The Field Marshal

Sorry hor... No upgrade for you yet. Sore losers. That's the first thought in my head when I read Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan's comments on the upgrading of HDB flats in the opposition ward in today's The Sunday Times. Didn't blink an eyelid since this was not unexpected. But I thought the wind in the corridors of PAP's headquarters have changed since the drubbing it received in the May elections. Guess we were all fooled. Nothing new in the circle of politics. So, citizens living in PAP wards can now pop the champange and celebrate since they are going to "get priority" in having their blocks upgraded. Falling through the cracks, once again, are our heroic citizens in Hougang and Potong Pasir, whom I salute them for their integrity in not "selling" their votes in exchange for the carrots offered. Here are the reasons, extracted from the article Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first, cited by Minister Mah on why PAP wards should get priority. "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." However you look at the statement, it looks fair and logical. If a block is older it should stand in front of the queue. Sounds wonderfully fair to me. But something's still amiss here. Hmmm what can it be? Can it be the fact that barring the 800-odd blocks in PAP wards, the rest of the upgraded blocks around Singapore, exclusively in PAP wards, are actually newer than those in Potong Pasir and Hougang. I have seen younger housing estates going for the Interim Upgrading Projects (IUP) or the Main Upgrading Projects (MUP) when they are fairly new looking. Compared these to the venerable blocks in the opposition wards, I would dare say that the rationale used in today's article is nothing but PR fodder meant to rationalise the "PAP wards first" argument. For the sake of argument, let's say that the system is fair, which the article tried to put forth in the following extract, "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." As stated above, if we don't take the age of the estates as the main criteria for upgrading, looking at it from the ratio of upgraded blocks versus the total number of housing blocks in a ward would be a fairer system since slums will not be created, take a closer look at Potong Pasir and Hougang, should the former criteria be used as it will take donkey years for the 'middle-aged' estates to be ready for upgrading. Taking this so-called ratio formula, I believe there's actually no ratio to mention of in the opposition wards since there's barely any HDB upgrading programme taking place there. So the argument put forth in the article is totally irrelevant since it does not reflect the reality. Now the article gets more interesting. "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." Quite a lengthy extract above. First and foremost, I want to state that the purpose of having a government is exactly to develop policies which generate economic growth and budget surpluses. The government's role is to take care of its citizens, not only those who voted for it. If this rationale holds, then shouldn't the opposition parties find out which of the estates were pro-PAP and put them last on any programme to maintain the estate? Lastly, it brings us back to the issue which was highlighted by the opposition parties during the elections to counter PAP's carrot tactic. Every single citizen in the opposition ward, rich or poor, pay their income tax. They contribute to the so-called budget surplus which is waved to us all the time. Shouldn't they have a say in the fair and equitable distribution of their monies when their housing estates are old? Tell the truth, people don't support the PAP candidates. I don't even know if mine stays in the same ward as me. What they support, or more accurately - want, is a stable government, which the PAP provides, and yet at the same time a government which allows us to express our voices and dreams. PAP must remember that it is no longer PAP when its members are sworn into the government. They are the "Singapore Government". They are there to work for us - citizens. Not only those who don their white shorts, socks, pants, skirts or what not every six years. Times have changed. We are beyond sticks and carrots.