[Today] In support of tighter Town Councils Act

The Workers’ Party (WP) has let down the voters of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East constituencies with the management of its town council. (“Town council management should be depoliticised: Low Thia Khiang”; Feb 13)

So far, its explanations for the lapses in financial management, and negligence and incompetence in corporate governance, are inadequate.

The most damaging revelation was the appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) as the managing agent and the owners as senior officers of the town council.

That FMSS was formed shortly after the last General Election (GE) may indicate an intention to profit from an existing relationship with the WP. Inexperience in managing a large town council is no excuse.

As the alternative party in Parliament, the WP must be ready, with the necessary political talents, to manage municipal issues and to take over the Government at every GE.

The reason that no managing agents, besides FMSS, are willing to take on the job because of political affiliation is also invalid.

Some 40 per cent of Singaporeans voted for opposition parties at the last GE. There would surely be a sufficient pool of willing companies. Furthermore, estate management is not rocket science.

I support the tightening of the Town Councils Act to bring it closer to the Companies Act, as town councils function more like a not-for-profit commercial entity.

Specifically, we should bar Members of Parliament and senior officers of town councils, including their close relatives, from having any commercial interest in companies engaged by town councils.

Overseeing related-party transactions through established procedural steps is less effective and transparent. Other bidders may not be privy to insider information that related companies are bound to have.

A tighter legal framework, though, is no panacea for proper management, with accountability, of town councils. The WP should eat humble pie and clean up its act.

[Today] Encourage debate on National Service

That Singapore needs a strong military, in which conscription continues to feature, is hard to dispute, and Mr Ho Shu Huang’s commentary “How do people view national security?” (Feb 17) makes a strong case for a long-term defence posture.

But it is less clear whether those who give priority to national defence can be persuaded that these “long-term security concerns cannot unconditionally eclipse immediate and real bread-and-butter concerns”.

In this vein, to shape perceptions of National Service, younger Singaporeans should be involved in related discussions. The perceived absence of threats necessitates stronger engagement on the “vulnerability” narrative Mr Ho emphasised.

However, such discourse should not be didactic. Instead of overwhelming participants with talking points or rehashed arguments, they should be encouraged to articulate personal perspectives.

There may have been missed opportunities during the Committee to Strengthen NS endeavour, when little attention was given to the pillars of defence and deterrence upon which conscription is premised.

Young Singaporeans should be asked for feedback beyond the present suite of surveys and convinced through conversations, not refrains such as the maintenance of a “defence posture”, which might be eclipsed by more immediate worries as Mr Ho mentioned.

For instance, how do they value the military and its conscription policies? Do perceptions change after NS?

Are they convinced by the prevailing narrative, and how should the Government respond to bright-eyed suggestions that Singapore, sans a sizeable force, can rely on diplomatic overtures or its allies when crisis strikes?

The answers might seem straightforward for the Government, yet it is the engagement process that matters. Tedious as it may be, individuals should not be told why conscription is necessary, but be encouraged to debate its relevance.

[Today] Learn from Japan’s woes as S’pore curbs foreign labour

In “Bring back ‘keep clean’ campaign” (Feb 13), the letter writer equated a growing population to declining cleanliness standards here, which is unfortunate at best.

She wrote also that “cleaning staff were stationed” at restrooms in certain Asian cities to keep the facilities clean. It is in exactly that, manpower, that Singapore is at a disadvantage.

It has been noted that Singapore is a clean city because of cleaners, and not yet as a direct consequence of, or inherent within, its national psyche.

No matter how many campaigns as are necessary, one issue that will not be resolved is the manpower crunch, which is already hampering social and national interests at different levels. It is only 15 years before a fifth of the population will be categorised as aged.

But many have seemingly not grasped the relationship between an ageing population, competition and globalisation, as well as the huge impact of such demographics on the socioeconomic and political landscape. Ageing is expensive for any country, money- and manpower-wise.

Japan, in the grips of a low birth rate and an ageing population, has opened up its workforce recently to the highest performers from around the region.

Singapore has a head start, but as policies are being reversed, let us hope that Japan’s woes is a lesson learnt before Singapore, too, loses its hard-earned advantage in this region and its place in the world.

If we are serious about valuing seniors and their contributions to making Singapore what it is today, the realities befalling us must become national priorities before ageing and manpower issues overwhelm us.

[Today] State should manage town council finances

It is sad that our ministers and Members of Parliament spent two days debating a town council’s alleged mishandling of accounts and unlawful acts. (“Unanimous support in House for tougher standards on TCs”; Feb 14)

I call for the state to put all town councils under its rule. Public funds should not be left in the hands of privately run outfits, big or small.

A new state-established division should manage the financial aspect of town councils while they perform their other duties.

Residents would then have peace in mind and not wonder if they are being ripped off for their estate operations and the cleanliness of their surroundings.

[Today] A multi-pronged, collaborative approach to wildlife conservation

We refer to the letters “Why zoos should house more rare land animals” (Feb 7) and “Zoos endanger future of rare animals” (Feb 9).

Wildlife Reserves Singapore (WRS), the parent company of Jurong Bird Park, Night Safari, River Safari and Singapore Zoo, together with the international community of modern zoological institutions, contributes to wildlife and biodiversity conservation by engaging and connecting the public to wildlife, scientific management of threatened wildlife within our living collection, as well as participating in field conservation projects.

Managing threatened species in WRS’ living collection can help fulfil a few conservation needs, including having “ambassador animals” for public education, providing research opportunities not feasible in the wild, and functioning as assurance colonies of captive bred animals as a contingency against extinction.

Many larger threatened land mammal species are managed as a part of a wider and coordinated regional or global captive population. These animals are ethically and sustainably sourced, with the majority being captive bred and exchanged with other zoological institutions.

For highly threatened species such as the Sumatran rhinoceros, conservation strategies are developed through joint decisions of multiple expert groups. Unless all stakeholders agree that it is in the best conservation needs of the species to be held in a zoo, the species will not enter our collection.

In Singapore, the Wildlife Reserves Singapore Conservation Fund (WRSCF) has funded nearly 20 local conservation and research projects since its inception in 2009, including the Sunda pangolin, the Singapore freshwater crab and the banded leaf langur.

WRS also works with local wildlife authorities and animal welfare organisations on rehabilitating and repatriating injured and displaced local wildlife. We currently supports 20 regional projects for 24 threatened species, including iconic species such as the orang utan, Asian elephant and Tonkin snub-nosed monkey.

Collectively, WRS parks provide wildlife experiences for more than four million visitors annually. The parks engage visitors by raising awareness on the plight of threatened wildlife as well as empowering them to fight these threats.

Apart from exhibit interpretation, keeper talks and animal presentations, we conduct conservation communication campaigns, such as last year’s campaign against the alarming mass killing of rhinoceros in Africa to meet East Asian consumption demands. This year, we will roll out a campaign on the wider unsustainable industrial-scale illegal harvesting of wildlife.

To achieve the desired conservation outcomes, WRS collaborates with local and regional government authorities, field wildlife researchers, academia, conservation organisations (such as International Union for Conservation of Nature and TRAFFIC), animal welfare groups and other zoos.

No single group on its own is able to resolve the complex problems threatening our wildlife.

Modern zoological institutions such as WRS, with our mass appeal to engage the public, scientific proficiencies in managing captive wildlife for demographic and genetic sustainability, and professional readiness to collaborate with other experts in their respective disciplines, possess a unique, indispensable and vital role and responsibility in wildlife conservation.

WRS and our parks are well poised and ready to continue with the collaborative approach in our efforts to conserve threatened wildlife and biodiversity.

[Today] In support of tighter Town Councils Act

The Workers’ Party (WP) has let down the voters of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East constituencies with the management of its town council. (“Town council management should be depoliticised: Low Thia Khiang”; Feb 13)

So far, its explanations for the lapses in financial management, and negligence and incompetence in corporate governance, are inadequate.

The most damaging revelation was the appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) as the managing agent and the owners as senior officers of the town council.

That FMSS was formed shortly after the last General Election (GE) may indicate an intention to profit from an existing relationship with the WP. Inexperience in managing a large town council is no excuse.

As the alternative party in Parliament, the WP must be ready, with the necessary political talents, to manage municipal issues and to take over the Government at every GE.

The reason that no managing agents, besides FMSS, are willing to take on the job because of political affiliation is also invalid.

Some 40 per cent of Singaporeans voted for opposition parties at the last GE. There would surely be a sufficient pool of willing companies. Furthermore, estate management is not rocket science.

I support the tightening of the Town Councils Act to bring it closer to the Companies Act, as town councils function more like a not-for-profit commercial entity.

Specifically, we should bar Members of Parliament and senior officers of town councils, including their close relatives, from having any commercial interest in companies engaged by town councils.

Overseeing related-party transactions through established procedural steps is less effective and transparent. Other bidders may not be privy to insider information that related companies are bound to have.

A tighter legal framework, though, is no panacea for proper management, with accountability, of town councils. The WP should eat humble pie and clean up its act.

[Today] Encourage debate on National Service

That Singapore needs a strong military, in which conscription continues to feature, is hard to dispute, and Mr Ho Shu Huang’s commentary “How do people view national security?” (Feb 17) makes a strong case for a long-term defence posture.

But it is less clear whether those who give priority to national defence can be persuaded that these “long-term security concerns cannot unconditionally eclipse immediate and real bread-and-butter concerns”.

In this vein, to shape perceptions of National Service, younger Singaporeans should be involved in related discussions. The perceived absence of threats necessitates stronger engagement on the “vulnerability” narrative Mr Ho emphasised.

However, such discourse should not be didactic. Instead of overwhelming participants with talking points or rehashed arguments, they should be encouraged to articulate personal perspectives.

There may have been missed opportunities during the Committee to Strengthen NS endeavour, when little attention was given to the pillars of defence and deterrence upon which conscription is premised.

Young Singaporeans should be asked for feedback beyond the present suite of surveys and convinced through conversations, not refrains such as the maintenance of a “defence posture”, which might be eclipsed by more immediate worries as Mr Ho mentioned.

For instance, how do they value the military and its conscription policies? Do perceptions change after NS?

Are they convinced by the prevailing narrative, and how should the Government respond to bright-eyed suggestions that Singapore, sans a sizeable force, can rely on diplomatic overtures or its allies when crisis strikes?

The answers might seem straightforward for the Government, yet it is the engagement process that matters. Tedious as it may be, individuals should not be told why conscription is necessary, but be encouraged to debate its relevance.