-
The 59-year old resident is visually handicapped.
-
He has kidney failure and gets dialysis treatment three times a week.
-
He has been declared as medically unfit to work.
-
He gets a payout of $620 from his own CPF Retirement Account.
-
He looks after two other blind gentlemen who are also unable to work.
-
He applied for social assistance and was rejected, and in its response to his application the MSF states that he doesn’t meet the criteria because he earns an income from his CPF Retirement Account.
-
He gets support from other VWOs, well-wishers to help pay for rental, some food, transport to and from dialysis treatments.
-
Why is one’s CPF Retirement Account being considered income? What is the policy rationale behind this especially when dealing with cases like the one above?
-
Why is this resident allowed to dip into his CPF Retirement Account before he is of retirement age? Shouldn’t he be accorded long-term social assistance first and then have him dip into his Retirement Account later?
-
How much does someone need to live in dignity in Singapore, and especially so if he isn’t able bodied.
-
Is the Government’s policy and decision making in such matters morally and ethically acceptable?
-
the lack of clarity on long-term projected Government income and spending;
-
the lack of consideration of alternative revenue streams and whether there is scope for the reserves to better support and invest in Singaporeans;
-
the lack in details on the effect of the future GST hike on low-income and middle-income Singaporeans and the Government’s permanent GST offset packages.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f… 508977&type=3
Andrew Loh
Yesterday at 9:05 AM ·
Let me just say this because this post by Mr Lye is so utterly shameful, self-serving and highly misleading.
Mr Lye laments that volunteers like him have to fork out their own money when doing volunteer work in the community, unlike the paid NCMPs from the opposition, and despite Mr Lye being the “best losers” in the election, he is not in Parliament (as NCMP).
First, WP NCMPs are in Parliament legally. They are there legally under laws which Mr Lye’s party created and instituted. So, Mr Lye should have corrected his resident’s mistaken views (and why he - Mr Lye - though having garnered more losing votes is not an NCMP). (Imagine a Parliament of elected PAP MPs and non-elected PAP NCMPs. What would be the point of the NCMP scheme then?)
Second, Mr Lye should have explained to his resident the purpose of the NCMP scheme - to allow diverse views in Parliament.
Third, Mr Lye should have informed his resident that there are already 82 elected PAP MPs, out of 89, in Parliament.
There are only 3 NCMPs.
Fourth, to give the impression that WP NCMPs benefit from the NCMP seats in Parliament more than Mr Lye is misleading. This is because:
a. While Mr Lye may be using his own money for his own community work, no one forced him to do so. He can decline doing so right now.
b. While he claims to fork out his own money, he is also chairman of his area’s CCC and thus has access to government funds via the People’s Association when it comes to organising and holding activities in his area, which raises his profile with residents which in turn gives him a huge advantage over the opposition when Mr Lye - despite being in a supposedly non-partisan GRO - runs for election under the PAP banner (which he did in 2015).
In short, Mr Lye benefits politically from the activities funded by public money even though he is not an elected member.
See this link below, where the PA states that “CCCs plan and lead major grassroots activities within the constituency, oversee local assistance programmes, and organise major fund-raising projects and national campaigns.”
https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/gr...ive-committees
Some of his (political) activities are also questionable, including this one where he, a chairman of a non-political grassroots organisation by day, goes out to distribute political leaflets to residents by night:
Read here:
https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/20...of-sneakiness/
c. If Mr Lye feels it is unfair for him (and his volunteers) to have to fork out their own money when doing community work, he should take it up with the People’s Association whose chairman is the Prime Minister.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr Lye, instead of correcting the mistaken views of his resident, chose to use such misguided views to show off, that he is selfless and use his own money to serve reaidents, despite the fact that the PA’s budget has doubled the last 4 years, from $500m to $1b in each of the last 2 years.
To give the impression that the grassroots is so poor that he has to fork out his own money is highly misleading, at best.
The grassroots organisations are in fact generously funded by the govt, and headed by pro-PAP members who later run in elections:
See here:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...rifted-mandate
One would expect a would-be MP to be fair and correct wrong views, and not propagate them as truths.
By the way, the other non-MP WP candidates who, like Mr Lye, lost in the last elections, are all still continuing doing their volunteer work on the ground, in the community, at their own expense even. I do not see them boasting about it, or lamenting about it. They go on doing their work diligently, quietly, as it is right to do so, for people who have their hearts in the right place - and not making a mountain out of it.
Lastly, do note how Mr Lye has conflated his role as a CCC chairman (in the Bedok Reservoir area) with that of his political membership of the PAP. NCMPs are political roles, being the best-losers in a general election.
Mr Lye is also Branch Chairman of the PAP in the Bedok Reservoir area.
Mr Lye’s post conflates his role in Bedok Reservoir as a PA volunteer, and that of him not being an NCMP, a political position involving the political party, the PAP.
It saddens me to see a grassroots leader seemingly unable to distinguish his two roles. (Which is why there should be a ban on grassroots leaders being members - and candidates - of a political party.)
*NCMPs get a $2,000 honorarium to primarily allow them to have legislative help when crafting their parliamentary speeches, for example. It barely covers the costs which an NCMP would have to assume (from his own pocket) when he attends to parliamentary work, including having to take time off their full-time jobs.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
https://www.facebook.com/JoseRaymond...type=3&theater
https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media...e%20Report.pdf
Jose Raymond 乔立盟
Like This Page · 18 June ·
Various pro-PAP Facebook pages, and PAP MPs have taken issue with my Facebook post about the visually handicapped 59-year old Toa Payoh resident who was denied long-term social assistance. I’m glad.
One pro-PAP Facebook page has even gone to the extent of trying to justify the Government’s proposed increase in GST because of such cases so the Government can do more. How classy.
Along with MSF Singapore’s response, their framing is that the resident already receives a plethora of assistance from various parties, a fact which my post had already indicated.
I am happy the revelation of ground realities has irritated the PAP because they need to be made aware of what’s hurting people. Writing the post was a last resort, as I had taken the resident to meet his MP Saktiandi Supaat in January this year.
The government and the PAP can frame the issue one way, but I can reframe it another way so the public can see the issue from a different perspective. That’s how policies can be tightened, as ultimately we must do what’s best for our citizens.
The Government also needs to ask itself if its policy and decision making in such matters is morally and ethically acceptable.
As I had stated previously, here are the facts and key questions so the public can decide if MSF can and should be doing better.
Here are the questions we must ponder over:
Policies should always be reviewed and discussed based on ground realities. It’s through extensive debate and looking at issues through various lenses and perspectives that we can make our policies better for the benefit of Singaporeans.
This is something the PAP and its supporters need to get used to, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the people it claims to represent.
Loving Singapore means loving its people. ����
#SGLivesMatter
https://www.facebook.com/andrewlohhp
There were calls recently that our public/civil service must not be politically partisan. Unfortunately, the calls are apparently falling on deaf ears.
The deputy chairman of the People’s Association, Chan Chun Sing, pledged 2 years ago that he would not allow the PA to be politicised.
See here:
https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/ch...be-politicised
Words are one thing, action is another. Mr Chan should take some action against grassroots leaders who use their positions to play politics.
It does not do our country any good to behave like this.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...th-his-banner/
PAP Aljunied grassroot advisor apologised for covering Workers’ Party’s event banner with his banner
Published on 2018-06-23 by Terry Xu
Victor Lye Thiam Fatt, People’s Action Party (PAP) Candidate candidate for the Aljunied GRC in the General Election 2015 and grassroots leader for Aljunied GRC, has acknowledged that his volunteers put up a banner to cover up another banner from the Workers’ Party and apologised for the action.
Mr Lye had earlier published a Facebook post about him not being paid to do community work in the constituency and quoted a resident saying that the opposition politicians have it better for them as their best losers are given a seat in Parliament with salary while Mr Lye and his team who were the best losers in GE2015, did not.
Mr Lye is one of the appointed grassroots advisors to the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation despite not being the elected Member of Parliament of the constituency.
https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71003689750636
The post spurred a member of public, Ong Yu Shan to ask Mr Lye, “Didn’t you tell resident you love to use underhand tactics?!? Passed by and saw your lovely face banner covered Aljunied banner @ WP constituency.” and posted a photo of Mr Lye’s banner blocking another banner which was purportedly taken recently at the Aljunied GRC.
Mr Lye promptly responded to Ong’s post by acknowledging that the banner should not have been placed in the said manner and asked his volunteers to rectify.
The banner which was from Mr Lye’s team is meant to inform the residents of the activities organised by the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation; activities such as porridge distribution, prayers, a community fair and groceries distribution during the Hari Raya period.
As for the banner being blocked, it can be seen from the color and viewable details that it is a banner put up by the Aljunied Town Council managed by Workers’ Party, promoting a festive event organised by the Aljunied constituency which is scheduled to be held on this coming 30 June.
https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3
This is not the first time that Mr Lye’s volunteers are guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. Shortly before the elections, the PAP Aljunied team distributed political flyers in the middle of the night to residents, warning them about the alleged mismanagement by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. And from Mr Lye’s Facebook posting, he would have been part of the team that went around distributing the flyers.
https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71969069654103
Regarding the distribution of leaflets, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) issued to the media on 19 March 2015:
“In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the police report made on the distribution of flyers at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, it has been determined that there is no offence disclosed. The distribution of flyers in itself is not an offence in Singapore.”
Note that at the point of the flyers being distributed in March 2015, the parliament has yet been dissolved and the Prime Minister has yet to call for the General Election, therefore it cannot be said to be political campaigning during the election period.
Now compare that with the case in 2006, where members of the Singapore Democratic Party were charged for illegal assembly while distributing flyers “in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road”. They were accused of participating in “an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" without a police permit.
The police licensing officer during the trial, testified that distributing flyers for a commercial cause did not require a permit whereas one was needed if the cause was political.
Given the SPF’s reply, it can be safely assumed that the PAP activists did not apply for a permit for their political activity but yet not charged for illegal assembly as in SDP’s case.
With such double standards in place, no wonder such uncouth behaviours by the PAP grassroots continue till today.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...9508977&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8763402&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...9508977&type=3
Andrew Loh
Yesterday at 9:05 AM ·
Let me just say this because this post by Mr Lye is so utterly shameful, self-serving and highly misleading.
Mr Lye laments that volunteers like him have to fork out their own money when doing volunteer work in the community, unlike the paid NCMPs from the opposition, and despite Mr Lye being the “best losers” in the election, he is not in Parliament (as NCMP).
First, WP NCMPs are in Parliament legally. They are there legally under laws which Mr Lye’s party created and instituted. So, Mr Lye should have corrected his resident’s mistaken views (and why he - Mr Lye - though having garnered more losing votes is not an NCMP). (Imagine a Parliament of elected PAP MPs and non-elected PAP NCMPs. What would be the point of the NCMP scheme then?)
Second, Mr Lye should have explained to his resident the purpose of the NCMP scheme - to allow diverse views in Parliament.
Third, Mr Lye should have informed his resident that there are already 82 elected PAP MPs, out of 89, in Parliament.
There are only 3 NCMPs.
Fourth, to give the impression that WP NCMPs benefit from the NCMP seats in Parliament more than Mr Lye is misleading. This is because:
a. While Mr Lye may be using his own money for his own community work, no one forced him to do so. He can decline doing so right now.
b. While he claims to fork out his own money, he is also chairman of his area’s CCC and thus has access to government funds via the People’s Association when it comes to organising and holding activities in his area, which raises his profile with residents which in turn gives him a huge advantage over the opposition when Mr Lye - despite being in a supposedly non-partisan GRO - runs for election under the PAP banner (which he did in 2015).
In short, Mr Lye benefits politically from the activities funded by public money even though he is not an elected member.
See this link below, where the PA states that “CCCs plan and lead major grassroots activities within the constituency, oversee local assistance programmes, and organise major fund-raising projects and national campaigns.”
https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/gr...ive-committees
Some of his (political) activities are also questionable, including this one where he, a chairman of a non-political grassroots organisation by day, goes out to distribute political leaflets to residents by night:
Read here:
https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/20...of-sneakiness/
c. If Mr Lye feels it is unfair for him (and his volunteers) to have to fork out their own money when doing community work, he should take it up with the People’s Association whose chairman is the Prime Minister.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr Lye, instead of correcting the mistaken views of his resident, chose to use such misguided views to show off, that he is selfless and use his own money to serve reaidents, despite the fact that the PA’s budget has doubled the last 4 years, from $500m to $1b in each of the last 2 years.
To give the impression that the grassroots is so poor that he has to fork out his own money is highly misleading, at best.
The grassroots organisations are in fact generously funded by the govt, and headed by pro-PAP members who later run in elections:
See here:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...rifted-mandate
One would expect a would-be MP to be fair and correct wrong views, and not propagate them as truths.
By the way, the other non-MP WP candidates who, like Mr Lye, lost in the last elections, are all still continuing doing their volunteer work on the ground, in the community, at their own expense even. I do not see them boasting about it, or lamenting about it. They go on doing their work diligently, quietly, as it is right to do so, for people who have their hearts in the right place - and not making a mountain out of it.
Lastly, do note how Mr Lye has conflated his role as a CCC chairman (in the Bedok Reservoir area) with that of his political membership of the PAP. NCMPs are political roles, being the best-losers in a general election.
Mr Lye is also Branch Chairman of the PAP in the Bedok Reservoir area.
Mr Lye’s post conflates his role in Bedok Reservoir as a PA volunteer, and that of him not being an NCMP, a political position involving the political party, the PAP.
It saddens me to see a grassroots leader seemingly unable to distinguish his two roles. (Which is why there should be a ban on grassroots leaders being members - and candidates - of a political party.)
*NCMPs get a $2,000 honorarium to primarily allow them to have legislative help when crafting their parliamentary speeches, for example. It barely covers the costs which an NCMP would have to assume (from his own pocket) when he attends to parliamentary work, including having to take time off their full-time jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Halogen8
Loong and Jinx will find ways to recover the losses .
Yep but Singaporeans like you and me will foot the bill for them, not them.
Look at the complicated chain of payments for Malaysia’s 1MDB case.
In the end, the New Malaysian Government discovered that it was the Malaysian taxpayers that foot the bill for 1MDB’s debts via a complicated chain of network designed by previous Malaysian Government.
https://www.facebook.com/yeejj.wp/
Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)
Yesterday at 02:00 ·
As a former NCMP, it feels kinda surreal to have a PAP politician ’envy’ the position and allowance of a NCMP.
Perhaps more information is needed about life on the other side in case one thinks the grass is greener there …
The allowance (about $2,000 monthly) is set at about 15% of a MP’s allowance. It is meant to cover expenses for parliamentary work, which a losing PAP candidate will not have to do. Parliament sits for 40-60 times a year. Usually it is 1-3 times a month but during the Budget period, there will be about 2 continuous weeks of sittings commencing from around 11am till 7pm. When there are special bills or motions, there will be additional sittings, each of which can go on for several days.
My fellow NCMP colleagues and I, past and present, have taken pride to have good attendance and participation records. Usually during the intensive budget sitting days, I absent myself nearly completely from my regular work as I make it a point to participate as much as I can in as many of the Committee of Supplies’ (i.e. various ministries) debates. There is also much to research on and we have to be resourceful as access to non-public information of the government is not available to us.
I do not believe the allowance for NCMP was designed by the PAP government to cover grassroots activities; hence NCMP gets 15% of a MP’s allowance. In addition, NCMPs do NOT get any access to facilities in the constituency he/she contested in previously, unlike that of losing PAP candidates.
I have continued my work on the ground even though I am no longer a NCMP, Many of my Party’s colleagues have continued their work on the ground. We do not get the support of the People’s Association, which gets some $1 billion annual allocation from the government’s budget for their work.
PA will work only with PAP MPs and grassroots advisors appointed by the government, which include the losing candidates for the PAP in an opposition ward (But hey, it’s non-partisan, as someone famously said). Any expenses for our work, including food distribution projects for the needier families, have to be raised though our resourcefulness. Thankfully, there are Singaporeans and organisations willing to support, though some do come from our own pockets too. Work are organised by volunteers.
The Elections Department reports to the Prime Minister’s Office. It is fond of giving surprises to the opposition, with short notices for elections and sudden change of boundaries just before elections. Before GE2015, about 6 weeks’ notice was given. Many constituencies had changes, and that which I contested in previously was merged into something much larger. I am not sure what uncertainties PAP candidates have to deal with.
Sometimes it is better to count one’s blessings and then we will realise that there are actually much to be thankful for.
http://www.wp.sg/wp-votes-no-to-the-...-in-2021-2025/
WP votes NO to the announcement of GST hike in 2021-2025
The Workers’ Party MPs voted “no” to the motion that Parliament “approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019” for the sole reason that WP is unable to support the announcement of a GST hike from 7% to 9% in 2021-2025 at this point in time.
We support the Government’s budget strategy and measures for the coming Financial Year, as presented to Parliament. However, the future GST hike is an announcement and not a budget measure. We are unable to support the announcement for three reasons:
We asked the Government to consider other options for raising revenue to meet increased spending. These options included raising the NIRC cap and using a small, capped fraction of land sales proceeds for Budgets. However, the latter was brushed off by the Government.
WP MPs intended to vote “yes” on the budget measures for the Financial Year 2018/2019. However, Minister Heng insisted that voting “yes” would mean WP supports the announced GST hike in the next term of Government in 2021-2025 and called for a division.
It is unreasonable for us to vote for a drastic future tax hike that will financially affect Singaporeans based on inadequate information and justifications on the need for the hike. We therefore voted NO.
The Workers’ Party
1 March 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DisGraceFool
Such a disgracefool and shameful act .
https://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bgpgt%5D-another-wp-banner-covered-up-blk-722-victor-lye-banner-5855236.html
[GPGT]: Another WP banner covered up at Blk 722 by Victor Lye banner!
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155618399508977&set=p.10155618399 508977&type=3&theater
Is this a great work of art? It’s like the grassroots have to hide existence of WP!
Now everyone in the GRC will know this highly important face!
Saw this other post on fb:
Seems misleading to put up double posters as if he is already the mp. These kinda posters and notifications are everywhere and even occupied 100%of the noticeboard below my block. If the scenario was reversed an a “volunteer “did this in a pap ward, wonder the pap IBs will ripp the wp person to pieces. Here victor just got away with it.
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156485792746248&set=p.10156485792 746248&type=3&theater
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/current-affairs-lounge-17/gerald-giam-how-pap-uses-taxpayer-funded-grassroots-political-gain-3097742.html
http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...olitical-gain/
How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
By Gerald Giam
10 October 2009 | 4,299 Reads | 12 Comments
Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.
A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected.
He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”
In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”
They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
Here’s a quick run down:
The People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, was set up in 1960 to counter the influence of Chinese clan associations and unions on working class Singaporeans.
Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. In FY2008, PA received $280 million from taxpayers, and another $23 million in “operating income”. 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.
The deputy chairman and two other board members are PAP ministers, together with a PAP minister of state, two other PAP office holders and a PAP backbencher. Eight out of the 14 board members are PAP MPs.
No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it.
The PA oversees all the official “grassroots organisations”, namely the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC), Community Club Management Committees (CCMC), Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC) and the Community Development Councils (CDC).
PA also runs the National Youth Council (NYC) and the People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), which reach out to young people.
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.
The same anomaly is repeated in the CDCs. CDCs have a whole panel of advisers, who are by default the GRO advisers. In South West CDC, where all the component constituencies are under the PAP, it is not surprising that all the advisers are PAP MPs.
But in South East CDC, there is one grinning adviser who is not an MP — Sitoh Yih Pin, the man who lost to Mr Chiam See Tong (SDA) in Potong Pasir. North East CDC also has a non-MP — Eric Low — sitting as adviser.
He lost to Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP) in the last two elections, garnering just 37% of the popular vote in 2006.
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are completely excluded from the CDCs.
CDCs, Community Clubs and other GROs often organise events which involve a large number of residents. Most of the time, the guest-of-honour at such events is — you guessed it — the PAP grassroots adviser.
All this effectively denies the opposition MPs access to the whole array of grassroots resources that PAP MPs have easy access to. The opposition MP has to build up his own grassroot network from scratch, while PAP MPs simply inherit the control of the RCs, CCCs and CCMCs.
Most HDB dwellers will be familiar with the notice boards next to the lifts.
These are managed by the RCs, which ensure that residents always aware of who their PAP MPs are by featuring their names and photos prominently on the notice boards.
But in Hougang and Potong Pasir, instead of the elected MP, residents will see the losing PAP candidate’s face on the notice board every day when they go home.
Around the neighbourhood, they will also see huge banners sponsored by PA or the CCC, featuring the losing PAP candidate wishing residents during festive occasions. The Opposition is given no such banner space in PAP wards.
To round it off, the GROs are often the recruiting ground for the PAP during elections.
Many grassroots volunteers are also loyal PAP men and women, who shed their supposed neutrality to don PAP all-whites during the election campaign, serving as supporters, election agents and counting agents for the PAP candidates.
The best thing of all for the PAP is that all these grassroots resources come at zero cost to the party, since it is all paid for by taxpayers — yes including those who voted for the Opposition.
Unlike in other countries where political parties — just like the Opposition here — have to fund their own grassroots activities, the PAP can save its funds to be used during the election campaign.
With all these factors stacked against the Opposition, it is indeed commendable that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have managed to hold on to their seats for the past 20 years. The residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang have proven that sincerity and pure hard work on the ground will be rewarded.
Technorati Tags: grassroots, Hougang, People’s Association, Potong Pasir
Related Posts:
Grassroots advisers are not accountable either
Low Thia Khiang: PAP is playing politics
Straits Times questions Ministry’s stand on LUP
Govt concedes argument with WP and Singaporeans
Singaporean taxpayers are footing the bill for PAP losers from previous elections to promote themselves for the next election. It does not make sense and is abuse of taxpayers money. This is why GST need to increase so that PAP and their supporters are well taken care of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DisGraceFool
Such a disgracefool and shameful act .
https://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bgpgt%5D-another-wp-banner-covered-up-blk-722-victor-lye-banner-5855236.html
[GPGT]: Another WP banner covered up at Blk 722 by Victor Lye banner!
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Is this a great work of art? It’s like the grassroots have to hide existence of WP!
Now everyone in the GRC will know this highly important face!
Saw this other post on fb:
Seems misleading to put up double posters as if he is already the mp. These kinda posters and notifications are everywhere and even occupied 100%of the noticeboard below my block. If the scenario was reversed an a “volunteer “did this in a pap ward, wonder the pap IBs will ripp the wp person to pieces. Here victor just got away with it.
source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/current-affairs-lounge-17/gerald-giam-how-pap-uses-taxpayer-funded-grassroots-political-gain-3097742.html
http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...olitical-gain/
How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
By Gerald Giam
10 October 2009 | 4,299 Reads | 12 Comments
Last week, Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the PAP MP-aspirants who lost to Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang and SDA’s Chiam See Tong respectively in the last election, grabbed the limelight for themselves by announcing HDB’s decision to upgrade lifts in Potong Pasir and Hougang.
I had written an article questioning why HDB had informed the losing candidates in opposition wards of the upgrading plans.
A Straits Times forum letter writer, Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman, said it best when he called for the mandate that the residents gave to the elected MPs to be respected.
He asked: “Under what authority did both Mr (Eric) Low and Mr Sitoh (Yih Pin) act as advisers to the grassroots organisations, given that the People’s Association is a government statutory board and should work with the elected MPs of the constituencies?”
In response, HDB and People’s Association replied that “it is the Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents.”
They forgot to mention that these “advisers” are always PAP men, whether or not they won the election.
Not many Singaporeans are aware of how much the taxpayer-funded grassroots have been used by the PAP for political gain.
Here’s a quick run down:
The People’s Association (PA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, was set up in 1960 to counter the influence of Chinese clan associations and unions on working class Singaporeans.
Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. In FY2008, PA received $280 million from taxpayers, and another $23 million in “operating income”. 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.
The deputy chairman and two other board members are PAP ministers, together with a PAP minister of state, two other PAP office holders and a PAP backbencher. Eight out of the 14 board members are PAP MPs.
No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it.
The PA oversees all the official “grassroots organisations”, namely the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC), Community Club Management Committees (CCMC), Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC) and the Community Development Councils (CDC).
PA also runs the National Youth Council (NYC) and the People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), which reach out to young people.
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.
The same anomaly is repeated in the CDCs. CDCs have a whole panel of advisers, who are by default the GRO advisers. In South West CDC, where all the component constituencies are under the PAP, it is not surprising that all the advisers are PAP MPs.
But in South East CDC, there is one grinning adviser who is not an MP — Sitoh Yih Pin, the man who lost to Mr Chiam See Tong (SDA) in Potong Pasir. North East CDC also has a non-MP — Eric Low — sitting as adviser.
He lost to Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP) in the last two elections, garnering just 37% of the popular vote in 2006.
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are completely excluded from the CDCs.
CDCs, Community Clubs and other GROs often organise events which involve a large number of residents. Most of the time, the guest-of-honour at such events is — you guessed it — the PAP grassroots adviser.
All this effectively denies the opposition MPs access to the whole array of grassroots resources that PAP MPs have easy access to. The opposition MP has to build up his own grassroot network from scratch, while PAP MPs simply inherit the control of the RCs, CCCs and CCMCs.
Most HDB dwellers will be familiar with the notice boards next to the lifts.
These are managed by the RCs, which ensure that residents always aware of who their PAP MPs are by featuring their names and photos prominently on the notice boards.
But in Hougang and Potong Pasir, instead of the elected MP, residents will see the losing PAP candidate’s face on the notice board every day when they go home.
Around the neighbourhood, they will also see huge banners sponsored by PA or the CCC, featuring the losing PAP candidate wishing residents during festive occasions. The Opposition is given no such banner space in PAP wards.
To round it off, the GROs are often the recruiting ground for the PAP during elections.
Many grassroots volunteers are also loyal PAP men and women, who shed their supposed neutrality to don PAP all-whites during the election campaign, serving as supporters, election agents and counting agents for the PAP candidates.
The best thing of all for the PAP is that all these grassroots resources come at zero cost to the party, since it is all paid for by taxpayers — yes including those who voted for the Opposition.
Unlike in other countries where political parties — just like the Opposition here — have to fund their own grassroots activities, the PAP can save its funds to be used during the election campaign.
With all these factors stacked against the Opposition, it is indeed commendable that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have managed to hold on to their seats for the past 20 years. The residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang have proven that sincerity and pure hard work on the ground will be rewarded.
Technorati Tags: grassroots, Hougang, People’s Association, Potong Pasir
Related Posts:
Grassroots advisers are not accountable either
Low Thia Khiang: PAP is playing politics
Straits Times questions Ministry’s stand on LUP
Govt concedes argument with WP and Singaporeans
Singaporean taxpayers are footing the bill for PAP losers from previous elections to promote themselves for the next election. It does not make sense and is abuse of taxpayers money. This is why GST need to increase so that PAP and their supporters are well taken care of?