TR EMERITUS

By Kelvin Teo, Guest Columnist

Potong Pasir and Hougang residents finally learn of the good news that they will be getting their lift upgrading. Yet, ominously on the eve of polling day 12 years ago, the-then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates will risk turning into ’slums’ if they continue to vote for the opposition.

Just three years ago, residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang were promised a sum total of $180 million if they voted for the PAP candidates, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low respectively.

Upgrading works are considered a form of public work, which some may find analogous to a public good (while others may disagree).

A public good by its very definition is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. What this means is that the consumption of the good by one individual does not diminish its availability for others (non-rivalrous), and the assumption is that there is a huge warchest of funds for upgrading. Thus, in this case, upgrading carried for one ward will  not diminish the access of the other wards to upgrading.

A public good must also be non-excludable, i.e. no one can be excluded from accessing the good. This means that all wards inclusive of Potong Pasir and Hougang should be able to gain access to upgrading, and none should be excluded.

However, it is apparent that upgrading works in Singapore’s context has somewhat become analogous to a private good, which is exclusive and prevents opposition voters within a ward from accessing it.

The Potong Pasir and Hougang residents needed to wait a long time before getting theirs. Therefore, upgrading, for some reasons has been an integral part of the electoral agenda by the PAP in the past elections. Hence, one may ask – is it possible to depoliticize the upgrading issue?

The answer is a resounding yes, and an approach can be designed in such a way that the citizens can participate in the process.

An independent body comprising individuals without any links (ideally) to the government and political parties can be set up to minimize the conflict of interests.

This body will have final decision-making powers on the nature of upgrading and the funds allocated to the process. This body has the power to decide which areas are in need of upgrading and the nature of upgrading works required, and it goes without saying, the expenditure of the processes.

A caretaker for a specific area can be appointed to survey its status on a regular basis. Ideally, this caretaker has to be a familiar face among residents whom they can approach. He has to be interacting with residents to hear their concerns and possibly, feedbacks on possible improvements that can be made to their areas.

The caretaker will compile a report of his findings and recommendations to a decision-making committee within the independent body.

Members of the decision-making committee as mentioned earlier shouldn’t be part of government service nor belong to any of the political parties. They may hail from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or are employed in the private sector. The committee will study the feedback and recommendations and will take action accordingly.

In the event of an upgrading work to an area, the caretaker will track its progress, and update the committee on its status on a consistent basis. After the upgrading works, the caretaker will catch up with the residents and capture their sentiments.

If the residents’ sentiments on the upgrading work is positive, the caretaker will stick to current status quo, but if there are complaints, the caretaker will again report this to the committee for appropriate action to be taken in order to improve the situation.

This represents a decentralization of the government’s as well as the Member of the Parliament’s role in the upgrading process. The executive decision-making powers is thus transferred from the government to the citizen.

In a certain sense, there is a partnership between the government and citizen. The former provides the funds for upgrading, and the latter makes the decision on how upgrading should be done.

This form of decision-making represents the top rungs of the Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of Citizenship participation. The top rungs epitomize a decentralization in decision-making processes while the low rungs represent a government that rules using a top-down approach, typefying a central decision-making authority.

All of us have always heard the rhetorical message about making Singapore a better place during our National Day. The truth is that Singaporeans can have a say over the physical complexion of their home if a system that facilitates their participation in the upgrading process is in place.

There is no reason why the upgrading issue should be politicized when it is first and foremost analogous to a public good, and secondly, it is the public’s duty to decide on how and what type(s) of upgrading should be done.

Lastly, placing the decision-making powers in the citizen’s hands is a form of safeguard protecting their interests since voters can make their decisions without being worried about whether their areas will get upgraded or not because the upgrading role is transferred into their own hands, instead of the electoral candidate’s.

About the Author:

Kelvin Teo is a Life Sciences graduate who considers himself fortunate enough to enjoy a liberal-arts style education, which includes graduate-level training in the field of policy studies. He loves to deal with a wide range of topics ranging from the Life Sciences, sociopolitical issues to the realm of arts and literature.

9 Responses to “Depoliticizing the upgrading issue”