AHPETC – MND’s statistics

The controversies arising from Desmond Lee’s raised concerns about the financial health of AHPETC’s have led to the MND releasing some data on the granting of govt grants to the GRCs and the criteria for such a grant. The amount of grants varies according to flat types. One room flat will get $33.70, two rooms gets $26.20, three rooms getting $17 and $9 for four room type per month.
 
A sum of $7.2m was given to AHPETC with a household of 71,760 and 29% of which are 3 rooms and smaller. MND also revealed that 10,000 households out of the 16,000 households in arrears started in 2010 after WP was elected. 50% of the commercial tenants, 8.25 of the hawkers and 29.4% of households were in arrears.
 
The statistics said that AHPETC has a relatively high percentage of flats of 4 rooms and above, at 71% compared to 61% in AMKTC and 41% in TPTC. Relatively speaking, using flat size as a factor, AHPETC has more higher income households than the two TCs mentioned. It also explained that the higher income households in AHPETC were having more difficulties paying S&CC than the lower income households in AMK and TP and falling into hard times in 2010. This is also the case for the commercial tenants as 50% of them are in arrears. 2010 was also the year when 10,000 more households fell into arrears, from 6,000 to 16,000. Only 8.2% of the hawkers are in arrears. MND did not give any statistics on how many commercial tenants and hawkers were in arrears before 2010 or how many more after 2010.
 
I am unable to figure out the 29.4% of households in arrears as 16,000 of 71,760 gives me 22.29%. Which is the correct number, 29.4% or 22.29%? For Desmond Lee to show concern, WP must thank him for his interest and special care for the welfare of AHPETC. WP may want to suggest to Desmond Lee that as a minister, there are bigger problems and sums of money that were lost or at stakes that would require his care and concern as well. AHPETC and the sum of arrears is not enough big enough to be a peanut. By the way, how many town councils are around 22.29% or 29.4% in areas?
 
What comes out as a very important factor is year 2010. Other than WP taking over the running of the town council, were there other great events that happened that led to the households and commercial tenants falling into financial difficulties in 2010? Or they fell into financial difficulties because WP was elected and thus cannot afford to pay their S&CC? It would be good to understand the financial problem they are facing and find a direct correlation in their financial well being and the election of WP. Then it can be concluded that voting WP has led to financial problems for households and commercial tenants. How I would not know. Anyone can put a link or explanation for this phenomenon to be valid?
 
Is this falling into arrears in S&CC also happening in other town councils for the same period? If there is, then it is a national thing. But if there isn’t, then circumstantial evidence could be used to say voting WP would lead to financial difficulties for the households and commercial tenants and all voters must be careful when voting in the next GE. Can it be so simple or could there be other reasons? But if said often enough, daft Sinkies would believe it is so.
 
Could the falling into arrears be due not to financial difficulties but because they just did not like the WP, did not vote for the WP, so refused to pay up? Well, that was what one resident was claiming. If this is the reason, then based on the 65% of votes for the WP, there should be 35% of households, hawkers and commercial tenants not voting for the WP, the so called hardcore.
 
The fact that 22.29% or 29.4% of households were in arrears, and taking away the original 8% in arrears, it means 14% or 21% of households are not paying because they did not vote for WP. In the case of commercial tenants, it is likely to show that more of them did not vote for WP, above the average of 35%. Or maybe they were not even living in the area but hardcore anti WP voters. So 50% in arrears can be expected.
 
In the case of the hawkers, only 8% in arrears which means no change from the original 8% before WP was elected. Heheh, the WP can count on their support from this group. Or maybe the hawkers’ business was not affected with the change of town council management.
 
What to make out from the above commentary? WP, how are you going to deal with the 50% commercial tenants and the 10,000 more households in arrears? Got to work harder to win their support I think. But if they are hardcore, if their not paying the S&CC is political, then nothing much could be done except to go legal. Let’s hope WP is big enough not to adopt the underhand and despicable practice of fixing them ok?

Kopi Level - Yellow