Excellent letter that rebuts Minister over PA neutral claim

This was first highlighted by forummer Yahoo55 in one of the thread but felt it was important to have its own thread.

Its certainly makes a mockery of Chan Chun Sing's claim.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-is-beholden-to-the-peoples-action-party/Open secret that PA is beholden to the People’s Action Party 0
BY ONLINECITIZEN ON APRIL 19, 2016 LETTERS
By Joe C.

When I read in the news recently about Minister Chan Chun Sing declaring that the People's Association (PA) is not partisan, I could only burst out laughing. It's an open secret that PA is beholden to the People's Action Party (PAP) and that PAP's grassroots leaders would be a lot less effective if not for PA's support.

Just ask any PA employee whether PA is truly non-partisan and watch the snigger on his/her face.

Many of the PA staff are biting their tongues and trying not to say too much regarding this saga because they don't want to jeopardize their government jobs, especially in the current economic climate. They rather mute their conscience and bury their heads in the sand, which is pretty sad. However, retaliation from the PAP is real as you can see how they don't even spare Amos Yee, who's still a child, Roy Ngerng, an ex-healthcare worker who used to work with HIV patients and Workers' Party (WP), which is another political party that's trying to run a town council for its residents.

This is how the PA supports the PAP:

Firstly, the PAP may have thousands of grassroots leaders. However, when they execute their activities and events, the PA is usually their hands and legs. You can almost describe the PA as a glorified event organizer for the PAP. PA provides facilities, manpower and all other kinds of logistical support.

Secondly, PA's facilities, whether Community Centres (CCs), Residents' Committee (RCs) and the many little rooms built under the HDB flats, are built using taxpayers' money, and can be used easily by the PAP's Members of Parliament (MPs). The Opposition, even if the MPs are elected, are mostly not allowed to use them to hold their own events. All kinds of hurdles and reasons are given whenever the Opposition try to do something, which naturally caused them to give up.

Thirdly, sometimes, it can be difficult to distinguish whether a particular event is by the PA or the PAP and I believe that this is deliberate. I spoke to a resident once who was surprised to find out that the usual weekend events near his block were organized by the PA and not the PAP. These outreach events are very effective in allowing the PAP to touch almost every single resident, courtesy of the PA acting as a proxy. A good example would the Pioneer Generation Package, which basically helped the PAP win the votes from the senior citizens last year.

Lastly, PA has its own in-house training institute called National Community Leadership Institute (NACLI). They conduct many free courses exclusively for PAP grassroots leaders and as you can see from their website, these courses are geared to help them win over residents. Some of these courses also include finance and auditing training, which is ironic, because PA was actually flagged by the Auditor General Office (AGO) last year for several financial lapses. This means that you actually have to give some credit to the WP, because despite their lack of resources, they still managed to run a town council without being hauled in by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

What about the current case against the Aljunied Hougang Town Council (AHTC) in the newspapers? Well, just think about it. The mainstream media is controlled by the PAP. The PAP has also effectively cyberspace when they shut down The Real Singapore (TRS) and a few "balanced" socio-political sites conveniently sprang up at the same time to soak up the readers who were lost by TRS. The Opposition has lost the social media battle. The PAP's internet brigade is real and is well-organized.
Do you think you're reading the full story about the AHTC in the newspapers? They have done a very good job to discredit the WP and most Singaporeans are not aware of it.

The Opposition in Singapore has a very hard time fighting against the PAP because it controls the mainstream media, the PA juggernaut and now, the social media as well. Do most Singapore know how incredibly lopsided is our political landscape? I don't think so.
So is the PA non-partisan? Of course not.

Perhaps Minister Chan is not aware how bad the situation is on the ground. If he is really interested in fixing this, one suggestion is for him to set up some kind of email hotline for anonymous feedback. However, if what he had claimed in the papers is just mere rhetoric, then I only have this to say:
My dear comrades, I think we have gone far enough.

P.S. For obvious reasons and not to get my PA friends into trouble, I have chosen to remain anonymous.

Note the claim below by Old Man to the Chinese Government about the PAP small office in Bedok.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ict-chan-chun-sings-arguments-pa/#prettyPhoto
PAP MPs, LKY and the CIA contradict Chan Chun Sing’s arguments about the PA 0
BY ARIFFIN SHA ON APRIL 17, 2016 COMMENTARIES, CURRENT AFFAIRS, POLITICS
Never has the job of an Opposition Politician been easier.

Minister Chan Chun Sing, in a grandiose Parliamentary speech, argued that the PA was not partisan. He then went on to add that he would be "the last person to ever allow the PA to be politicized." He even challenged Ms Sylvia Lim of the Workers Party, who first raised the issue, to cite evidence of the PA's partisan actions, promising that he would follow up.

At that point of time, the only problem Ms Lim would have had was to decide which examples to cite from the cesspool of incriminatory evidence that lay before her. Even though the Workers Party had their fair share of run-ins with the PA's partisanship, she didn't have to look far to contradict Mr Chan's claims.

In fact, there were 3 sources of information that, when cited, would make Mr Chan to appear either extremely naive, or, like a pathological liar. Out of the three that would expose his arguments to be pure bunkum, 2 came from his own backyard.

PAP MPs claiming that the PA is Partisan

The Member of Parliament for Mounbatten SMC, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, begs to differ with Mr Chan. During the hustling of GE 2011, he even went as far as to claim ownership of the PA Volunteers in his constituency.

"She (his Opponent, Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss) is someone with no experience to manage a Town Council and with no Grassroot Leaders to help. I can do so, because I have got 300 plus Grassroot Leaders to help me to connect with the residents to serve you to work with you to make this place better. What does she have? I have a team of more than 300 Grassroot Leaders living in this area."

His opponent, Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, also lent more weight to Mr Lim's faith in PA's partisanship in a Facebook post that read as follows

"Mr Lim made efforts to impress upon his GE 2015 Rally audience that he had visited more than 40 condos in the past 4 years. Now that is something that only PAP MPs can do and which a non-PAP MP cannot. Only PAP MPs can be Grassroot Advisers. Non-PAP MPs cannot. The PA will help PAP MPs connect with condo residents, but non-PAP MPs will have to find their own resources to connect with condo residents.

Thus, for anyone to say that the PA is not political and non-partisan, is like calling a spade a bucket."

By referring the Grassroots as a tool in the PAP's political arsenal, it's no wonder that some people mistook Mr Chan's assertion to be a belated April Fool's joke.

The Late Lee Kuan Yew admitted that PA = PAP

Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself once unabashedly admitted that the PA was not only partisan, but that it was subservient to the PAP's interests. During an interview with the Straits Times, he explained

To illustrate one lesson the Chinese Officials learnt from Singapore, he said: "They discover that the People's Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents' committees), CCCs (citizens' consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs)."

Mr Lee pulled no punches in describing the PA as an organ that was subservient to the PAP. If so, it is pretty odd that such an organ which serves partisan politcal interests is being funded by the pockets of taxpayers. On hindsight, the majority of Opposition Politicians, Ms Lim and Mrs Jeannette included, do not have much doubts as to whether the PA served the interests of the PAP. To some extent, they even submit that it is a open secret. The real issue lies with how an ever-ballooning amount of taxpayer's money is being used to fund the PA and it's partisan political ventures.

This issue also lay at the root of what prompted Mr Chan to make a statement that reeked of naivety and blatant ignorance. He was responding to a question by Ms Lim on the justification behind the high expenditure of PA, which stood at nearly $900 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. This was a significant 34% increase from it's budget in FY2014. Ms Chong Aruldoss herself, has, on more than one occasion, called on the PA's books to be audited.

The CIA's files on the People's Association

What surprised me the most was the CIA's file dedicated to describing and deconstructing the intricate inter-relationship between the PA and the PAP. This case-study was undertaken in 1993, almost 2 full decades before the time Mr Chan stepped into the Political arena. So much for being "the last person to allow the PA to be politicized" eh?

Here are some snippets from the CIA's case-study

"More than one Singaporean, drawn into daily use of his neighborhood center, is unable to tell whether he owes its presence to the ruling party, the government, or the private sector. This ambiguity is precisely what the PAP wants. To enhance the effect, moreover, the party sees to it that all possible services are dispensed by the government on the premises of the centers, so that the identification of the center with government as well as party is immeasurably increased. The reputation for responsive government thus acquired is excellent insurance against an occasional unfortunate policy or unpopular decision"

"It was partly the need for sponsorship of political activity in the centers and partly also Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's need for a personal political organization which led to the creation of political committees throughout the city in 1964. Like so many other organizations touching on the People's Association complex, the committees pretend not to be political organizations at all. In each electoral district the members of the committee are appointed by the elected PAP representative. All appointments are then reviewed by the Prime Minister's office, and the appointees thus consider themselves to be partially responsible to the Prime Minister himself."

"Over both deputies is a director who answers to the Board of Directors of the People's Association, composed mostly of PAP ministers and supporters. Thus the public-private character of the People's Association is perpetuated."

The case-study made for very interesting reading. It would certainly be entertaining to see how Mr Chan would respond to them, in addition to the allegations made by Mr Lim and the late Mr Lee too, if he could. It would be good if he could also shed some light upon the time where he shot himself in the foot too. I opine that such an undertaking would be almost impossible. It would be as hard as spelling PAP without the PA.

Mr Chan should come to the realization, if he hasn't already done so, that defending the PA is but an exercise in futility. The man on the street would smirk if someone told him that the PA wasn't the PAP's stooge. Instead, he should open the books of the PA for an audit to come clean on how much is being spent for the interests of the community and for the interests of the powers that be, respectively. This would be in the interests of transparency and boosting public confidence in the PAP's institutions. Reluctance to do so may shed light on guilt. As an organisation that utilizes almost 1 billion in taxpayers' money yearly, it should be more accountable to the people in how it spends their money. After all, it should live up to it's name of being the People's Association.

That bastard CCS ought to step up to the plate and retract his statement. And apologise for being stupid and trying to take sinkies for a ride.

glockman said:

That bastard CCS ought to step up to the plate and retract his statement. And apologise for being stupid and trying to take sinkies for a ride.

Click to expand...

Just banned banned tis short arse from talking , he spew nonsences and wasting everyones time.

CCS the cheebye doggie would have at least gain some respect if he bloody have the balls to admit that PA is part of PAP. Now he just look like a bloody liar/fool/idiot all into 1.

See the comments sections of various blogs that carried this story - they more less refer to him as an idiot. And this is the guy that was chosen to lead our Armed Forces into battle.

shittypore said:

Just banned banned tis short arse from talking , he spew nonsences and wasting everyones time.

Click to expand...

I don't think he is short, bro. In fact, his height is the only thing he has going for him.

shittypore said:

Just banned banned tis short arse from talking , he spew nonsences and wasting everyones time.

Click to expand...

CCS, Mabok Tan and Wong Cunt Sing.....the 3 stooges.
Have to give credit to CCS....soon he'll overtake Zorro to be chief court jester

Narong Wongwan said:

CCS, Mabok Tan and Wong Cunt Sing.....the 3 stooges.
Have to give credit to CCS....soon he'll overtake Zorro to be chief court jester

Click to expand...

Exactly. They suffer from cock-in-mouth and shit-for-brains syndrome. CCS is well on his way to clinch pole position.

Kee Chiu lost all his credibility by his stupid statement.

Actually, he lost it years ago over free chicken rice for their "supporters"

http://theindependent.sg/blur-king-chan-chun-sing-doesnt-know-papap/
“Blur King” Chan Chun Sing doesn’t know PA=PAP
By The Independent - April 15, 2016 6 6840
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter

By: 永久浪客/Forever Vagabond

In Parliament on Wednesday (13 Apr), WP Sylvia Lim argued that People’s Association (PA), a government statutory board has become partisan.

She said that PA’s activities have deviated from its original objectives, and pointed to the mobilisation of PA activists to campaign for the ruling PAP’s candidates during elections as an example.

Not surprisingly, Deputy Chairman of PA, Chan Chun Sing, denied this. He said that PA’s mission is to strengthen the social fabric of the nation.

“When I see my own residents, participants of my PA activities, supporting the Opposition, I can only ask myself: ‘How can I work harder to win them over?'” he said.

“The PA is a statutory board. It executes the directions for the Government of the day, as per any statutory board. The PA does not allow any political activity or canvassing on our premises or in our activities. And we certainly do not mobilise anyone for any political party,” Mr Chan reiterated.

“If Ms Lim has any such evidence of wrongdoing, you can let me know, and I guarantee you I will follow up. I will be the last person to ever allow the PA to be politicised.”

Actually, there is no need for Ms Lim to produce any evidence. The late founding PM of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had already made clear about the relationship between PA and the PAP.

In 2009, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in a public dialogue proudly told the audience that the Chinese had been sending teams of PRC officials to study Singapore for many years. To illustrate a lesson the Chinese learnt about Singapore’s political system, he said (http://www.businesschina.org.sg/en.php/resources/news/132):

“They (delegates from China) discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).” – Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, The Straits Times 30 December 2009.

Grassroots leader also can’t “tahan” the politicizing of PA

Even a grassroots leader, Chang Nam Yuen, who tried to be neutral couldn’t stand seeing PA’s people aligning themselves politically with the PAP.

He wrote to ST (4 Jun 2011), “As a politically neutral individual, it had not been an easy decision for me to join the neighbourhood committee. However, my desire to serve was stronger than the negative feelings I had of grassroots organisations. Sadly, many capable and passionate people in my neighbourhood just refuse to step forward to serve because of the image of such organisations.”

“I would like to suggest that the People’s Association (PA) be run like a civil service organisation in order to single-mindedly and unmistakably carry out its sole purpose of serving the people. Board members of the PA should not hold any political office. There is then no conflict of interests,” he added.

But of course, the PA board itself consists mainly PAP members like PM Lee (Chairman) and Chan Chun Sing (Dty Chairman), etc. Even the Special Adviser to Chairman of PA Board is none other than Lim Boon Heng, an old guard of PAP.

Assuming Mr Chan is really a “blur king”, and didn’t know about the close associations between PA and PAP members, he can at least try to talk to Mr Chang Nam Yuen first to get to the bottom of things.

http://themiddleground.sg/2016/04/15/pa-non-partisan-serious/
The PA is non-partisan? Serious?
Apr 15, 2016 04.34PM | Bertha Henson linkedin

by Bertha Henson

YOU can hear the snickering…

So Minister Chan Chun Sing is practically swearing that the People’s Association (PA), where he is the deputy head, is non-partisan. “I will be the last person to ever allow the PA to be politicised.” Sure, it’s not an arm of the People’s Action Party (PAP). It’s just a statutory board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and executes the orders of the G.

“The PA does not check on the political allegiance of the participants of our activities, nor does anyone know their voting preferences. It is not relevant to our work,” he said.

I was wondering how he would respond to Workers’ Party Sylvia Lim’s question on Wednesday about whether the PA, which did start out as a mobilisation arm of the PAP way back in 1960, had deviated from its original objectives of building social cohesion that “transcends sectional loyalties’’.

She said: “An unhealthy culture seems to have developed within some quarters of the PA, who see its role to include advancing the ruling party politically, and undermining the work of opposition MPs. PA activists being mobilised to campaign for PAP candidates at elections is just one aspect. As Opposition MPs, when we try to advance our residents’ welfare through infrastructure projects, we learn that the government agencies like MND and HDB will only recognise PA organisations such as CCCs and RCs as ‘the proper channels’.” (CCCs stands for Citizens’ Consultative Committees; RC, Residents’ Committees.)

Yesterday, Mr Chan asked Ms Lim for evidence, assuring her that he would take care to rectify things if there was proof. Ms Lim gave a personal example of trying to get information from the Ministry of National Development on upgrading projects in Aljunied GRC, but was told to go to the CCC instead.

“I then wrote several times to the CCC, but it seems that my letters do not even merit a reply,’’ she added.

To this, Mr Chan said he has “heard from both sides accusing each other of being uncooperative” and urged both town councils and CCCs to put the interests of residents first.

“When things get done, there’s never a shortage of people who will claim credit. When things are not done, there’s always a shortage of people who will claim responsibility. This is not the way we want to go. This is bad politics and this is not leadership,” he said.

But it seems that she will get a reply now – because Mr Chan said so.

This is an old, old issue, one that has been thrown into sharp relief because there seems to be two power centres at the grassroots level – the MP-led town council and the community leaders that come under the PA umbrella.

Seriously, who cares about the voting preferences of participants in a community centre’s activities? It’s the community leaders who should be put under the microscope, not the people who join yoga and cooking classes. It’s the people who comprise the grassroots alphabet soup of CCC, CCMC, RC, and the like.

I am sure not all PA activists are PAP activists and vice versa. And I am sure that I will be criticised for not appreciating such volunteers who spend their time and energy for the neighbourhood. I acknowledge that there are plenty of altruistic people who don’t think of politics when they organise a dance class or give a talk.

My problem is with the structure of the grassroots network on the ground, which leaves elected representatives out in the cold.

Who are these people to whom even an elected an MP has to write to for information about the ward? Aren’t these the people who are in charge of approvals for certain projects in the constituency and even have money to organise activities? Aren’t they the ones who organise Edusave bursary giveaways?

Already, some people are trotting out evidence of activists being mobilised for election campaigns, like aunties being bussed from community centres to PAP rallies, etc. You can even point out heads of CCCs who are PAP branch leaders. Hey, some of them even move on to stand for election on the PAP ticket!

There’s nothing wrong if a person wears two hats – if he or she is clear about which hat he is wearing when.

So the PAP MPs are advisers to the CCCs – are these two different hats? Can the chairman of the CCC countermand his adviser-MP? In opposition wards, it’s not the MP who is the adviser but a PAP member, like the unsuccessful candidate in the last round or would-be candidate for the next round.

The PAP or the G or whichever combination can swear till it is blue in the face that no electioneering is allowed by PA members or at PA’s premises. But you don’t have to wave banners or chant slogans, you just have to bring a politician on stage in front of plenty of people. This stage is denied to the opposition MPs, simply because he or she wears the wrong party colours. That doesn’t strike me as being non-partisan. .

It might be too much to expect that politicians will not make use of its grassroots connections to further their partisan interests. You might even say that the opposition should build its own grassroots network rather than expect to walk in and take over a machinery that has been painstakingly built up by a political party which happens to form the G.

But something sticks in the throat when a person who has been elected by the residents is not the person who has the final say over what happens in the constituency (subject of course to official rules and regulations that apply to everyone). Instead, such decisions are left to a bunch of grey, mostly Chinese, anonymous men – whom residents did not select or don’t even know of.

Mr Chan is right to say that town councils and CCCs must work together. In fact, they probably work very well together – if both are led by PAP MPs. I am waiting for the day, however, when the community leaders and the MPs in the opposition wards sit together to thrash out what residents need on the ground and establish some rules of engagement.

Is this good politics, Singapore style? Or is it bad politics because no party has an advantage over the other because there is no politicking?

scroobal. Is it possible that operators of pasar malam booths have their high rentals partly financed by rich PAP supporters? You and I know they can never break even running these stalls. And the rental income from these pasar malams go to the respective CCCs which will be used for propaganda activities. Can this be considered political money laundering?

Not familiar with this. From what I gathered, mainly run by Malaysians and the main man sublets to others. I don't think the CCC need the money.

Debonerman said:

scroobal. Is it possible that operators of pasar malam booths have their high rentals partly financed by rich PAP supporters? You and I know they can never break even running these stalls. And the rental income from these pasar malams go to the respective CCCs which will be used for propaganda activities. Can this be considered political money laundering?

Click to expand...

Of course you've all got it wrong about the true nature and function of the PA...clarity of the highest order coming up next...

This guy lost the plot years ago. He thought he was the next Tommy Koh, trying to dish his notion wisdom to school kids. In the end he was made a fool by one.

I know that gentleman.

I believe that he benefitted from the "goodwill" of his father, P.S. Raman, once upon a time the SG's Ambassador to the USSR.

He may be several years older than me, but I know him, without being his friend or buddy.

He was a SGT with the Cadet Corps, and he and a few of his buddies were "sacked"
He attended SU before serving NS, and read political science, graduating with a B.A. Honours.
He was commissioned as a 2LT (4 SMC, OCS, SAFTI)
He was close to ROD, and attended the Advanced Course for Reservist Infantry and Armour Officers at SATO, SAFTI.

scroobal said:

This guy lost the plot years ago. He thought he was the next Tommy Koh, trying to dish his notion wisdom to school kids. In the end he was made a fool by one.

Click to expand...

He is no humble chef - daily gastronomic Facebook postings with his multiple Michelin starred wisdom no doubt - always keen to dish it out for any of our neighbours or anyone else because our system is perfect and cannot be faulted....so never a word for his obvious patrons..occasionally peppers posts with 70s rock because that was the golden age of music and anything before or after does not matter as he claims.... if Woodstock at Far East was still around no doubt he would be there with his Scotch

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

He is no humble chef - daily gastronomic Facebook postings with his multiple Michelin starred wisdom no doubt - always keen to dish it out for any of our neighbours or anyone else because our system is perfect and cannot be faulted....so never a word for his obvious patrons..occasionally peppers posts with 70s rock because that was the golden age of music and anything before or after does not matter as he claims.... if Woodstock at Far East was still around no doubt he would be there with his Scotch

Click to expand...

Do you know him well?

https://www.facebook.com/bilahari.khpsk

https://www.facebook.com/bilahari.kausikan

glockman said:

That bastard CCS ought to step up to the plate and retract his statement. And apologise for being stupid and trying to take sinkies for a ride.

Click to expand...

Chan Chun Sing is merely doing what 70% daft sinkies are asking for, to be taken for a ride, again and again.