[h=2]Public pressure to delink PA from PAP gathering steam[/h]
May 11th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
Current day realities have an impact on the critical ‘political’ role
played by the People’s Association for more than 50 years in
Singapore.
Seah Chiang Nee
THIS year marks the 53rd anniversary of an institution that began operating a
system of dedicated community volunteers in 1960 and ended up as a modern-day
controversy.
Just like the People’s Action Party (PAP) in the early days, the People’s
Association (PA) was revered for many years in Singapore’s history.
The intervening years since then, its objectives have not significantly
changed.
Although they are basically non-political, these grassroots – and PA in
particular – are often involved in “pseudo-political” activities which serve the
partisan interests of PAP.
Today, this army of citizen volunteers is facing some new-era problems.
There are some 13,800 Residential Committee grassroots volunteers scattered
all over the heartland, tasked – among community projects – with helping PAP
stay in power.
Today two shadows loom over it, testing the loyalty of the members who come
from diverse backgrounds.
The first is a new widely-disliked proposal to have a 6.9 million population
by 2030.
PA deputy chairman Lim Swee Say admitted recently that even grassroots
leaders were criticising the idea.
One said: “It’s logically and emotionally not acceptable.”
Second, the almost doubling of Singapore’s population in 20 years has given
it a headache in bringing together Singaporeans and the large number of new
arrivals.
Foreigners now make about 40% of people here.
In the early history, PA was accepted as a dedicated national body that
helped PAP defeat the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis.
Its grassroots volunteers were virtually party members who operated like an
additional arm of PAP.
It used public funds with relatively few complaints from Singaporeans.
Before the arrival of Lee Kuan Yew’s scholar-politicians, the grassroots
often supplied political candidates for the ruling party.
During the 1964 race riots, these well-motivated volunteers had worked
tirelessly to promote harmony and heal the ethnic rift.
Today this tolerance has declined somewhat.
These days whenever the grassroots are perceived as politically helping PAP
against any rival party, Singaporeans object vehemently.
To party old-timers, this is ironic.
“When we were helping it fight the pro-communists, Singaporeans praised us.
Now when we do the same to help PAP against its political rivals, they condemn
us,” said one.
The explanation, of course, lies in the changed political environment and a
better-educated citizenry with new values.
Besides, the level of trust placed by the new generation on the PAP is far
less than that given to Lee previously.
The call for PA to be made non-partisan appears to be growing.
As politics changed, the purpose of grassroots volunteers gets clouded by the
authorities denying direct connection to PAP.
The government knows the new generation wants a totally non-partisan
organisation solely for community work to unite communities and promote national
culture and the arts.
[h=3]“Many of today’s (grassroots) leaders – attracted by the influence and
proximity to government – are self-serving or have negative attitudes like
arrogance and elitism.”[/h]
Apart from the New Politics, some critics attribute loss of public political
support to its wrong type of representatives.
In the past, they came largely from the mainland, without much education but
with sincerity to serve their fellow beings and love of country.
These early volunteers included Chinese school teachers, shop owners, hawkers
and blue-collar workers, unlike today’s educated young professionals, coffeeshop
owners or well-to-do retirees.
There were few scholars or career-chasers who were in it for the money or
business advancement.
Many of today’s leaders – attracted by the influence and proximity to
government – are self-serving or have negative attitudes like arrogance and
elitism.
A recent controversy showed how things could go wrong. It
involved over-enthusiastic grassroots leaders closing off part of a public
eating place for two hours on a Sunday morning for exclusive use by a PAP
MP.
A leader was filmed chasing away customers who wanted to eat there, telling
them the place was out of bounds for them.
As public anger rose, the grassroots leaders blamed it on the owner.
However, there are today a fair number of sincere leaders working for years
without receiving any recognition.
A hard blow to voluntarism came from the government’s decision in the 1980s
to pay itself huge salaries with Lee declaring: “No one works here for
free.”
To the volunteers, this was a blow to see their leaders paying themselves
large sums while encouraging subordinates to volunteer their service to the
nation without pay.
The government has tried to make up partly for it. Grassroots leaders were
given certain perks or privileges, including preferences for public housing and
children’s education.
Hard-working ones were presented state honours on National Day.
Officials said the 13,800 Residential Committee grassroots leaders was an
increase of 20% over the last five years.
But as the opposition gained ground (it last won 40% of popular votes),
pressures to delink PA, a statutory board, from PAP surfaced and will likely
gather steam.
While the government denies any direct link, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew put paid to the debate in 2009 when he declared: “All grassroots
organisations are part of PAP.”
They are not “non-partisan” as they were supposed to be.
He expanded further. Lee said that for several years many teams of Chinese
officials had come to Singapore to attend courses.
In one lesson, Lee reportedly said: “The Chinese discover that PAP has only a
small office in Bedok.
“(Yet) everywhere they go, they see the PAP presence (in various citizens’
communities and clubs).”
On how such a small party controlled such a large city, he explained: “PAP
has the support of PA. Its chairman is none other than his son, the current
Prime Minister himself.”
.
Seah Chiang Nee
Chiang Nee has been a journalist
for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he
hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70,
based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a
total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he
left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as
News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore
Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first
regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for
two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard
(1973-74), Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of
Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the
Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog,
http://www.littlespeck.com
Current day realities have an impact on the critical ‘political’ role
played by the People’s Association for more than 50 years in
Singapore.
Seah Chiang Nee
THIS year marks the 53rd anniversary of an institution that began operating a
system of dedicated community volunteers in 1960 and ended up as a modern-day
controversy.
Just like the People’s Action Party (PAP) in the early days, the People’s
Association (PA) was revered for many years in Singapore’s history.
The intervening years since then, its objectives have not significantly
changed.
Although they are basically non-political, these grassroots – and PA in
particular – are often involved in “pseudo-political” activities which serve the
partisan interests of PAP.
Today, this army of citizen volunteers is facing some new-era problems.
There are some 13,800 Residential Committee grassroots volunteers scattered
all over the heartland, tasked – among community projects – with helping PAP
stay in power.
Today two shadows loom over it, testing the loyalty of the members who come
from diverse backgrounds.
The first is a new widely-disliked proposal to have a 6.9 million population
by 2030.
PA deputy chairman Lim Swee Say admitted recently that even grassroots
leaders were criticising the idea.
One said: “It’s logically and emotionally not acceptable.”
Second, the almost doubling of Singapore’s population in 20 years has given
it a headache in bringing together Singaporeans and the large number of new
arrivals.
Foreigners now make about 40% of people here.
In the early history, PA was accepted as a dedicated national body that
helped PAP defeat the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis.
Its grassroots volunteers were virtually party members who operated like an
additional arm of PAP.
It used public funds with relatively few complaints from Singaporeans.
Before the arrival of Lee Kuan Yew’s scholar-politicians, the grassroots
often supplied political candidates for the ruling party.
During the 1964 race riots, these well-motivated volunteers had worked
tirelessly to promote harmony and heal the ethnic rift.
Today this tolerance has declined somewhat.
These days whenever the grassroots are perceived as politically helping PAP
against any rival party, Singaporeans object vehemently.
To party old-timers, this is ironic.
“When we were helping it fight the pro-communists, Singaporeans praised us.
Now when we do the same to help PAP against its political rivals, they condemn
us,” said one.
The explanation, of course, lies in the changed political environment and a
better-educated citizenry with new values.
Besides, the level of trust placed by the new generation on the PAP is far
less than that given to Lee previously.
The call for PA to be made non-partisan appears to be growing.
As politics changed, the purpose of grassroots volunteers gets clouded by the
authorities denying direct connection to PAP.
The government knows the new generation wants a totally non-partisan
organisation solely for community work to unite communities and promote national
culture and the arts.
[h=3]“Many of today’s (grassroots) leaders – attracted by the influence and
proximity to government – are self-serving or have negative attitudes like
arrogance and elitism.”[/h]
Apart from the New Politics, some critics attribute loss of public political
support to its wrong type of representatives.
In the past, they came largely from the mainland, without much education but
with sincerity to serve their fellow beings and love of country.
These early volunteers included Chinese school teachers, shop owners, hawkers
and blue-collar workers, unlike today’s educated young professionals, coffeeshop
owners or well-to-do retirees.
There were few scholars or career-chasers who were in it for the money or
business advancement.
Many of today’s leaders – attracted by the influence and proximity to
government – are self-serving or have negative attitudes like arrogance and
elitism.
involved over-enthusiastic grassroots leaders closing off part of a public
eating place for two hours on a Sunday morning for exclusive use by a PAP
MP.
A leader was filmed chasing away customers who wanted to eat there, telling
them the place was out of bounds for them.
As public anger rose, the grassroots leaders blamed it on the owner.
However, there are today a fair number of sincere leaders working for years
without receiving any recognition.
A hard blow to voluntarism came from the government’s decision in the 1980s
to pay itself huge salaries with Lee declaring: “No one works here for
free.”
To the volunteers, this was a blow to see their leaders paying themselves
large sums while encouraging subordinates to volunteer their service to the
nation without pay.
The government has tried to make up partly for it. Grassroots leaders were
given certain perks or privileges, including preferences for public housing and
children’s education.
Hard-working ones were presented state honours on National Day.
Officials said the 13,800 Residential Committee grassroots leaders was an
increase of 20% over the last five years.
But as the opposition gained ground (it last won 40% of popular votes),
pressures to delink PA, a statutory board, from PAP surfaced and will likely
gather steam.
While the government denies any direct link, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew put paid to the debate in 2009 when he declared: “All grassroots
organisations are part of PAP.”
They are not “non-partisan” as they were supposed to be.
He expanded further. Lee said that for several years many teams of Chinese
officials had come to Singapore to attend courses.
In one lesson, Lee reportedly said: “The Chinese discover that PAP has only a
small office in Bedok.
“(Yet) everywhere they go, they see the PAP presence (in various citizens’
communities and clubs).”
On how such a small party controlled such a large city, he explained: “PAP
has the support of PA. Its chairman is none other than his son, the current
Prime Minister himself.”
.
Seah Chiang Nee
Chiang Nee has been a journalist
for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he
hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70,
based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a
total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he
left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as
News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore
Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first
regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for
two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard
(1973-74), Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of
Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the
Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog,
http://www.littlespeck.com
