Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP
OPINION
In a letter published in the Straits Times Forum on 27 October 2009, Press Secretary to the Ministry of National Development Lim Yuin Chien wrote that there is a difference between the roles of a MP and an adviser.
This was what he wrote:
“In Singapore, MPs also have an important role in running town councils. As provided for in the Town Councils Act, this role includes managing the common property of HDB estates and carrying out local improvement projects, thereby contributing to the well-being of the people of the constituency.
As for the government-appointed adviser, his main role is to assist in implementing national programmes, such as government campaigns, and HDB’s upgrading programmes, including the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP).”
Mr Lim’s reply appears to give one the impression that the PAP’s “grassroots adviser” is obliged to implement the LUP under the law and not the MP. However, there is NO ROLE stipulated for grassroots advisers under the Town Council Act (CAP 329A) at all.
Under Part IVA (Lift Upgrading Works) of the Act, the Town Council is the authority involved from the preliminary discussions about the upgrading to its final implementation on the ground.
Since Hougang Town Council is under the charge of its MP Low Thia Kiang, Mr Low Thia Kiang should be the one implementing the LUP and NOT the PAP losing candidate Eric Low.
There are NO PROVISIONS made in the Act for the Ministry of National Development to collaborate with PAP-appointed grassroots adviser instead of the legitimate MP.
Attached below are selected segments of the Town Councils Act (CAP 329A)
Declaration of precincts
24B. —(1) The Minister may, after consulting the Board and the Town Council concerned, from time to time by order published in the Gazette, declare any housing estate of the Board or any part thereof within that Town Council’s Town to be a precinct for the purposes of the Town Council carrying out any lift upgrading works in buildings within the precinct.
Lift upgrading works in a precinct
24C. —(1) Where any housing estate of the Board or any part thereof within a Town has been declared a precinct under section 24B, the Town Council for that Town shall, as soon as practicable —
(a) make arrangements to conduct in the manner prescribed a poll of such owners of the flats within the precinct as may be prescribed with a view to establishing their opinions about the Town Council’s proposals to carry out lift upgrading works in buildings within the precinct; and (b) do such other things as the Minister may direct.
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.
[Source: Statutes of Singapore]
As we can see from the above, the Minister has to work with the Town Council to carry out lift upgrading works in the precinct. Therefore, he should work directly with Hougang Town Council and NOT the PAP grassroots adviser.
Who is the Chairman of Hougang Town Council? According to the official website of Hougang Town Council, its Chairman is Mr Low Thia Kiang, the MP for Hougang.
[Source: Hougang Town Council]
Naturally it follows that the Ministry of National Development should just work with Mr Low to implement the LUP in Hougang. There is simply no business for the PA or Mr Eric Low to be involved in the first place!
In an interview with the state media, Mr Eric Low even claimed that he was involved in the discussion with the Ministry about the LUP and subsequent conducting of polls among the Hougang residents, but he has absolutely NO POWER to do so under the Town Council Acts!
Why wasn’t the Town Councils Act adhered to this instance? What does it say of the minister and the civil servants if they don’t even bother to follow the Act? Did they miss out the fine print in the Act out of hindsight or are they simply flouting the rules?
If the Act is frivolous and redundant, then why is it in our Statutes in the first place? Is the PAP making a mockery out of the Attorney-General Chambers?
Or is the Minister ignorant of the Act? If he is not, why didn’t he follow the provisions provided in the Act to work with Mr Low Thia Kiang? Why did he choose to appoint Mr Eric Low to implement the LUP instead?
The National Development Ministry MUST explain why there was a discrepancy in what was printed in the Town Councils Act and its actions.
From now onwards, pending to further revisions to the Town Councils Act, ALL lift upgrading works in any precincts in Singapore must be implemented through their respective Town Councils led by their MPs regardless of their political affiliations.
Singapore Law Minister Mr Shanmugam told visiting American delegates from the New York State Bar Association yesterday that Singapore is a country governed by law:
“The rule of law was necessary to assure people of different races that they had equal opportunities, and to attract foreign investments for economic growth,” he said.
It is a joke that for some strange reasons or another, Mr Shanmugan’s ministerial colleague has refused to obey the Town Councils Act by choosing not to work with Hougang Town Council and even has the audacity to TWIST the facts by claiming that “it is the role of the grassroots advisers to implement the LUP” through his press secretary when it was stated NOWHERE in the Town Councils Act that the LUP has to be carried out by the grassroots advisers!
From beginning to end, there was no mention of the words “Grassroots advisers”, “People Association” or “PAP losing candidates” and so how did Mr Eric Low come into the picture at all?
Can Mr Shanmugam please explain to Singaporeans who is in the wrong? Is there a mistake somewhere in the Town Councils Act or did the Minister fail to follow what was printed in the Act?
Singapore has always prided itself as a country governed strictly by laws. Nobody is above the law in Singapore, be it a common man in the street, a tycoon or an important political leader.
Was the Town Councils Act flouted? If not, why not? If it has indeed been contravened, what punishment should the Attorney-Chambers mete out to the transgressors?
This is an important matter of public interest as it concerns the sanctity of law in Singapore. If the Mr Eric Low or the civil servants are able to get away by their actions of not following the law, what does it say about the rule of law in Singapore?
If the minister, Mr Eric Low and other civil servants had respected the Town Council Acts, they should have followed it strictly in accordance to Part IVA (Life Upgrading Works) and work directly with Hougang MP Low Thia Kiang instead. Mr Low should be the person announcing the LUP and NOT Mr Eric Low.
Mr Eric Low can volunteer his services to Hougang residents by being the personal assistant of Mr Low Thia Kiang in his own personal capacity, but he should not be the main liaison person between Hougang Town Council and the National Development Ministry.
Singaporeans expect no less than a clear explanation on this matter from the authorities concerned – the National Development Ministry, the Law Ministry, HDB, People’s Association and the Attorney-General Chambers.
If a precedent is set which allows for laws as outlined in the Singapore Statutes to be ignored and disobeyed, what will our country become?
Mr Shanmugam should put his words into action by clearing up the “misunderstanding” over the Town Councils Act to lay down the ground rules explicitly so that future sagas like this will not happen again.
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
Loading ...
x12831 on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 2:05 pm
I wonder how many other laws the PAP ministers and MPs have broken? Selective application of laws?
cy on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 2:18 pm
good question raised.
Cheese on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 2:24 pm
TR, nice piece of work. Keep it up!
Wow on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 2:43 pm
Great article. Keep up the good work.
stan on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 2:55 pm
wah…. kena buah (the truth is out)
must be another “honest mistake” like how they always brush things off like it never happened.
suk hoi on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 3:15 pm
Those ppl are supposed to be hand picked and also the best person, they can find on the job. Then take everything for granted, nobody check or bother to read the Town Council Act. Singaporeans were taken for a long ride. There must be more…much more similar stuff taken for granted.
Time for Change on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 3:17 pm
Great article! You guys really do your homework.
Tom on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 3:18 pm
Haven’t we learnt? The TC CARRIES out the work. The Act DOES NOT preclude the planning and announcement of LUP by the advisers. inside polling station outside polling station ….
Corruption on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 3:25 pm
THE PAP IS CORRUPT!!
BL on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:05 pm
Can TR send the above article to the local papers and have it published?
If for some reason, that our local media do not have enough ’space’ to print out the attached article, perhaps a petition can be sent to the PM requesting him to conduct a thorough investigation?
btan on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:21 pm
Haven’t we learnt that PAP can ignore or re-interpret the law as it sees fit?
Ministers standing in polling station and they can be found not guilty.
PRC hanging their own country flag in public-viewable place and the police can do nothing.
5 innocent persons walking along the pavement wearing t-shirts with messages can be arrested for “procession”.
It appears some people are more equal than the others.
from HK on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:25 pm
“The rule of law” a joke or what ?
Is there 2 set of law ?
cat on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:29 pm
MBT sucked again.
How does he think such blatant disregard of the law of Singapore can gain him respect?
N on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 4:50 pm
You dumbasses!! The ACT is an ASPIRATION..! it’s a dream that we never aim to achieve. Please correct your highfalutin understanding.
NY Bar - International on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 5:51 pm
Maybe TR could send this to the representatives of New York Bar Association holding their meeting here currently so that they could raise the matter with Minister Shanmugam.
Ben on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 6:07 pm
Then this is amounts to an illegitimate and unconstitutional usurpation of the democratically-elected MP seat! As though it weren’t hard enough to get over the barriers to entry to contest the election, now they decide to reduce its significance and concentrate power within an undemocratic elite. Without doubt, following this expose, the PAP will then move on to amend the Town Council Act to give all the power to ‘grassroots advisers’, on the ostentatious rationale of so-called expediency. This is ridiculous. We’re heading into a world of worse-than-third-world politicie.
Ben on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 6:41 pm
And given the nature of our ‘independent’ judiciary, they’d surely rule that whoever drafted the law surely must have intended that the ruling party would own ALL the wards in the country so that only they would be implementing lift upgrading works. Remember what Shanmugam said about the drafters of the constitution ’surely’ considering reputation more important than free speech, and therefore oh-so-obviously justifying the bankrupting of opposition members?
Wake up, Singaporeans! We need to force our two-faced government to face up to the facts and behave CONSTITUTIONALLY.
midnite liao on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 8:02 pm
pls la… tomorrow just amend the ACT la. Just wayang wayang debate and approve it la…
Steve Wu on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 9:00 pm
Dear Ben (29th Oct 2009 6:41 pm),
“those who drafted the Constitution here placed ‘a higher social value on reputation than on free speech, where they conflict’.” – Chan Sek Keong 27 Oct 2009
Just a fine point. I believe it was Chan Sek Keong who said that. In any case, I agree with you. I may not know what the drafters of the Constitution intended (not a mind reader) but I know that the end product does NOT ascribe what Chan Sek Keong desires, neither in language nor in form.
To be sure, Article 14 is about “freedom of speech and expression”. “Dafamation” is mentioned in Article 14 as a curtailment. “Reputation” is mentioned only once, in Art 19(e) in the Constitution which states that a presidential candidate must be of good character and reputation. Hence, it is irrelevant to this discussion.
If “reputation” has a higher placing, will Chan Sek Keong enlighten the People why the relevant Article (indeed the Constitution) does NOT state that at all and certainly does NOT state it ahead of the freedom of speech, being the first item in Article 14?
I should remind Chan Sek Keong that the truth (particularly one deep in the People’s hearts) is an absolute defense against defamation, not what the judge chooses to admit or not (for obvious reasons). All judgments of defamation cases concerning political figures in Singapore are publicly available. The ones which I have read left very bad taste; I conclude I am closer to a logician than most of our judges will ever be.
3rd Class citizen on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 9:16 pm
他們是自封的皇帝！不需要遵守法律！更何況法律是他們為自己量身定做的！
他們就是王，就是法律！明白了嗎？
BarelyAlive on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 9:42 pm
Good article!
Good points brought up and well supported.
For change to take place we need more of such articles to educate the public.
Well done!
Yamasam on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 10:03 pm
In the latest issue of Newsweek (Nov 2 issue), there is this little passage :
James Madison, president and father of the (US) constitution, once said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations”.
Well, this country is a classic example of such an instance.
If the AG is truly non-partisan and independent, they should now investigate if any law (Town Council Act) is broken by this govt by appointing advisers instead of the chairmans of the respective town councils for the LUP in Hougang and Potong Pasir.
小民 on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 10:26 pm
基层领袖是现代版的垂帘听政?
向来以法律制压异己的白衣人知法犯法, 贪权也贪的太过火了!
Ape on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 11:22 pm
Has anyone found any official records on grassroot advisors/leaders? Such as:-
1) How “Government” are these grassroot advisors?
2) How are they appointed? Who appoints them?
3) Are they paid? What is their terms of reference?
Ape tried to search but hardly find it in any official websites. Perhaps they actually have an official designation. If so, anyone knows that is the official designation of a “grassroot advisor/leader”?
indexer on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 11:30 pm
It is not true that the “Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP”.
The key operative word in section 24B(1) is the word “may”. The statute gives the Minister the authority to direct the Town Council to perform the tasks related to lift upgrading. However, the Minister has no obligation to work through the Town Council.
In particular, section 24I(1) makes clear that the Minister has power to make rules over all aspects of Lift Upgrading Works.
So, this article would more accurately be titled “Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt __may__ work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP”.
Bobby Tan on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 11:47 pm
The PAP has hijacked democracy and they are really immature poor losers.
Steve Wu on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:05 am
I concur with Ape (Thu, 29th Oct 2009 11:22 pm). I will be very upset if any tax dollar is paying for these grassroot advisors to shadow the constitutionally elected opposition MPs.
I suppose PAP does not subscribe to Lim Swee Say’s “cheaper, faster, better” mantra when two or more people end up doing the same job! If we ever have 30 opposition MPs, does the PAP intend to appoint 30 such advisors (on public payroll)? It should definitely be illegal to abuse taxpayers’ money to play party politics.
Indeed, if the Town Council Act is violated in this instance, the perpetrators must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Many people have the misconception that the government cannot be sued. In fact, it is guaranteed by Article 37(2) which states “The Government may sue and be sued.”
The way things are unfolding is a mockery of the rule of law and a mocking contempt of Singaporeans.
Ape on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:08 am
BTW, ape believes something in HDB Act allows for lift upgrading and in there, TC need not be involved. Don’t be surprised if they say the lift upgrading is carried out under the HDB Act and not the TC Act, therefore, no need to work with TC.
contrarian on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:17 am
I agree with Tom. The TC will carry out the work. That is quite a different thing from announcing that the LUP will happen.
Wait and see on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:20 am
The Government must have known this simple truth.
PARLIAMENT MAKE STATUTORY LAW and it is the public service which IMPLEMENT all statutory law appropriate to their division. IT IS NOT THE RIGHT NOR PROVINCE OF STATUTORY BOARDS LIKE MND TO INTERPRET LAWS of who shall implement LUP. It has no legal capacity as such I believe because if it did, it can re-interpret all legislation in a distorted manner and Parliament is powerless to react until challenged in the court-room proceedings. Is this NOT correct???
If the contrary is true – that is to say, it is the administrative law right of MND to INTERPRET ITS APPLICATION in this instance VIA UNELECTED GRASSROOT, instead of elected MPs, THEN IT MUST BE THE CIVIL SERVANT HAVING ALL THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW POWER TO LEGISLATE MATTERS RELEVANT TO LUP IMPLEMENTATION.
Have we seen any civil servant attending Parliament to legislate any law??? I have NOT!!!
SO THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF ABUSE OF OFFICE by MND, it is acting outside the limits of its statutory authorities in trying to interpret law applications WHEN THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF COURTROOM AND PARLIAMENT’S DISCRETION TO AMEND IF IT DOES NOT AGREE.
The Law Minister would have known MND is incorrect of stance at law, why did the Law Ministry NOT publicly advise accordingly, I wonder??
MND has no business to interpret legislation. One could argue that it is misfesance at law or could it NOT??
Anyone disagree??
Anonymous on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:52 am
@ Ape on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:08 am
Your point is interesting but leaves legal unexplained issues. If it is done via HDB Act, why is some part of the costs needs to be borne by TC and some parts by residents themselves and requiring the approval of 80% by residences.
HDB “owners” who bought those apartments has no contract which entitled them to future upgrading at substantially HDB’s expenses or required HDB to “upgrade” by way of setting up new lift access to their respective units not signed as agreed item of term bargain in the sale/purchase agreement. Nor is there any term in the contract for upgrade of existing lifts (TC’s responsibility for maintenance in any case. And since if it is an initiative under HDB Act (if it should now alleges this to be the case, unlikely I believe) why require resident’s approval? It should be HDB’s costs and so many prior LUP have already been completed through the years.
In any case, if it is done via HDB Act, the letter seeking approval from HDB residents should explicitly stated as such because it spelt out the rights and obligation as between the parties – HDB on one side and each resident “owner” on the other. Has this been done in the past? And what was HDB’s substantive involvement in the past of all other LUP?
Was it a passive paymaster or was it the TC organising the tender and construction award. There must be case precedents before – the letter of invitation comes from HDB or TC in the past? We cannot changed the game now because of public grouses since it is public expenditure item and public law and administrative law issue.
If an accident happens on site, who do the victim sues – HDB or TC. It can’t be HDB Act’s mandate and legal consequences flowing to TC or the reverse if faulty construction results in death in lift sudden collapse. Or is it??
Rainnix on Sat, 31st Oct 2009 4:16 pm
How come no one asked Lim Yuin Chien to resign? Maybe the residents should file a class civil suit to sue MND.
1) How “Government” are these grassroot advisors?
2) How are they appointed? Who appoints them?
3) Are they paid? What is their terms of reference?
4) Do they get 8-month bonuses like CDC employees?
We should continue to press on this issue to let all stat boards know that they should be non-partisan.
Ape on Sun, 1st Nov 2009 1:15 am
To
Steve Wu on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:05 am
Rainnix on Sat, 31st Oct 2009 4:16 pm
Those questions asked by ape are not rhetorical. Ape is really curious to know. All that ape know is that People’s Association is a statutory board (part of gahmen) and under PA, there is CCC and RC. Somehow, grassroots leaders/advisors work within this circle and ape is lost there.
To
Anonymous on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:52 am
Ape must have misinterpreted the Housing Board Act with regards to LUP. In anycase, from the perspective of accountabiity, ape feels that TC has to be involved quite significantly in the LUP and not merely a passive (small share) paymaster. Should there be an accident/delay in upgrading/extreme nuisance etc the residents will most likely turn to their MP, don’t they? Even if LUP is carried smoothly, who will have to follow up with the maintenance? TC or HDB?
parrot on Sun, 1st Nov 2009 10:04 am
“People’s Association is a statutory board (part of gahmen)”
parrot on Sun, 1st Nov 2009 10:08 am
Ape on Sun, 1st Nov 2009 1:15 am
“People’s Association is a statutory board (part of gahmen)” [that purposefully employs gahmen-PAP linked “grassroots” leaders/advisors??) LOL.
“ape feels that TC has to be involved quite significantly in the LUP and not merely a passive (small share) paymaster. Should there be an accident/delay in upgrading/extreme nuisance etc the residents will most likely turn to their MP, don’t they?” So where does that leave the PA-appointed adviser that played such an important role in the gathering feedback, planning, etc etc? LOL