Singapore Town Councils

Killer litter

2006-06-26T20:18:00.000+08:00

To: Feedback Unit
cc: Amy Khor - Chairman, Feedback Unit

26 June 2006

Please see attached email from a concerned resident and do the necessary. Thanks

Rgds
Jeffrey Ho
www.vigilking.blogspot.com

=======================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:50:55 +0800 (CST)

From: Swarni Kaur

Subject: Re: LITTER BUG

To: West Coast-Ayer Rajah TC BL ,Jeff Ho, NEA ,Tan Lai Oi , Toh Peirong
CC: ssj2@hdb.gov.sg

See my letter dated Dec 05 and attached photo. The resident is still throwing rubbish down from the flat. Getting the cleaners to clean the place is not a permanent soln.

Appreciate NEA/Town council to warn the resident and take action before some resident/cleaners get hurt by bigger killer objects.

Thanks and regards!

--- West Coast-Ayer Rajah TC BL wrote:---------------------------------

Dear Ms Swarni

Thank you for your feedback. We have instructed our Conservancy Contractor to inspect and clean the area regularly. We will monitor the area closely.

If you have any other maintenance feedback, please do not hesitate to contact your Senior Property Officer in-charge, Mr Toh Peirong at tel no. 68964864 (DID) or email me at wcartcbl@wcartc.org.sg, so that I can lookinto the feedback promptly.

We thank you once again for your feedback.

Tan Lai Oi
Property Manager or Secretary / General Manager
West Coast - Ayer Rajah Town Council >

Swarni Kaur > 19/12/2005 07:08 PM >
To: buwadmin@hdb.gov.sg

I refer to blk 517c jurong west.

At the void deck (near the kitchen/master room of) unit 567, I always see a lot of tissues paper on the floor.

Appreciate it if HDB could look into investigate and warn/fine this litter bug.

thx!

Accountability & Transparency for Town Councils: ST (15 Jun 2006) - 'WASTEFUL' PRACTICES BY TOWN COUNCILS: Have panel examine use of public funds

2006-06-15T14:26:00.000+08:00

To: Feedback Unit
cc: Ms Amy Khor - Chairman, Feedback Unit
cc: Opposition MPs and NCMP
cc: sg_review
cc: Today - fyi
cc: Straits Times - fyi

15 June 2006

I read with interest the letter in The Straits Times, "'WASTEFUL' PRACTICES BY TOWN COUNCILS: Have panel examine use of public funds" (15 June 2006) - attached below.

I have been reading letters to the newspapers about such wasteful practices of many town councils and I find this very disturbing.

You can understand the concern and uneasiness of many citizens when such practices become prevalent in town councils as they deal with residents' money, in this case, their monthly Service & Conservancy ( S & C) fees which amount to hundreds of millions collectively. Their concerns are excerbated when the finances of the town councils are not publicly and openly reviewed, discussed/debated and accounted for annually in the presence of the residents in the respective town councils, as is the requirement of "private town councils" which collect conservancy or "maintenance" fees from residents, the MCSTs running private condos. These MCSTs are subject to annual AGMs where their accounts are openly reviewed and discussed/debated as to how they are spent .

I believe the government needs no reminding how the NKF became such an issue when the public's money entrusted to it are "abused", precisely because of lack of proper "accountability and transparency".

Given the prevalence of such imprudent practices in many town councils (as reported in the newspapers and through letters to the forum pages), and for the sake of transparency and accountability, I suggest that the government mandate that town councils convene annual "meetings" equivalent to MCSTs' AGMs where their finances are openly accounted for. This is important as town councils deal with residents' money and as stakeholders, residents have the right to know how their money is spent.

I sincerely hope that the government does not wait till another "NKF-type" case to unfold before taking serious action.

Rgds
Jeffrey Ho
http://towncouncils.blogspot.com/

ST (15 June 2006) - Ltr: 'WASTEFUL' PRACTICES BY TOWN COUNCILS - Seniors' corner, pond gone to waste - cost: $200,000

2006-06-15T12:08:00.000+08:00

ST (15 Jun 2006) - 'WASTEFUL' PRACTICES BY TOWN COUNCILS: Have panel examine use of public funds

2006-06-15T11:25:00.000+08:00

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:d5616013ba3db010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

June 15, 2006
'WASTEFUL' PRACTICES BY TOWN COUNCILS
Have panel examine use of public funds

I AGREE fully with Mdm Cheryl Lai Oi Lee's comments in the letter, 'Are town councils spending wisely?' (ST, June 3).

I moved to Sengkang two years ago and noticed regular wastage of resources by the town council. I raised my concerns with my MP, yet such actions went on unabated.

Early this year, the town council dug up two nicely landscaped plots with healthy plants and replaced them with plainer ones. Why waste time and money?

In March, it constructed a 1m by 5m pebble patch, covering a 0.5m by 0.5m turfed spot. In doing so, the council turned a common area into a private recessed area for the ground-floor unit beside it. Residents were not consulted on whether they agreed to such a move.

Many of my queries to the Property Manager went unanswered.

Last month, the council cut down a healthy tree in a turfed mini-roundabout and constructed a pebble patch there, then added a railing in the middle of the patch. Three days later, workers came and hacked up the pebble patch.

Needless to say, residents had to put up with all the noise. Now we are left with a railing in a mud patch.
I wonder what other costly experiments are in the works.

There is certainly a need for an independent oversight committee to examine the use of public funds by town councils and to ensure accountability, responsibility and transparency in the use of these funds.

Lau Hwai Eng (Mdm)

ST (Jun 3, 2006) - Ltr: Why were stone seats demolished?

2006-06-15T11:24:00.000+08:00

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:f62514e16c59b010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

Jun 3, 2006
Why were stone seats demolished?

I REFER to the letter 'Why keep changing tiles and who pays?' by Mdm Natalie Hwang Geok Lan. I recently wrote to one of our MPs, Dr Amy Khor, to find out why stone seats and a table that were in perfect condition were demolished before the recent elections and replaced with flimsy metal ones. Hong Kah Town Council's property manager replied that there were crack lines, chipped off tiles, and they were old.

All these years my wife and I have been using the stone seats when we take a rest in our trips back from the supermarket. The stone seats and table were in perfect condition. I even had a picture taken of the beautiful structure. There were definitely no missing tiles. It also baffles me how a tiled surface could crack. If so, could not these be repaired?

Many of the questions I posed to the property manager were not answered. I was told the decision to demolish had the approval of the residents' committee. The fact is none of us in this estate had elected any committee to waste public funds in this manner.

Since then, I have made a comprehensive survey of all the remaining structures in the estate. Except for one or two missing tiles, all were found to be in perfect condition.

Roland Soh Oon Teck

ST (3 June 2006) - Ltr: Are town councils spending wisely?

2006-06-15T11:22:00.000+08:00

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:6fce14e16c59b010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

Jun 3, 2006
Are town councils spending wisely?

I COULD not agree more with Mdm Natalie Hwang's letter 'Why keep changing tiles and who pays?' (ST, June 1). The time has come for the relevant government agency to be more transparent in how it manages the conservancy charge residents pay monthly.

With some households paying $85 a month, they need to be consulted when upgrading works are carried out. My Sengkang estate, for example, started installing rain shields for all the flats a few months ago, only to take them down after residents expressed their dismay.

Why do we waste money this way? I am sure the town council had to pay the contractor to fix and then remove them. The workers also left unsightly holes on our once faultless floor.

Another white elephant project is the cycling track which Pasir Ris Town Council undertook last year. A lot of money was used to build the steep track that leads straight to a road junction. It is also meandering with boulders and it is safer and easier to ride on the pavement. The track is badly constructed without much thought.

Would the town council be able to account for the work it had done? The residents need to know that the $85 they pay every month is put to good use.

Cheryl Lai Oi Lee (Mdm)

Problems of stray cats at Block 56, Strathmore Avenue

2006-05-19T13:34:00.000+08:00

Sent to the government on 19 May 2006:

19 May 2006

Attached is email from resident complaining of lack of action from the Tg Pagar Town Council. Please do the neccessary to address this resident's complaints. Thanks

Rgds
www.towncouncils.blogspot.com

Subject: RE: Town Council Blog

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:05:01 +0800

Sorry for the late reply... Don't have too much time.

Last year, the Town Council put up a sign that said "No feeding of StrayCats" at Block 56 Strathmore Avenue - without the mention of a fine or anything else.

People in the area persist to feed them. Everytime I send an email, I get this reply - most definitely a "template"from somewhere:

----------------

Dear Sir/Mdm,

We thank you for your valuable feedback.

Please be assured that your feedback is important to us and we will look into it as soon as we can.

For any other information, you may contact our:

Maintenance Hotline : 6272 6415 (from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm)
Essential Maintenance Service Unit : 1800-3543333 (after office hours)
Finance Hotline : 6375 3185

Thank you and have a nice day.

Best Regards,
anjong Pagar Town Council
------------------

I had taken it upon myself to remind them that the sign is there. This lady (photograph attached) told me that if I was not "happy" to report to the police to arrest her.

Despite having put up signs discouraging residents not to feed the strays, this nasty business continues.

Residents feeding strays attract even more stray cats.There are now more than 5 cats roaming the vicinity of the blocks and the multi-storey carpark. They defeceate everywhere and tear up plastic bags left as trash by other residents.

If 3 separate residents feed the cats twice a day, that means that the strays are getting 6 meals a day! As more of this activities continue, the strays become even more accustomed to human presence. Who knows what diseases the strays carry. Young children exposed to cat fur are more prone to asthmatic episodes.

Thank you

Litter on Jurong East Ave 1 from Jurong Polyclinic to Street 31

2006-04-28T10:29:00.000+08:00

Sent to NEA on 28 Apr 2006:

I want to highlight that the skretch of Jurong East Ave 1 from Jurong Polyclinic to Street 31 are littered with paper, water bottles, sweet wrappers etc etc.

Those litters along street 31, I saw it on Mon AM and today Fri AM, the same litters are still there.

Like I said before, it is NEA responsibilities to ensure that the contractor are doing the jobs that they are paid for. Dont waste taxpayers money!

In the above example, it is clear that the contractors did not "cleansed every morning" like have you said, not even once in 5 days!

I wonder ..why...NEA dare not impose liquidated damages or terminate the contracts.

I should not have to write NEA every now and esp for this area is a repeated case which I highlighted in my email dated 1st Mar.

TNP (27 Apr 2006) - Letter: Cleaners ignored our corridor for 10 years

2006-04-27T15:19:00.000+08:00

Cleaners ignored our corridor for 10 years

The New Paper
April 27, 2006

I REFER to the letter, 'Our corridors not cleaned' by Rashid Osman (The New Paper, 14 Apr - see below) who said there was no cleaning for a week.

Our situation is far worse. The corridor outside our flat has not been cleaned for more than 10 years and my wife and I have had to wash the area outside our unit while still paying the service and conservancy charges.

I am a resident of Nee Soon East and have raised this matter with the town council previously.

Once when I saw a worker washing the corridor in our block, I went up to him to ask why my particular floor has been ignored for so long.

He replied that it takes two days to wash the entire block. He added that my mid-level corridor would be washed on Day 2. On that day, no cleaner showed up.

I hope that the town council can set things right.

- Robert Tay
==========================================================

Our corridors not cleaned

I AM a resident of Fajar Road which comes under the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council.
Before this, I was a resident of Boon Lay Place.
There the cleaning crew swept the corridor areas every morning.
Not so at mynew place.
I have informed the town council about this three times.
On all occasions, an officer would apologise and assure me that the matter would be put right.
For the past one week, I have noticed that the corridor in my block has not been swept or cleaned.
All residents who pay service and conservancy charges to the town council have the right to expect such a basic cleaning service in the common areas.
- Rashid Osman

PSO40/03-2006 Enquiry on 'cleaning' responsibilities of govt agencies

2006-04-18T11:12:00.001+08:00

Reply from PS21 on 18 Apr 2006:

Our apologies for the late reply. Please see reply in blue with regards to your query.Regards
Amy
PS21, Public Service Division
Prime Minister's Office
===========================================================

To: PS21
cc: Feedback Unit
29 Mar 2006

As me attached email indicates, it can be very frustrating when one can be made to go on a merry-go-round to reach a government department or agency to find out who ultimately is responsible. In my case, it relates to the cleaning responsibility of public areas. When dealing with the NEA previously, I was told certain public drains are under their jurisdiction, but others may be under PUB's jurisdiction. Now,I learn that certain public areas are under town councils (HDB estates only?) while non-HDB estates are under NEA (am I correct?). It is very confusing, to say the least.Therefore, I'd appreciate if you can confirm for me once and for all the following "Cleaning" responsibilities:

1. Which public areas are town councils responsible for?
Town councils control, manage, maintain and improve the common areas of the residential and commercial property in HDB estates and keep them in aproper and clean condition. This means town councils, will, among other things, take charge of:
(a) conservancy;
(b) landscaping;
(c) repairs and replacement of fixtures and fittings; and
(d) the provision of essential maintenance and lift rescue services. Generally, the common areas are open spaces in the public housing estates and areas within the HDB buildings which are shared by residents. They include:
(a) the columns and beams, roofs, corridors, voide decks, staircases and refuse chutes;
(b) the signboards and directional signs; and
(d) the playgrounds and game courts.
However, they do not include those public infrastructures/amenities provided and maintained by other public authorities, such as the public roads, lightings and signages along public roads, drainage reserves, etc which are located within the towns.

2. Which public areas is the NEA responsible for?
NEA maintains all expressways, flyovers, public roads (with street names), roadside tables, roadside pavements & walkways and roadside drains. NEA contractors or workers also empty roadside refuse bins, clear litters from bus and taxi shelters, pedestrian overhead bridges as well as underpasses.The cleansing work is carried out at least once a week. For areas where NEA have observed that it has more litter, the cleansing will be carried outmore frequently.

3. Which public areas is the PUB responsible for?
PUB, as the drainage authority, maintains all major public drains and waterways. However, for smaller drains within public housing estates and along public roads, they are maintained by relevant Town Council and NEA respectively.

4. Which public areas is NParks responsible for?
Nparks maintains roadside greenery (tree pruning, grass cutting, shrub pruning, clears cut branches during pruning and fallen big branches that obstruct the road). NParks also maintains (sweeping and cleaning within itsparks) its parklands. Sweeping and clearing of fallen leaves, twigs, rubbish along public roads and public drains will be taken care of by NEA.

5. Which public areas is URA responsible for?
URAs roadside car parks are cleaned together with the public roads by cleansing contractors engaged by LTA.

6. Which public areas is JTC responsible for?
JTC manages many high-rise and workshop industrial estates, vacant land and some roads located all over the island. There are clear signages to showJTC's ownership of these industrial estates. The carparks, drains and open compounds within these industrial estates are cleaned twice daily to maintain high service standard. Inspections of vacant land under JTC, to prevent illegal dumping are conducted daily while clearing of litter is done fortnightly. The frequency of works is increased where the vacant land is sited near to residential areas. JTC's managed roads & footpaths, mainly located in the industrial areas, are cleaned weekly with desilting

7. Which public areas is LTA responsible for?
LTA washes public structures which they maintain periodically, and these include bus shelters, covered walkways, pedestrian overhead bridges and pedestrian underpasses. However, the daily sweeping of public streets, including these structures are carried out by NEA. In addition, NEA clear rubbish bins found at these structures. There are similar structures which are maintained by other agencies, such as SMRT, SBS Transit, town councils and private developers. These include pedestrian overhead bridges and pedestrian underpasses which link to private buildings and covered walkways which span from HDB flats to bus shelters.

(Note: If I missed out any other government agencies involved in thecleaning of public areas, please include them accordingly. The idea is tocover all public areas' (eg drains, grounds, etc) cleaning routines andresponsibilities. Thanks)While you are at it, can you also let me know how often cleaning is done byeach of the respective bodies above?Thank you for your kind assistance.

Dirtiest HDB Estates...Eunos Crescent

2006-04-12T10:28:00.000+08:00

Eunos Crescent....

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=98174.24

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=98174.25

Eunos Cresent is autrociously dirty, much more dirty than Hougang, there are food bits, tissue, plastic bags, sanitary pads, rice, water thrown everywhere. The void decks have the stench of rubbish, wet full of mosquitoes and flies. And Eunos Cresent is under Marine Parade GRC.

Car Park in Eunos Cresent
Broken Piano in the void deck
A stray cat
Dirty void deck
Dirty letterbox area
===========================================================

3rd class kopitiam
Drink cartons and food wrappers in the void deck
Plastic bags, bird shit and tissues in the drains
Rubbish that is piled up
Another stray cat

Town Councils and Sinking Funds and Upgrading

2006-03-30T15:16:00.000+08:00

It is with much concern I read about the obstacles Hougang MP went through in dealing with the HDB regarding his ward's lift upgrading program ( see below - Straits Times, 30 March 2006, "WP chief: HDB blocked lift upgrading in Hougang").

Correct me if I am wrong, but the facts are:

1. Both Opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir DID NOT increase their S & C fees when the other PAP-controlled town councils did some 2 years ago (see my letter to the Ministry of National Development below, "PAP Town Councils must justify S & C fee increases when Opposition town councils did not");

2. Both Opposition wards were able to complete the lift upgrading program (LUP) without the need for the residents to co-pay (as they were all funded fully from the sinking funds) while the other PAP town councils required residents' co-payment;

3. However, "last August, the law was changed. The Town Councils Act now allows up to 10 per cent of a council's sinking funds to be used for lift upgrading if the cost for each home that gained from it did not exceed $5,000." This effectively means any future LUP will require co-payment from residents with limits imposed on how much that can be drawn from the sinking funds.

Is this an attempt to frustrate the Opposition's ability to provide the LUP for free to the residents which the PAP could not offer?

With the above, does it also mean the PAP town councils are less efficient in managing their estates?

=================================================================
March 30, 2006

WP chief: HDB blocked lift upgrading in Hougang
By Zakir Hussain

WORKERS' Party chief Low Thia Khiang yesterday revealed the obstacles that he faced in trying to upgrade lifts in his constituency, Hougang.
His comments come in the wake of the Housing Board disputing another opposition MP's account of his difficulty with lift upgrading.
The HDB said it was because of a law that Mr Chiam See Tong could not use his town council's sinking fund to provide lifts that stop on every floor for some blocks in his Potong Pasir constituency.
Last August, the law was changed. The Town Councils Act now allows up to 10 per cent of a council's sinking funds to be used for lift upgrading if the cost for each home that gained from it did not exceed $5,000.
In his press statement, Mr Low, however, pointed out that the Act does not disallow town councils from introducing lifts that stop on every floor. In 2000, the HDB approved such upgrading and the Hougang Town Council paid the entire bill. But in 2002, similar lift upgrading works were not approved by the HDB, he said.
Giving details, Mr Low said HDB gave its nod in August 2000 to the upgrading of 16 lifts in six blocks in Hougang Avenue 3 and 7. The work was completed in October 2001.
But in December 2002, the HDB did not allow the same to be done to 58 lifts in Blocks 301 to 334 in Hougang Avenue 5 and 7. The town council later replaced the lifts as they were old, he said.
But the lifts could not stop on every floor because landowner HDB had refused to approve it, Mr Low said, adding: 'The law was not the reason.'
HDB's reason for saying 'no' was not given in his statement yesterday but the subject was reported in the Hougang Town Council's annual report ending March 31 last year.
It said: 'According to the HDB, the town council would not be fair to all residents as the additional landings created would not serve all the residents of the blocks.'
It also said: 'The fact that the town council would progressively work towards providing this by first upgrading the existing lifts was not acceptable either to the HDB.'
In Potong Pasir's case, Mr Chiam had blamed HDB for thwarting his plans to upgrade the lifts in six point blocks in Toa Payoh Lorong 8.
Responding, HDB pointed out that despite the change in the Town Councils Act, Mr Chiam had not made any application to use the council's sinking fund for lift upgrading.
Mr Chiam replied that by the time the law was changed, the lift upgrading works had been completed.
Lift upgrading looks set to be key in the People's Action Party's quest to recapture the two opposition-held wards in the coming General Election.

==================================================================
PAP Town Councils must justify S & C fee increases when Opposition town councils did not

I refer to the recent media report that currently, there are some 580,000 work permit holders in Singapore, some 285,000 of whom are neither domestic workers nor working in the construction industry. (BT, 2 Mar 2006, “Foreigner-to-local worker ratio easing: Ng Eng Hen”).

Without any further details mentioned on the make up of this substantial group, I can only assume cleaners make up a fair bit of the 285,000.

While there have been questions about the hiring of foreign workers over locals, it must be pointed out that many of such jobs (such as cleaners) are shunned by locals. However, a better way of weighing the merits of hiring foreign workers vs locals (besides the consideration that some jobs may be shunned by locals) is to do a cost-and-benefit analysis of such policies.

For example, in hiring cleaners, the "cost" of doing so would be displacement of locals (assuming there are locals prepared to do the job). However, if the total salary package of the foreign workers so hired is lower than the locals, resulting in savings which are then passed on to the end-user (for example, the town council hiring these foreign workers and ultimately passing the savings to the HDB residents paying their Service & Conservancy (S & C) fees), then there may be grounds for justifying the hiring of foreign workers as there are "benefits" that can be accrued in doing so. However, what is not acceptable is the double whammy of many HDB residents having lost jobs to these cheap foreign labour and at the same time, being subjected to increases in S & C fees, which is exactly what has happened in many town councils.

Let me give the readers a comparison between the Pasir-Ris Town Council and the condominium where I live. Before the present MCST took over the running the condo some 3 years ago, we used to have a Singaporean cleaner who was paid about $1,500 per month whose responsibility was merely to do daily cleaning of the 20,000 sq ft premises of the 23-unit condo. However, after the MCST was formed and subsequent review of the vendors, a new cleaner contractor who offered to do the job for an equivalent of about $750 per month (or half the previous vendor) was subsequently hired to do the same job. How could he do it? Well, hiring foreign worker, of course.

The search for cost savings at the condo is still ongoing, and when substantial savings can be realized, the MCST has plans to pass the savings back to the residents with a reduction in their monthly maintenance fees.

Therefore, from the above condo experience, while a Singaporean lost his job to the foreign worker (a necessary "cost" in the pursuit of cost savings as a result), the residents will benefit at the end of the day if the savings are passed back to them.

What I find perplexing is the decision by town councils (probably with the exception of the 2 opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang) to raise the S & C fees about 2 years ago (roughly about the time when the my condo decided to hire the cheaper cleaner) when they are supposed to have better bargaining power through economies of scale and hence, the ability to hire such foreign workers at much reduced cost? (Again, I can only assume that many of the 285,000 foreign workers mentioned in Minister Ng Eng Hen’s article are cleaners employed at town councils). Why then are they not passing back the savings to the residents, but instead, raising their fees, as in the case of the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council? ("....Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council's...cleaning bill has risen 9 per cent since 2002..." - ST, 27 July 2004, "Town council explains new charges")

If I use the example of my condo to do a cost comparison, about $32.60 of each condo resident's monthly maintenance fees go towards the cleaner's fees (cleaner’s salary of $750 divided by 23 units = $32.60). Do Pasir Ris-Punggol residents know how much of the monthly $73.50 S & C fees ("...I am very surprised that I am paying $73.50 to the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council for my five-room flat..." - ST, 28 July 2004, "Five room, different charges") paid by them go towards the cleaners, after setting aside some 30 to 35% for sinking fund (simple estimates can be made by dividing cleaners’ salaries with the number of flats in the block)?

Do these cleaners just concentrate on cleaning their blocks on a daily basis? Or are they paying for the same cleaners who also double or triple up as cleaners for other public areas (like drains, parks, etc. around these HDB blocks) which should be funded from government funds instead of residents’ funds (I find it puzzling that the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council hardly receives any government grants for "...The constituency is especially squeezed for funds because it gets the least government funding of all the PAP town councils as most of the flats there are five-room units....,(as) five-roomers and bigger ones get nothing (in government funding)" - ST, 27 July 2004, "Town council explains new charges"). Why should residents' S & C fees be used to pay for the cleaning of public areas?

What about car parks – is the maintenance taken care of by this same group of cleaners (which is inappropriate) or rightfully by a new set of cleaners whose salaries should be funded from car park fees collected?

It is noted that in some town councils, cost saving measures are in place by having cleaners clean the HDB blocks "once every six weeks now" (ST, 27 July 2004, "Town council explains new charges"). Only once every 6 weeks? Cleaners in condos clean their blocks every day (except Sundays and public holidays).

How then can HDB residents justify paying $73.50 for cleaning done once every 6 weeks when condo residents pay only $32.60 for cleaning done daily? Is this the reason why "..During the dengue fever outbreak, it was reported that 49 per cent of the breeding grounds found were in Town Council-maintained areas" (Today, 5 Jan 2006, "Service please, Town Council").

The mystery can only be solved if town councils are more transparent in how residents’ fees so collected are spent – how much goes towards cleaners, sinking funds, lift maintenance, admin and utility charges, etc..

With condominium MCSTs, residents as stakeholders can question the council how each dollar contributed goes into what and where, but does the resident in the area managed by town councils have access to such information? That is the big difference - do the residents know how each dollar collected by the town councils is spent?

Perhaps in the coming election (even if this happens but once every 5 years), it will be good if such information be made available so that the residents know how well the town council has been managing their estates before casting their votes. While the residents welcome the government's providence to PAP-run town councils with billion-dollar budgets to upgrade their towns every election year, what is equally important is the council's prudential management of residents' funds with decision to increase further S & C fees to be taken only after exhausting all possible cost-saving alternatives.

Feedback On Drains and Road - St Michael's Road

2006-03-30T11:45:00.000+08:00

Sent to NEA;

See the big styrofoam box in the drain outside st michael's lodge.

The almost 100% covered-up drop-inlet-chambers and the dirty drain near richmond condo.

These debris will eventually flow into kallang river and end up in Marina Barrage and it will become a dumping ground instead of water-sport centre or reservoir.

CBD area - Anson Road

2006-03-30T11:29:00.000+08:00

Sent to NEA:

See our business and commericial district. BTW, the drop-inlet-chambers are still not clean.

Feedback On Drains and Road - Yung Sheng Road/Taman Jurong CC

2006-03-29T11:52:00.000+08:00

There is a flood of contributions (with photos) today, 29 Mar 2006. The following was sent to the NEA today:
===========================================================
See the mess outside taman jurong cc and your officer can report the place as clean.
Remind me of Johore.

Hopefully when Minister Tharman visit the CC in Apr, the area will be sparkling clean!

Feedback On Drains and Road - Boon Lay Way

2006-03-29T10:59:00.000+08:00

Sent to the NEA CEO on 29 Mar 2006:

In your email below, you claimed that the drains were"satisfactorily maintained".

See yesterday, your cleaners managed to sweep 20-30 bags of dirt!

Also the cleaners should clear the rubbish immediately instead of leaving it overnight. What happen if this is a road side bomb left behind by terrorist?

Police pls commend and enforce.

The last time I saw such thorough cleaning was during the dengue outbreak in Oct/Nov. Since then, NEA has slacken again. NEA need to review your standard! Hope we do not need another dengue outbreak then we start to clean up again.

Garden City ?

MM Lee's GRC: Dirty drain off Anson Road - in front of Tanjong Pagar Complex

2006-03-28T14:22:00.000+08:00

Following sent to NEA on 28 Mar 2006:

See dirty drain off Anson Road in front Tanjong Pagar Complex.

Coincidentally, this is also in MM Lee's GRC.

Filthy area near Newton Road/Thomson Road junction at the bend towards Revenue House

2006-03-28T11:57:00.000+08:00

To: Mr Simon Koh - General Manager, Tg Pagar Town Council
cc: Messrs Lee Kuan Yew/CW Chong - Tg Pagar Town Council
cc: Feedback Unit - S'pore Govt

28 Mar 2006

Further to my email yesterday, 27 Mar, I note the subject area is still filthy as the rubbish has still not been cleared today (photo taken earlier this morning attached).

Is this another of the "tai-chi" thing - this is not the responsibility of town councils but the NEA? Or NParks (since it's on greenery)? Or LTA (road side)? Or Revenue House (near them)? etc...

(Note to Feedback Unit - How often does each of these entities clean their areas of responsibility? Is this the reason why it hasn't been cleaned for 3 days because town councils clean every day (correct me if I am wrong), another agency cleans once a week, and yet another cleans once every 6 weeks?)

It's crazy - sometimes, I have to go through so many stat boards or govt agencies before nailing down who is
responsible.

Filthy area near Newton Road/Thomson Road junction at the bend towards Revenue House

2006-03-27T11:42:00.000+08:00

These 2 photographs were taken yesterday and today (26 and 27 Mar), showing rubbish strewn all over - what a sight! Is this under Tanjong Pagar town council jurisdiction or again under the NEA?

Town Council cleaning - Filthy area/drain at Wallich Road near Wallich Bldg / ST (24 Mar 06) - "Sadly, Singapore is not as clean as it is said to be"

2006-03-24T13:22:00.000+08:00

Reply from Tg Pagar Town Council, 25 Mar 2006:

I refer to your e-mail about the filthy drain at Wallich Road near Wallich Building.

We have referred the matter to the National Environment Agency( NEA ) as the drain is maintained by them. We will also checked with them next week to confirm that they have cleared the drain.

Thanks,

Regards,

Simon Koh
General Manager Tanjong Pagar Town Council
=============================================================

To: Feedback Unit - Singapore Government
cc: Tanjong Pagar GRC - Attn: Messrs Lee Kuan Yew/Dr Chong Weng Chiew-Chairman, Town Council
cc: Straits Times
cc: Today

24 Mar 2006

The drain at subject location is filled with filth. Who is responsible for cleaning? Tanjong Pagar Town Council?

FYI, I have started a blog (http://towncouncils.blogspot.com/ ) to highlight the state of cleanliness in various town councils. Residents are encouraged to send emails and photos (preferable as a picture is worth a thousand words) to this blog if they find filthy areas within their estates or in public areas.

Together, we have a part to play in keeping Singapore clean and safe, in view of the dengue outbreak last year and the current bird flu situation.

For your additional information, I am attaching a letter in today's Straits Times, "Sadly, Singapore is not as clean as it is said to be" (ST, 24 Mar) which highlights the present sorry state of Singapore's once-proud claim to being a "clean city".

Rgds
Jeff
http://towncouncils.blogspot.com/

======================================================================
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,379937,00.html?

March 24, 2006
Sadly, Singapore is not as clean as it is said to be

I agree with the concerns about the horrendous littering in Singapore. This problem seems never to end.

When I first came from Sri Lanka to Singapore nine years ago I was amazed to see how beautiful and clean Singapore's neibourhoods were. I used to write letters to my friends and even produced newspaper articles about this clean and green tiny city state.

Last year when I was living in West Coast I came across litter more often on our strolls. I consoled myself that the litter was unintentionally thrown. But the problem became worse. Tissue paper, cigarette butts, drink cartons, plastic bags, etc marred the beautiful flower bushes.

When we moved to the Serangoon area four months ago, I saw how things had become worse. Whether it's an HDB estate or private housing development, the situation is the same.

Most of the owners or domestic helpers who bring their dogs out do not clean up after them. Just look at the mess near Nanyang Junior College's new signboard.

Some schools in the area seem to close their eyes to the litter even within their premises.
Spitting is another problem.

Recently we saw two teenage school girls drinking fruit juices in a double decker bus and they left behind the cups where they sat.

I'm sad to hear that a friend who came to the National University of Singapore to do some research say that "Singapore is not as clean as it is said to be." With a heavy heart, I said "It used to be." There's no need to be a Singaporean to love Singapore. When I was young, my parents said "love your country and also love and respect the place where you are living in."

We must not always expect the country to do its part for us. We must do our duty as well.

If the elders are not listening, the young must be educated about it. The authorities can organise mass cleaning drives. If the younger generation is not trained to be responsible and patriotic what will the future be?

Sagarika Rathninde (Mrs)

Perpetually choked drain outside 32/34 Chancery Lane

2006-03-20T12:59:00.000+08:00

Sent to NEA on 20 March 2006:

This drain seems to be perpetually choked as I have written in on numerous occasions before - perhaps it is advisable to fix the "real" problem rather than just getting the cleaners to clear the drain.

I have also asked NEA's Mr Chia to investigate the recent complaints by residents of Gilstead Rd/Gentle Rd/Buckley Rd areas (in the vicinity of this drain in Chancery Road) that the mosquitoes are back the last 4 weeks or so.

Uncleaned drains & streets - NEA & Town Councils are found wanting

2006-03-20T12:54:00.000+08:00

Following sent to the NEA CEO on 20 Mar 2006:

I wrote to NEA on 20th Feb to highlight that the drains and Drop inlet chamber along Anson Road were dirty.

1 month has past yet no one has clean up these area.

On 28th Feb, again I wrote to highlight other roads that were dirty, same thing, it is still not clean.

Over the weekend, I noticed that drain in front ofTaman Jurong CC was full of rubbish and it stinked. CEO NEA, appreciate your kind attention and if your officers could ensure that the cleaning contractors are cleaning the streets and not paid for doing nothing.

Welcome to the Singapore Town Councils' Blog

2006-03-09T20:44:00.000+08:00

This community service is for all residents of Singapore's Town Councils.

If you see any incident that you feel needs highlighting (whether a shortcoming of your town council or a commendation), please feel free to add your comments, or if possible, a photo or two, because "A picture (or photo) is worth a thousand words". Thank you.

Singapore
9 March 2006