Over-emphasis on municipal issues

Very quietly, after Parliament was dissolved, PAP MPs who were the chairmen, vice-chairmen and members of their constituencies’ town councils also gave up their town council seats. From then to now, have our wards turned to slums?

It’s obvious that while MPs are involved in municipal issues, they are not responsible for the day-to-day running of town councils. They bring visions, directions, plans to the constituencies, but they do not micro-manage. Look at what Mr Wang listed here:

Your MP does not look after the roads in your neighbourhood (the LTA does that).
Your MP does not look after the parks (the National Parks Board does that).
Your MP does not look after your public library (the National Library Board does that).
Your MP does not look after your sports stadium or public swimming pool (the Singapore Sports Council does that).
Your MP does not build shopping malls for you (property developers such as Capitaland do that).
Your MP does not manage your MRT line (SMRT does that).
Your MP does not manage your SBS buses (SBS does that).
Your MP does not look after your electricity supply (SP Power does that).
Your MP does not look after your carpark (the URA does that).
Your MP does not investigate crimes (the Singapore Police Force does that).
Your MP does not put out fires (the SCDF and their NSmen do that).
Your MP does not ensure that top schools are near your home (whether a school is top or not depends on the students’ efforts).
Your MP doesn’t prevent mosquito breeding (the NEA does that).

OK, we’ve to give credit to the co-ordination and lobbying of the MP on behalf of residents to these multiple agencies and corporations. But from what we seem to be hearing and reading, PAP MPs take credit for many of the above items which, well, they don’t really personally do (and sometimes beyond their control).

Personally, I think it’s partly the fault of S’poreans too. A MP isn’t a Superman. Painting peeling off the HDB block? MP’s responsibility arh? The MP might be chairing the town council, but it’s the town council which professionally runs the estate. Of course if the town council isn’t doing well and the MP doesn’t recognise this, then the MP is at fault.

And partly the fault of the PAP, for over-emphasizing municipal issues. All the slum talk. Have Hougang and Potong Pasir turn to slums? More importantly, if an entire GRC goes over to the opposition, can the PAP government afford to neglect more than 100,000 residents by denying funds?

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, GE 2011

One response to “Over-emphasis on municipal issues

  1. syafiq06

    Yes. This GE2011 is not about municipal issues.
    Basically, this GE2011 is not about local town upgrading, FTs, or cost of living, etc. It is about whether Singaporeans would like to take back the political power and have a say on the future of Singapore. Once the people take back the power, they can then have a say on how to run this country and all those policies and problems will be resolved to their preference.
    There are 4 scenarios that Singaporeans must understand in this GE2011:

    1. No voices and no change – GE2011 outcome can be a 87:0 clean sweep by PAP. There will not be any alternative voices in parliament except the “wayang” noises by PAP MPs. PAP may totally ignore Singaporean interests. Oppositions will be suppressed by more constitutional amendments. It will be very very hard to get to a similar stage like this GE2011 in future elections. Total dead of democracy in Singapore is the extreme consequence.

    2. More voices but no change – To have less than 1/3 opposition seats in parliament will not change anything already done, e.g. cost of living, FTs, property prices, etc except that opposition MPs can make more noises and suggestions that PAP in majority may not listen. There is also a risk that PAP back in power will find ways to suppress all oppositions so that there will not be any chance of voting like in this GE2011.

    3. Partial change – To have more than 1/3 and less than 2/3 opposition seats will be likely to change some already done as above but will not change the Constitution that allows GRC, NMP, NCMP, and election boundary redrawing. PAP will still be in power or sharing power with oppositions. This may be harder for PAP in power to diminish the oppositions.

    4. Complete change – To have more than 2/3 opposition seats means the alternative party will be the government and PAP the opposition. This can change everything including the Constitution. However, Singaporeans must make sure the elected government rewrites the Constitution to abolish those ill clauses and introduce check and balance clause. Also, to ensure Constitution is not allowed to change without referendum. Otherwise, the next non-PAP government may have the chance to abuse the Constitution as well.

    Singaporeans must vote wisely on 7 May to decide what they want in the future, i.e. which scenario they want for GE2011.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s