‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions
October 22nd, 2009 | 
Author: By Sue Ann-Chia from Straits Times
THE official reply from the Ministry of National Development (MND) to justify why opposition MPs should not manage the Government’s lift upgrading programme (LUP) in their wards raises many questions.
The MND’s argument is as follows: The LUP is a national scheme that ought to be managed by government representatives, as elected opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government.
So the task falls to government-appointed grassroots advisers in Hougang and Potong Pasir. In this case, both are People’s Action Party (PAP) candidates who lost at the polls.
To press home the point that opposition MPs have no right to manage the LUP, the National Development Minister’s press secretary Lim Yuin Chien said in a reply to Workers’ Party MP for Hougang Low Thia Khiang:
‘Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the ‘will of the people’ expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang.
‘The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.’
Mr Lim added in his letter to The Straits Times Forum Page: ‘Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People’s Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.’
These arguments deserve a closer look. Let us first consider ‘the will of the people’, as expressed by the votes they cast in elections.
The general purpose of general elections here is undoubtedly to elect a national government, as Mr Lim points out. But voters also choose their local representatives: Members of Parliament.
The individual who commands the support of a majority of MPs becomes the prime minister and he forms the government. In most democracies, the prime minister is usually also the leader of the party with the most number of MPs in Parliament.
The Singapore system is quite different from, say, Israel’s, where voters vote directly for political parties – not individual candidates – and parliamentary seats are divvied up according to the proportion of votes each party garners.
Here, we elect MPs directly; and the majority among them choose a prime minister. In our system, MPs do have the mandate of voters. We vest in our elected representatives the power to speak on our behalf and act in our interest. They are our particular, local MPs – not the representatives of the amorphous 65 per cent or 35 per cent or whatever who voted for particular parties.
Yet Mr Lim said Mr Low is wrong to assume that this gives him the authority to lead the LUP in Hougang. ‘MPs – PAP or opposition – do not constitute a local government in their constituency,’ wrote Mr Lim.
If that is so, it is a principle that should apply to all 84 MPs, equally. But only the two opposition MPs are denied the right to manage the LUP.
The MND’s justification appears to be that the Government works through grassroots advisers on national schemes. PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers. Therefore, the Government should work with them, not the elected MPs, in those two constituencies.
This would imply that the Government accords more recognition to grassroots advisers than MPs. If this is the case, Singaporeans may ask: So what happened to their elected representatives?
To Mr Lim, the MP’s role seems to be confined to that of running the town council: Collect service and conservancy fees from residents and maintain the estate. And yet town councils, he emphasised, should not be considered local government – for Singapore has only ‘one level of government’.
This statement, however, contradicts statements that senior government leaders have made previously.
In the 1997 polls, for instance, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong upped the stakes by getting PAP candidates to come up with detailed plans for their constituencies. The aim was to get voters to decide not just whether a candidate could make speeches in Parliament, but whether he also had concrete plans to improve people’s lives, Mr Goh said.
‘With town councils and community development councils, and my intention to give more power and responsibility to them (MPs), every election in a constituency is indeed a local government election,’ Mr Goh explained at the annual PAP conference held before the polls.
At another event, he elaborated: ‘In every constituency, there will be a local government with a local programme, and how you vote will affect immediately your own interest.’
His point was reiterated by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew when Mr Lee commented on the PAP’s ‘local government’ strategy. ‘We know that if there is no direct stake, everything is the same, then the voter does not take his vote seriously. He would if he knows that he has a stake,’ he said.
Then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong added: ‘They know that the way they vote will influence their own personal well-being – their town, their neighbourhood, their property values.’
In the two elections that followed the 1997 polls, PAP leaders continued to invoke the ‘local government’ argument.
Singapore is not a federal state – so yes, there is really only one centre of power. But that does not mean that there is no local government – in practice and by policy.
When the Government announced in July that the LUP would be applied to ageing HDB flats in Potong Pasir and Hougang earlier than expected, many Singaporeans saw it as an act of political goodwill, recognising that all citizens – regardless of who they voted for – should benefit from national schemes.
Unfortunately, that act of goodwill was marred in its execution: In this case, MND’s insistence on working only with the appointed grassroots representatives instead of the elected opposition MPs. – ST
Posted in Snippets
Finally a reporter have the galls to say what needs to be said. I wonder how she gets passed the censors…probably move very fast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i have yet to see zaobao’s journalist commenting on this issue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers.”
This begs the question why PA did not pick the 2 opposition MPs as advisers to the grassroots organisations. PA is one of the statutory boards of the government which should be non-partisan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@anonymous “”PA is one of the statutory boards of the government which should be non-partisan.”"
Say who PA must be non partisan. Is it written in the constitution?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This article from Shitty Times is so totally unexpected
that I am rendered speechless by it. Fortunately, it’s not
for me to respond but for the various parties involved on
the papsies side to do so. What say you now, Eric Low,
Sitoh Yih Pin, Lim Yuin Chien and Mah Bow Tan??? Please
don’t tell us to move on!!! As for “agreeing to disagree”
just leave it where the sun don’t shine!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@silenceisgolden “Say who PA must be non partisan. Is it written in the constitution?”
“SHOULD be non-partisan”, nobody ( except you ) mention that it “MUST be non-partisan”. Read carefully before shooting your mouth off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PA, should rightfully be non-partisan. It does not make sense as well for PA to appoint PAP candidates as the grassroot advisors for opposition wards but PAP MPs as the de-facto grassroot advisors. If this can be done, can then an opposition candidate, like Steve Chia, to apply to be the grassroot advisor in a PAP constituency?
Or, in the event if Mr Low loses the ward in the next GE, can he then becomes the grassroot advisor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eric Low and all you PAP stooges kiss my ass!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@silenceisgolden on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 3:56 pm
@anonymous “”PA is one of the statutory boards of the government which should be non-partisan.””
Statutory boards are tax-payer funded to SERVE ONLY PUBLIC INTERESTS ONLY AND NOT ANY POLTICAL PARTY – INCUMBENT OR IN OPPOSITION. That is the practice in common law jusdictions from Australia, Canada, USA, and UK at least. Wh should Singapore be an exception unless possibly threading upon “misfeasance” tort law at best and CORRUPT CONDUCT” AT WORSE.
READ THESE COMMENTS in the UK 1885 judgment comments still applicable to contemporary law practices TO SEE IF YOU AGREE if Singapore SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCEPTION…i.e. PA should be non-partison.
…..”With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a
constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made,
in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but IN EXCESS OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY….”
The catchwords are “IN EXCESS OF LAUFUL AUTHORITY”. That means to me, IF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY PA MUST ENGAGE IN ACT IN SUPPORT OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY, then PA must NOT do so. Anything partisan political acts, must by definition, commits violation of misfesance law application.
To do so would invite violation of law of misfesance at tort.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/1992/13.pdf
I can imagine there would be a public queue 10 miles long in Canberra if any lawfully-incorporated public authorities paid for by taxpayers’ funding engaged in partisan politics of supporting or assisting in the election or electoral politics of Kevin Rudd’s Labour Party or Mr. Malcolm Turnbull’s LiberalCountry Party coalition.
I would imagine that lawyers in Australia will Q for miles too lodging corrupt complaints against whoever offending “corrupt conduct” laws even if no one financial benefittted from partisan politics using public-funded institution as the cover.
If OBAMA does that in America, there would be riots if not civil war in America. Neither would Canadian or UK citizenry tolerate these, I would think. I believe in all these common law jurisdiction, misfeasance is written into statutory (pariliament made) law on corruption as well.
Would any one be surprise here of misfeasance law application concepts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@readcarefully – lol surprised that you take on the name readcarefully. You are just a confused kid. Take it easy and just read carefully.
@anonymous – A tinge of PAP exist here. Make comparison with foreign countries to shore up your argument even their political system does not align with ours. No opposition or entity in law within Singapore jurisdiction has ever accuse either party of misfeasance in office. There you rumble away to distract and mislead others into thinking PA carrying out a lawful action in an improper way.
PA reports to the government and has got to carry out the government’s instructions, plans and projects. They are already doing so in full capacity. Nothing is improper about that.
Firstly you need to establish that Statutory board must be non partisan. Which bring me back to ask you the question is PA required by law to be non partisan. If they are required to be non partisan then there is a case against them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@silenceisgolden on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 3:05 am
….”Make comparison with foreign countries to shore up your argument even their political system does not align with ours…”
So are you saying ..by your expression…”even their political system does not align with ours” …are DIFFERENT from us? They are ALL COMMON LAW jurisdictions, are you proposing or admitting that Singapore is NOT a common law jurisdiction in alignment with British law common law precedents just like Hong Kong???
By the way, common law exist since 1200 AD, so I do NOT understand how common law concepts originates in Singapore since we were only independent in 1965 and until the late 1980s appeal goes to the Privvy Council.
Maybe you can teach us all how company law here apply if the rule of Foss v Harbottle 1842 case law precedent does NOT apply in exactly the same way as company law apply in Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan etc?
Or perhaps we have our own “imagined” brand of common law applications following China or North Korea??
The link reeference I gave is just an illustration of how common law concepts of misfeasance apply. It is a document paper if you are observant enough.
And then your comment…”There you rumble away to distract and mislead others into thinking PA carrying out a lawful action in an improper way….” I reject that UNWARRANTED allegation. The explanation I offered was that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CONSTITUTION TO BAR MISFESANCE to deny its relevance of protection to society. The ONUS of non-violation in common law jurisdiction lies with incumbent NOT TO ACT OUTSIDE THE LEGITIMATE BOUNDS OF PROPER EXCERISE OF POWER IN THAT PUBLIC OFFICE. My illustrations describes its application to BOTH INCUMBENT AND OPPOSITIONS CITING AUSTRALIA AS AN EXAMPLE where publicly-funded institutions acting outside its jursidictional boundary to favour either Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turbull would offend the law.
There is NO preference of or bias against particular party in misfeasance tort law – that has been my assertion and understanding of its proper application.
Perhaps you got emotional and felt quilty IN YOUR MIND on its behalf – but that is your problem, not mine. You might have compelling reason or reasons BEST KNOWN TO YOU to feel so, but it would NOT interest me your private thoughts. I am only interested in law applications.
And one last point – you you read and understand the context of my reference link – the misfeasance tort law DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF PARTISAN OR NOT. The test of law violation lies in… ( Quote) “their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but IN EXCESS OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY…(Unquote)
The catchword at law is ‘IN EXCESS OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY”. and when that is breached, misfeasance law may apply in relevant proceedings.
THIS IS LAW (which is very subtle of application), NOT ABOUT POLITICS OR PARTISAN POLITICS.
Read the reference link carefully AND UNDERSTAND ITS APPLICATION BEFORE YOU START RUMBLING YOUR NONSENSICAL THOUGHT BACK AND FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF MISLEADING READERS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0