~by: Joseph Teo~

Ever since the news broke in the middle of the presidential elections that the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) at Paya Lebar could not invite Mr. Chen Shao Mao of the Worker’s Party (WP) and the elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Paya Lebar to dinner, there has been much questioning of the People’s Association’s role, structure and operations.

In examining this issue, we must first understand why the PA was created in the first place. In the People’s Association Act Section 8, five objectives are listed, amongst which are:

8(a) the organization and the promotion of group participation in social cultural, educational and athletic activities for the people of Singapore in order that they may realize that they belong to a multiracial community, the interest of which transcend sectional loyalties; and

8(c) the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore.

While it can be argued that the PA has served its purpose well in the past when a single party dominated the political sphere, Singapore has changed. As pointed out by President Tony Tan, there is now a “new normal”, where Singaporeans want a plurality of views.

As a result, PA is now perceived as:

1. Clearly partisan

This can be seen from:

  • the incident where the elected MP of Paya Lebar was not allowed to be invited to a grassroots event;
  • the fact that grassroots advisors come only from the ruling party; and
  • the response of the PA when Mr. Chen Shao Mao brought the matter to the attention of the public.

In particular, the PA went on the attack and accused the WP of denying the PA of access in Hougang. When it subsequently changed its position, it said:

“It was only on Aug 19 that the chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) stated publicly that the town council would not impose any condition on whom the organisers could invite, when using sites managed by the AHTC. PA welcomes this new position of the AHTC, and is likewise lifting its current restriction on invitees for events organised by non-GROs on sites leased by PA from HDB, as long as they are of a non-political nature.”

It lost its perspective, and failed to see that its position of “they doan let me, so I oso doan let them” is unbecoming of a statutory body that is supposed to be non-partisan. It is not a town council, and is not on par with the AHTC. An agreement that might be on equal footing might be one that, for instance, allowed the WP to hold grassroots events at venues under control of Marine Parade Town Council, and for the People’s Action Party (PAP) to hold events in venues controlled by AHTC.

2. Manifestly unfair

Because the PA is a statutory board, it receives funding from the government, paid for by taxes of all Singaporeans. However, because it is partisan, it appears that the funds are only used in ways that benefit the ruling party, and not all Singaporeans. It also appears to enjoy a special relationship with the HDB, allowing it to lease HDB-owned sites “pre-emptively”.

This is manifestly unfair to those Singaporeans who express a different view from those of the ruling party.

3. Losing sight of its objectives and reluctant to reform

The PA has lost sight of its objectives: incorrectly stating that its mission is to “bond the people with the government”, rather than to “strengthen the social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore”. It must be pointed out that:

  • the “people of Singapore” also includes the 40% who did not vote for the ruling party which forms the government; and thus
  • the role of the PA is to bond the 40% and the 60% of Singaporeans on both sides of the political divide, and not “bond the people with the government”.

Surely this can only be achieved by creating interactions between all parties, and not excluding by people who have a different shape, colour, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or political views?

In addition, it has demonstrated a strong reluctance to reform, and to adapt to the new reality. Over the last few weeks it tried to defend its partisan position of allowing only ruling party MPs as advisors, rather than try to figure out how it can achieve its stated objectives of fostering community bonding and strengthening social cohesion under the “new normal”.

Conclusion

The current behavior of the PA seems insufficient and inadequate to address the needs of Singaporeans. I call upon President Tony Tan, whose stated priority is to be the President for all Singaporeans, to advocate the dissolution of the PA as it currently exists, and to reconstitute a non-partisan, pluralistic organization so that we may stand together as one united people.

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

为个人佣金导致客户买贵屋 房产经纪被罚三万元停牌一年

一名房地产经纪人涉违反职业道德操守,令客户蒙受亏损,被罚款三万元及经纪执照被暂时吊销12个月。 房地产代理理事会纪律委员(CEA)于周一(10月21日)发文告揭发上述案件,并指这是当局至今为止,对违规经纪人做出的最严厉处罚。 文告指出,博纳产业(PropNex Realty)的39岁经纪人,Ngu Ping Chuan James Ethan(简称James),于2016年期间受客户委托,寻找价格介于90万元的房屋。 2017年3月,James和客户参观了位于我国东部,一间叫价104万元的公寓。James随后向卖家经纪表示,自己的客户对该房屋有兴趣,并询问了可获得的佣金。 卖家表示愿以102万出售公寓,并且会给出1巴仙的佣金,即一万元。 James则争取2.5至3巴仙的佣金,并且没有告知客户卖家的公寓要价。他转而对客户表示,有关公寓的平均价格为118万,建议可以提出106万元的报价。 但是客户自行到银行查询后,发现该房产估计价格为95万至100万元。…

MAS: Debt repayment period extended for SMEs, mortgage borrowers till year end

The latest measures by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and industry…

【冠状病毒19】4月13日新增386确诊 出现第九起死亡病例

昨日(13日)本地新增386例冠状病毒19确诊病例,都是本地感染,我国累计确诊增至2918例。再有一名本地65岁确诊男子不幸逝世。 这意味着,本地累计死亡病例已增至九例。 根据卫生部文告,本地已没有新增入境病例。而昨日有280例都与先前已知感染群有关,大多患者都是客工宿舍的工作准证持有者。 昨日病逝的病例是第1836例,是65岁新加坡男公民。他在本月9日确诊,昨日下午在邱德拔医院不治病逝。 再者,本地新增四个感染群,包括科技园的客工宿舍(九例)、克兰芝的客工宿舍(六例)、惹兰古坡的ABC旅舍(七例)和加基武吉弯的Citiwall公司(六例)。 至于累计治愈人数多达586人,1158名确诊病患留院治疗。仍有29人病重病患需待在加护病房,其中1165名康复良好、惟冠毒测试仍呈阳性反应者,则转移到本地社区隔离设施。 至于在裕廊战备军人协会俱乐部举行的歌唱班晚宴感染群,卫生部经确认过了28天的两个潜伏期,未出现新病例,而关闭有关感染群。