By Howard Lee/ cartoon by Joshua Chiang
I have always had faith in institutions of public service. To me, the public service has always represented the very best of human nature – service to fellow citizens.
Yes, some would call it the iron rice bowl, although those in the rank and file now would attest that it is hardly true today. Sure, the pay could be stable, but there are those who would tell you there is more to be made in the private sector. And I would always like to think that there are those who joined for a chance to make a difference for their people.
Unfortunately, that positive trait has in recent days been dealt a ghastly blow, when the People’s Association (PA) and the Housing Development Board (HDB) got mixed up in the simple tussle for public space between the Worker’s Party (WP) and the unelected members of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in Aljunied Group Representative Constituency.
I will not delve into the evidence thrown up by the political parties to support their bids for management of the public spaces. Who is right and wrong can often be a matter of perspective. Also, there has been very little recorded documents from both WP and PAP to support their claims.
Instead, I would like to focus on three key areas that I felt reflected badly on PA and HDB as public institutions. It had nothing to do with the evidence thrown up by the aggrieved parties, but everything to do with the rightful conduct of the agencies, which in turn has cast doubt on their dignity and impartiality, bodies constituted for the benefit of the people. Unfortunately, such actions increase public suspicion that our government agencies are nothing more than a machine of the PAP.
Decision without consultation – From statements made thus far, it is clear that the reassignment of the 26 lots of public spaces from the Hougang Aljunied Town Council (HATC) back to the management of PA was done without first consulting WP and without asking WP to provide evidence to dispute claims of mismanagement by PAP. It is unfair, plain and simple, to hear just one side of the story, and definitely not something that the public service should do, even on a remote basis.
Pre-emptive prejudice – PA has clearly admitted that the move on HATC was a pre-emptive strike based on alleged difficulties that Hougang Town Council (HTC) has placed for applications made to use public spaces under its charge. But HTC is not HATC, or at best only constitute one of its parts. It should be given the benefit of the doubt, since HATC never had the chance to demonstrate a track record of making things difficult for grassroots orgaisations. The idiom that goes with this course of action is “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. It is discrimination, and discrimination should never be part of public service DNA.
Benefit for a few or benefit of the people – The current action is chiefly an attempt to make things better for the few within grassroot organisations who organise activities at these public spaces. For the people who participate in the activities organised at these locations, it seldom matters (or shouldn’t matter) who organises them or which political party is invited. If anything, the action has cast doubt on the neutrality of grassroots organisations, suggesting that they, too, have political motivations, since their advisors are almost always the PAP member, whether the person is an elected representative of the people or not.
Conversely, the people need every opportunity to interact with their elected representatives, not the advisors of the grassroot organisation. If Members of Parliament have been voted in by their constituents, it is only right that they retain first right of use of these public spaces, as it provides for opportunities to interact with residents and get a feel for ground issues.
If it is not in PA’s or HDB’s interest to facilitate that, the least that they can do is not to hinder it. Hence, it makes more sense for the management of such spaces to be under the purview of the Town Councils.
Sadly, this initial careless decision has routed PA into a corner, such that it can only take two steps to maintain the public service’s position as a defender of the people’s interests. Neither is favourable to PA.
The first possible recourse is to reverse the decision to manage the 26 lots of public spaces taken from HATC. This is not a likely outcome, as it immediately indicates wrong-doing. It would only serve to further undermine PA’s credibility, assuming that the current line of action has not already done irreparable damage.
The second option is to standardise and apply the same to all constituencies and resume administration of all similar public spaces. That alone would bog down PA’s operational effectiveness, but would surely be a cementing point to reaffirm its fairness.
In addition, there is immediate need for damage control, as Desmond Choo’s (PAP’s grassroot advisor in Hougang Single Member Constituency) application to reserve six sites in HTC to be likewise categorised has yet to be approved. Particularly since Choo’s application is, in my opinion, made on shaky grounds. I say this because he has used dated examples, is not the elected representative of the residents in Hougang to be able to speak on their behalf without a petition, and his telling WP to be more creative in using other opportunities to reach out to residents just smacks of double standards.
To me, public service represents an honourable side of us, and to this day, I would still like to believe that the Singapore public service – my former colleagues and friends – have done all they can for the benefit of the people. I would like to think that they go home each day, weary from battling bureaucracy, but not battling bias.
This latest spate is a betrayal of all those who start their day making it a point to put the interest of the people first. Whatever the reasons for this murky business having happened in the first place, I can only hope that WP’s claim of political motivation proves untrue, and PA and HDB would be able to rise above it by taking impartial steps forward.
–
The writer has served close to 10 years in the Singapore public service.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
PA director of communnications gave a letter to ST Forum pages today. Totally unsatisfactory reply. What can we do? I guess vote for a new government come 2016.
What is the point of having an MP opr group of MP representing the people of that constituency? The PAPayas are growing wild
and laying claims all over Singapore as though the family owns the whole of Singapore. Come on !!! one will die one day
without exception. You just simply cannot take what you claim to go to ‘hell’. OK?
Here is your last chance to be reasonable so that God knows you meant to repent..
PAP has always been the big bully and Singaporeans need to recognize that. They never play fair.
PA’s letter in STForum was totally ludicrous. Why shouldn’t any opposition MP support programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing? The letter reflects a narrow and out-dated (1960s) view that opposition MPs are negative, destructive forces that will oppose anything and everything initiated by the government and public bodies like the PA.
If at all opposition MPs oppose anything, it would be programmes that promote the interest of the PAP, such as providing a platform for defeated PAP candidates to continue to reach out to residents (aka potential voters). Or organising old folks, with free dinners thrown in, to attend PAP rallies during the recent GE.
If the PA is truly independent and non-partisan, it has no business doing such things. Today’s letter only confirms that the PA is pro-PAP and unashamedly so.
why can’t the winning team of a constituency appoint their own grassroot adviser independent from PA.
should the grassroot members by PA be exactly the same group to be formed by any new winning team of any constituency.
any legal opinion or any alternative common sense opinion here.
The PAP is “corrupt” with its sense of Absolute Power..it
has been intoxicated by it for too long it is now in a comatose stupor…. detached from reality……..it will naturally behave irrationally..!
Power Corrupts , Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.!. Vote
Wisely!
President Tony Tan, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, MP Low Thia Kiang, MP Slvia Lim…please start your debate on the letter written by PA in the ST Forum where he stated that Opposition MP cannot be PA advisors. 70% or more Singaporean eyes are watching…same as the Ministers salaries. We want a clear answer.
The director of PA made a faux paus today in the ST article. Last I heard Government is still defined in constitution & gov.sg website as including parliament which has 87 MPs.
The PAP association however now defines Government as PAP only.
sadly the dir of PA is in the structure where PAP is the govt for many years. This requires no less than Presidential action as the Chairman of PA is Lee Hsien Loong himself. Let us see if Tony Tan is as non-partisan as he says he is.
If PAP loses the next GE, will the PA then shift its position? Didn’t LKY recently proclaimed that PA is PAP. He may just well add HDB to the list. Where is FAIRNESS? The new president should, and could within his specific powers, examine closely the actions of the 2 stat boards to see if their civil servant heads and their boards are worthy of their positions and not politically bias.
If PAP loses the next GE, will the PA then shift its position? Didn’t LKY recently proclaimed that PA is PAP. He may just well add HDB to the list. Where is FAIRNESS? The new president should, and could within his specific powers, examine closely the actions of the 2 stat boards to see if their civil servant heads and their boards are worthy of their positions and not politically bias.
these clowns are running out of good explanation.
now high pay does not mean better quality. assumption has been debunked.
why sdp is still useful. it takes craziness to deal with craziness. how to complete an obstacle course which has no finishing line.
If people think the rot is only in only in the PA than they are terribly wrong. Well if the PAP loses power, the winning Party will face the same problems as the WP is facing in Hougang but at a national level. Let’s not forget, almost all the national assets have been transferred to Temesek, which is a private entity and they are not obliged to please the ruling party.
@Dead Poet,
Are you for REAL?? “…Temasek is a private entity….not obliged to please the ruling party”. Do you know who runs Temasek??? Please look it up and then decide if they are thick with PaP.
“Let’s not forget, almost all the national assets have been transferred to Temesek, which is a private entity and they are not obliged to please the ruling party.”
you are very naive.
the country is king and when the country roars, all the entities, whether public or private or whatnot, residing within have to comply with the law. now do you think whether ruling party (or government) is powerful or not.
just in case you have any wise idea of wanting to do any funny thing detrimental to your own country, please be reminded the country can hunt you down with the cooperation of other country even if you are hiding in a cave in timbaktu.
Who is this Desmond Choo and who does he think he is? Taking things into his own hands and try acting as if he is above evertbody else. He does not even know what is self respect by surpassing those above him in ranked. The oppositions may not be his immediate boss, but at least they are above him in rank being MEMBERS OF SINGAPORE PARLIAMENT whereby due respect should be accorded to them. By the way he is acting and behaving, lucky he is ONLY a grassroot leader in a small part of Hougang or otherwise all People of Singapore will have to suffer under his rule if he is given the POWER to do so. I hope he can learn to be humble.
Again I call on the PM, stop the leadership at PA and HDB from continuing this nonsense, and be seen to be doing your part in re-unifying Singapore by exposing the names of those culprits.
Again I call on the 65% who voted for a non PAP president, report your bosses or colleagues who are taking political sides by abusing their positions as leaders in the civil service. They are destroying the integrity of the civil service as an apolitical non-partisan body and as a loyal Singaporean who wants a harmonius Singapore society, you have every right to report them. You can report them anonymously through the Onlinecitizen.
Well, when the top behaves like an emperor, the bottomlines automatically behaved like the little emperors knowing too well the big emperor needs them to protect the top from losing power.
Dead Poet31 August 2011
If people think the rot is only in only in the PA than they are terribly wrong. Well if the PAP loses power, the winning Party will face the same problems as the WP is facing in Hougang but at a national level. Let’s not forget, almost all the national assets have been transferred to Temesek, which is a private entity and they are not obliged to please the ruling party.
……………..
indeed why should temasek inc report?
with somethin liked this below?
credit to fortune magazine
=====================
Now we learn from the August 15, 2011 issue of Fortune Magazine that Singapore has no sovereign wealth.
Instead it has a sovereign debt of US$254 billion, which is 95% of Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This puts Singapore at 8th position as one of the world’s most indebted nations. Singapore is near the bottom of the pile; only seven developed countries are more in debt, in terms of GDP.
Apparently, Singapore has borrowed heavily from its own Central Provident Fund (CPF) which holds the retirement funds of Singaporeans. This explains why Singapore is not only raising the retirement age, but making it more difficult for Singaporeans to get their retirement funds even when they reach that age.
……………….
like you said…temasek inc is PRIVATE..
settle the debt$ PRIVATELY lor…
TCB has revealed that there are many of his old comrades whose souls are willing to support him but not their physical will. He has been labelled as a fear monger on this count. Similar scenario once said to prevail among the people has been incessantly dismissed as a false allegation. TCB’s revelation has also been dismissed as another false allegation and would eventually fade off with all silence maintained at the frontline as well as TCB.
@ oh brother oh brother,
You’re wrong. The PA and CCC serves the government of the day which happens to be PAP. The PA and CCC gathers feedback from the people for the government of the day which happens to be PAP. The government of the day is not WP. It’s PAP. The government of the day is elected duly by the people. WP and SPP and others are oppositions. They are not the government. The duly elected government makes policies. The duly elected oppositions oppose them. That’s the relationship between government and opposition. It’s the same anywhere else in the world.
One day, the government of the day may become WP. Then PA and CCC serves this new government of the day.
@oh brother
The PA and CCC serves the “government of the day” which happens to be PAP…and WP (in case you forget they are elected and in Parliament). If you omit them, then using your logic, other boards like MRT, hospitals, LTA..etc, they only serve PAP only?? This is going back to the yester year’s tactics of denying Oppo wards of essential services.
@oh brother
PA, CCC office bearers are all PAP (political party) members and therefore there is conflict of interest. If WP becomes government is their any written regulation to compel all these same office bearers to resign as it is unimaginable that they will serve an opp in gornment? A mini case like AHTC is good example, WP is elected to run that TC but look at what is happening. Even ron elected PAP members still have more power than elected MPs. The whole issue is “fairness” as they are supported by tax payers. PM talked about building unity, it is impossible to have unity without treating everyone fairly. PAP gov’s actions are so far very divisive.
the ajunied elected MP are also part of the parliament. they are also part of govt as all legislation came from parliament whether or not they voted for or against the bill. such a letter from PA totally means they only acknowledge that govt is only PAP. such an act is itself already pro party stance. PA is funded by the govt and govt get its funds from taxpayers. can we ask aujunied residents to pay less tax since their MP get penalised by the PA. totally bullshit!.
This is a self interest country where citizens are united.
Case in point, the overcongestion and influx taking away job security.
In bad times, all will be taking cover.
I know i will.
Why protect people i do not endorse?
I meant :
This is a self interest country where citizens are NOT ! united.
By ‘protecting the people i do not endorse’, i am referring to dog lovers. I do not endorse dogs n their masters.
Fabregas & Pokemon, the government is different from the opposition party in parliament. The majority party forms the government. The rest stays as opposition to check on the government.
Really, there’s history that opposition TCs refuse to allow sites to be rented and used by government feedback organs. Oppositions are to check and balance the government in legislature. That’s fair and square. It’s their mandate. But it’s not their duty to hinder government feedback processes.
GE2011 and PE2011 made clear that Singaporeans treasure the right to vote for our MPs and even President, a right many of us did not have for decades.
Singaporeans are a moral people.
It is NOT moral for ELECTED representatives to be denied access to community facilities, while DEFEATED candidates are.
“A lapse”???
More “the trend” of Civil Servants being politicised to serve the PAP ministers who are their direct reporting officers:
Other examples:
1. Parliamentary Pensions Act – Civil servants in the Attorney General’s Chambers crafted this law in 1982, defying even the dictionary meaning of “pension” with the Head of Public Service Division keeping mum on giving Pay And Pension (PAP) upon Age 55 to ministers and other political office holders who have served the requisite tenure. In sharp contrast, a sizeable chunk of CPF funds are locked up for citizens upon Age 55.
2. Nightingale Nursing Home elderly abuse – The state media and Health Ministry WITHHELD publication of elderly abuse for 2 months until 10 Jun 2011, likely to avoid damage and embarrassment to Minister Khaw Boon Wan during GE held on 7 May.
3. Orchard River floods – The floods of Orchard Road happened in 2010 and 2011 but NO floods in 2007 and 2009 when even heavier rainfall stats were recorded at Triple One Somerset monitoring device on specific days in 2007 and 2009. But those 2007 and 2009 stats were UNDISCLOSED by PUB utilities board until Jun 2011, one month before public announcement that PUB’s CEO at age 59 will be replaced by year-end with no indication of redeployment.