20130520 Tampines MA rate not appropriate comparison, AIM issue needs closure

From: phillip ang
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:08 PM
To: PM LEE ; <a title="teo_ho_pin ; SYLVIA LIM
Cc: AMY KHOR ; <a title="bga336 ; bokkoh ; CHARLES CHONG ; <a title="showmao.chen ; cue_liew ; DPM TEO ; <a title="tharman_s ; GAN KIM YONG ; <a title="gerald.giam ; HENG CHEE HOW ; <a title="heng_swee_keat ; INDERJIT ; <a title="s_iswaran ; MP JANIL PUTHUCHEARY ; <a title="jayakumar89 ; jjauto ; ken_dxb ; KHAW BOON WAN ; <a title="lchertan ; LEE KUAN YEW ; <a title="ltk ; LILY NEO ; <a title="maliki_osman ; MP ZAINAL SAPARI ; <a title="news ; newseditor ; ngys ; nicole.rebecca.seah ; ongqyqy ; PNG ENG HUAT ; <a title="pritam.singh ; RAVI ; <a title="seahkp ; SIM ANN ; <a title="yuanyi ; ST CHINLIAN ; <a title="stnewsdesk ; STANLEY ; <a title="stlocal ; TOC ; <a title="andrew ; yahoo ; <a title="zblocal
Subject: 20130520 Tampines MA rate not appropriate comparison, AIM issue needs closure

Dear Dr Teo Ho Pin

I refer to my recent feedback on Tampines estate where I highlighted instances of killer litter, void decks uninspected for months/years etc. Dr Teo should have been aware of such feedback.

It is indeed strange that Dr Teo brought up the managing agent (MA) unit rate of Tampines (under CPGFM) as a comparison to AHPETC’s MA rate. In the press release, the reason given for appointing CPGFM was: “The contract was awarded to CPGFM as its MA fee for five years was the lowest while ensuring value to the Town Council”.

Let’s take a look at what kind of value has been produced with the lowest bid in Tampines estate.

Void decks typically uninspected for months/years.

CPG appears to have zero common sense by-laws. By laws which have never been enforced serve no purpose other than ‘for show’ i.e. the TC convinces the MND that proper management is in place and could absolve itself of any responsibility in the event of an accident. A typical block in Tampines.

Block 2XX
Not one but two sets of laundry brackets allowed on a second floor unit despite this issue having been highlighted to the MND over the years.

3 units with metallic religious objects positioned precariously above each other.

Tampines TC’s turning a blind eye is considered ‘proper estate maintenance’. (please accept responsibility and do not keep blaming cleaners)

A short distance away from the block above, exposed electrical wires.

Where my relative’s neighbouring unit is concerned, Tampines TC has kept silent on the following:

Perhaps the lowest MA rate must have meant acceptance of painting job from ‘Peeling Paintworks Pte Ltd’?

From the above, it should have been clear to Dr Teo that using Tampines as a yardstick is clearly inappropriate, unless the above is defined as the standard estate management for all PAP TCs. (should more ‘evidence’ be required, please do not hesitate to contact me)

Does the MA rate concern residents?

Besides the above issue, it is strange that as an MP, Dr Teo does not seem to be aware that what concerns residents most is the S&CC.

http://www.tampines.org.sg S&CC rate of Tampines
http://www.ahpetc.sg/scc/ S&CC rate of AHPETC

As could be seen from the above links, a resident under AHPETC pays a lower S&CC than one living in Tampines across all room types.

On S&CC rates of a 4 room HDB flat:
– residents in Ang Mo Kio pays the highest rate, almost 20 per cent higher than AHPETC.

This was highlighted in TRE by reader Chin Wei, who had compiled the list below.

Town Council S&CC
West Coast 52.50
Holland Bt Panjang 52.00
Bishan Toa Payoh 55.00
Jurong 51.60
East Coast 52.00
Ang Mo Kio 61.00
Pasir Ris Punggol 50.50
Aljunied Punggol East Hougang 51.50
Sembawang Nee Soon NA
Marine Parade NA
Moulmein Kallang NA
Tanjong Pagar NA
Tampines 55.50

If Dr Teo is concerned about heartlanders, shouldn’t you highlight the S&CC rates of all TCs? Why not also query Ang Mo Kio TC’s highest S&CC rate for a 4 room flat? Where, may I ask, is the economy of scale for PAP TCs?

The MA rate issue therefore appears to have been a distraction from the AIM issue.

What about Dr Teo’s HBTTC MA rate which is 34 per cent higher than Tampines’?

Mr Leong Sze Hian, a well known blogger with considerable financial background, arrived at a shocking figure of Dr Teo’s TC – the MA rate of HBTTC is 34 per cent higher than Tampines’ in 2012. Is this not the HBTTC pot calling the AHPETC kettle black?

The point is, again, more revelation is simply a waste of Parliament’s time, as if there are no more urgent issues to be debated. Where does all this stop? Is the MA rate even meaningful to us heartlanders? Does Parliament intend to continue ‘getting nowhere’ on the MA rate issue?

Heartlanders, like myself, deserve answers on the AIM issue.


– Tampines TC’s sub standard estate management renders its MA rate an inappropriate yardstick.
– Only the S&CC concerns residents and, clearly, Tampines’ residents are worse off than those under AHPETC.
– Where S&CC is concerned AHPETC appears to have offered heartlanders value and is possibly the lowest in town.
– Using Tampines’ MA rate as the yardstick, Dr Teo’s TC also fared badly.
– The MA rate issue brought up by Dr Teo is a distraction from the AIM issue which should not have been reviewed by the MND but by a neutral party.
– The AIM issue needs closure, not more distractions please.

Thank you.


Phillip Ang

Chairman/GM Tampines TC should personally verify the actual situation in Tampines estate.


This entry was posted in POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s