a) AHPETC received the least grant, per elector, compared to other GRCs and that Tanjong Pagar and AMK received among the highest.
b) AHPETC’s grants had decreased by 73% ever since WP took over.
I’ve done further analysis into some other numbers.
Arguably, the most important index is “deficit before grant per elector”. This essentially shows how well-run a town council is, in terms of managing its revenue sources and minimising its costs.
In this regards, Tanjong Pagar’s “deficit before grant per elector” is noticeably the worst among the GRCs, at $50 per elector and is 50% higher than AHPETC. Jurong TC’s “deficit before grant per elector” is the best at $26 per elector, but that is partly because it charges among the highest service fees per elector.
As has been pointed out by other online articles, AHPETC received the least govt grant per elector, compared to the other GRCs.
Interestingly, AHPETC also charges the least in terms of service fees per elector, compared to other GRCs. On average, each elector pays 20% less in fees compared to Tanjong Pagar GRC and 10% less compared to AMK GRC.
When you put all these in context, AHPETC looks quite well-run, doesn’t it? It charges among the least, per elector, compared to the other GRCs. Yet it manages to achieve comparable average deficit (before grant) per elector, compared to the other GRCs. This is despite it having higher uncollected bad debts, which show the “compassionate” side of the town council’s administration. The only reason it’s in a net deficit position is that the Govt had mysteriously decided to give the lowest grant per elector to AHPETC, compared to the other GRCs.
This story was written by JG.
Send us your stories at email@example.com