TR EMERITUS

OPINION

When Mr Eric Low announced in a press conference two weeks ago that he had managed to lobby HDB to bring the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to Hougang, he probably never expect to spark a furore from cyberspace.

After all, he is the PAP grassroots adviser to Hougang and it is the “usual practice” for the adviser to announce such programmes for the residents, never mind the fact that he has been rejected by the residents during the last general election.

Then came the flurry of criticisms first in the boisterous internet chatrooms and blogs followed by letters to the Straits Times Forum questioning if due protocol was followed by Mr Eric Low.

Even the normally placid and dormant Hougang MP Low Thia Kiang found it necessary to write a letter to the Forum rebuking HDB’s assertation that they have been working with the grassroots adviser all along.

In the past, nobody would have bade an eyelid. The PAP has been undermining the work and authority of opposition MPs in Hougang and Potong Pasir for the last two decades or so to lure the voters back to their fold.

Despite providing goodies ranging from free abalone porridge to health screening, the two incumbents were voted back into power with an increased margin during the 2006 elections.

The announcement of the LUP via the two PAP grassroots advisers instead of the MPs is an obvious tactical ploy to boost their chances in the next election due by 2011.

The PAP and its two fellow accomplices HDB and PA were completely caught flat-footed judging from their lame responses to the saga.

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan replied to the press that he “doesn’t expect non-PAP MPs to explain LUP” as if it is some rocket science while both HDB and PA shift the responsibility back to the PAP 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.”

The “tai-chiing” between the duo may make for an amusing read, but in reality it is a mere reflection of the endemic nature of a chronic pervasive problem: the lack of a clear demarcation between the party and the state.

With its unassailable majority in parliament, the ruling party is in absolute control over all agencies of the state as well as grassroots organizations.

Under the Registrar of Societies which is firmly under the thumb of the Home Affairs Minister, only grassroots organizations under the umbrella of the People’s Association are allowed to operate in Singapore.

This explains why the PAP is able to “infiltrate” into the two opposition wards while the opposition is unable to do so in the PAP wards even if they have the resources to do so.

The People’s Association is supposed to be a statutory board, but its Chairman is none other than the Prime Minister himself which gives its “grassroots advisers” the legitimacy and position to interfere in the running of the estates.

Mr Eric Low revealed in an interview with Lianhe Wanbao that he was involved in the discussions with HDB about the LUP all along.

With due respect to Mr Eric Low, he has no business to poke his nose into the matter as he is not the MP of the ward.

Does the grassroots adviser, a losing candidate of the ward have more power and authority than the MP who is voted in by the people?

As a non-partisan organization, HDB should deal only with the MPs, regardless of which political party they are from since they are ultimately the true representatives of the residents.

The PAP’s blatant attempts to pull a wool over the eyes of Singaporeans have backfired dramatically.

Unlike in the past when they can easily make use of the mainstream media to mislead the public, Singaporeans are now more discerning, astute and informed especially with the new media to provide a different perspective to the matter.

The crux of the problem does not lie in whether Mr Eric Low is wrong in announcing the LUP, but in the entire system put up by the PAP to perpetuate their hegemony.

With the PAP losers lingering around, the two opposition MPs will encounter difficulties to building up their own grassroots support base.

This unusual setting where the losers are still allowed to “serve” the residents via another channel might explain partly the failure of the two SDP MPs to retain their seats in Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central during the 1997 general elections.

The presence of the PAP grassroots advisers who are publicly backed by the state may have the effect of making the opposition MPs look redundant and foolish to their constituents.

In the event that the opposition were to win more seats in the future, the PAP will be in a position to sabotage their grassroots work through their unelected candidates.

It is time that Singaporeans question this age-old practice of government agencies working with the PAP grassroots advisers instead of opposition MPS.

The PA should be run by a group of civil servants and not politicians and the grassroots adviser should be the de facto MP of the ward.

It doesn’t make any sense for only PAP members to be appointed as grassroots leaders by the PA and not opposition members. Shouldn’t the membership be open to all.

If the PAP expects its grassroots advisers to use state resources to work the ground in opposition wards, then opposition members should be given equal access too to conduct their activities in PAP wards.

18 Responses to “The LOWest point of LUP: A mere storm in the tea-cup?”