PM Lee continues to bar Opposition MPs from PA grassroots activities.
Re: 'Curbs lifted on events at PA sites'(XY Li, WG Teo): [ST; 24Aug2011]: "IN AN apparent softening of stance by the Government, residents can now invite whoever they wish to events held on public sites leased by the People's Association (PA).
This means that MPs from the opposition parties can now be invited to these activities in their personal capacity.
There are two caveats though.
One, the events must be of a 'non-political nature'. This means that they cannot be, say, political rallies.
Two, the lifting of the restriction applies only to events organised by non-grassroots organisations.
Government grassroots organisations - such as residents' committees (RCs) and Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) - continue to reserve the right to invite only their grassroots advisers, usually the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) candidates in the constituency."
According to ''Adviser over MP' raises many questions' [ST,22Oct2009]: "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers."
So it remains that the PA remains totally committed to being a Political Asset/ Accomplice of the PAP. Any and All PA linked grassroots activities, as it remains, still "reserve the right to invite only their grassroots advisers, usually the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) candidates in the constituency"- I.e. government 'grassroots advisers' nominated by the PAP but paid for by the tax dollars of all Singaporeans.
The PA is the means for Singaporean tax-payers monies to be spent rejuvenating the PAP. [Ref: 'How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain' (G Giam, 10Oct2009)]
The PA of today is doubtlessly a proud 'Political Asset' ('PA') of the PAP.
(Pict [Pict source])
References: (PM Lee's misuse of the PA for PAP partisan objectives):
- 'Upgrading in Opposition Wards- MPs should front initiative': "Why did the HDB choose to work with unelected candidates instead of the elected MPs in the constituencies?.. shouldn't the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs be respected?" [ST, 07Oct2009]
- 'How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain': "The People’s Association (PA), ..Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. .. It spent a total of $320 million last year. However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister [pict][board]. The de facto leader of all the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs and NCs in each constituency is known as the “adviser to the grassroots organisations (GROs)”. This adviser is appointed by PA, presumably with the nod of its chairman, the Prime Minister. In PAP constituencies, PA always appoints the elected MP as the adviser. But in opposition wards, PA appoints the PAP candidate who lost in the last election, not the opposition MP" [G Giam, 10Oct2009].
- '‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions': "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers." [ST, 22Oct2009][alt link]
- 'MND continues to throw smoke bombs over role of PAP 'grassroots advisers'': "There is absolutely no reason why opposition MPs cannot be appointed as grassroots advisers unless they decline to work with the government. The root cause of the problem lies in the lack of a clearly defined demarcation between the state and the party which resulted in many supposedly apolitical institutions like the People’s Association being made use of by the PAP to serve its partisan interests.
As the People’s Association is a statutory board, its members and grassroots advisers should have no political affiliations.
It is disingenuous of the PAP to appoint their losing candidates to continue “serving” in the opposition wards under the veneer of being the “grassroots advisers” appointed by the PA." [TR, 27Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP': "It is a joke that for some strange reasons or another, Mr Shanmugan’s ministerial colleague has refused to obey the Town Councils Act by choosing not to work with Hougang Town Council and even has the audacity to TWIST the facts by claiming that 'it is the role of the grassroots advisers to implement the LUP' through his press secretary when it was stated NOWHERE in the Town Councils Act that the LUP has to be carried out by the grassroots advisers! From beginning to end, there was no mention of the words 'Grassroots advisers', 'People Association' or 'PAP losing candidates' and so how did Mr Eric Low come into the picture at all? " [TR, 29Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Grassroots Organizations should stay non-partisan': "By appointing PAP candidates as grassroots advisers in Opposition held wards, the government is effectively bringing partisan politics into governmental institutions. Using the PA as a vehicle for PAP candidates as grounds to gain political capital so that they may fight their next battle with more goodwill, the governmental risks costing itself the position of Singapore as a Parliamentary Democracy; and put Singapore in par with communist states like Cuba, China and North Korea." [TR, 03Nov2009][alt site]
- 'PAP has blurred line between State and party': "THE cry for multi-party representation in Parliament is the People's Action Party's own doing.. The PAP has blurred the line between the State and the party: What belongs to the State belongs to the PAP... The People's Association becomes a PAP instrument... The money belongs to the State". [STforum, 13Apr2011][alt link]
- Chang NY: 'Delink political affiliations of grassroots bodies': "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." [ST,4June2011][alt link]
Re: 'Curbs lifted on events at PA sites'(XY Li, WG Teo): [ST; 24Aug2011]: "IN AN apparent softening of stance by the Government, residents can now invite whoever they wish to events held on public sites leased by the People's Association (PA).
This means that MPs from the opposition parties can now be invited to these activities in their personal capacity.
There are two caveats though.
One, the events must be of a 'non-political nature'. This means that they cannot be, say, political rallies.
Two, the lifting of the restriction applies only to events organised by non-grassroots organisations.
Government grassroots organisations - such as residents' committees (RCs) and Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) - continue to reserve the right to invite only their grassroots advisers, usually the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) candidates in the constituency."
According to ''Adviser over MP' raises many questions' [ST,22Oct2009]: "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers."
So it remains that the PA remains totally committed to being a Political Asset/ Accomplice of the PAP. Any and All PA linked grassroots activities, as it remains, still "reserve the right to invite only their grassroots advisers, usually the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) candidates in the constituency"- I.e. government 'grassroots advisers' nominated by the PAP but paid for by the tax dollars of all Singaporeans.
The PA is the means for Singaporean tax-payers monies to be spent rejuvenating the PAP. [Ref: 'How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain' (G Giam, 10Oct2009)]
The PA of today is doubtlessly a proud 'Political Asset' ('PA') of the PAP.
References: (PM Lee's misuse of the PA for PAP partisan objectives):
- 'Upgrading in Opposition Wards- MPs should front initiative': "Why did the HDB choose to work with unelected candidates instead of the elected MPs in the constituencies?.. shouldn't the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs be respected?" [ST, 07Oct2009]
- 'How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain': "The People’s Association (PA), ..Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. .. It spent a total of $320 million last year. However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister [pict][board]. The de facto leader of all the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs and NCs in each constituency is known as the “adviser to the grassroots organisations (GROs)”. This adviser is appointed by PA, presumably with the nod of its chairman, the Prime Minister. In PAP constituencies, PA always appoints the elected MP as the adviser. But in opposition wards, PA appoints the PAP candidate who lost in the last election, not the opposition MP" [G Giam, 10Oct2009].
- '‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions': "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers." [ST, 22Oct2009][alt link]
- 'MND continues to throw smoke bombs over role of PAP 'grassroots advisers'': "There is absolutely no reason why opposition MPs cannot be appointed as grassroots advisers unless they decline to work with the government. The root cause of the problem lies in the lack of a clearly defined demarcation between the state and the party which resulted in many supposedly apolitical institutions like the People’s Association being made use of by the PAP to serve its partisan interests.
As the People’s Association is a statutory board, its members and grassroots advisers should have no political affiliations.
It is disingenuous of the PAP to appoint their losing candidates to continue “serving” in the opposition wards under the veneer of being the “grassroots advisers” appointed by the PA." [TR, 27Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP': "It is a joke that for some strange reasons or another, Mr Shanmugan’s ministerial colleague has refused to obey the Town Councils Act by choosing not to work with Hougang Town Council and even has the audacity to TWIST the facts by claiming that 'it is the role of the grassroots advisers to implement the LUP' through his press secretary when it was stated NOWHERE in the Town Councils Act that the LUP has to be carried out by the grassroots advisers! From beginning to end, there was no mention of the words 'Grassroots advisers', 'People Association' or 'PAP losing candidates' and so how did Mr Eric Low come into the picture at all? " [TR, 29Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Grassroots Organizations should stay non-partisan': "By appointing PAP candidates as grassroots advisers in Opposition held wards, the government is effectively bringing partisan politics into governmental institutions. Using the PA as a vehicle for PAP candidates as grounds to gain political capital so that they may fight their next battle with more goodwill, the governmental risks costing itself the position of Singapore as a Parliamentary Democracy; and put Singapore in par with communist states like Cuba, China and North Korea." [TR, 03Nov2009][alt site]
- 'PAP has blurred line between State and party': "THE cry for multi-party representation in Parliament is the People's Action Party's own doing.. The PAP has blurred the line between the State and the party: What belongs to the State belongs to the PAP... The People's Association becomes a PAP instrument... The money belongs to the State". [STforum, 13Apr2011][alt link]
- Chang NY: 'Delink political affiliations of grassroots bodies': "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." [ST,4June2011][alt link]
Last edited:
