Jul 3, 2010

Perception of bias dents report’s credibility

The first report card on town councils’ performance has spawned controversy, criticism and conspiracy theories. What went wrong? Insight reports.

It may keep town councils on their toes by providing a public appraisal of how well they clean and maintain their estates, keep lifts in working order and collect debts owed.

But the report also rubbed many people the wrong way.

Since its release on June 10, it has drawn flak and spawned conspiracy theories, both in cyberspace and coffee shops.

The first criticism is that the report is little more than a political ploy to make the opposition look bad.

The two opposition town councils, Hougang and Potong Pasir, came in at the bottom of the heap.

By contrast, the two best-performing councils were Ang Mo Kio and Tanjong Pagar, which manage the constituencies of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

The second criticism is that the report failed to assess how well the councils manage their finances, a glaring gap when one considers that these report cards arose after a public uproar over town councils’ investment losses.

The third criticism is thrown up by the residents themselves. Some of them question the accuracy of the grades awarded, since these differ from their experience on the ground.

Not surprisingly, the report was rubbished by opposition MPs Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang.

It sparked a war of words between Mr Low and Senior Minister of State (National Development) Grace Fu over the leg-up he claimed PAP town councils enjoyed, thanks to large injections of upgrading funds.

Opposition town councils have to date not received any such funds, though that is due to change soon.

So how did a report aimed at helping town councils do better end up drawing so much flak?

Playing politics

PART of the answer lies in the politics of town councils.

Town councils were first set up in 1988 to take over the running of estates from the HDB.

The councils are chaired by Members of Parliament, thus paving the way for senior PAP leaders to link the quality of life in these towns to the way residents voted.

They had few qualms about doing so.

PAP leaders warned citizens that their estates would pile high with rubbish, and even degenerate into slums, if they backed opposition MPs who would mismanage their towns and funds.

PAP towns also received billions of dollars in government funds for estate upgrading, while the opposition estates languished last in line.

Today, a total of 16 councils – 14 PAP-run and two opposition-run – manage some 900,000 HDB flats islandwide.

To the opposition and some political analysts, the Town Council Management Report issued last month by the Ministry of National Development (MND), is just the latest in a string of PAP efforts to hammer home its message about the ills of voting for the opposition.

This time, however, it uses facts and figures to persuade, rather than veiled threats of lesser benefits which may turn some voters off, they say.

Workers’ Party member Gerald Giam wrote on his blog: ‘Why does the MND suddenly feel the urge to tell residents what they should think of their town councils, and by extension, their MPs?

‘Residents are personally affected by their town council’s performance. If they feel that their MPs are not performing, they would have voted them out long ago.’

Political damage

THERE is no way to prove the conspiracy theories swirling around this issue but political watchers agree that even the perception of bias dents both the credibility of the report, and that of the Government.

Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan says ‘the MND must address the perception that there is a political dimension to the report’.

Indeed, in an interview in June last year, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had cautioned that ‘even the perception that it’s politically biased will be very bad for us’.

Four days after the report was released, Ms Fu sought to explain that the assessment was carried out objectively.

The process involved inspections by HDB officers and data provided by the town councils themselves, both PAP and opposition.

But it is difficult to keep politics out, given how ‘politically convenient’ the report is in serving the purposes of those on both sides of the political divide.

That is the view of former Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharudin, who was general manager of two town councils in the 1990s.

Indeed, Workers’ Party chief and Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang has used the report to score political points over the lack of upgrading funds for opposition wards.

He also seized the chance to demand that the Government disclose the amount of funding each PAP town council had received for estate upgrading.

The Government’s reticence on this issue may lead to complaints about a lack of transparency.

‘People are cynical. If you don’t want to release the information, they would think, do you have something to hide?’ says Mr Zulkifli.

The fuss over finances

THE first public mention of a report card for town councils came just a month after a national furore over investment losses by town councils.

These came to light in Parliament in November 2008, when it emerged that eight of the 14 PAP councils had invested $16 million in toxic financial products. A month later, amid calls for greater accountability, the Government announced plans for a report to measure how councils managed their estates and finances.

After nine months of consultation with town councils, residents and experts, the MND confirmed that six indicators in four areas would be used: cleanliness, maintenance, lift performance and the management of service and conservancy charges (S&CC) arrears.

What was lacking was a way to measure how well town councils managed their funds. But members of the public want ’some form of reporting’ on the issue, said Dr Gillian Koh of the Institute of Policy Studies.

Civil servant Azlin Sedek, 35, is one of them. He wonders why the report was silent on the financial health of councils when that ought to be a critical concern.

‘We didn’t even know our money was supposed to be used for investing. It’s only after the fiasco in 2008 that we found out. They need to be more transparent,’ he tells Insight.

He wants financial performance to be measured in the next update.

Ms Fu has since proposed the adequacy of sinking funds as a yardstick for financial management in future reports.

Debt indicator

FOR now, the indicator that comes closest to tracking financial performance is the one for the management of S&CC arrears.

It is also the indicator that tripped up both opposition town councils in a big way. They had a far higher share of households owing S&CC than the PAP town councils. The amounts owed were also higher.

But experts have mixed views about the importance of arrears as a criterion for town council performance.

Dr Yu Shi Ming, head of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) department of real estate and a member of the HDB board, believes they are an important measure.

S&CC are the biggest source of town councils’ income.

‘If you don’t collect money and allow arrears to build up, you are not doing your job,’ he says.

Corporate governance expert Mak Yuen Teen, of the NUS Business School, disagrees.

A higher amount of arrears may just mean that more residents are having financial problems.

The opposition councils were, however, on a par with their PAP peers on most other indicators, such as cleanliness and lift performance.

To Mr Zulkifli, the first report card is still ‘work in progress’ and there is potential to extend its assessment to cover financial performance and minimise complaints of conspiracy.

Perhaps future reports, due every six months, may yet turn that E for effort into E for excellence.

sueann@sph.com.sg