Can upgrading promises be fulfilled in next 5 years?

May 4, 2006
The Straits Times

THE way upgrading has been used as bait by People's Action Party (PAP) candidates in this election has reached a puzzling level. To some, it might even be distasteful.

In every single-member constituency and group representation constituency which is contested, upgrading is promised by PAP candidates. But does the Government have sufficient funds, and the Housing Board, sufficient resources in terms of manpower to oversee all the projects, to complete all the promised upgrading in five years?

And, on the other hand, does it also mean that constituencies which are not contested will not get upgraded even if the estates are old, as resources would be tied up in those constituencies where upgrading has been promised? What are the objective criteria for the upgrading decision? Does HDB or PAP decide?

As another reader suggested in the Forum, it is time for HDB to explain its guidelines. I would also urge HDB to release statistics on the upgrading done, be it MUP, IUP, LUP or Sers, in the different estates. Information such as the type of upgrading, the age of the estate, reasons for the upgrading, the number and type of units involved and the amount spent could be included.

Many of us are really curious to know the procedures leading up to upgrading. Is the upgrading set in motion by an MP requesting it? Or does HDB have some timeline or is a survey done to determine the state of an estate before it is considered for upgrading?

In either case, it does not matter which candidate the constituents elect into office then, as an opposition MP can also request upgrading on behalf of the constituents.

But if upgrading is simply a vote-buying tactic by the PAP using government funds, then it is a different issue which deserves more open debate.

The PAP has always prided itself for being fair and just and, as the government, based all its decisions on what is best for the people.

I am glad to have a government which tries to maintain the moral high ground. Thus, it is disappointing that in this election, some of the fairness and justness is thrown to the wind, when 18-year-old Chua Chu Kang is promised upgrading while 30-year-old Potong Pasir will get it only if the PAP candidate is elected.

If upgrading is for the benefit of the people so that an estate does not become a slum, then it should be a national decision, and not one for the party to make.

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)