 1997 the opposition wards have been last in the upgrading queue, their chances of getting access to upgrading funds are nearly as good as zero, since they will always remain the last so long as they retain their opposition status and that there always will be PAP wards which have not been upgraded, as Mr Mah himself made clear in the interview. So, in effect, regardless whether or not the government's intention is to deprive the opposition wards of upgrading, it is clear that the policy inevitably deprives the opposition wards of a fair chance to have a shot at upgrading.
The article also mentions that the ministry of National Development uses three criteria to select precincts for upgrading: 'the age of the blocks, the geographical spread to ensure upgrading is not concentrated in only a few constituencies and support for the Government.' Mr Mah pointed out that about 800 blocks in PAP wards 'are as old or older and have not been upgraded at all'. He means to reiterate and demonstrate his earlier point that the government is not depriving opposition wards of upgrading, for the fact of matter is that there are more deserving wards which meet the critieria better than Hougang and Potong Pasir do. Why did the PAP not bring this up during the election? If the PAP had won the two wards on May 6, would the 800 blocks still be placed ahead of Hougang and Potong Pasir? That the PAP dangled a $100 million and $80 million upgrading offer to Hougang and Potong Pasir voters respectively shows that the government has the means to fund upgrading in the two wards. But more important, PAP leaders themselves have belaboured the point that the two opposition wards are badly in need of renewal after many years of neglect. I can't find the reports now but i believe SM Goh said something to that effect when helping to campaign for the PAP candidates in the two wards during the election period. This would suggest that the two opposition wards, even in the eyes of the PAP government, are doubtless in urgent need of upgrading.
Sure, there are many other blocks in PAP wards which are older than the two opposition ones. But the question is how the criteria is applied to determine which precincts come first for upgrading, which comes second, and which last. What is an equitable basis to select precincts for upgrading, given that there are three criteria employed by the Ministry? Do they all take equal weight in the consideration, or is one more important than the other? Because it seems that at the end of the day, it is the third criteria - support for government - which solely affects the chances of opposition wards receiving funds for upgrading. Mr Mah conceded much when he says, "I can't put the opposition blocks at the head of the queue, ahead of these 800. Surely not (Sunday Times p. 1)." The critical factor here is not age or geographical spread, but 'opposition'.
The PAP, of course, does not deny that voting is linked to upgrading. Their justification for PAP wards getting priority for upgrading is that upgrading is a major election platform for the PAP and they, when voted into power, had to fufill their duty to their supporters. Mr Mah says that this is only fair to the residents who had voted for them:
Sure, there are many other blocks in PAP wards which are older than the two opposition ones. But the question is how the criteria is applied to determine which precincts come first for upgrading, which comes second, and which last. What is an equitable basis to select precincts for upgrading, given that there are three criteria employed by the Ministry? Do they all take equal weight in the consideration, or is one more important than the other? Because it seems that at the end of the day, it is the third criteria - support for government - which solely affects the chances of opposition wards receiving funds for upgrading. Mr Mah conceded much when he says, "I can't put the opposition blocks at the head of the queue, ahead of these 800. Surely not (Sunday Times p. 1)." The critical factor here is not age or geographical spread, but 'opposition'.
The PAP, of course, does not deny that voting is linked to upgrading. Their justification for PAP wards getting priority for upgrading is that upgrading is a major election platform for the PAP and they, when voted into power, had to fufill their duty to their supporters. Mr Mah says that this is only fair to the residents who had voted for them:
"Some people say that it is not fair that we link votes to upgrading. Let us look at it from the point of view of those who voted for the PAP. Upgrading has been a major election platform of the PAP. PAP candidates have promised their residents that they will upgrade their estates if they are elected. Once elected, residents expect them to fulfil their promise. So, i would argue that it is not unreasonable for these residents to be in front of the queue for upgrading, if they have supported the PAP candidates. After all, if we did not have people voting in the PAP candidates, you would not have the PAP Government and its policies to generate the surpluses to finance the upgrading programme." (The Sunday Times, p. 10)
Again, the Minister is quite mistaken. If his explanation is supposed to counter the charge of unfairness, he seems to have put the cart before the horse. No one seriously suggests the PAP not fufill its election promise when it is elected into office. If residents were promised upgrading and they voted in the PAP, it is only fair that the PAP fufills its promise to them. But when people say that linking votes to upgrading is 'not fair', what they really mean is that this should never in the first place be used as an election tactic; upgrading should not be used as a carrot to win votes because it rightfully should be made available to all Singaporeans, regardless of who they vote for in the elections. Fairness in this instance refers to the policy itself, not whether opposition wards should come before or after PAP wards in the queue for upgrading.
But, just as revealing, if not more, is the last statement made by Mr Mah: 'After all, if we did not have people voting in the PAP candidates, you would not have the PAP Government and its policies to generate the surpluses to finance the upgrading programme.' This smacks of self-righteousness. True, the PAP Government is capable and has done well to generate surpluses so important for financing the upgrading prgramme. Yet is it not the business of every government of the day to do its best economically and improve the livelihood of all citizens, not just of those who voted for the ruling party? Let it not be forgotten that in every constituency that the PAP won there is a sizable minority which voted for the opposition, just as in the two constituency where the opposition won, there are many who voted for the PAP. The Government is in power because voters had put them there; but after the government comes into power it should exercise governmental responsibility in a non-partisan manner, fairly to each and every citizen, and every residential ward. This includes ensuring that precincts in need of upgrading get government funds for that purpose.
At any rate the most interesting question that arises from the report is this: Given the earlier impression that the PAP had called for a review of its strategy in the opposition wards to reconsider the effectiveness of upgrading as an election tactic, why has it decided to continue with the policy, despite its apparent failure?
I offer here a few plausible reasons.
1. Contrary to popular belief, the upgrading policy to win votes is not quite a failure. Yes, it failed to win Hougang and Potong Pasir from the opposition hands, but it continues to retain the votes in other wards that have been dominated by the PAP. In the just ended GE, it is likely that the upgrading policy continues to play a role in affecting voters' decision. The physical state of the two opposition wards remain glaring examples of the price voters would pay for supporting opposition parties, and voters from PAP wards are not oblivious of that consequence.
Further, that Mr Mah is 'surprised bread and butter issues not top concern' (p. 10) is telling of the government's perception of voting patterns and interests. If his views are representative of the government, it is clear that the PAP does not buy into the findings of the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that most voters 'value an efficient government and fairness in policies over bread and butter issues'. According to Mr Mah, his and other PAP MPs' interactions with their residents shows that many people are still concerned with jobs, cost of living and 'things like lifts, facilities'. Therein, the upgrading policy still holds sway with voters. It may not be able to win back the opposition wards, but it has been able to prevent others from switching to the opposition.
2. As Mr Mah himself said, upgrading was an election platform for the PAP. The PAP can ill afford to make a U-turn on the policy by giving preference to the opposition wards. The minister took pains to stress that the age of blocks and their geographical spread are factors that play a role in deciding which ward gets upgrading first. But he also made it known, unambiguously, that PAP wards would come first. To make any concessions or tweak the policy would be tantamount to going back on its promise, and the upgrading policy would be rendered redundant. This would make the PAP come across as not credible.
3. The PAP failed to win over the majority of Hougang and Potong Pasir voters not so much because the upgrading policy had failed, but because voters there have developed a sense of solidarity with and loyalty to their MPs, Mr Low Thia Kiang of the Worker's Party and Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance, respectively. The snippets of interviews done by the ST with voters from the two wards often bear this out. This factor probably outweighs the carrot of upgrading in winning voters' hearts and minds. In not changing the upgrading policy to favour the opposition wards, the PAP probably recognised that the crux of their failure lay not in the upgrading policy: Indeed, they have to go beyond that to win back the opposition wards.
4. Adherence to the upgrading policy does not imply that the PAP is giving up on the two opposition wards. Nor is the PAP in any doubt that the upgrading policy failed to win the two wards. Instead, the PAP appears to have made up its mind to make upgrading a peripheral issue by the next GE. For Mr Mah mentioned that 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 (Sunday Times p. 1).' Given that the next GE is due by 2011, by then, lift upgrading would hardly be a bone of contention in the elections, since by 2015 all eligible HDB blocks, including those from the present opposition wards, will have or are slated to receive lift upgrading.
Therefore, what remains to be seen is not the issue of upgrading, but what new strategies the PAP will engage to retain its dominance against the rising popularity of the Worker's Party, as well as to win the two opposition wards in the next GE.
But, just as revealing, if not more, is the last statement made by Mr Mah: 'After all, if we did not have people voting in the PAP candidates, you would not have the PAP Government and its policies to generate the surpluses to finance the upgrading programme.' This smacks of self-righteousness. True, the PAP Government is capable and has done well to generate surpluses so important for financing the upgrading prgramme. Yet is it not the business of every government of the day to do its best economically and improve the livelihood of all citizens, not just of those who voted for the ruling party? Let it not be forgotten that in every constituency that the PAP won there is a sizable minority which voted for the opposition, just as in the two constituency where the opposition won, there are many who voted for the PAP. The Government is in power because voters had put them there; but after the government comes into power it should exercise governmental responsibility in a non-partisan manner, fairly to each and every citizen, and every residential ward. This includes ensuring that precincts in need of upgrading get government funds for that purpose.
At any rate the most interesting question that arises from the report is this: Given the earlier impression that the PAP had called for a review of its strategy in the opposition wards to reconsider the effectiveness of upgrading as an election tactic, why has it decided to continue with the policy, despite its apparent failure?
I offer here a few plausible reasons.
1. Contrary to popular belief, the upgrading policy to win votes is not quite a failure. Yes, it failed to win Hougang and Potong Pasir from the opposition hands, but it continues to retain the votes in other wards that have been dominated by the PAP. In the just ended GE, it is likely that the upgrading policy continues to play a role in affecting voters' decision. The physical state of the two opposition wards remain glaring examples of the price voters would pay for supporting opposition parties, and voters from PAP wards are not oblivious of that consequence.
Further, that Mr Mah is 'surprised bread and butter issues not top concern' (p. 10) is telling of the government's perception of voting patterns and interests. If his views are representative of the government, it is clear that the PAP does not buy into the findings of the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that most voters 'value an efficient government and fairness in policies over bread and butter issues'. According to Mr Mah, his and other PAP MPs' interactions with their residents shows that many people are still concerned with jobs, cost of living and 'things like lifts, facilities'. Therein, the upgrading policy still holds sway with voters. It may not be able to win back the opposition wards, but it has been able to prevent others from switching to the opposition.
2. As Mr Mah himself said, upgrading was an election platform for the PAP. The PAP can ill afford to make a U-turn on the policy by giving preference to the opposition wards. The minister took pains to stress that the age of blocks and their geographical spread are factors that play a role in deciding which ward gets upgrading first. But he also made it known, unambiguously, that PAP wards would come first. To make any concessions or tweak the policy would be tantamount to going back on its promise, and the upgrading policy would be rendered redundant. This would make the PAP come across as not credible.
3. The PAP failed to win over the majority of Hougang and Potong Pasir voters not so much because the upgrading policy had failed, but because voters there have developed a sense of solidarity with and loyalty to their MPs, Mr Low Thia Kiang of the Worker's Party and Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance, respectively. The snippets of interviews done by the ST with voters from the two wards often bear this out. This factor probably outweighs the carrot of upgrading in winning voters' hearts and minds. In not changing the upgrading policy to favour the opposition wards, the PAP probably recognised that the crux of their failure lay not in the upgrading policy: Indeed, they have to go beyond that to win back the opposition wards.
4. Adherence to the upgrading policy does not imply that the PAP is giving up on the two opposition wards. Nor is the PAP in any doubt that the upgrading policy failed to win the two wards. Instead, the PAP appears to have made up its mind to make upgrading a peripheral issue by the next GE. For Mr Mah mentioned that 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 (Sunday Times p. 1).' Given that the next GE is due by 2011, by then, lift upgrading would hardly be a bone of contention in the elections, since by 2015 all eligible HDB blocks, including those from the present opposition wards, will have or are slated to receive lift upgrading.
Therefore, what remains to be seen is not the issue of upgrading, but what new strategies the PAP will engage to retain its dominance against the rising popularity of the Worker's Party, as well as to win the two opposition wards in the next GE.
0 comments:
Post a Comment