The following is the transcript of the speech delivered by Mr Pritam Singh, the Workers’ Party’s MP for Aljunied GRC, at the NUS Political Association Young Guns forum on 29 January.

1992, Straits Times
1992, Straits Times
Dear friends,
Firstly, thank you to the NUS Students’ Political Association for the kind invitation.
I have been asked to speak on the topic – how has Singapore progressed as a nation and the direction Singapore should steer in the years ahead. From this main question, the organizing committee forwarded a list of sub-questions that I could speak in greater length on. These covered social media, political engagement, amongst others. I am going to speak on the topic of whether the quality of governance has improved with the emergence of a more active opposition.
But before doing so, I would like to suggest that governance occurs at two levels – at the national level and the local level. I am going to speak for the next nine minutes or so on the quality of governance at the local level, and I will be happy to take your questions on this subject thereafter.
Before I begin, can I ask all of you, how many of you know who is the Chairman of the Citizen’s Consultative Committee or the CCC of the constituency or ward where you stay in Singapore? Three hands (out of an audience of 150). Yi Da, that’s four. Mr Baey of course! That’s five.
Your answer does not surprise me. If I turn the clock back 15 years or so when I was an undergraduate, I would have responded similarly. In fact, I don’t know who my CCC Chairman is, even where I stay! Perhaps I should ask the question differently. Do you know what the CCC does? (Dr Paul Ananth Thambyah [in the audience] guesses they are involved in line-dancing!). Again, if I turned the clock back 15 years, and sitting in your shoes, I would equally clueless.
The CCC is the umbrella local grassroots organisation in any constituency in Singapore. Many sub-committees come under it – including merchant and hawker sub-committees, aging subcommittees, and so on. CCCs plan and lead grassroots activities in a constituency, they oversee community and welfare programmes and they also act as a feedback channel between the government and the people. Quite simply, CCCs were envisaged as a quasi-local government in action, with the CCC Chairman acting like a village head or penghulu in the kampung.
Today, the main role of the CCCs to organize programmes to support the People’s Association. CCCs support the government in nationwide campaigns such as dengue prevention, Clean & Green Week, Racial Harmony Month and Good Neighbour Day. They also organise community forums and administer welfare assistance. Members in the CCC are volunteers appointed by the CCC Chairman once every two years and the Chairman’s appointment has to be approved by the Grassroots Advisers who is a PAP MP. But the question I want to put out to the audience is this – are CCC volunteers just volunteers?
In 1992, the Straits Times published an article titled, “CCCs at the crossroads, where it was stated, “Several grassroots leaders and advisers say that when they organize activities for residents, they also hope to win political mileage for the MP, and by extension, for the PAP. In those days, opposition MP Mr Chiam See Tong accused the CCC of serving the PAP and not the people.
What happened was that the Potong Pasir CCC suspected that some of its CCC members were actually supporters of Mr Chiam’s party because they were seen at community functions organized by Mr Chiam. In response to this, the 1991 PAP candidate for Potong Pasir, Andy Gan was quoted as saying, “we will ask them to leave if they are opposition supporters.”
The same Straits Times article goes on to quote a then Bishan North CCC Adviser who stated that the CCC and the PAP are indirectly linked by people who are members of both. The same article went on to say that sometimes, the link is spelt out even more clearly, with one CCC Chairman stating that he expects his CCC members to join the PAP, and wants an explanation if they refuse. To this CCC Chairman, the CCC is (I quote), “a voluntary organization for the PAP”.
This article was dated 1992. There has been no real significant change to the role of and function of the CCCs in all the constituencies in Singapore, be they PAP or non-PAP. But I look back to the incidents that took place in Aljunied GRC in 2013.
The first one concerned the by now infamous hawker centre dispute at the Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC. In both cases, the role of the CCCs were clear. The individual who wrote to the TC on behalf of some Block 511 hawkers, served in Kaki Bukit ward as a PAP member for over 20 years and another, a former Chairman of the Block 538 Hawkers’ Association, was a member of the PAP and the CCC for Kaki Bukit. The second episode concerned the petition by some Hougang shopkeepers against the organization of trade fairs. The petition was driven by the Chairman of the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol Shops Sub-Committee under the CCC once more.
When Town Councils were first set up in Singapore in the 1980s, then DPM Goh Chok Tong explained the politicisation of the Town Councils as giving MPs increased authority and responsibility as a result of which, voters would be more likely to vote “carefully and sincerely” and choose honest and effective MPs. But the reality at the local level is that there are grassroots organisations which can also be politically motivated to lower the standing of the local MPs.
It is my contention that in the years to come, the Government should steer the nation in a different direction insofar as local governance is concerned.
The problem with the existing system of People’s Association managed outfits like CCCs is that its fundamental purpose is to perpetuate a one-party state.
With a greater plurality of voices making themselves heard in Singapore, our local organisations should evolve in tandem with the democratic norms of a society where every voice has an equal right to be heard. Your local representatives, be they CCC Chairmen or RC Chairmen should be residents and ought to be elected by residents, and not appointed by the Grassroots Adviser. Local elections would determine what issues truly affect the people to bring these up to the elected MP.
A forum that brings the elected MP together with local leaders and representatives should be the platform through which municipal issues are discussed and addressed. The Government of the day should work with these locally elected leaders on national level issues such as dengue campaigns, blood donation days, emergency preparedness days, inter-racial confidence circles, etc. all of which currently come under the People’s Association. Political activities such as block visits by the MP or political candidates during elections should solely the purview of political parties and not local grassroots organisations.
At NTU’s annual ministerial seminar yesterday, Prime Minister Lee remarked that young people should take ownership of the country and lead it to greater heights. He also said that young people are not thinking of becoming billionaires but to change the world for the better, although not necessarily knowing what that change ought to look like. In the Singapore case, I say we can start by looking closely at the institutions which determine the contours of local governance that focuses on a better Singapore, so that we can create a more inclusive society, where the underlying philosophy of governance is not about power and the perpetuation of one-party rule, but about democratic norms and a mature democracy where the political choices of Singaporeans are respected by the Government.
Thank you.
——————–
Useful links
1. According to the Central Intellgence Agency’s World Factbook, the People’s Association had its origins as a national building programme ‘designed to wean pro-Communist voters away from the opposition’. Besides serving as a communication channel between the government and ruling party at the top and the people below – making way for a more responsive government – it was also intended for the PA to blur the boundaries between the government and the party, such that ‘the people tended to praise the party for activities undertaken by the government.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

COVID-19: MOH investigating and identifying 95 Singaporeans who attended religious event in Malaysia

In a Facebook post on Thursday (12 March), Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affair…

针对夫申请转移公积金医罹癌妻 公积金局公开回应

日前本社报导,一名印裔公民,为了能治好妻子的病,向中央公积金局申请,将自己的普通和特别户头存款,转移到妻子的保健储蓄(medisave)户头,好让妻子能继续抗癌。但是,公积金局拒绝了苏利亚的要求。 人权律师拉维于10日在脸书更新近况,表示他的律师团队已经入禀高庭,以申请强制令要求公积金局,准许他领取积蓄籍转移给妻子莎若吉妮户头,作抗癌医疗费用。 不过,公积金局与卫生部于今日(7月12日)发表联合文告,尝试厘清莎若吉妮个案中的一些细节,并解释莎若吉妮的终身健保、个人保险等已为她承担大部分医疗费,且公积金局自2017年以来,已尝试透过各种配套施予援手。 必须注意的是,目前苏利亚提出的诉求,是希望当局能批准他提出自己的公积金普通和特别户头,转移到妻子户口作为治疗费用。惟在文告中当局除了对夫妇俩处境深表遗憾,但未提及条例下55岁才能转移至亲户口的限制,以及是否特别通融现年47岁的苏利亚这么做,拯救爱妻。 在文告中,公积金局解释,自2017年,患有卵巢癌的莎若吉妮,选择在伊丽莎白私人医院和百汇癌症中心(PCC)寻求治疗。百汇癌症中心告知莎若吉妮夫妇,她的癌况近末期已无法治愈。 2018年,她前往国立大学医院咨询第二意见,而她得到的答案亦同。文告解释,国大医院献议莎若吉妮可预约转介到该医院接受津贴治疗。 “莎若吉妮选择继续在私立、无津贴的百汇癌症中心接受治疗, 她的终身健保到目前为止为她支付六万元医疗和住院费用。而加上她的私人保险,保险至今为她支付了30万元,涵盖了她在百汇和伊丽莎白医院90巴仙的医疗费。” 公积金局续解释莎若吉妮获得的保障,指自2017年10月,莎若吉妮可从乐龄健保每月领取1100元,至今累积2万3000元,得以为他们减轻财务负担。 “莎若吉妮和丈夫苏利亚也从他们的健保储蓄中,领取9000元供治疗用途。” 公积金局称,2017年,鉴于百汇癌症中心的评估指莎若吉妮病情严重,她获准从公积金普通和特别户头领取2万5000元。 至于公积金局家庭保障计划( Home…

Focus on HDB (Part 1): The more the merrier?

Leong Sze Hian / I refer to the articles “New flats for…

Capital’s war against WikiLeaks

The following is an excerpt of an article published in Al Jazeera…