TCMR must be depoliticised

"Introduced in 2009, the Town Council Management Report (TCMR) framework was put in place to provide residents with objective information on the key areas of estate management."

If this was truly the aim of the TCMR framework as conceived in 2009, then I dare to venture to say that it has failed such an objective of being 'objective'.

First, an unspoken agenda of the TCMR, as it appears in the run-up to GE2011, is necessarily political. On the one hand, it is overtly meant to assess the performance of the Town Councils, which is a legitimate move. On the other hand, it is designed to portray the opposition-held wards in a negative light. We need no elaboration on this. If one can look at the past records, isn't it uncanny that the PAP-held wards consistently performed better than the opposition-held wards, when the truth is much more than this?

Yet, we see that those PAP-held town councils are not performing as reflected in the TCMR scores. PAP-held wards, not all but some of them, are not anywhere better in terms of cleanliness than than the opposition-held wards, and in some instances, even dirtier. I live in Aljunied, and during the time when it was held by PAP, it was not at all cleaner than neighbouring Hougang SMC which despite the resource constraints it faces still at least managed to do a better job in keeping its estate clean even if the HDBs appear rather a throwback to the past in terms of design and due to lack of upgrading.

And to add further insult, those PAP-held town councils also do not hesitate to raise service and conservancy charges (SC&C) bills, for the type of services they provide: slow response to neighbourhood complaints, and lacklustre services in some places. We need no more reminder of the corpse-in-the-tank incident to impress upon us that PAP-held wards aren't necessarily good. And to all those who voted for PAP just because you think they will sure do a better job than opposition parties, think twice again please. Other than the corpse-in-the-tank saga, how about the massive losses to ill-conceived investments during the 2008-2009 financial meltdown? They were happily sucking more monies out of you for SC&C, using some very nice-sounding 'justifications' while not in substance improving the services and yet still did not bat an eyelid to thrash your monies in risky ventures, without any sense of accountability and transparency.

So, may I ask PAP, what is the meaning of 'objective information' that the public can access regarding town council management if there is no transparency and accountability? How can that be objective if the TCMR has a heavy dosage of political undertones meant to promote the PAP and discredit the opposition?

An impartial TCMR should first be depoliticised, and should be based on benchmarks that are overseen and decided upon by an impartial panel of experts (though realistically I doubt this can ever happen in Singapore since the civil service is either penetrated throughout by PAP or those who are not are rather cowed by the PAP). The important safeguards should include accountability and transparency in terms of the town council accounts, which should be all audited and be publicised to the citizens in the form of monthly newsletter or leaflets.

Any citizen should have the right to request to view the accounts of the town council so that with public scrutiny, no one in the town council management is able to misuse the monies, such as the repeat of the 2008-2009 financial fiascoes. Such a step should truly be one the most credible measures ever taken by the incumbent ruling party to ensure that the interests of every citizen, whether in PAP or opposition-held wards, be truly safeguarded.

And that's also probably one of the first bold steps to be taken to ensure the TCMR is truly objective and serves the interests of the constituents. Otherwise, PAP, you can continue your charade to hoodwink the people of Singapore by acting as if you're really trying to serve the people. The constituents can judge better than TCMR does.