- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: msgtxt"]A worry if PA thinks political rather than people
Letter from Chan Chi Yung
04:46 AM Sep 01, 2011
THE stand taken by the People's Association (PA) on why opposition Members of Parliament cannot be advisers to grassroots bodies is disturbing because of its implications.
For instance, that opposition MPs exist only to oppose the Government instead of playing the roles of offering alternative views, holding the Government accountable and representing their constituents.
In that case, ruling party MPs who oppose the Government's policies during Parliamentary or internal debates, which are often said to be conducted robustly, should not take the adviser's role, even if they are forced to vote according to party Whip.
Other implications: The taxpayer-funded PA is set up to further the Government's goals above all other aims, such as serving the community, while opposition MPs will oppose, for no good reason, community efforts such as active-ageing and anti-dengue programmes.
It seems only People's Action Party (PAP) members are qualified to become advisers even if they are voted out and that the PA is not apolitical, after all. The name "People's Association" is then a misnomer; it should be the "Government's Association".
I fail to see how the PA's stand is in line with oft-stated exhortations to have a harmonious political system.
Instead, it feeds the perception that most government bodies are political and controlled by the PAP for partisan interests.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: msgtxt"]A worry if PA thinks political rather than people
Letter from Chan Chi Yung
04:46 AM Sep 01, 2011
THE stand taken by the People's Association (PA) on why opposition Members of Parliament cannot be advisers to grassroots bodies is disturbing because of its implications.
For instance, that opposition MPs exist only to oppose the Government instead of playing the roles of offering alternative views, holding the Government accountable and representing their constituents.
In that case, ruling party MPs who oppose the Government's policies during Parliamentary or internal debates, which are often said to be conducted robustly, should not take the adviser's role, even if they are forced to vote according to party Whip.
Other implications: The taxpayer-funded PA is set up to further the Government's goals above all other aims, such as serving the community, while opposition MPs will oppose, for no good reason, community efforts such as active-ageing and anti-dengue programmes.
It seems only People's Action Party (PAP) members are qualified to become advisers even if they are voted out and that the PA is not apolitical, after all. The name "People's Association" is then a misnomer; it should be the "Government's Association".
I fail to see how the PA's stand is in line with oft-stated exhortations to have a harmonious political system.
Instead, it feeds the perception that most government bodies are political and controlled by the PAP for partisan interests.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]