Should upgrading decisions be even placed in the hands of politicians?

This is a question that every voter should be asking himself. To address that, a deeper question should be asked further – should a politician play god over something that voters have contributed towards with their own hard-earned money? Well, as far as the upgrading carrots issue goes, if the politicians and political parties are footing the bills from their own pockets, then no one can fault them if they do not upgrade wards that do not vote for them. But, it will appear a little problematic if the residents have contributed their own hard-earned monies towards the upgrading funds in advance and yet are denied access as a result of the voting decisions. Even the government money is considered the people’s money per se. Thus, the last the most important question is – should the people instead of the politician take charge of the upgrading decisions?

When we talk of a system of checks and balances, we always talk about how the watchman is also being checked. When no one is checking the watchmen or even worse, when no one is in a position to check the watchmen, it may even be more problematic. Thus, if the citizens themselves play a role in making upgrading decisions themselves, they are in effect elevated to the role of watchmen themselves…they are in effect watching over a collective resource in which they have contributed towards themselves!

This represents a decentralization in the decision-making chain. Now instead of having one central authority making upgrading decisions in a top-down fashion, the power is in effect transferred to the people. This decentralization process is in itself an important check against a situation whereby the people will be held hostage and denied access to a collective resource due to the complicated game of politics. In essence, what that belongs to the people should be above politicking, and even politicians cannot be in a position to manipulate to their advantage using what that belongs to the people. In short, what the people own cannot be held hostage by politicians or the intricate web of politics. And this should be the case in the past, present and future!

Thus, I explored and elaborated on an approach that represents a decentralization of upgrading decisions which was published in the Temasek Review entitled “Depoliticizing the Upgrading Issue“. The write-up is reproduced below:

Potong Pasir and Hougang residents finally learn of the good news that they will be getting their lift upgrading. Yet, ominously on the eve of polling day 12 years ago, the-then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned voters that opposition estates will risk turning into ’slums’ if they continue to vote for the opposition.

Just three years ago, residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang were promised a sum total of $180 million if they voted for the PAP candidates, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low respectively.

Upgrading works are considered a form of public work, which some may find analogous to a public good (while others may disagree).

A public good by its very definition is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. What this means is that the consumption of the good by one individual does not diminish its availability for others (non-rivalrous), and the assumption is that there is a huge warchest of funds for upgrading. Thus, in this case, upgrading carried for one ward will not diminish the access of the other wards to upgrading.

A public good must also be non-excludable, i.e. no one can be excluded from accessing the good. This means that all wards inclusive of Potong Pasir and Hougang should be able to gain access to upgrading, and none should be excluded.

However, it is apparent that upgrading works in Singapore’s context has somewhat become analogous to a private good, which is exclusive and prevents opposition voters within a ward from accessing it.

The Potong Pasir and Hougang residents needed to wait a long time before getting theirs. Therefore, upgrading, for some reasons has been an integral part of the electoral agenda by the PAP in the past elections. Hence, one may ask – is it possible to depoliticize the upgrading issue?

The answer is a resounding yes, and an approach can be designed in such a way that the citizens can participate in the process.

An independent body comprising individuals without any links (ideally) to the government and political parties can be set up to minimize the conflict of interests.

This body will have final decision-making powers on the nature of upgrading and the funds allocated to the process. This body has the power to decide which areas are in need of upgrading and the nature of upgrading works required, and it goes without saying, the expenditure of the processes.

A caretaker for a specific area can be appointed to survey its status on a regular basis. Ideally, this caretaker has to be a familiar face among residents whom they can approach. He has to be interacting with residents to hear their concerns and possibly, feedbacks on possible improvements that can be made to their areas.

The caretaker will compile a report of his findings and recommendations to a decision-making committee within the independent body.

Members of the decision-making committee as mentioned earlier shouldn’t be part of government service nor belong to any of the political parties. They may hail from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or are employed in the private sector. The committee will study the feedback and recommendations and will take action accordingly.

In the event of an upgrading work to an area, the caretaker will track its progress, and update the committee on its status on a consistent basis. After the upgrading works, the caretaker will catch up with the residents and capture their sentiments.

If the residents’ sentiments on the upgrading work is positive, the caretaker will stick to current status quo, but if there are complaints, the caretaker will again report this to the committee for appropriate action to be taken in order to improve the situation.

This represents a decentralization of the government’s as well as the Member of the Parliament’s role in the upgrading process. The executive decision-making powers is thus transferred from the government to the citizen.

In a certain sense, there is a partnership between the government and citizen. The former provides the funds for upgrading, and the latter makes the decision on how upgrading should be done.

This form of decision-making represents the top rungs of the Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of Citizenship participation. The top rungs epitomize a decentralization in decision-making processes while the low rungs represent a government that rules using a top-down approach, typefying a central decision-making authority.

All of us have always heard the rhetorical message about making Singapore a better place during our National Day. The truth is that Singaporeans can have a say over the physical complexion of their home if a system that facilitates their participation in the upgrading process is in place.

There is no reason why the upgrading issue should be politicized when it is first and foremost analogous to a public good, and secondly, it is the public’s duty to decide on how and what type(s) of upgrading should be done.

Lastly, placing the decision-making powers in the citizen’s hands is a form of safeguard protecting their interests since voters can make their decisions without being worried about whether their areas will get upgraded or not because the upgrading role is transferred into their own hands, instead of the electoral candidate’s.