PAPee <> Singapore. Get This CLEAR!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Managing LUP: Advisers should be independent of party interests
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Ms Sue-Ann Chia's commentary yesterday (''Adviser over MP' raises many questions') on the issue of managing the Government's Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) in opposition wards.
In essence, the Government has forgotten the difference between the organs that implement policies - for example, civil service and municipal concerns - and the Government, thinking both are the same. In fact, in 40 years, it has institutionalised state organs to be People's Action Party (PAP) organs.
At the constituency level, the root of the evil is the concept of 'grassroots advisers' as bipartisan. They are no such thing. They should be renamed PAP constituency advisers. The opposition could create its own body of advisers.
The other way is for the Government to relinquish control over grassroots advisers - which it is loath to do.
If grassroots advisers were independent of party interests, they could focus on what they should be doing in the first place - lobbying for the benefit of constituents.
Then the Ministry of National Development, or whoever needs to liaise with them, need not tie themselves up in knots with disingenuous arguments about who should represent the LUP.
David Lim

 

[bic_cherry]

A nation divided by PAP's intent to maintain political hegemony?:(
Singapore- state where profit is king, and where morals are are consigned... to the dust bin!
[Source]

MND continues to throw smoke bombs over role of PAP “grassroots advisers”
October 27th, 2009 | Author: Your Correspondent
From our Correspondent

The National Development Ministry has continued to throw smoke-bombs over the role of PAP “grassroots advisers” in a letter written by its press secretary Lim Yuin Chien, which was published in the Straits Times Forum today.

The letter was a direct rebuttal of a biting commentary published last week by Straits Times senior correspondent Sue-Ann Chia who earlier questioned the seemingly conflicting roles of a MP and grassroots adviser.

Mr Lim wrote that “the roles of MP and adviser are distinct and separate, even though government MPs, wearing their other hat of advisers, are expected to perform both roles.”

“Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government’s behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily.” he added.

That’s where Mr Lim is wrong. There is no such thing as a “government MP.” The correct term to use should be “PAP MPs”.

The PAP is NOT the government of Singapore which can be formed by a coalition of parties.

Mr Lim re-emphasized that “the LUP is not a town council programme. It is a national programme which receives most of its funding from the Government.”

And where does the government receive its funding from? From every citizen of Singapore including the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir.

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.

http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/1...e-bombs-over-role-of-pap-grassroots-advisers/