ST refused to publish this point-by-point rebuttal of PA's misguided contentions

[Confuseous]

It is quite clear that(Section 8 of the People’s Association Act) the mandate of the PA is to help build a more cohesive and engaged society. The PA’s role is not to explain or implement government policies. That role is clearly for the civil service, which the PA is not part of. Therefore, the concerns the PA has about whether the appointed GRO advisor will be able to effective explain, implement or improve government policies are not within the scope of the PA’s duties and are therefore invalid.

The PA is funded by taxpayers and is thus obliged to serve public not party interests. The PA is justifying actions that disadvantage a set of elected leaders, which in turn disadvantages the constituents whose interests these leaders represent. In openly justifying the exclusion of elected Opposition MPs and appointing the losing election candidates, the PA disrespects the election and the electorate. This goes against the code of ethics and conduct of public service.

It is disappointing that the PA is intent on perpetuating divisions based on party lines, in a manner contrary to its own mission statement, “to Build and to Bridge communities in achieving One People, One Singapore”

- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/09...serve-political-party-as-its-taxpayer-funded/