By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Current day realities have an impact on the critical ‘political’ role played by the People’s Association for more than 50 years in Singapore.
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.
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.”
*Article first appeared on http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2013/5/11/columnists/in...