Improvement Projects in NRP Constituencies - The use of CIPC funding

The idea of forming grassroots organisations like Residents' Committees (RCs) and Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) was to enable volunteers in the community to help the government in implementing its policies and reaching out to residents. Those who manage RCs and CCCs are invariably identified as supporters of the ruling party though many may be motivated to volunteer by a desire to serve the people in their community.

It is often lamented that an MP from a non-ruling party (NRP) taking over the running of a constituency from a ruling party MP has to countenance difficulties from RCs and CCS in the implementation of their programmes. Both MPs and NCMPs have expressed that major obstacles still remain for opposition parliamentarians (Click HERE). One of these obstacles is in tapping on state funds which are set aside for improving infrastructural and recreational facilities for the benefit of residents in their constituencies which include covered walkways, footpaths, cycling tracks and playgrounds.

In one parliamentary session, the Minister for National Development ("MND") was asked for the guidelines for the utilisation of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding (Click HERE). In his reply, the Minister answered that "CIPC funds are disbursed through the CCCs as they are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. The CCCs are given flexibility to assess the relevance of any proposal and to prioritise them for implementation so that the CIPC funds are optimally utilised. The operating principle for the CCCs is to ensure that the approved CIPC projects are useful, functional, represent value for money, freely accessible to the community and properly planned." 

In short, CCCs have the power to decide if an elected MP may go ahead with his plans to improve infrastructural and recreational facilities for his residents. Given that CCCs are not apolitical in character,  this arrangement poses a serious obstacle to an elected NRP MP's programmes to benefit his constituents. The question that arises is whether funds meant for community improvements should be disbursed to CCSs if the CCC and the MP do not share the same political affiliation. Obviously, if all political contests are confined only to the election period and are not carried over into the term of whoever may be elected as MP to the detriment of the constituents, there will be no necessity for us to review the present arrangement. 

However, as we all know, political contests tend to spill into even the most mundane things that CCCs do for their residents. Until grassroots leaders learn to rise over politics and are no longer seen to be taking sides with the ruling party, there is a need to ensure that these community improvement funds do not become an instrument of politics. As a step towards developing a more positive political culture, why not let the MND decide on the applications to use such funds by all MPs?

SOCIAL: Sports - Nurturing True Sportsmanship

In the recent SEA Games, Singapore collected 84 Golds, 73 Silvers and 102 Bronzes with Thailand finishing top with 95 Golds, 83 Silvers and 69 Bronzes. This has been an impressive record and a fitting tribute to SG50. 

Our 259 medals have surpassed our precious haul of of 164 medals (50 golds, 40 silvers and 74 bronzes) in 1993, when the Games was last held at home. We are all absolutely thrilled that we have done well as a nation that seeks to excel in everything that we do. But let's pause for a moment to look at the results and ask some questions.

The medals tell us which sports we are good at. One report (Click HERE)  said as follows:

“Over the past 18 days in 36 sports, Singapore’s largest-ever contingent of 747 athletes also delivered 25 Games records, 29 national records, 74 personal bests, and many first-time medalists. 421 were also making their official Games debut. Of the 36 sports, the Republic’s swimmers achieved the highest medal count of 42 (23 golds, 12 silvers and 7 bronzes).

Swimmers Joseph Isaac Schooling and Quah Zheng Wen were the most bemedalled athletes, winning one in every event they competed in. Schooling won nine gold medals and set Games records in all nine events, while teammate Quah finished with 12 medals (7 golds, 4 silvers and 1 bronze).”

One piece of glaring information comes across from the wins. A great majority of the medals were won by local-born Singaporeans.  And we are able to clearly identify the sports that we can be really good at. So, do we still need foreign talents to buttress our sports achievements when we could save our money on them and groom our own talent pool from young in the sports that we are potentially good at?

Say what you like, there can be no real pride in winning medals through the Foreign Talent Scheme which started in 1996. One sport that relies heavily on the scheme is table tennis. Even after 20 years, we are still relying on table–tennis players from China to win our medals. If we are unable to produce local-born table-tennis players to lead our nation in this sport after all these years, we need to ask whether the scheme has usurped the need to nurture our local talent or is table-tennis not really our cup of tea?

We also need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary for us to excel in every sport? To-date, more than 60 foreign athletes have been granted citizenship since the Foreign Talent Scheme started in 1996 (Click HERE). We do not know exactly how much we have spent in the scheme but it should run into the millions which could have been used more productively and meaningfully. 

Since we can now identify a number of sports where our potentials lie, wouldn’t it be make more sense to save our money on foreign athletes and invest in our local sports talents instead? We can bring in foreign coaches instead of foreign athletes? Afterall, sports is not about winning medals alone. It's about the spirit of true sportsmanship.

SOCIAL: Culture - Saving our Food heritage

One of the unique features of Singaporean culture is its food heritage which began with itinerant hawkers peddling on the streets. With the erection of hawker centres, Singaporeans found their favourite foods like char kway teow, laksa, mee siam and roti prata prepared behind more hygienic stalls which were leased from the government at cheap rentals. And the majority of Singaporeans take their daily three meals at these hawker centres which offer a great variety of affordable local food options.

Unfortunately, stall rentals escalated after the government's economic policies went on high gear. The National Environment Agency ("NEA"), which currently manages 107 markets and hawker centres, began selling the stalls in 1994 with takeover fees that ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. About 2,000 stalls in 15 centres were sold in four phases between 1994 and 1997, and their leases were slated to expire between 2014 and 2017 (Click HERE) .These stalls were sold at between S$26,000 to S$ 141,000 each, depending on their location and size and owners re-sold and pocketed huge profits only to buy more stalls when they were allowed to sublet their stalls. The costs of running a hawker stall invariably shot up. So did food prices at these hawker centres.

Rental costs escalated even further for food stalls when the government stopped building hawker centres for some 26 years while air-conditioned food centres in shopping malls sprouted up like mushrooms. The impact on food prices was significant and families on tight budgets had to forgo at least one meal. Many Singaporeans eat out at coffee-shops too. These are located in housing estates and are the regular venues for many family dinners. With liberal policies on coffee-shop ownership (which attracted foreign investors looking for capital gains) and higher and higher tender prices for coffee-shops in new housing estates, stall rentals in coffee-shops shot up as well. High turnover of business owners in coffee-shops are now a regular feature and the quality of food has suffered. Old food stalls with huge followings and customers who grew up on their menu begin to close down one after another.

After GE 2011, the government announced in October 2011 that it will restart the programme of building of hawker centres after 26 years with a new policy direction (Click HERE). There will be 10 new hawker centres to be built over 10 years. These new hawker centres are to be run on not-for-profit basis instead of by commercial operators. This was a tacit acknowledgment that food prices in our iconic hawker centres have gone up too high. The first of these new hawker centres is now operated by NTUC Foodfare in Bukit Panjang with 28 cooked-food stalls offering at least two low-cost main dishes.This new policy direction in letting only social enterprises and co-operatives manage hawker centre has already led to disgruntled hawkers who were unhappy with the price-caps on the food they sell and that the centres are operated more like food courts which require them to pay plate collection and dishwashing collection and dishwashing fees, use common utensils and wear uniforms (Click HERE).

The idea of bringing down food prices in hawker centre is applaudable but the new management model of hawker centres looks set to have another negative impact on our heritage food culture as hawkers think of ways to cut costs. Why can't we go back to the old model of leasing out hawker stalls at low monthly rentals with a government agency managing the hawker centres? Such a model was working perfectly fine until they started to tinker with it. As they say, if it ain't broken, why fix it?