Sunday, 19 April 2015

Worker’s Party Election Strategy for GE2016: The Victim Persecution Card

Worker’s Party Election Strategy for 2016: The Victim Persecution Card
Workers Party Election Strategy for 2015 2016

In their efforts to paint the residents of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East as victims of Government persecution, the Worker’s Party (WP) have continued to withhold Government projects meant for their residents only to blame it on the People’s Action Party (PAP).
Lie - Community Improvement Projects Committee
One such issue is about the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) raised by MP Pritam Singh at MND’s Committee of Supply 2015. MP Pritam Singh insinuated that the PAP Grassroots Organization (Citizens’ Consultative Committee) were slow to push for upgrading programmes in opposition wards, and that MND had given CIPC funding to the former Aljunied Town Council but withdrew it from AHPETC since 2012.
Dr Maliki replied that MND has been fair and has treated AHPETC no differently from other Town Councils:
- CCCs have to raise funds for the proposals and need time to implement the projects. The CCCs had taken the time and trouble to go through AHPETC’s proposals and were prepared to support many of them (12 out of the 17 upgrading projects were proposed by AHPETC). Yet, Mr Singh blamed them for tardiness and unfairly painted them in a negative light in the eyes of the public.
- MND had given AHPETC 6 HIP (Home Improvement Programmes) and 3 NRP projects (Neighbourhood Renewal Programme) over a 3 year period (FY12-14). This is comparable to the number of projects received by other Town Councils.
- AHPETC chose to prioritise a big share of the HIP and NRP projects to Hougang SMC, although Aljunied GRC had more eligible projects. [Pritam Singh’s response: The reason why Hougang was nominated was because Hougang was not given any main upgrading or interim upgrading projects prior to 2011]
- After various NRP projects were handed over to AHPETC to be implemented, AHPETC in fact unilaterally cut the works at Serangoon North Ave 1 & 2 because AHPETC’s cost overran and exceeded the approved budget. Residents’ impression that the items were cut by HDB because AHPETC was run by the opposition is simply not true. [Sylvia’s response: The consultants for the Serangoon project were appointed under the previous Town Council management, before WP took over the constituency. The project’s management fee was 3.5%, within market norm]
The Worker's Party lies to residents.

No comments:

Post a Comment