THE TEMASEK REVIEW

From our Correspondent

The Lift Upgrading Program (LUP) saga which started a month ago when PAP “grassroots adviser” for Hougang tried to claim credit for bringing LUP to the ward continues to rumble on with its key players Mah Bow Tan and Eric Low taking shelter and leaving the poor press secretary to Mah, Lim Yuin Chien in the line of fire!

Mr Lim has been busy of late trying to defend his boss’s disingenuous way of using state resources to promote his party’s interests first from skeptical Singaporeans and then from the media.

In a reply to Straits Times senior correspondent Sue-Ann Chia who earlier questioned the seemingly conflicting roles of a MP and grassroots adviser, Mr Lim wrote that “the roles of MP and adviser are distinct and separate, even though government MPs, wearing their other hat of advisers, are expected to perform both roles.”

“Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government’s behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily.” he added.

His incredulous reply brought a swift rebuttal from a Singaporean Matthias Chew who wrote in to the Straits Times Forum today protesting against the blurring of boundaries between the party and the government:

“While I can accept that opposition MPs cannot, and should not, be placed in a position where they are held accountable for government policy, surely the unelected grassroots advisers, who are not members of the Government but merely of the ruling party of the day, may only be held accountable to the party, and not the Government.

Furthermore, for their personal role in implementing national programmes, funded by taxpayers’ money, grass-roots advisers gain personal political mileage.

This not only gives the ruling party of the day an unfair advantage, but also blurs the distinction between party and government activities,” he wrote.

Mr Chew called for implementation of public policy to be de- politicised in the interests of transparency and accountability, so as to leave no doubt that the primary beneficiaries of taxpayers’ funds are the public, and not political parties or politicians.

He proposed that civil servants be appointed to execute policy in a fair and impartial manner as they are accountable to the Government, and by extension the public, rather than a particular political party.

His letter attracted a flurry of responses on the Straits Times Discussion Board, many of which continues to harangue Mr Lim.

Kampongkid wrote:

“Who doesn’t know what PAP’s REAL intention was when the 2 PAP LOSERS were appointed to announce the LUP instead of the opposition MPs??? It’s primarily to let these 2 LOSERS give residents of these opposition wards the impression that they, the PAP men have managed to ‘fight’ successfully for residents to have the LUP, isn’t it???

Come on, be gentlemen, MIW!!! Just admit that “it’s a mistake and let’s move on”!!! All it takes is ONE letter but now this is already the 3rd one and this MND’s press secretary is still trying hard to hide their dirty, ugly side!!! Really Mr Lim, you should offer tea to Mdm Lim HH and address her “shi mu” for some dung clearing skills.”

savageman did not hide his disgust with Mr Lim:

“Mr Lim Yuin Chien, I am sure you will be following this thread closely. Look. Its better for you to shut your mouth and be thought a FOOL than to open it and remove all doubt.”

NYJC4 added:

“Let me re-emphasise that the LUP is not a town council programme.” -Mr Lim

Power to carry out lift upgrading works and recover improvement contributions 24D. —(1) As soon as practicable after the Minister has given his approval under section 24C (3) (b), the Town Council concerned shall carry out the lift upgrading works in the precinct in such manner as the Town Council thinks fit. “- Khunying (thank you for pointing this out!)

Oops. Maybe LUP is NOT ‘lift upgrading works.’ That is the only way to explain the contradiction above. But how can LUP not be ‘lift upgrading works?’ By chopping words very fine, and then reshaping them to suit your aims, LUP can mean something entirely different from ‘lift upgrading works!’

Then again, maybe LUP really DOES mean ‘lift upgrading works’! In which case, Mr Lim has made a monumental boo-boo! They don’t need more rope, there is QUITE ENOUGH ALREADY!!”

However, Greatest Asia was sympathetic towards him:

“For those Singaporeans whom are still slumbering away, please wake up and take a good look at this incident. Ask yourself, just how low PAP will go in order to protect their interests?

For the poor and disadvantaged Singaporeans, what can we do to protect our interests? If you are a top civil servant and PAP ask you to sign a contract with a company they appointed, do you dare not sign? If you are leading a civil service department and PAP ask you to work with some individuals they appointed , do you dare not follow?”

Had this incident happened 10 years ago, few Singaporeans would have batted an eyelid. The massive public backlash triggered by the LUP saga is a PR disaster for the PAP – no wonder Minister Mah had “arrowed” his press secretary to deal with the fallout!

It appears that Singaporeans are getting more politically mature and astute and can see through the fallacies and loopholes in Mr Lim’s twisted logic and argument. The more he tries to defend the PAP, the more rope he is using to hang himself!

Mr Lim must not forget that he is not the PAP spin doctor! He is a civil servant paid for by taxpayers’ monies!

The root cause of the problem lies in the lack of distinction between the party and the state. The PAP is ONLY a political party – it is NOT the government of Singapore and it is definitely NOT Singapore by itself.

It is utterly unreasonable, unacceptable and shameless for both the Ministry of National Development and People’s Association to choose to work with the PAP losing candidate instead of the legitimate MP and representative of the people.

The PA should be completely de-politicized by removing the PAP ministers including Prime Minister Lee from its board of directors altogether and future LUPs be handled fully by the MPs of the ward irrespective of which political party they are from.

Related articles:

>> MND continues to throw smoke bombs over role of PAP grassroots advisers

>> A rebuttal to MND: Why Mah Bow Tan is wrong on upgrading

>> LUP has to be implemented through government channels

>> Low Thia Kiang strikes back at HDB and PA

>> Lame reply by HDB and PA on why LUP are announced by PAP losers

>> Mah Bow Tan:” I don’t expect non-PAP MPs to explain LUP”

>> Eric Low rapped for stealing limelight of Low Thia Kiang

>> Eric Low claimed credit for bringing LUP to Hougang

EDITORS’ NOTE:

If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account (temasekreview@gmail.com). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!

Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview

12 Responses to “LUP saga rumbles on: Civil servants should execute government schemes rather than advisers”