8/23/2015

The impossibilities and impracticalities of MPs running town councils

The AHPETC case exposed the huge flaws embodied in the town council system whenever a new political party wins an election and a management change. The sheer tediosity of handing over the administration of a town council and its accounts to another party is enough to disable the process for months or years.

A town council must conduct a full audit of its accounts before it can hand over to the new management, with all the outstanding matters as well, plus its operating system. How long would an audit team take to complete such an audit for a GRC? A month or 6 months or a year? No political party/town council management would conduct such an audit prior to an election to prepare to hand over to a new political party. They cannot be assuming that they would lose an election. But a General Election is a general election and every party/MP must presume that they can lose. So it must become a necessity and mandatory to do such an audit a few months before a GE.

How much will it cost for such an audit and who is going to foot the bill?  What if the new management insists on bringing in their own auditors, not trusting the incumbent’s auditors? Is this fair or a good thing for the residents to pay for such a system to test if an MP can run a govt by running a town council first? Better still, all candidates standing for election should be sent to IMH for a thorough check up on their mental health and also a full medical check up on their medical conditions to certify they are fit to be an MP.

In the AHPETC case, we also read about a $20m or $24m computer system being sold for a few thousands and re leased to the town council and subsequently withdrawn and the new management had to pay for a new system. Does this mean that theoretically, all town councils would face the same administrative problems and to pay for the cost of a new system? And how long would it take for a new system to be developed and implemented, another 6 months or more? How would all these affect the efficient running of the town council and the resident’s interests?

The handover and takeover procedures of a town council is not as simple as one would think. If there are discrepancies in the audit, in processes and outstanding matters, the successor may not be willing to take over unless they are sure that all things are in order, which means more delay and haggling.

And who adds on this unnecessary task of demanding a potential MP to hunt around and prepare a team of town council management and operation staff to be ready to take over after an election even before he wins an election. Is this a fair requirement? Is it a fair requirement for the independent MPs or small parties that would not have any fair chance of running a govt to have to prove themselves to be able to run a town council? Would someone needs to prove that he can be a minister or PM before he is allowed to be one?

There are huge time constraints, practical problems and issues in the handing and taking over of a town council, and the very serious consideration of cost. Why are all these necessary? It is simply impractical and very tedious to change the management of a town council every time there is a change of MP and incurring huge cost and time and an interruption of the services to the people.

How can this be a good thing when many of the problems faced by AHPETC would not be there if it is run by a stats board like it was done previously by the HDB? Is this really a good idea, a clever idea?

What about the idea of emptying the surplus fund and transfer them to an untouchable reserve and the new management have to start from ground zero? Is this fair and functional, operational sound? The money belongs to the residents and should be retained by the town council for the needs of the residents. Is this not daylight robbery? Whose money is that? Why are other town councils allowed to retain and hold on to the money for the residents and a new management not allowed and like AHPETC, ended short of fund?

The town council system is effectively compromising and sacrificing the interests of the residents for this nebulous objective of testing the ability of MPs to run a govt. 

Really?


What do you think?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please lah RB, the purpose of Town Councils is precisely to disadvantage the opposition when they are elected as MPs to run them. Because PAP MPs would have absolutely no problem, as there are no shortage of Managing Agents willing to do it for them. Opposition? Just ask AHPETC Chairman Sylvia Lim.

And this is as clear as broad daylight. Only the truly daft still cannot see this and talk about other things, which are beside the point.

Anonymous said...

" ... based on justice and equality.. "

patriot said...

Is it a good idea?
It depends.

It is a clever idea?
Definitely for the One
that implemented it.

But, why did the Alternative
Parties not talk about it like
Redbean does here?

Why it was not even mentioned
or raised in Parliament Debates??

Is mandatory running of town
council a pre-requisite qualification
for all politicians in any country?

IS MANDATORY REQUIRENENT
TO RUN TOWN COUNCIL BY ALL
POLITICAL PARTIES A FAIR
LEGISLATION? NOT FORGETTING
THAT THERE IS A MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT
IS IN TOTAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC HOUSING.

patriot

Anonymous said...

Long term strategy lah.

Anonymous said...

Current town council system designed by the PAP is to screw up any opposition party that wins and takes over. It should be replaced by a system that does not require the handing over of financial records. The incumbent party should continue to be responsible for providing the town council services for an overlapping period of, say, 3 months. It should then close its financial accounts and be audited. After the audit, which may take another 3 months, the final audited report together with the excess funds should be handed over to the new party. In the meantime, the govt should provide a grant/loan to the new party to run for 3 months to tie over until it starts to collect the S&CC charges from residents and receives the excess funds from the out-going party. What do you think?

Anonymous said...


I think we should hold MPs accountable for TCs.

The actual day to day operations can be by agents.

Final approval is by MPs.

But, not all the MPs are involved.

For each GRC, there must be at least one FULL-TIME MP
solely looking after the GRC.

SMCs can associate with the GRCs.

Possible? Practical?

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Aiyoh.
IT systems are NOT just for Accounts works;
they also perform many other functions !
You buggers dunno meh !?!

Anonymous said...

/// The AHPETC case exposed the huge flaws embodied in the town council system whenever a new political party wins an election and a management change. The sheer tediosity of handing over the administration of a town council and its accounts to another party is enough to disable the process for months or years. ///

ANSWER
This is why we have a civil service.
The civil service is to ensure continuity during a period of political change.
The civil service is not supposed to be a source of recruitment for any political party.

Anonymous said...

/// The town council system is effectively compromising and sacrificing the interests of the residents for this nebulous objective of testing the ability of MPs to run a govt. ///

ANSWER
Thanks for pointing this out.
I now know I was wrong in thinking that the purpose is to make things more difficult for the Opposition Parties.

Anonymous said...

I had a knock on my door 2 days ago from a Voluntary Welfare Organization for old folks asking for donations.
I was thinking to myself.
Yew better look after our old folks or I will vote Yew out.

The said...

Town councils used to be run by the Estate Management arm of the HDB. There were many problems and not surprisingly, residents blamed the HDB, and by association, the government. Many votes were lost. So some bright spark in the government decided to hive off the estate management part to the town councils. Not only the PAP gets to avoid being blamed for any cock-ups, now they can pin the blame on the opposition if they are unable to overcome the obstacles and mine field created by you know who.