𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 (𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂): 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐅𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 (𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂): 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐅𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Recently, an online petition was put up to urge the goverment to allocate CIPC funds fairly, in particular, to Town Councils managed by the opposition party. Much have been said especially in Parliament on this issue but allow me to give some perspectives, especially from the ground, on the matter by separating facts from fiction.

𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝟏: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬

Any objective glance of the HDB areas in the constituencies managed by the opposition party shows that the government-funded improvements to the HDB towns as well as infrastructural needs have been amply provided. We see this in the network of new sheltered link ways connecting several new MRT stations, park connectors, traffic safety improvements, waterway environment enhancements and others that were implemented at very high costs. These, coupled with new MRT stations and other town amenities such as polyclinics and community hospitals have been announced in wards managed by the opposition.

The main government-funded upgrading programmes are the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and the Remaking Our Heartlands (ROH). Whilst the HIP is directly managed and implemented by HDB, the NRP and ROH on the other hand are implemented by the Town Councils on behalf of the HDB. The HIP aims to improve the internal features of the HDB flats whilst the NRP enhances the HDB’s common areas and the ROH rejuvenates the HDB’s commercial precincts.

𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝟐: 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐩𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞; 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝-𝐮𝐩 & 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞

The CIPC is a smaller scale ground-up, community-led enhancement programme for HDB estates. Government appointed grassroots volunteers get feedback from residents to improve the living environment of the HDB estate and the key objective is to bond residents. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐇𝐃𝐁 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐈𝐏, 𝐍𝐑𝐏 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐎𝐇.

Note that these significant infrastructure and town improvement projects takes up huge budgets. The CIPC pales in comparison and rightly so, as the CIPC is a minor community ground-up programme. As such, any efforts to insinuate that opposition held wards are treated poorly is highly misleading and politically-loaded. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫.

CIPC therefore, remaining true to its original intent, is an opportunity for residents to come up with ideas to improve their own dwelling estates, not the towns because the latter would be managed by the Town Council through various other upgrading programmes mentioned above.

𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝟑: 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲

As a ground-up community improvement programme, the Government sets aside a small budget for residents to tap on by proposing those improvements through the grassroots leaders in their estate.

To prevent it from overlapping with major town improvements projects, the projects proposed by the residents are submitted by the grassroots upon their review and selection to the Ministry of National Development. 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬.

The grassroot advisers therefore do not have a direct role in selecting, submitting nor shortlisting CIPC projects. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬.

Additionally, the grassroots make their selection of the proposed ideas by the residents based on their ability to raise the funds required for the project equivalent to 10% of the projected cost. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞. Essentially, the aim of getting these improvement projects to be co-funded is so that the residents have a sense of ownership of these projects which they can be proud of and motivated to raise the funds.

This is true for 𝐀𝐋𝐋 CIPC projects in 𝐀𝐋𝐋 constituencies.

𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝟒: 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝; 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 $𝟒𝟓𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝟗 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 $𝟓𝟎𝟎𝐤 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲

As compared to other major improvement or upgrading programmes, CIPC budget set aside each year is limited and small given that it is a ground-up initiative. As mentioned earlier, it is not meant to replace major improvement works which is to be undertaken by the Town Councils. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐬 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠.

CIPC funds are never meant to offset any operating loss for the Town Council. We need to be clear on that. 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐬.

Therefore, the disparity in the allocation of funds is not because the government is out to fix the alternate party but because the constituencies that received higher allocation either had the ability to raise the necessary funds or that they have higher density of HDB flats which necessitates more funds for the improvements.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

Having established the facts above, it would be unfair to claim that the government does not allocate estate and infrastructural funding fairly to wards managed by the opposition party. As for the CIPC in particular, the funds are limited and are meant as a catalyst for residents to propose and have a sense of ownership towards these improvement projects. They are required to raise funds for the co-payment. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐂 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐬.

I trust we can use our own judgement to be fair and objective on this matter.

By Adam HA