<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Briefing beef: 'When I stood up to ask if residents would be allowed to vote on the upgrading, I was told it would be too difficult.'
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I LIVE in Braddell Heights, an old private estate. Earlier this year, residents received feedback forms informing us that we had become eligible for the Estate Upgrading Programme. The forms asked general questions on what we hoped to see. I was glad our comments were solicited, and that certain aspects of the estate would be upgraded. I was also pleased to hear there would be a briefing-cum-forum last Saturday and made a point to attend, as did a number of my neighbours.
At the briefing, our Member of Parliament told us that the response to the feedback forms had been above average in our estate, indicating that residents here are interested in the issue.
However, instead of a discussion and feedback being solicited, the briefing turned out to be just that. Residents were told what to expect, and when the upgrading works would be carried out. When I stood up to ask if residents would be allowed to vote on the upgrading, I was told it would be too difficult to do so.
I fail to see how sending a letter detailing different items to be upgraded and asking residents if they agree or not is difficult. These forms can be returned in exactly the same manner as the feedback forms. The results can then be tabulated and released. It was suggested we take into account the 'silent majority'. Again I fail to see how we will determine what the silent majority feel if they choose to remain silent. If a resident feels strongly enough, he will choose to vote. If he does not, one can take into account only those who do so.
We were told instead by another member of the forum that we should be grateful to the Neighbourhood Committee for all its hard work, and how it had managed to earmark $5.5 million of funds for our estate. While I appreciate the work by the volunteers on the Neighbourhood Committee, the MP and others, they do not speak for residents. While we are grateful they have secured this amount for our estate, as residents I believe we have a right to decide how that money should be spent. After all, this is taxpayers' money.
$5.5 million is not a small sum. In an economy which is looking bleaker by the day, it might be prudent to be circumspect about how funds are spent and forego cosmetic changes. Some of my neighbours may disagree with me, and I am more than prepared to accept whatever the majority decides. However, to push ahead with the upgrading works without putting this to a democratic vote seems disingenuous. If upgrading is truly meant to be for residents, it is the residents who should ultimately decide. Dawn Kua (Ms)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I LIVE in Braddell Heights, an old private estate. Earlier this year, residents received feedback forms informing us that we had become eligible for the Estate Upgrading Programme. The forms asked general questions on what we hoped to see. I was glad our comments were solicited, and that certain aspects of the estate would be upgraded. I was also pleased to hear there would be a briefing-cum-forum last Saturday and made a point to attend, as did a number of my neighbours.
At the briefing, our Member of Parliament told us that the response to the feedback forms had been above average in our estate, indicating that residents here are interested in the issue.
However, instead of a discussion and feedback being solicited, the briefing turned out to be just that. Residents were told what to expect, and when the upgrading works would be carried out. When I stood up to ask if residents would be allowed to vote on the upgrading, I was told it would be too difficult to do so.
I fail to see how sending a letter detailing different items to be upgraded and asking residents if they agree or not is difficult. These forms can be returned in exactly the same manner as the feedback forms. The results can then be tabulated and released. It was suggested we take into account the 'silent majority'. Again I fail to see how we will determine what the silent majority feel if they choose to remain silent. If a resident feels strongly enough, he will choose to vote. If he does not, one can take into account only those who do so.
We were told instead by another member of the forum that we should be grateful to the Neighbourhood Committee for all its hard work, and how it had managed to earmark $5.5 million of funds for our estate. While I appreciate the work by the volunteers on the Neighbourhood Committee, the MP and others, they do not speak for residents. While we are grateful they have secured this amount for our estate, as residents I believe we have a right to decide how that money should be spent. After all, this is taxpayers' money.
$5.5 million is not a small sum. In an economy which is looking bleaker by the day, it might be prudent to be circumspect about how funds are spent and forego cosmetic changes. Some of my neighbours may disagree with me, and I am more than prepared to accept whatever the majority decides. However, to push ahead with the upgrading works without putting this to a democratic vote seems disingenuous. If upgrading is truly meant to be for residents, it is the residents who should ultimately decide. Dawn Kua (Ms)
