CCC logo

By Andrew Loh

CCC logo
CCC logo
When the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) were set up in the 1960s, it was with noble intentions – first “to rally support among the people for merger with the Federation of Malaya”, and later “to fight against Communism, and facilitate communication between the people and the government.”
In its current form, CCCs (said to be the “apex body of all grassroots organisations”) have more civic roles.
According to the People’s Association’s “Rules and Regulations” for CCCs, it is stated:

The functions of the Committee are:
 (a) to promote good citizenship among residents in the Constituency;
 (b) to disseminate information and channel feedback on government policies and actions from residents in the Constituency;
(c) to lead and co-ordinate projects and activities at the constituency and national levels; and
 (d) to recommend to the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) to provide amenities and facilities in the Constituency.

There are several things you notice about these rules and regulation, in the context of what has transpired between the National Environment Agency (NEA), the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol CCC, and the opposition Workers’ Party (WP) town council, Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) in recent months.
The first thing is that there is no mention of the term “town council” at all in the set of rules and regulations pertaining to the CCCs.
The second thing you notice is that the functions and purpose of the CCCs are civic in nature, rather than political, unlike its purpose in the 1960s.
Now, take a look at the roles and functions of town councils, as laid out in the Town Council website:

“Town Councils were formed in 1989 to empower local elected representatives and residents to run their own estates. With the formation of Town Councils:
“Residents can participate in decision-making and local estate management (e.g. by joining the Grassroots Organisations, giving feedback on estate matters).”

And:

“Elected Members of Parliament (MPs) are empowered to lead Town Councils and decide on local estate management matters.”

So, it would thus seem that the two – the CCCs and the town councils – have markedly differently roles and purposes.
However, with the victorious win of the WP in Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and Punggol East SMC, the role of the grassroots, including the CCCs, seem to have been politicised by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) Government.
The current legal battle between the NEA and the WP is but only the latest skirmish which has thrown light on this – with the NEA prescribing that AHPETC must obtain the support of the chairman of the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol CCC as one of the mandatory conditions in considering AHPETC’s application for a permit to hold a community event.
And the AHPETC has to do this even though the event would be held within the public area which it is empowered to manage by the Town Councils Act.
Despite repeated attempts by the lawyer for the WP in court to seek the reasons why this was necessary, the answer has not been forthcoming from the NEA.
Further, the mysterious removal of the term “town councils” from the application form as one of the entities authorised to hold such community events only adds to the accusation that the Government is playing dirty.
Again, attempts to seek answers to why the term was removed have been met with stonewalling by the NEA lawyer.
To add credence to the accusation (or to not unjustified rumours) that the particular CCC in this case is “playing politics” is the fact that the chairman of the CCC is a PAP branch chairman, Victor Lye.
Mr Lye thus wears two hats – chairman of the CCC and chairman of the political party’s branch in the area.
Can one reasonably expect him not to see things through politicised lenses?
victor lye2In mid-September, Mr Lye posted several pictures on his Facebook page taken during his walkabout in the Bedok Reservoir area of a wall where some concrete had apparently fallen off.
Mr Lye wrote: “There were no barriers or signs to indicate that someone was looking into it. Am told the Town Council is responsible for such works. Perhaps some signage to explain the works will go some way to allay residents’ concerns.”
Many members of the public pointed out to him that there have also been similar incidents in PAP-run areas, and that the blame for this particular incident should not be placed on the WP town council because it was obviously a HDB workmanship issue.
These postings, however, seem to have been deleted on his page, and only one photo remains. (See here.)
What is noteworthy, nonetheless, is how Mr Lye had – together with his companions – posed in front of the exposed wall for a group photo, with even one of them smiling.
It does make you wonder why Mr Lye would do this – if he was truly concerned, would he not quickly contact the HDB and the town council and get the necessary done, for the sake of residents’ safety, instead of posing for a group photo and then apparently use it to score political points?
What is also curious is whether Mr Lye was acting as the chairman of the CCC or as chairman of the PAP branch.
From the photo, Mr Lye seems to be wearing a PAP t-shirt.
But that is exactly the point – when does one act as a grassroots chairman and when does one act as a PAP branch chairman?
How does anyone distinguish the two?
But the issue is this: the grassroots, through such shenanigans by the ruling party is in serious danger of losing the trust of the people.
From its noble beginnings to bring the government and the people closer, it is now being used for selfish political reasons and exploitation.
It is not only undesirable and regrettable, more importantly, it diminishes the work of those who have genuinely stepped forward to serve and who give of their time selflessly to the community.
Singaporeans – and grassroots volunteers themselves – need to demand that the ruling PAP government stop making use of the grassroots organisations for political ends.
The CCCs were never set up to oversee what town councils, which are run by elected Members of Parliament (MP), do.
The grassroots organisations, run by unelected volunteers, are supposed to complement the work of elected officials, and not to stymie them.
Nowhere in the People’s Association’s own Rules and Regulations is it stated that the CCCs are supposed to be the watchdogs for the town councils, let alone be given powers to approve or “support” town councils’ community events.
By what authority are CCCs given such powers?
One minister just days ago urged Singaporeans to embrace “a democracy of integrity and deeds.”
Indeed, let those who have been elected by the people be respected, and not be subjected to unfair and dishonest political manoeuvring.
The CCCs’ purpose is a noble one.
Please do not let them be used for selfish, partisan, and short-term political goals, and in the process tarnish the good work of many hundreds and thousands of volunteers.
It will serve no one.

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

SingStat: Household income inequality in 2019 the lowest in 20 years

On Thursday (20 Feb), the Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat) released the…

拒戴口罩 侮辱他人兼袭警 患精神障碍女子获释

涉嫌在阻断措施期间拒绝戴口罩,还抓伤警员的本地女子被控上庭,因证实患有精神障碍,昨日(7月14日)获得法庭无条件释放(absolute discharge)。 据《今日报》报道指出,在法庭上,副检察官Stephanie Koh指被告,即40岁的新加坡籍女子卡丝杜丽(译音,Kasturi Govindasamy Retnamsamy)虽然已经被定罪,但是因为她的情况特殊,属于特别案例,因此不会因罪行而被判刑。而且她也已经被还押了两个月,精神状况也受到了影响。 据法庭文件指出,卡丝杜丽是于今年4月29日,在三巴旺太阳广场(Sun Plaza),因不愿意戴上口罩而与工作人员发生争执,过程被摄录后在社交媒体上疯传。 她当时被工作人员和保安劝导戴上口罩,却表示听不清楚他们的对话,还要求对方摘下口罩,更指现场的其他人“是愚蠢的,且笨的很厉害”,因此被罚款300元。 卡丝杜丽在一周后,于5月7日重返太阳广场,被工作人员要求身份证才能进入商场。她当时将身份证丢在桌上,更对工作人员爆粗口。工作人员请她离开,她不但无视,还在没扫描身份证的情况下进入商场,随后坐在商场第三楼的地板上。 保安人员趋前劝阻也被她无视,卡丝杜丽表示自己正在运动,对着保安人员粗口相向,当局无奈之下只好报警。 警方抵达现场进行逮捕时,卡丝杜丽依然爆粗口,且不断挣扎,甚至抓伤了一名警员的额头,之后被送到兀兰综合医院就医。…

在美涉间谍案 姚俊威今抵国门即被捕

承认替中国套取美方情报的新加坡男子姚俊威,今年10月在美国被判14个月监禁,三个月后驱逐出境。 据《亚洲新闻台》报导,姚俊威在今日(30日)返国,甫抵境就被内部安全局(Internal Security Department)依内安法令逮捕。相信他将被盘问,是否涉及任何有损新加坡安全的活动。 当局指出,我国不容许任何“国外势力”(foreign actors)利用我国公民从事可危害我国安全和利益的活动,也重视这类与外国政府建立暗中关系、从事间谍或颠覆活动的国人,并将依法对付。 今年7月,内政部答复媒体询问时表示,姚俊威此前活动未对新加坡安全构成直接威胁。 美国司法部指控姚俊威承认自2015年至2019年期间,以顾问公司为掩护,替中国向美政府及军方人员套取情报。 他被控作为“外国特务”,从事非法行为,初期以其他亚洲国家的目标为主,其后专注于美国。 2018年,杨俊伟成立一家虚构顾问公司,他开始寻找掌握非公开信息的美国军方或政府人员,聘雇他们撰写报告,付2千美元给上钩对象,要他们交出报告。 其中还包括“一名参与空军F-35B匿踪战斗机计划的文职人员”、“一名国防部官员”、“一名曾在阿富汗服役的国防部军官”,杨会声称这是他亚洲客户要的资料,但事实上是交给中国政府。 2019年11月,杨俊伟飞抵美国时被捕,华盛顿法院在10月9日作出裁决。

Nielsen: Consumer confidence in Singapore falls to two-year low amid economic uncertainties

Consumer confidence in Singapore has sunk to a two-year low according to…