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council and subsequently withdrawn and the new management had to pay for a new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?
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.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
" ... based on justice and equality.. "
ReplyDeleteIs it a good idea?
ReplyDeleteIt 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
Long term strategy lah.
ReplyDeleteCurrent 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?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Aiyoh.
ReplyDeleteIT systems are NOT just for Accounts works;
they also perform many other functions !
You buggers dunno meh !?!
/// 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. ///
ReplyDeleteANSWER
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.
/// 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. ///
ReplyDeleteANSWER
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.
I had a knock on my door 2 days ago from a Voluntary Welfare Organization for old folks asking for donations.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking to myself.
Yew better look after our old folks or I will vote Yew out.
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.
ReplyDelete