ST Forum:Delink political affiliations of grassroots bodies

[Vulcann]

I think this is suggestion is too far fetched.

 

This is the untouchable, cast-in-stone and ultimate sacred cow system that the ruling party will not touch at all.

 

How is it even possible given that the grassroots have been serving them so well, despite some hiccups in the last GE, that the MIWs will even want to consider it?

 

Then again, I may be wrong...

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/...ory_675943.html

 

Jun 4, 2011

Delink political affiliations of grassroots bodies

 

I REFER to Monday's report ('PM: Unfair to criticise grassroots activists'). Being a grassroots volunteer myself, I could not help but feel that debating whether the grassroots activists are telling MPs the truth is just barking up the wrong tree.

 

There is simply no incentive for grassroots activists to tell MPs things they like to hear.

 

Unfortunately, grassroots activists have to face the reality of often being misunderstood, suspected of and sometimes even ridiculed for serving only the ruling party, rather than the people.

 

For grassroots organisations to be relevant and credible, there is a dire need for them to be dissociated from all political affiliations.

 

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.

 

Chang Nam Yuen

[Vulcann]

But I do admire the writer's courage for speaking up. [thumbsup]

[Shicyj]

But I do admire the writer's courage for speaking up. [thumbsup]

 

I agree totally.. PA is the People's association, not the Government's association.

 

Grassroots should be de-politicized. they should be by the residents, for the residents, not another government mouthpiece, regardless of which party is in power.

 

If MIW lose power 1 day, all grass roots to be disbanded and re-formed?

[Yewheng]

It hit on what i feel.. Finally someone did the right thing.. Now is up to miw whether want to listen or not..

[A5SB]

Anyway are our civil service really non partisan when the man at the top is a Minister?

 

The concept of separation of powers between the parliament, judiciary and the executive, it's at best a concept. Ultimately the appointment of civil service heads , chief justice is still based upon recommendations of the PM and rubber-stamped by the President.

 

So it's only natural that people who are well trusted by the ruling party are selected. Otherwise you would have lots of issues if the courts interpret and apply laws contrary to the intent of the parliament, or civil service heads having completely different agenda from that of the ruling party.

 

I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, just stating the way things are.

[Vulcann]

I agree totally.. PA is the People's association, not the Government's association.

 

Grassroots should be de-politicized. they should be by the residents, for the residents, not another government mouthpiece, regardless of which party is in power.

 

If MIW lose power 1 day, all grass roots to be disbanded and re-formed?

 

Precisely.

 

The MIW always talk about having a smooth-ruling civil service & efficient statutory boards regardless of what happens.

 

What if one day their political masters are toppled & new management takes over?

 

WP has already makes it clear their desire to disband PA if they are in power.

 

What will happen if one day a opposition party really takes over?

 

Will they create their very own PA-style system to serve their party's needs?

 

Common folks who need the help of grassroots in their daily will suddenly find themselves facing new faces when another political party takes over & this may pose problems as the existing arrangement may in all likelihood thrown out of the window & new system in place.

 

It is thus in the best interest of the people to delink these grassroots from any political affiliation.

 

 

[Bic_cherry]

I think this is suggestion is too far fetched.

This is the untouchable, cast-in-stone and ultimate sacred cow system that the ruling party will not touch at all.

How is it even possible given that the grassroots have been serving them so well, despite some hiccups in the last GE, that the MIWs will even want to consider it?Then again, I may be wrong... http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/...ory_675943.html

Jun 4, 2011

Delink political affiliations of grassroots bodies

I REFER to Monday's report ('PM: Unfair to criticise grassroots activists'). Being a grassroots volunteer myself, I could not help but feel that debating whether the grassroots activists are telling MPs the truth is just barking up the wrong tree.

There is simply no incentive for grassroots activists to tell MPs things they like to hear.

Unfortunately, grassroots activists have to face the reality of often being misunderstood, suspected of and sometimes even ridiculed for serving only the ruling party, rather than the people.

For grassroots organisations to be relevant and credible, there is a dire need for them to be dissociated from all political affiliations.

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.

Chang Nam Yuen

Guess the people must want to make them consider it:

References (Conduct of civil service):

- 'Separation of powers' [wiki]: "The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. ..."

 

- '(PSD) Maintaining High Standard of Conduct': "The Civil Service works under a Code of Conduct based on the principles of incorruptibility, integrity and propriety. Civil servants are expected to conduct themselves with impartiality and honesty at all times, by: Remaining completely neutral in all political matters and matters of public controversy ... " [PSD (Role)> Nurturing Talent> Progressive Policies]

 

- 'Integrity of election process a hot topic during youth forum': "'Civil servants under the constitution hold their allegiance to the president. The symbolism that is attached to that is we actually serve at the pleasure of a politically neutral institution. It is one of the values of the civil service that we are politically impartial,' said Ms Owi. " [CNA, 17May2009]

 

 

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]

 

 

Inspired by:

~ "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"--Matthew 25:40 (NIV)

Edited June 14, 2011 by Bic_cherry

[Darryn]

The "problem" with the PA is that the "boss" is the sitting Prime Minister, who decides on all of the other community appointments (such as advisor to RCs), this makes it inherently a political association - even though, by law, the PA is apolitical.

 

As soon as this political link is removed the PA will become even MORE effective. Don't get me wrong, for all that they support the government now, they do play an excellent and much needed role within the community.

 

[Vulcann]

The "problem" with the PA is that the "boss" is the sitting Prime Minister, who decides on all of the other community appointments (such as advisor to RCs), this makes it inherently a political association - even though, by law, the PA is apolitical.

 

As soon as this political link is removed the PA will become even MORE effective. Don't get me wrong, for all that they support the government now, they do play an excellent and much needed role within the community.

 

Agree.

 

Problem with PA is that the division becomes kinda blur between the executive branch and the civil service.

 

It should be crystal clear on their role which should be total independent of any political ties.

[Darryn]

What I would actually like to see is that senior civil servants become advisors to the RCs - there are around 700 RC around the island, so these could be split up between the various stat boards etc, and the top level in each board has one person that sits as part of their job duties, and these people actually attend the monthly meetings.

 

To me this would

1. Make the role of RC better - they are supposed to channel feedback to govt, what better way than to have a civil servant present in the meeting?

2. Delink the political association - in particular where the PAP representative is the default GOH at any events.

 

[Vulcann]

What I would actually like to see is that senior civil servants become advisors to the RCs - there are around 700 RC around the island, so these could be split up between the various stat boards etc, and the top level in each board has one person that sits as part of their job duties, and these people actually attend the monthly meetings.

 

To me this would

1. Make the role of RC better - they are supposed to channel feedback to govt, what better way than to have a civil servant present in the meeting?

2. Delink the political association - in particular where the PAP representative is the default GOH at any events.

 

Ideally all statutory boards should be independent of political connections but realistically this is not possible.

 

Next best thing is to have a gahmen representative but no authority over PA to gather feedback like what you suggested during their regular meetings. The appointed person cannot dictate what the direction the PA is heading but can give their view points or advice.