The Politics and Politicking Behind
Upgrading in HDB estates

By Sylvia Lim

Since the 1991 General Election, the People's Action Party (PAP) has linked priority in upgrading in HDB estates to support for the PAP at the polls. The 2006 General Election was no different.

Naturally, this has raised questions about whether it is correct in principle to use public funds to advance the PAP's party interests, though the PAP has basically brushed these off, and Singaporeans have had to consider the prospect of delayed upgrading from HDB funds if they voted for opposition candidates. Nevertheless, opposition wards such as Hougang still saw some estate upgrading which were carried out using Town Council funds under the Town Council's control.

In July 2005, Parliament passed amendments to the Town Councils Act to implement a new scheme called the Town Councils - Lift Upgrading Programme (TC-LUP). Under TC-LUP, Town Councils would take over the responsibility of doing LUP from the HDB, though HDB reserved the right to approve the plans for each estate.

The main objective of the LUP is to provide HDB blocks with lifts that stop at every floor, instead of the current situation of having lifts that stop every 5 floors or, in the case of walk-up blocks, not having lifts at all. According to the government, this divestment of the LUP from HDB to the TCs would enable LUP to be carried out in all necessary estates within 10 years for the benefit of our aging population, whereas leaving the LUP to be centrally done by HDB would take far longer.

The amendments to the Town Councils Act further changed the way lift upgrading would be financed. As the changes would ultimately place greater financial burden on residents to foot the upgrading costs, WP's Secretary-General and Member of Parliament (Hougang) Low Thia Khiang spoke against the changes.

Why residents will pay more under TC-LUP

Before the amendments to the Act, HDB would foot about 75% to 90% of the cost of LUP, with the relevant Town Councils and residents paying the rest. If Town Councils decided on their own to carry out lift upgrading, they were not allowed to use sinking funds for this, as sinking funds were reserved for repainting, renewal and replacement works.

After the amendments, HDB would no longer foot the 75% to 90% of the cost of lift upgrading. Instead, the TC-LUP would be funded by the sinking funds of the Town Council and co-payments by residents.

Mr Low pointed out that the effect of this is that HDB no longer foots the lift upgrading bill which has now fallen heavily on the residents. After all, TC sinking funds were made up largely of service charges and conservancy charges (SC&CC) collected from the residents themselves. Though the government still allocates SC&CC grants to TCs, the amount has been reduced over the years, and the fact remains that HDB is no longer footing 75% to 90% of the cost of lift upgrading, as it used to do. This can even be argued as an abdication of responsibility by the government, as HDB is ultimately the owner of the flats.

Besides this, the amended law allows Town Councils to do lift upgrading only on condition that the residents must co-pay an amount to be determined by HBD. Why is this so? Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan gave this explanation to Parliament:

"Under the TC-LUP, residents will need to co-pay for the lift upgrading works, similar to HDB's LUP. This is to ensure that residents carefully consider their need for lift upgrading when voting for the TC-LUP….The contribution that Town Councils recover from each resident household benefiting cannot be lower than what residents would have paid had HDB carried out the same lift upgrading works in the precinct."

Thus, any Town Council which is able to economise and do lift upgrading without any co-payment from residents (as has happened in Hougang), or for a smaller co-payment, will no longer be allowed to pass this cost saving on to residents.

The logic of this "minimum co-payment" by residents is not easy to understand. If the Town Council, for whatever reason, can do the same lift upgrading at no cost or less cost to residents, why not allow it?

The political future of upgrading

In a recent e-mail I received, a Singaporean observed that the need for lift upgrading has arisen fundamentally because of "poor planning and lack of foresight" when the flats were first designed. "We all grow old", he wrote. "Didn't they see it then?" Indeed, shouldn't the government be footing the entire LUP bill?

Various master plans for upgrading estates were announced in the last quarter of 2005. LUP has now been bundled together with estate upgrading of common amenities and even "luxury items" such as adventure parks and ski ramps. The political objectives are inescapable, as these "5 year plans" were announced prior to the 2006 General Election as part of the PAP's plans for estates if their candidates were elected there. These grand plans would usually require the use of central funds controlled by government agencies such as the Ministry of National Development (MND). According to Minister Mah Bow Tan, he would not be able to "look PAP MPs in the eye" if he allowed wards under opposition MPs the same priority for upgrading. Neither have opposition MPs been given access to MND funds such as those under the CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee).

Wasn't the "upgrading landscape" at the 2006 GE ripe for a clean sweep for the PAP then? Based on the poll results, there were more important things on the minds of Singaporeans. Opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang registered increased support for their incumbent opposition MPs (55% and 62% respectively) despite upgrading packages ($80m and $100m) dangled by SM Goh Chok Tong. Residents of Aljunied GRC and East Coast GRC, who were promised grand estate upgrading ($160m and $500m respectively), gave their incumbent "heavyweight" PAP teams lukewarm victories at 56% and 63% respectively.

Why did Singaporeans not vote overwhelmingly for upgrading? While many residents probably wanted lifts to stop at every floor, they may not have been prepared to co-pay under LUP or support the larger master upgrading plans. Singaporeans have also now gone through years of experience in voting, co-paying and enduring the upgrading process, which invariably resulted in inconvenience, noise and a loss of privacy. There have been precincts where upgrading plans were rejected; the public is also beginning to question in the press whether it is always desirable to overhaul rustic neighbourhoods in favour of "improvements". Strong anecdotal evidence also showed that voters in private housing, who relied less on the benefits of upgrading, disapproved in principle of the PAP's strategy of using taxpayer's money to further its party political ends by denying upgrading to opposition wards.

The day after Polling Day, SM Goh said that the loyalty of Potong Pasir and Hougang residents to their opposition MPs was a "good characteristic….better that, than for them to be chasing after every goodie which we offer them, anybody who offers them." Could this, finally, be an admission that the PAP's standard election strategy of offering goodies at election time was breeding undesirable values in the nation?

This General Election, Singaporeans can be indeed proud of the lessons it has taught the PAP about how First World Elections should be run.