Resident asked where funds to replace lifts in Tampines will come from
November 25th, 2009 | 
Author: Written by Our Correspondent
A resident by the name of Eileen Tan had written in to the Straits Times Forum asking where the funds will come from to replace the 1,260 lifts in Tampines.
Ms Tan is responding to an earlier article published by the Straits Times which lauded Tampines Town Council for scoring “top marks” for its lifts.
The Town Councils in Singapore will be graded by a nationwide benchmarking exercise and the report will be released in June next year.
The Tampines Town Council gave its residents a peek at its preliminary results in a bid to them more involved in the running of the estate.
It did best on lifts, recording nearly no breakdowns and also for arrears management, with overdue payments making up only 27.4 per cent of the conservancy fees collected each month.
Its worst grade was in estate maintenance. With an average of 5.7 defects per block, it scored only a level three. Cleanliness got a level two, with an average of 3.1 cleanliness problems per block.
Ms Tan expressed concerns that the town council did not reveal how much it spent on maintaining these lifts, nor give an estimate of their future replacement cost and, more importantly, how this cost will be financed.
She asked the town council to reveal how it intends to fund future lift replacements:
“The council now has about 1,260 lifts and the replacement cycle is 28 years. The council keeps a sinking fund for such replacement works. At the current replacement cost of $100,000 for a lift, the council needs $126 million to replace all its lifts.
But according to its latest financial statement, it has only $32 million in its residential sinking fund, an annual contribution of $11.8 million and an annual expenditure of $24 million.
Considering this, the town council should tell its residents how it intends to fund the future lift replacements.
With advancement in technology, there is no doubt that lift performance is getting better and better, but there is a price to pay for the maintenance and replacement. Will future generations bear the burden of paying for these costs?”
Needless to say, the costs will be bored by the residents via their monthly conservancy charges.
Over 85 per cent of Singapore’s population lives in public housing built by the HDB, a government agency under the purview of the National Development Ministry.
The funds used for maintenance and upgrading of estates are disbursed from the government’s coffers which was used perennially by the ruling party to intimidate Singaporeans into voting for them in past elections.
The residents of the two opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang have been denied essential upgrading of their estates till lately though they pay income taxes and serve National Service like the rest of the population.
As the value of HDB flats is partially dependent on the estate’s amenities, many Singaporeans are persuaded to cast their votes for the ruling party though they may not have any affinity for it.
This enables the ruling party to romp home with “landslide” electoral victories one after another.
Even with this obvious advantage, the ruling party managed to garner only 66.6 per cent of the valid votes during the 2006 elections.
In spite of one-third of the population voting for the opposition, they are represented by only 2 out of 84 seats in parliament.
Posted in Editorial
Coz it’s true to character of...
i am more interested in how MBT will answer than the obvious answer
“She asked the town council to reveal how it intends to fund future lift replacements.”
Tough lah. People so demanding these days. Light must, water, gas must, lift must, . . . .
But Opposition says no problem. Just pay me same or LESS and let us handle the town council funds. You’ll be surprised what we can do. Let’s try for 5 years. Give us a chance please. We can do much better than the PAP!
Then, what’s done cannot be undone. The constituents must cough out the lost, mismanged, missing, money all over again again. Stupid, right? It’s takes a bite to know that a barking dog also bites. How to get Rasif back from Thailand? How to get Mohammed back from Indonesia? Both these lawyers have absconded, between them, $5 – $12 million dollars, after getting the clients to place the money with them over others.
The moral of thes tory is don’t take chances. It doesn’t pay. Go for track record. And nothing is 100% perfect. Just keep the core values within sight. After all, the country (government) is rated 3rd amongst 195 countries by independent renowned agancy for not corruptibility yet again!
He will look thru his standard template for answer – lies. Than get main stream media to spin it with goody spice and serve to Singaporeans for 90cts a copy or a dollar on weekend. Do you still want to buy it?
One can’t help but feel a foreboding sense of pity for dear Samson. His mum still walks him to the loo and holds his hand while he weewees. ‘Freaks’ like him keep PAP in power. Well done Samson. Thank you for your valuable insight.
Samson on Wed, 25th Nov 2009 5:26 pm
I doubt your little wisdom of thought. In danger, it is very foolish to have to congregate in a seeming safe place.
Imagine in war time fire fights, you congregate together, I just lobe one hand grenade, and 5 of you in a GRC disappeared from the earth. But if you separate 50 metres apart, I might not be able to get near one of you before one of yours take me out.
The moral of the story is in danger, ALWAYS SPREAD OUT, TAKE RISKS AND INCREASE YOUR SURVIVABILITY in any fire fight.
Maybe your CO in NS days didn’t teach you basic survival skills.
Singapore don’t need soldiers like you to defend this country. The enemy will simply walk past our line of defence instead of having to overrun it.
Also remember, the warfare in Vietnam is different from the two Gulf War (successful because different war tactic applied on each occasion), the Iraq War and now in Afghanistan. Relying on past is feel good illusion guarantee to self-destruct in time of danger.
In time of crisis like now, I sure don’t welcome your cosy comfort niavety advice nor your peanut leadership wisdom – with all due respect.
POSTED ON STRAITS TIMES FORUM
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=27231
EXTRACTED -
UniquelySingapore
Today, 02:25 PM
—————-
Money on LUP should be spent wisely.
Read about the below in TODAY forum ‘Voices’ dated 5 Nov 09
http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/ED…riendly-at-all
HANDICAP MAN ON WHEELCHAIR ‘STUCKED’ AT HOME DESPITE LUP DONE
Questions that were asked,
Is it normal for HDB to ask resident who still need to climb stairs but cant do so, to shift house after doing a ‘half lift landing’ LUP.
I am sure that Singaporeans would to know more about this ‘half lift landing’ design that was done as part of the LUP at the block along Clementi Ave 5 and probably other HDB blocks.
The basic objective of LUP is that residents can access the lift w/out having to climb up or down the staircase, isn’t it?
More so for our aging population, especially the frail/weak elderly, handicap persons and those using wheelchair.
Why spend so much on LUP and residents still need climb stairs to get to the lift?
HDB and the Town Council concerned should also explain on this ‘half lift landing’ design and how it meets the basic objective of the LUP
expect the stupidest answer you can get. Something along the lines of “thats why you should vote for PAP”
//Samson
For your information, those wards that were took over by PAP in the 90s from the opposition, didn’t have the losses you suggested.
The losses are in fact, with the PAP wards that have never been lost to the opposition in the past 20 years because they mis-invested in Lehman minibonds and other shaky investments.
Yeah, losses is difficult to undo. According to your argument, we should beware of the PAP led wards. Especially the ones that had shown losses.
Well argued …
//Samson
“After all, the country (government) is rated 3rd amongst 195 countries by independent renowned agancy for not corruptibility yet again!”
Maddoff fund before it clashed, causing many to kill themselves for the losses, was ranked one of the biggest if not the biggest of hedge funds for at least 5 years in the world.
Its track record as audited by all the big 4 was great.
Its core value is one of the best too: low volatility and stable and high return.
As if locking the white haired man for perpetuity helps those investors who lost their life savings or company funds with Maddoff.
What a joke!
BTW, how much does PAP pays you to comment here?
Those of you who were thinking of renting out your HDB flat and bought a condo.
Let me warn you of your wishful thinking.
The only reason why the govt is keeping the property market high is so that when it sells land, it will fetch a good price.
Yeo CT had the same wishful thinking.
However, look where he ended up now.
Sent off from the PAP.
http://www.yeocheowtong.com/
AND YOU GET REPLY LIKE BELOW FROM EDUCATED ELITES
——————
Extracted from -
http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC091126-0000059/Direct-lift-access-not-always-possible–HDB
Direct lift access not always possible: HDB
Letter from Chee Kheng Chye Deputy Director (Upgrading Programmes Management) Housing and Development Board (HDB) 05:55 AM Nov 26, 2009
WE THANK Mr Ryman Lim for his feedback on the newly-upgraded lifts (picture) at Block 340 Clementi Ave 5 (“Not wheelchair-friendly at all”, Nov 5).
The objective of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) is to provide direct lift access to the flats for the convenience of residents. For most blocks, this has been achieved through the upgrading of existing lifts or the addition of a new lift. However, there is a small number of blocks where direct lift access is not possible due to site or technical constraints. Block 340 is one such block.
HDB has earlier explored various options to overcome the site constraints. However, the only viable LUP solution then was a “half-landing solution”. While this solution could not provide direct access to the flats, it would improve the existing situation by reducing the number of steps that residents have to climb. Hence, the solution was supported by the residents for implementation.
The blue stickers on the new lifts indicate that the lift car is wheelchair friendly as it comes with handrail bars, and the doors are wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. It does not suggest that full barrier-free accessibility has been achieved.
We empathise with Mr Lim’s situation, and seek his understanding on the LUP solution implemented for his block.