Reasons why MP Lam Par should not side with parties who caused the problem

[Confuseous]

One of the questions raised by some from the Fernvale columbarium saga is this: is your Member of Parliament (MP) suppose t represent you and speak on your behalf, or is his role to defend others with whom the residents may have an issue?

That is the question being asked of MP Lam Pin Min, the somewhat unfortunate MP who is smack right in the middle of the controversy.

Dr Lam is incidentally also the Minister of State for Health.

So he has some juggling to do indeed.

As a minister, he is expected to defend the Government, and in this case, it means defending the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the Housing Development Board (HDB), and the Ministry of National Development (MND) itself.

At some level, one can understand that Dr Lam has to do this. After all, he is a minster of the Government.

At the same time, however, he also wears the MP hat - a hat which residents confer on his head, so to speak, through the 10,000 or so votes they gave him at the last elections in 2011.

So, residents of Sengkang West, a newly-created single-member constituency (SMC), where the proposed site of the temple and columbarium is located, has a right to expect that Dr Lam will stand on their side in the matter.

Unfortunately, the dialogue session which was held on Sunday, organised by Dr Lam, to clear the air on the controversy, seems to have raised the ire of residents instead.

One of them told Dr Lam off during the session, reminding him that he is supposed to be speaking for the residents, and not to defend the company behind the temple/columbarium, Life Corporation.

This is one of the problems for PAP MPs, and in particular for MPs who also happen to hold official government positions, such as Dr Lam.

One would have preferred to see Dr lam standing firmly on the side of his would-be residents, as clearly the HDB or the URA had failed to inform them clearly that a columbarium would be built in the area when they applied for the Fernvale Lea BTO.

Dr Lam, however, insists that the brochure for the site use had indicated that a columbarium would be built.

Here again is another problem - Dr Lam has not backed up his claim with hard evidence.

Until and unless a copy of the sale brochure is made available for all to see, the fact - for now - is that the only mention relating to any columbarium is of an "ancillary uses" in the footnotes of the site plan.

One would have to go to the URA or HDB website to find out what these "ancillary uses" are.

And it is only here that one would see "columbarium" mentioned as a possibility.

In other words, if you do not find out for yourself what "ancillary uses" could mean, by going to the URA or the HDB and ask them, or check out their respective websites, you would have no clue that "ancillary uses" would include a columbarium.

And this again is what upsets residents - that all that the authorities needed to do was to include the word "columbarium" in the same site map or sale brochure where the words "Chinese temple" were.

It really isn't that hard a thing to do.

And while "ancillary uses" can also mean a library, or a chilcare centre, or even an old folks day centre, these are quite different from a columbarium.

And as an MP, Dr Lam should be aware of the difference and the sensitivity.

So, Dr Lam should be standing firmly on the side of the residents who do have a legitimate case of grievance - they were, in a sense, misled in a sales transaction, even if it inadvertent on the part of the URA or HDB.

The last thing an MP should do is to side with those who created the problem.

http://publicopinion.sg/169/mps-tight-rope-to-be-pro-residents-or-pro-business

 

[JohnTan]

Unless you want to be a hero, you should always side with the one who butters your bread. What's so difficult about that?

 

[laksaboy]

The PAP has always been pro-business. They're like a wastrel son who would pimp out their own mother for cigarette money. Everything has a price for the pappies.

 

[Seee3]

He does not know what is leadership. If 2 conflicting parties are under the same leader, it is textbook knowledge that the leader must remain neutral when discussing with both parties together, regardless of his own belief. Therefore, he should have taken the dialogue session as a chance for collective feedback where both sides can air their views. He must never take side in such open dialogue where he is the leader for both parties and both parties are present. He should only serve as a moderator to prevent the discussion from becoming overheated. Resolution for such touchy issue should be done behind closed door.

Unfortunately, he did the opposite. He took side and aggravated the situation by trying to convince the residents that the brochure did cover columbarium. When anger and emotion take over, people will stray from the original issue to other matters such as :
1 why non religion group can tender for land designated for temple
2 why mp is not speaking for the residents
3 why commercial outfit can be allowed to exploit religion for profit
4 suspicion on the links and credibility of the successful tenderer
.....

It has grown into many issues. If he had remained neutral, there will more rooms to work out a solution behind closed doors. Now they are stuck with the problem of losing face and setting "wrong" precedence. In short, this matter has reached this state because he does not have substance.

 

[JohnTan]

He does not know what is leadership. If 2 conflicting parties are under the same leader, it is textbook knowledge that the leader must remain neutral when discussing with both parties together, regardless of his own belief. Therefore, he should have taken the dialogue session as a chance for collective feedback where both sides can air their views. He must never take side in such open dialogue where he is the leader for both parties and both parties are present. He should only serve as a moderator to prevent the discussion from becoming overheated. Resolution for such touchy issue should be done behind closed door.

Unfortunately, he did the opposite. He took side and aggravated the situation by trying to convince the residents that the brochure did cover columbarium. When anger and emotion take over, people will stray from the original issue to other matters such as :
1 why non religion group can tender for land designated for temple
2 why mp is not speaking for the residents
3 why commercial outfit can be allowed to exploit religion for profit
4 suspicion on the links and credibility of the successful tenderer
.....

It has grown into many issues. If he had remained neutral, there will more rooms to work out a solution behind closed doors. Now they are stuck with the problem of losing face and setting "wrong" precedence. In short, this matter has reached this state because he does not have substance.

MP Lam took sides because he feels he doesn't depend on the residents' goodwill and support to win his election bid. People will vote for PAP even if they have serious grievances against the party. And he is probably right!

 

[Seee3]

MP Lam took sides because he feels he doesn't depend on the residents' goodwill and support to win his election bid. People will vote for PAP even if they have serious grievances against the party. And he is probably right!

It is great for him if he shared your kind of confident. Looking at their performances so far, foe example the noise on Wp TC financial state but the complete silence on the BB rats, I am afraid the new birds may not really know what they are doing but trying to emulate what others have done in the past. Maybe they have also forgotten that ultimately they need the residents' votes. Instead, they may be too worried with not being selected by their boss to stand for the next GE. So they tried too hard to shine but unfortunately got burnt instead.

 

[ginfreely]

He does not know what is leadership. If 2 conflicting parties are under the same leader, it is textbook knowledge that the leader must remain neutral when discussing with both parties together, regardless of his own belief. Therefore, he should have taken the dialogue session as a chance for collective feedback where both sides can air their views. He must never take side in such open dialogue where he is the leader for both parties and both parties are present. He should only serve as a moderator to prevent the discussion from becoming overheated. Resolution for such touchy issue should be done behind closed door.

Unfortunately, he did the opposite. He took side and aggravated the situation by trying to convince the residents that the brochure did cover columbarium. When anger and emotion take over, people will stray from the original issue to other matters such as :
1 why non religion group can tender for land designated for temple
2 why mp is not speaking for the residents
3 why commercial outfit can be allowed to exploit religion for profit
4 suspicion on the links and credibility of the successful tenderer
.....

It has grown into many issues. If he had remained neutral, there will more rooms to work out a solution behind closed doors. Now they are stuck with the problem of losing face and setting "wrong" precedence. In short, this matter has reached this state because he does not have substance.

Those are the main issues indeed that are all not answered. The MP can go find out now?

Perhaps the residents can sue HDB for refund since lacking of disclosure of vital information.