Tag: Workers Party

  • PAP Activists Distributing Flyers Urging Residents To Quiz Their Workers’ Party MPs

    PAP Activists Distributing Flyers Urging Residents To Quiz Their Workers’ Party MPs

    People’s Action Party (PAP) activists in Aljunied GRC have gone on the offensive, distributing flyers today (March 13) urging residents to quiz their Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) over the accounting and corporate governance lapses committed by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).

    Titled “What You Should Ask WP’s Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council”, the flyer — which was in English and Chinese and came complete with a chart — compared AHPETC’s managing agent rates with those of some PAP town councils. Among other things, it charged that there was improper governance by AHPETC and that the town council had “overpaid its friends at FMSS by at least S$6.4 million”.

    “This is our ‘lost money’. It means we have less money to clean and maintain our estate,” the flyer said, reiterating that serious problems that could affect residents were flagged by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO).

    The lapses, which were highlighted by the AGO in its audit report on AHPETC, prompted National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan to table a motion in Parliament last month. Among other things, the motion called on town councils to uphold higher standards of accounting and reporting to safeguard residents’ interests.

    During the parliamentary debate, PAP ministers and MPs had zeroed in on a potential conflict of interest: AHPETC secretary Danny Loh and his wife, the town council’s general manager How Weng Fan, are also the main directors and shareholders of AHPETC’s managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS).

    Adding that the WP had deliberately remained silent to queries posed by auditors and in Parliament, the flyer also listed questions that residents should confront the WP MPs with, including how much FMSS and other businesses owned by AHPETC employees earnt from the town council, as well as what the town council’s latest financial situation is. The flyer added: “Why did AHPETC allow the husband-and-wife team to verify and approve payment on work done by FMSS, which is owned by them?”

    It was not stated on the flyer who had come up with the contents. When contacted, PAP Paya Lebar branch chairman K Muralidharan Pillai confirmed that the flyers — which were distributed to units in Kovan — were handed out by PAP activists today. Adding that it was a ground-up initiative by the activists, he said they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”. The plan is to distribute the flyers throughout Aljunied GRC, he said.

    He pointed out that the WP MPs had said in Parliament that they would answer to residents directly on AHPETC’s lapses. Adding that the flyers contained publicly available information, Mr Muralidharan said: “Our activists decided to help residents understand the core issues and suggested questions that they may wish to ask of their MPs. Residents are free to make up their own minds as to what they wish to do after reading the flyer.”

    The WP did not respond to queries by press time.

    Some Kovan residents who received the flyer told TODAY that they were wondering who had distributed them. Nevertheless, a resident who gave his name only as Mr Seah said: “Everything in the flyer is directed at WP. It is quite obvious that it is from the PAP.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • AHPETC Paid Highest Rates To Managing Agent In Three Out Of Past Four Years

    AHPETC Paid Highest Rates To Managing Agent In Three Out Of Past Four Years

    Among all the town councils, the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) paid the highest rates to its managing agent (MA) — for both residential and commercial units — for three out of the past four years, figures from the Ministry of National Development (MND) showed.

    Ms Sylvia Lim, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, had filed questions for written answers, asking the MND for the MA rates of each of the town council for residential and commercial units in 2011, 2012 and 2013. She also asked for the names of the firms that were appointed as the MA of each town council for those years.

    In response, the MND released figures for the rates between 2011 and last year. For residential units, AHPETC paid the highest rates to its MA, FM Solutions and Services (FMSS), for the four years, except in 2013 when its rates was behind what Potong Pasir Town Council paid its MA, EM Services.

    For commercial units, AHPETC’s MA rates were the highest in 2011, 2013 and last year, but its rates were topped by those paid by the East Coast and Pasir Ris-Punggol town councils in 2012.

    The ministry also highlighted that all MA contracts charge a “clean MA rate” for each property type, with the exception of the FMSS’ 2011 MA contract with the town council. Unlike other MA contracts, FMSS’ MA fee comprises three separate cost components: The MA rate, a fee to cover the costs of existing staff of the former Hougang Town Council, and a fee to cover the costs of new staff.

    During last month’s parliamentary debate on the Auditor-General’s audit report on AHPETC, which found several accounting and corporate governance lapses, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam cited the MA rates of each town council last year to show that the fees paid by AHPETC to FMSS were significantly higher. Among other things, Mr Shanmugan charged that the town council made inflated payments to FMSS — whose directors were also key office holders in the town council — without transparency and accountability.

    Ms Lim questioned the figures cited by Mr Shanmugam, asserting that MA rates for commercial and residential units are usually different. In response, Mr Shanmugam said the figures were accurate.

    The ministry has since clarified that the MAs of all town councils, with the exception of FMSS, have done away with the practice of charging differentiated rates for residential and commercial units. The ministry also said Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council had called for a fresh tender last year, which adjusted its rates for commercial units from S$11.50 to S$5.50.

    Ms Lim also tabled a question asking the ministry what were the rates charged by the MA for the former Aljunied Town Council — which was then run by People’s Action Party — for 2010, 2011 and 2012. The ministry noted that the contract which the former Aljunied Town Council signed with its MA, CPG Facilities Management, is in fact in AHPETC’s possession. CPG’s rate per commercial unit was S$12.80 in those three years. Its rate per residential unit during the period was between S$6.03 and S$6.73.

    Taking into account various components in FMSS’ MA fee, the town council’s payments to FMSS in 2011 were effectively 20 per cent higher than the amount paid to CPG Facilities Management in 2010. By last year, AHPETC was paying about S$1.6 million more to its MA than other town councils, the ministry reiterated.

    Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair questioned the additional fees that the town council paid to FMSS in 2011. “Since the work of running the enlarged Aljunied-Hougang Town Council fell on former Hougang staff — some of whom became owners of FMSS — as well as the new staff whose salaries were provided for, why were additional MA fees payable for that year to FMSS?”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
    [Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2015]

    Mdm Speaker,

    The DPM and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme in particular.

    Th CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British Colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a “defined contribution” scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face.

    While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities.

    Minimum Sum

    The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to “Retirement Sum” by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55.

    This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? “We’re not children after all,” some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55.[1]

    I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I too would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55. Apart from paying off day-to-day expenses, I feel confident of being able to manage my own money well and not squander it. However, the reality for me, and I think many other working Singaporeans, is that if not for the forced savings that CPF has imposed, we would probably have saved much less for retirement.

    As pointed out by Mr Donald Low from the LKY School of Public Policy in a commentary in The Straits Times last week, faced with a choice between an immediate reward and a larger delayed benefit, people often choose the former.

    Also, even if CPF members make an effort to invest their retirement savings after they are withdrawn, not many have investment skills that are good enough to consistently beat the current 4% CPF Retirement Account interest rate in the long term.

    We also have to be on guard against swindlers who will try to find ways to persuade vulnerable elderly folks to part with their CPF money if they withdraw the full amount at one go.

    Therefore, while we understand Singaporeans’ strong sentiments about the Minimum Sum “locking up” our CPF money, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Workers’ Party is not asking for CPF members to be allowed to withdraw all their CPF money in a lump sum, except under special circumstances.

    Flexibility in Draw-Down Age

    Having said that, there is still room for providing CPF members with more flexibility in determining when to start receiving monthly payouts from their CPF. Currently, members can start drawing down their CPF only upon reaching their DrawDown Age, now known as the Payout Eligibility Age, which will be 65 from 2018 onwards.

    Some CPF members may have genuine reasons for needing monthly payouts to start earlier than age 65. For example, they may have been retrenched and, because of a skills mismatch or age discrimination, may not be able to secure another job. Or they may be labourers who are simply be too old to do manual work. When I observed the young men who helped me move the heavy furniture in my home recently, I wondered how long they would be able to continue in that role, and what jobs they would do once they are not strong enough to carry such heavy loads.

    The Workers’ Party therefore proposes lowering the Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the flexibility to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier, if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65. This was a call made by my colleague, the Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in May 2014.

    I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel’s recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6 to 7% increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer.[2] In line with this, under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, there would be a permanent 6 to 7%decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option.

    De-link Payout Eligibility Age from Retirement / Re-employment Age

    Many Singaporeans have expressed frustration about the constantly increasing Payout Eligibility Age. It is was 63 last year, 64 this year and will be 65 in 2018. It seems to be moving up together with the Re-employment Age. Perhaps it is assumed that people are able to work until the Re-employment Age and do not need to draw down their CPF savings before that.

    However, just because the Re-employment Age has been raised does not mean that everyone will be able to work until 65, as I explained earlier. Furthermore, the statutory Retirement Age is now only 62. This leaves a gap of 3 years that a retiree will have to tide over, should his company not offer him re-employment until 65.

    I would like to reiterate the Workers’ Party’s earlier calls for the Payout Eligibility Age to be de-linked from either the Retirement Age or the Re-employment Age. Even if the Retirement Age is increased, the Payout Eligibility Age should remain constant at 60. This will provide members with more assurance of when they are eligible to start drawing from their CPF, regardless of their employment status, instead of wondering when the target will move again.

    Public education on CPF system

    Madam, I would like to touch on the public education aspects of the CPF scheme. The CPF Scheme is not easy to understand, regardless of one’s level of education. The large amount of technical jargon, acronyms, figures and different conditions that apply to people with different birth years, all add to the confusion.

    There is a pressing need to increase and improve public education about the CPF scheme. The CPF Advisory Panel has also recommended that more public education on CPF is needed.

    A recent poll by REACH, the government feedback unit, found that only 13% of respondents under 55 were able to provide the estimated monthly payout amount under CPF LIFE if one met the Minimum Sum requirement. With greater choices provided in the CPF scheme, it is important that CPF members are fully aware of the implications of their choices, including the lower payouts if they choose to start withdrawals earlier or withdraw a lump sum.

    I am aware that there are many ways in which CPF Board tries to get its message out, including pamphlets, public seminars and even advertisements on YouTube. However, none of these ensures that a CPF member is fully aware of the choices he has to make at critical junctures, like at age 55 and 65. A letter is sent to CPF members just 1 to 2 months before they turn 55, to inform them that they can apply to withdraw their CPF. This may not give them enough time and information to consider their choices carefully.

    My observation is that public education on CPF currently focuses a lot on how CPF benefits Singaporeans, or to clarify misunderstandings about CPF. The questions asked in the REACH poll are quite telling. They include questions like “If you do not meet your Minimum Sum requirement, do you need to top up the shortfall in cash?” and “Do you think you will receive a monthly payout from age 65 if you do not meet the full Minimum Sum?”

    Public education on CPF should be more tailored to individual members, focusing on the information and numbers that are directly relevant to them and the choices they have to make. We should not confuse people with numbers that are irrelevant to them, like the different Minimum Sum amounts and Draw-Down Ages for different age groups. While the CPF website has a number of useful calculators, not every retiree is technically-savvy enough to access and use them correctly.

    I would therefore like to suggest that before reaching the age of 55, every CPF member should be invited to meet one-on-one with a CPF Board officer, who should explain the details of the scheme, including how much he has in his account, how much he can withdraw, when he can withdraw, the choices of CPF LIFE plans and what his monthly payouts will be. This should be conducted in a language or dialect that he is comfortable with, and he should be allowed to bring a few family members to the meeting. It should be done at least a 3 months before the member becomes eligible to withdraw his CPF.

    This personalised meeting should be done on top of the public seminars that are available to CPF members. It will provide a channel for important information to be explained personally to the member and to give him an opportunity to seek clarifications from the officer.

    Silver Support Scheme

    The last matter I wish to raise concerns the Silver Support Scheme. While CPF payouts are usually enough to meet the retirement needs of seniors who have the Full Retirement Sum or more at retirement, there is a sizeable number of Singaporeans whose CPF payouts are insufficient to meet basic household expenditure.

    The solution for these individuals cannot be to postpone their CPF withdrawals or place further restrictions on their use of CPF and Medisave. This will only exacerbate their difficult financial situation. I am glad the Government has finally acknowledged that individual responsibility through the CPF system has its limits, and that it is time to provide a form of old age support for needy senior citizens.

    While the details of the Silver Support Scheme are still being worked out, I would like to make some remarks on the scheme based on what the Finance Minister has announced.

    First, the Silver Support quantum seems rather low, ranging from $100 to $250 per month. This is much lower than what even the poorest 20% of households spend each month on basic household necessities, which is $761 per month for all households[3] and $317 per month for retiree households, according to last year’s Household Expenditure Survey.[4]

    Can the DPM share his basis for deriving the Silver Support quantum? Does it look at household expenditure, and does it assume that all retirees receive additional forms of income like children’s contributions?

    Given the increasing cost of living in Singapore, I urge the Government to ensure that Silver Support is enough to cover retirees’ basic household expenses and that it also increases over time to account for inflation.

    Second, while I agree that the Silver Support Scheme should provide targeted support, the evaluation criteria should take into account the current financial situation of the seniors and should not be so stringent that genuine cases end up being excluded. In particular, the “household support” criteria must not deny Silver Support to seniors whose children are unable to support them or whom they are estranged from. Needy seniors should not have to suffer for their children’s inability or unwillingness to support them.

    My third request on Silver Support is that it should be paid out monthly instead of quarterly. Silver Support recipients are not working and receiving a salary, unlike Workfare recipients, yet they still have monthly household expenses like bills, food, transport and rental. A monthly payout would help seniors in their cash flow management.

    Conclusion

    Madam, in summary, I would like to reiterate the four main proposals in my speech:

    First, more flexibility should be given to CPF members to start receiving CPF payouts as early as age 60, if they need to, so as to help those who are not able to find work at that age. Second, the CPF Payout Eligibility Age should be de-linked from the Retirement or Re-employment Age, to provide more certainty for seniors.

    Third, personalised public education should be conducted for all CPF members, in their preferred language or dialect, well in advance of their 55th birthday, so as to give them more time to consider their options and discuss with family members. And fourth, the basis for calculating the Silver Support quantum should be made public and it should take into account the current financial situation of seniors to ensure that the needy are not excluded. It should also be paid out monthly instead of quarterly.

    Thank you, Madam.

     

    Source: http://wp.sg

  • NSP: For Benefit Of Residents, Do Not Politicise Town Councils

    NSP: For Benefit Of Residents, Do Not Politicise Town Councils

    The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has called on the government not to penalise residents Aljunied residents, tighten the framework of the Town Council Act and to depoliticise town councils so that it does not hinder the ability of MPs to serve as the people’s representatives.

    The remarks were made in a statement issued by NSP’s new secretary-general Mr Tan Lam Siong, in the wake of the parliamentary debate on the financial audit by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) on Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) accounts.

    NSP called on the government not to withhold the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) grant to AHPETC in the light of the adverse findings by AGO, but instead to continue disbursing the grants to let AHPETC pay for essential services.

    “As it is, the collection of S&CC charges from residential and commercial units is insufficient to cover all town council expenses and hence a government grant is required,” wrote Mr Tan. “Any withholding of the S&CC grant amounting to S$ 7 million per year will therefore affect residents if AHPETC is unable to pay for essential services.”

    NSP also supported the move to enforce greater standards of accountability and governance, but said that this should not lead to a penalty framework in the management of town councils that would impact on town councillors who are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament.

    “A MP’s fundamental duty is to represent his constituents who elected him or her and to participate in the functions of Parliament,” said Mr Tan. “This duty cannot and should never be subjugated to any other duty. By putting in place a penalty framework in relation to town councillors who are also MPs, the concern is whether such a framework would lead to their secondary role as town councillors overshadowing and undermining their primary role as MPs.”

    NSP also noted that the constant accusations of an un-level playing field and political bias, which opposition MPs have often raised against the government.

    “NSP hopes that the government will re-examine the political wisdom of the notion that the competency of political parties aspiring to form the national government can be tested through their management of town councils,” said Mr Tan. “Such a notion has no empirical basis. The ability to manage a town council and the ability to govern the country have no correlation whatsoever. Any suggestion of a correlation would imply that the best people to govern the country are town planners and estate managers, which cannot be true.”

    Mr Tan recalled that the first generation of government leaders were “fully capable of governing the country” although they were by no means managing town councils, and they have depended on a politically neutral civil service to fulfil that task.

    “NSP urges the government to consider allowing town councils to be managed by a statutory board or a centralised agency instead,” said Mr Tan, “so that residents will not only benefit from a seamless continuation of all services when there is a change of town councillors who are MPs from a different political party but also from lower S&CC charges because of economy of scale.”

    “Residents will be spared the vagaries of a political change in what is essentially a municipal function that can be performed by those equipped with the knowledge and skills to manage estates. If the management of town councils continues to be politically charged, public confidence in our political system will continue to be eroded.”

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • AHPETC Saga: The Politics Of Stupidity

    AHPETC Saga: The Politics Of Stupidity

    Some of us might be bewildered by what happened in Parliament last week, when a motion was tabled to discuss at length about the Accounting General’s investigation into the finances of Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council.

    Two whole days were spent niggling over the finances of a single town council, with various Ministers taking the stand to chastise, lambast, accuse and denigrate the effectiveness and integrity of the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament in charge of AHPETC, who then had to defend themselves against these allegations.

    That was followed up by countless media reports, and even all the way to this week, we can hear the topic being discussed on national radio. The circus continues.

    With such a big fuss, what exactly was the issue about, you might ask?

    The Minister for National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan would have you believe that it was about transparency and accountability. Much was said about how AHPETC was not able to cobble together a proper audit report, the figures were all in a mess, and how the way its managing agent attended to the affairs of the town council was anything but lawful.

    Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim
    Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim

    Indeed, AHPETC has a lot to answer for. The dearth of any managing agent or existing company willing to take up contracts run by opposition party town councils might mean the need for the party to appoint a preferred vendor that has little experience in running such affairs, but it then becomes the party’s obligation to ensure that nothing should ever slip through the cracks.

    This has nothing to do with the risk of being picked on by their opposition, but the simple need to break in new vendors and ensure they can more than adequately comply with existing regulations.

    Yet for all the accountably owing, is this issue worthy of time in Parliament and national media? In truth, AHPETC needs to address the concerns of its residents in how their money had been used. This issue is at best a municipal one, hardly worth a two-day debate in the House.

    In spite of all the red marks AHPETC received in its annual town council audits by MND, to question the effectiveness of its leaders is very different from questioning their integrity. In fact, putting the same spotlight of scrutiny that AGO had on any other town council might have yielded similar results.

    What is of national concern, however, was not given the air time it deserves in Parliament. We are talking about many millions more, given to the government led by the ruling People’s Action Party for the management of the nation, yet with clear transgressions of proper accountability. We are talking about yet another report by AGO, this time on the financial irregularities in government agencies. This is not money given to one town council, but money that an entire nation of tax-payers had entrusted to the government. Were any of these financial issues debated as robustly as AHPETC’s finances?

    khaw boon wan
    Khaw Boon Wan

    We should also note that Mr Khaw’s own Ministry had more recently been called into question for oversights in tendering the Fernvale temple and columbarium. Amazingly, Mr Khaw was allowed to explain this away by making references to, of all things, Chinese folklore.

    My intention in drawing up these examples is not to heap it on Mr Khaw or do a tit-for-tat, but to ask, really, what should Parliament be focusing on?

    Yet another rationale for focusing on AHPETC was given by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, who opined that it was about serving the interests of residents well. Mr Heng also went as far as to make unsubstantiated claims that WP MPs have been avoiding residents’ queries on the issue during their walkabouts.

    Oddly, a recent media report on radio, where reporters actually went to the Aljunied ward to talk to residents to get their views on the issue, indicated that residents generally trust AHPETC to do the right thing, and indeed, their neighbourhoods are no worse than before despite the fracas.

    Heng
    Heng Swee Keat

    That aside, it is perhaps a tad contradictory that the actions by Mr Heng’s colleague should disagree with his concerns for the residents. For all the review to the Town Council Act that Mr Khaw had promised, his Ministry’s decision on the matter was to withhold about S$7 million of service and conservancy charges grants for the financial year 2014 from AHPETC until it can fill in the gaps for its finances.

    Is this withholding of funds meant to penalise AHPETC, or to punish the residents? Where exactly is PAP’s focus on this issue? Has it lost focus, or did it have any to begin with?

    In net effect, the berating of AHPETC using precious time in Parliament was not about accountability. It was also not about the rights of citizens, as the actions of MND have proved. But if it was about politics, then it was clearly not the smart kind.

    Indeed, Mr Heng had claimed that the issue was not about partisan politics. Perhaps he was right. Partisan politics would require that you put in some effort to defend your party’s interest against your opponent. What we saw in Parliament last week was little more than the PAP going for WP’s jugular, completely disregarding that the ground had already been stained with its own blood.

    PAP, in letting its key office holders loose to freely attack WP, need to realise that the residents of Alijunied, Hougang and Punggol East did not vote in WP because they wanted MPs who are fantastic at running their estates. By PAP’s own admission – and in case it has forgotten – WP won because voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.

    Last week, voters saw that voice being drowned out in Parliament and in media. One can only wonder what their reaction might be, come the next general elections.

    If this had been about projecting a positive perception among the electorate, WP might have taken a bruising, but it was surely the PAP that has bashed itself to a pulp. But of course, it is not. It has been about, and will always be told to be about, public accountability and the interest of residents – if you would believe it.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com