PA grassroots adviser hits back at WP chief Pritam Singh’s allegation of ‘double standards’

SINGAPORE — The People’s Association’s (PA) grassroots adviser for the Eunos ward has hit back at Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s insinuation of a delay in the completion of a barrier-free access ramp because it was mooted by the opposition party. 

Calling the issue a “red herring”, Mr Chua Eng Leong — who was part of the People’s Action Party (PAP) team that lost to WP in Aljunied GRC during the last General Election — sought to turn the tables on Mr Singh, by pointing out the need for accountability by those found to be in breach of their fiduciary duties. 

Earlier this month, Mr Singh and his fellow Aljunied GRC Members of Parliament Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang were found liable by the High Court for damages suffered by the Aljunied Hougang Town Council (AHTC) and the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council. 

Writing on Facebook on Saturday (Oct 19), Mr Chua said that Mr Singh’s allegation of a deliberate delay in the completion of the ramp was “unjustifiable” given that a proposal for the project was similarly mooted by Eunos Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC). 

“The truth of the matter is that the (ramp) was concurrently proposed by the Eunos CCC and definitely not proposed only by AHTC which Mr Singh seems to be alluding to,” said Mr Chua. “Considering this (ramp) was proposed by Eunos CCC, why would Eunos CCC delay the project?”

Regardless of whether a project is proposed by the AHTC or the Eunos CCC, the Eunos CCC and the PA “would ensure the seamless completion of the project once the necessary approvals have been granted”, Mr Chua said.

According to Mr Chua, funding for the ramp and other community improvement projects was secured in September 2016, and construction for the ramp started in December 2018. 

The ramp at Block 108 Bedok Reservoir Road was handed over to the WP-run AHTC by the PA on Tuesday. 

Mr Chua said that the contractors in charge of the projects had asked for “extensions of time”. “Such extensions are part and parcel of construction works,” he added. The ramp, “like all other CCC projects, were completed within a reasonable period of time once the underlying issues were resolved”, he reiterated. 

Earlier this week, Mr Singh took to Facebook to accuse the PAP of being “divisive” and having “double standards” when it comes to how certain processes operate in opposition wards.

The ramp could have taken just months to complete when the project was first mooted in 2012, said Mr Singh, who looks after the Eunos ward. 

"A simple barrier-free access ramp that could have been built in months, took years to complete," Mr Singh said. "How many senior citizens, immobile, and yet others recovering from episodes such as debilitating strokes could have benefited from this facility earlier, but for how the PAP determines the People’s Association operates in opposition wards? Other proposals by opposition MPs for the community are commonly ignored by the People’s Association."

He added: “This will not do, no matter who is in government and who is in the opposition. Singapore and Singaporeans deserve better."

However, Mr Chua said Mr Singh’s remarks were “unsubstantiated”, and in turn criticised him for making “politically divisive and factually inaccurate comments". 

Mr Chua said he had “chosen to respond only so as to maintain a level of accountability to our residents and my fellow Singaporeans”. 

He added: “It is politically mischievous to suggest that proposals by MPs are commonly ignored. In fact, Mr Singh had acknowledged in 2015 that 17 of AHTC’s proposed projects were accepted. Every proposal, whether from MPs or from the CCCs, must be scrutinised and prioritised carefully, with accountability in how we justify and award such contracts.”

Mr Chua said that “regardless of whether it is the People’s Association, the CCCs or the opposition MPs, I believe there should be no distinction drawn when serving our fellow Singaporeans”.

On the subject of accountability, Mr Chua pointed out that it “should be across the board and where parties have been found to be in breach of their fiduciary duties, they should similarly provide the same level of accountability to our fellow Singaporeans”.

Referring to the High Court findings on the AHTC case, he said he has “received queries from numerous residents about what the incumbent town council has done for them over the course of these past eight years”. 

He said: “Instead of engaging in an online debate, I urge everyone to remember our priority is to our fellow Singaporeans and we should focus on accountability to them and not debate on a completed (ramp), which is but a mere red herring.” 

WP CHIEF RESPONDS 

Shortly after Mr Chua put up his Facebook post, Mr Singh responded on the social media network.

He said he was “delighted to see the CCC finally engage this issue, albeit only after things have to go public”. He added that “repeated emails, requests for answers have gone unanswered and ignored, over many years”. 

On the time it took for the ramp to be built, he questioned if the “seven-year wait for a proposal to come to fruition” is the norm in PAP wards. 

“If funding was already secured in 2016… I cannot find a substantive reason for the delay in Mr Chua’s long post,” he said. 

He added that he agrees with Mr Chua that every proposal submitted to the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC) “must be scrutinised and prioritised”. But he called on Mr Chua to “share some numbers so the public can understand” how much funds were allocated to the Aljunied CCCs after the WP took over the running of Aljunied GRC, compared with the average for CCCs in all other constituencies. 

“If the difference is stark, maybe the Aljunied CCCs would raise their hands and acknowledge the elephant in the room?” he said. 

He added: “Mr Chua contends that the (ramp) is a red herring. He is wrong. It is a metaphor — a very powerful metaphor for the double standards when it comes to CIPC funding in opposition wards.”

In response to Mr Chua bringing up the High Court findings on the AHTC case, Mr Singh said he “fully expected some reference in any reply to my original post to the ongoing court case”.

The trial is moving on to a second stage where the court will assess the quantum of compensation that the town councils are entitled to from the defendants.

“As the matter remains before the courts, I am sure the public can understand why I will not be commenting on it,” Mr Singh said. 

He ended his response to Mr Chua with a proposal for the Aljunied and Hougang CCCs, as well as the elected opposition MPs in the ward to “sit down together to develop a protocol on how CIPC proposals should be handled in opposition wards so as to ensure equity in disbursement of taxpayer dollars and efficient execution of CIPC projects”. 

“I will be happy to be a part of the solution,” he said.