Current Affairs
The real lessons of BLYC
by Joshua Chiang
That the Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC) has come under fire for partisan links to the People’s Action Party (PAP) is no surprise. But it’s not the only thing that’s worrying about the BLYC as a CCA.
In a letter to the Straits Times Forum page, MOE defended it’s position by claiming that “students have the opportunity to develop qualities of compassion, leadership and teamwork.”
But quite tellingly, in the original Straits Times report on the BLYC, the group would not have grown to its current strength had it not been for being recognized as a CCA.
“’They wanted to know what’s in it for them,’ Daniel told The New Paper in 2003. ‘They have no time and this is not part of our CCA.’” (Daniel Lim was one of the founders of the BLYC. He is also the son of Madam Ho Geok Choo, the MP for Boon Lay)
RI students involved in grassroots work (Straits Times 24 Dec 2010)
The BLYC’s greatest achievement according to the Straits Times was in organizing the year end Countdown @Boon Lay. It was attended by around 30,000 people.
In response to ex-NMP Siew Kum Hong’s letter to TODAY, a parent of a BYLC volunteer wrote:
“I understand that this event was fully organised and managed by the students and I do not believe that these students will ever have the opportunity to organise such a massive event in any other CCA activities.” Tan Ah Teck
(“It’s not about politics at Boon Lay Youth Club at all“, TODAY, Jan 5 2011)
One cannot deny that involvement in BLYC – or most community work – would be a good character building experience.
However, that the BYLC was able to attract volunteers after it had achieved CCA status raises the question of whether those who joined did so only because there was the incentive of CCA points.
That the parent noted the scale of the event his daughter was involved in, which other CCAs could not offer also raised the question:
What if the BLYC were not a CCA?
Would he have been equally proud if she had given up her time in a volunteer work that produced less visible results?
Public Service, PAP-style
In a 2006 article published by the Straits Times, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong remarked that the GRC system made it easier to find ‘top talents’.
‘Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,’ Mr Goh said.
Other MPs quickly chimed in.
Teo Ser Luck said that a rookie politician would face a “steep learning curve and may not have enough time” if he had to stand for election on his own rather than be part of a team.
Lee Yi Shyan said “If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.”
More recently in a Channel NewsAsia programme, Dr Lim Wee Kiak (MP for Sembawang GRC) made a very revealing remark when he likened public service to a liability.
“When you’re an MP, you’re an MP for life. Even when you step down, your liability-hood continues with you.” he said in response to a question from the show’s host.
What are we really teaching?
It might appear to be too much of a stretch to make a direct link between the BLYC and the prevalent attitude of the incumbent towards public service.
But what’s apparent is how such ‘pragmatism’ appears to be the norm in all levels of thinking; this thinking that something is not worth doing unless there is an assurance of success and that there is a tangible incentive for doing it. We have to seriously ask ourselves where such thinking originates.
The ‘success’ of the BLYC is not a triumph of student initiative and volunteerism. The lesson being taught is that the easiest route to success is to walk the road most sanctioned.
Youths searching for real lessons in empowerment and sacrifice should look elsewhere.
Read also “BLYC debate: Excavating the political“
Current Affairs
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.
On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.
Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.
According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.
Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.
He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.
In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:
- Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
- Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
- Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
- How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
- How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?
The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.
Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.
He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.
Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”
He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.
The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.
At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.
Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.
As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.
Comments
Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude
Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.
In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”
Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.
“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.
“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.
SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.
As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”
He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”
Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans
The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.
A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).
In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.
They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.
Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.
One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.
There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.
The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.
He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.
“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”
Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public
Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.
He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.
The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.
“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”
The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.
Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”
“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”
A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.
The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.
Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament
Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.
The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.
A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.
-
Comments6 days ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments3 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Crime2 weeks ago
Leaders of Japanese syndicate accused of laundering S$628.7M lived in Singapore
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore6 days ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore7 days ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore4 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore4 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home