Re: A summary of what people said: ST Forum Letters (01Sept2011)(All 8 letters)
A summary of what the people exactly said: ST Forum Letters (01Sept2011)
(All 8 letters, score: 'Opposition'= 7 : PAP(PA)= 1)
--------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
PA must stay neutral
A CANDIDATE who is elected MP should be considered as part of the Government, regardless of political affiliation (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies', by the People's Association yesterday; in reply to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman's letter on Tuesday,
'Advisers to grassroots bodies should be elected MPs').
If the People's Association (PA) still wishes to regard itself as a neutral public institution, it will do well to regard the Government as such.
The PA reply also noted that the mission of its advisers is to help the Government connect with people and bond the community.
Who better to do so than an elected representative from the local community? Voters in the community chose such a person because they felt that such an MP was most capable of representing their needs.
This individual, regardless of party affiliation, has vested authority.
What authority does a defeated candidate have, regardless of party affiliation?
There is an urgent need for clarity on the nature of the PA as well as its advisers.
The PA cannot assert non-partisanship if it continues to appoint only People's Action Party (PAP) members (MPs or defeated candidates) as advisers.
I believe there are many like me who recognise the importance of the PA's community-bonding role.
Our wish is that the PA continues with its mission in a non-partisan manner, without political links.
It is only right that the PA lives up to this calling by working with the rightfully elected representative from the local community, be it an MP from the PAP, Workers' Party or any other political party.
Chong Yew Mun
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_708159.html
-------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
Why are PA's appointed advisers exclusively from the PAP?
THE People's Association's (PA) reply yesterday (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies') failed to point out that its management board is chaired by the secretary-general of the People's Action Party (PAP), its vice-chairman is the PAP treasurer and the special adviser to the PA chairman is a former PAP chairman.
Other board members include members of PAP's executive committee like Major-General (NS) Chan Chun Sing, Ms Grace Fu and Mr Masagos Zulkifli.
If the PA and its grassroots officers are blind to political affiliations, why are its appointed advisers exclusively from the PAP?
This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest even if there is none.
If grassroots advisers are supposed to help the Government connect with people, then elected MPs, who form the legislative branch of the Government, can surely better connect with the residents who have voted for them.
Defeated PAP candidates who are advisers do not hold other government positions.
Yet, they hold important PAP positions.
For example, Madam Cynthia Phua is the party's vice-chairman of the North East District Committee.
Is the PA implying that elected MPs cannot be expected to promote beneficial programmes such as those that battle dengue or promote active ageing?
If the PA has no partisan agenda, why can it not trust opposition MPs to promote its programmes?
Tan Si An
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_708166.html
-------------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
PAP supporter reminds party to stand firm, rebuts PA critics
I REFER to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman's letter on Tuesday (
'Advisers to grassroots bodies should be elected MPs') and the People's Association's (PA) reply yesterday (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies').
The PA's role is to propagate and educate the people about government policies and to garner support for the Government. Can we expect opposition MPs to do that?
It may seem unfair, but the reality is that no governing party is obliged to help the opposition grow. In fact, it is reasonable to expect the governing party to weaken and demolish its rivals.
The People's Action Party (PAP) did not obtain power because of the kindness of rival parties.
The opposition should learn to succeed through the kind of ingenuity, resourcefulness and creativity that the four presidential candidates have shown.
Life isn't fair and if the opposition gains power, it cannot expect neighbouring countries to ensure a level playing field in international politics, or afford Singapore a chance to prosper.
The PAP should also remember that 60 per cent of the electorate supported its pragmatic policies and shared its vision.
While the PAP is working hard to win more votes, the party must not end up losing these supporters who are starting to get confused.
Tan Hian Meng
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_708160.html
--------------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
PA should give better reasons
I READ with great apprehension the hollow response from the People's Association (PA) in yesterday's letter (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies').
PA should give us more convincing reasons to support the accusation before concluding that opposition MPs cannot be expected to support government programmes.
First, as a statutory board, like the Strata Titles Board and Public Utilities Board, the PA has a mission to serve 'all communities of the country'. Hence, if it serves all residents regardless of their political affiliations, how can it exclude elected MPs?
Second, do government policies and programmes distinguish between pro-People's Action Party residents and pro-opposition residents? The answer is obviously no, because residents are people of the community.
Last but not least, can the PA prove that elected MPs from the opposition - were they to be made advisers - would not support government programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing?
Paul Chan
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_707993.html
------------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
Give voters due respect
MR MUHAMMAD Yusuf Osman hit the nail on the head (
'Advisers to grassroots bodies should be elected MPs'; Tuesday).
Statutory boards like the Housing Board and the People's Association (PA) must remain non-partisan.
They are funded by all Singaporeans and must serve all citizens, regardless of party affiliation. The PA and all grassroots organisations in every constituency should invite the sitting MPs to be their grassroots advisers.
By preferring to work with candidates from the People's Action Party (PAP) who have lost the previous election over sitting MPs elected by the people, the PA is not giving citizens due respect.
By working with PA in similar fashion, the HDB is also not respecting the people.
If we accept that our electoral system is one of first past the post, we must all respect the results, regardless of party affiliation.
The PA and HDB should introduce rules which apply to all parties and grassroots bodies in all constituencies regardless of party affiliation.
This is one issue president-elect Tony Tan could perhaps look into, in his quest to serve and unify all Singaporeans.
Dennis Tan
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_707994.html
--------------------------------
Explain why opposition MPs won't support policies
THE People's Association (PA) should explain why opposition MPs are not expected to support programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies'; yesterday). Are these not issues that affect all Singaporeans across party lines?
Sng Woei Shyong
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_707995.html
--------------------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
PA should reset its attitude
THE People's Association (PA) has said that opposition MPs cannot be advisers to grassroots bodies because they 'cannot be expected' to help promote government policies and programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies'; yesterday).
This reflects a narrow and outdated view of the opposition as negative forces that will oppose anything and everything the Government does. It ignores the fact that opposition MPs have been elected by their constituents who believe they will work to promote their interests.
Why should opposition MPs oppose any policies or programmes that truly seek to improve the lives of Singaporeans?
If they were to oppose anything, it would be programmes that promote the interest of the People's Action Party (PAP), such as providing a platform for defeated PAP candidates to reach out to residents. As an independent, non-partisan public service organisation, the PA has no business to do this.
It goes against the objectives of the PA, which includes (under Section 8c of the People's Association Act) 'the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore'.
Richard Seah
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_707996.html
--------------------------------
The Straits Times; Published on Sep 1, 2011
Social cohesion goes beyond cooking contests
THE People's Association (PA) stated yesterday that opposition MPs cannot be expected to support government policies and programmes (
'Why opposition MPs can't be advisers to grassroots bodies').
The stance goes against a founding objective of the association: promoting social cohesion.
Social cohesion cannot be achieved by merely organising cooking competitions and lantern festivals. The inter-human relationship in any given society is a complex equation.
By stating clearly that opposition MPs are not expected to support government programmes, the PA is insinuating that opposition parties are in permanent disagreement with the ruling party, which is not true.
By extension, the people who elected the MPs are the people whom PA is supposed to unite. Excluding the people's choice of MPs as possible grassroots advisers is tantamount to sowing unhappiness in the community.
It is disappointing that a statutory board chooses to consider an individual along political party lines.
Hong Weilun
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_707998.html
