Mdm Speaker, I wish to share my perspectives as a Town Council (TC) Chairperson who runs one of the 14 PAP Town Councils.

First, on AIM. When Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd (D&T) first highlighted that the PAP Town Councils' Town Council Management System (TCMS) software was at the risk of becoming obsolete in 2009, my fellow TC chairmen and I were naturally alarmed. It was an old Windows-XP-based system. The maintenance contract was due to expire. D&T had advised the choice of either a service or an ownership model for the next generation of TCMS software.

The first thing on our minds was to find a cost-effective way that would meet our need to redevelop the next TCMS software at the best price possible for our residents. Many of my residents in my ward are from the average low-income group. Factors such as cash flow, affordability and perhaps reaping economies of scale were some of our top-of-mind considerations.

All of the 14 PAP TCs then agreed on a sale and lease-back arrangement. This would allow the existing software to be centralised in one entity so that this entity could negotiate with potential vendors on our behalf. It did not seem efficient to have each of the 14 PAP TCs deal or negotiate separately with the vendors. At the same time, because the Town Councils still needed to continue to operate, the current software was still needed and maintenance required. The sale of the existing software and the leaseback arrangement was the most practical solution that could meet all of the needs.

Mayor Teo Ho Pin, our Co-ordinating Chairman, a domain expert and the most experienced amongst us, was leading the efforts; but all of us were fully supportive of his leadership. We acted in good faith and none of us wanted our individual TCs and residents we serve to have to bear any operational or financial risk or burden.

A contract was subsequently drafted and an open tender was called. The successful vendor must be willing to buy the existing almost-obsolete software; lease it back to the PAP town councils at no increase in maintenance cost to our residents; and be willing to study our future needs and help us negotiate for the development of the next-generation software. This is a tall order. A contract that is guilty of being biased to the needs and interest of our residents. Whilst several vendors collected the tender documents, only AIM, a PAP-affiliated company, agreed to do the job.

To be honest, the last thing on the minds of my fellow TC chairpersons, our TC councillors and the staff, the last thing was to fix or to trip the opposition. Accusing us of plotting to sell the TCMS software in 2009 prior to the 2011 General Elections is nothing but a figment of imagination of some parties. GE2011 then was the last thing on our mind. Some of us do not even know if we would be fielded. We were more concerned with the mechanics of the old and the new software. Our conscience was and is clear - including in the face of my Maker, to whom Mr Png Eng Huat referred.

Naturally, we had not expected the spat that started in mid-December 2012 when the hon. Member Sylvia Lim and Chairman of the then Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) blamed AIM for affecting the Town Council's performance in a MND review. This raised nationwide questions of conflicts of interest and why AIM, a PAP-affiliated company, is allowed to do business with PAP Town Councils.

The MND Review Report helped explain the history and political nature of the Town Councils. The Town Councils Act or the TCs Act was set up to legally empower elected MPs representing their respective political parties to run their towns. The Act allowed not only freedom in appointing Town Councillors and staff; it does not prohibit transactions with persons or entities associated with the respective political parties.

This arrangement is hardly new to even hon. Members from the Opposition. When Workers' Party took over the running of the Aljunied GRC, it waived competition to appoint FM Solutions and Services or FMSS as its Managing Agent (MA). FMSS was started in May 2011 and owned by the former General Manager of the then-Hougang TC. Later on, when AHTC finally conducted an open tender, not one but two contracts, for both Managing Agent, and essential maintenance services, were awarded to FMSS.

Mdm Speaker, I highlighted these transactions not to draw a parallel between AIM and FMSS; but just to point out that both ruling party and opposition-run Town Councils and MPs are aware of the current operating model, the political nature of the Councils and the culture. In fact, TCs from all parties had, at various times, working partnerships with vendors who are politically sympathetic and willing to walk the extra mile for the interest of the residents and the respective MPs' political party.

If this arrangement and operating model is deemed to be less than perfect, then let us support the strategic review recommended by the MND Town Council Review Team. It is not helpful to finger-point at any one specific party. Whatever political party colour we don, let us provide inputs on how to plug the gaps in a less than perfect system and make it even more transparent and clear. Better still, let us also take this opportunity to examine the fundamentals of the current TC operating model and legislation. Let us help Town Councils raise the bar to be not just estate maintenance agents but town managers of the 21st century.

Madam, I would like to next share my thoughts on Town Councils of the Future. One of the key decisions I believe we need to make is the choice of the governance model or the operating model of future Town Councils.

On the pre-1989 Model before Town Councils, Madam, there have been calls to revert to the pre-1989 days when the HDB, a Government agency, is responsible for the maintenance of common areas and public housing estates.

The appeal of the model is this. It is potentially able to tap on a bigger pool of public resources. Government does have more resources in the maintenance and further development of towns such as in IT systems or related environmental control or road facilities.

One of the effects of reverting completely to Government to run Town Councils is the potential of higher costs of managing towns. There is a popular mindset that Government has a deep, deep pocket and if it is cleaning and maintaining towns, Government should be able to afford and accommodate whatever needs and demands residents might have. This view is common not only in housing matters, but also transport, education, and even in social services. But we know that ultimately someone has got to foot the bill.

And under this system, the pre-1989 system, elected MPs will play the role of being the mouthpieces to pressure the appointed Government agency for more, potentially without accountability or calibration of what the optimal level of services should be.

Next, the other alternative, the alternative is the post-1989 Town Council Model. Madam, the appeal of the current Town Council operation model, on the other hand, is that it provides a direct link between public housing residents and their elected MPs, what Minister Khaw calls "the nexus between residents and their elected MPs".

Nothing brings an MP more down to earth than getting direct feedback on which corridor is not swept, which rubbish is not picked, which chute is not working or how residents disagree with each another on which colour of paint is the best. It is not glamour work. It is different in nature from researching and making public speeches on pet topics in Parliament. It stretches and shows up the bandwidth and responsiveness of the MPs one elects. Resources are put in the hands of the respective MPs. And how they operate the estate will provide one of the data points from which resident-voters evaluate their MPs. It is a double-edged sword that either shows up the quality, or the lack of, of the MPs.

The current Town Council model, however, is not without its down side. The challenges of handing over of TC operations in the event of political change is well detailed in the MND report and covered by the hon. Members Zainal Sapari, Sylvia Lim and Sitoh Yih Pin.

In addition, MP-led Town Councils are often wrongly perceived as THE body to solve majority of the Town's issues – the drains, the roads, so forth. In reality, the current scope of the Town Council is primarily in estate management and facility improvement, subject to fairly stringent funding limits. Town Councils are not meant for problems meant to be solved by the police, by the HDB (Housing Development Board), by LTA (Land Transport Authority), NEA (National Environment Agency), SLA (Singapore Land Authority) and so forth, to name a few.

When MPs run Town Councils, they tend to also be reluctant to increase the SC&C charges, even in the face of inflation, even in the face of increasing costs such as in utility tariffs. With no guidance in the setting of S&C charges, each review of charges is potentially sensitive, emotional and, of course, unpopular.

Under the current TC model, there is also no differentiation in Government grants provided to Town Councils of estates of different profiles and ages. In the housing estates, for instance, located in city area that I operate, which is frequented by persons all over the island, our Town Council officers and cleaners have to work doubly hard to clean up after the visitors. When I asked for fences to cordon off residential void decks to provide some privacy for my HDB residents, I was advised to use my limited Town Council funding for such purposes.

Clearly, as the MND Review Report rightly advised, the current model is due for a strategic and comprehensive review. Madam, both the pre-1989 and the current TC model have their appeals and their downsides. What is needed is a more updated model that is more inspiring and more visionary that will raise the role of MPs beyond estate managers, but also lead in sculpting the character of their town and residents.

Madam, in this respect, I would like to give eight suggestions to improve the current model just so the Review Team later on can consider these before the next generation of TCs and the Act. Here are the eight:

1) Conduct a study of best practices of how municipals and towns are run in other parts of the world. A quick research, a desktop research I currently conducted on town council in North Carolina's Town of Cary showed an impressive list of A-Z services that we can learn from. I am sure there are many best practices we can learn.

2) Engage key stakeholders including resident groups in developing a realistic vision of what their estates can become; and how they too can own part of the process of making their estates cleaner, safer and more gracious. A town, after all, is about both hardware – infrastructure -- and also software -- its people.

3) Demarcate responsibilities of Government, Town Councils and Residents, taking into account which deliverables are best performed by these key stakeholders. For instance, we should seriously consider having Government lead in the development of nationwide TCMS software to be leased back to individual Town Councils. Since needs and expectations may be different, we can consider a modular approach for the Town Councils to pick and use the modules they need. Choose an open platform so that modules can be customised and added when required.

4) Actively use technology to collect and provide data and information so that Town Councils and their residents can proactively manage their own estate matters.

5) Provide better guidelines in the review of SC&C charges and set more consistent expectations amongst the public so that the revision of such fees is subject to less emotion and less populism.

6) Provide more education and transparency of Sinking Fund top-ups so that residents and Town Councillors are able to understand the need and purpose of such longer-term funds. Consider a tier system so that Town Councils, who have already had adequate sinking fund stashed aside, can be allowed to put aside less and use the money for operating expenses.

7) Allow differentiation in the provision of Government Grants to cover operational expenditure, especially for estates which are located in city districts prone to dis-amenities brought about by visitors from the rest of Singapore. I am specifically referring to, of course, my wards such as the Little India – my GRC – my little India, my Little Thailand and Waterloo Street and possibly also Dr Lily Neo's Chinatown.

8) Lastly, consider how the same objective of engaging MPs with public housing residents, how this objective can also be furthered and applied in private estates which are equally important.

In conclusion, Madam, the decision in 1989 by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to make elected MPs accountable for maintenance of the housing estates they are voted into, is not unsound. However, it is now 2013. Twenty-four years have passed. The political and social landscapes have shifted and the Town Councils Acts and practices are in need of updates.

It is time to move on to envision the Town Councils of the 21st century. It is time to update our methods of engagement with the use of technology. It is time to further engage and give more power, more support, and ownership to both MPs and their residents to create more distinctive town characters.

I support the Minister's statement. I seek Minister's favourable considerations of the points I have raised and look forward to the implementations of the recommendations of the MND Town Council Review Report.