How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain

Originally written by Gerald Giam in October 2009 on his blog
(Gerald Giam blogs at and is a Worker’s Party NCMP.)

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 board members are all PAP ministers, PAP ministers of state, or PAP MPs and other backbenchers.

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. Opposition MPs 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 grassroots 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 opposition wards, 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.

5 comments on How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain

  1. When PAP blow their trumpet about fairness what they meant is as long as it is to PAP advantage this is FAIRNESS.

  2. This is liken to what MBT says “Raiding the reserves” to fund their own party’s interests. Did Mr President queries the government’s “intentions and purpose” when disseminating these funds? $280 millions plus YOG excesses is extravagant!

  3. When the people do not want to form or organize themselves independently but choose to be associated with national organizations, it is their choice.
    However, if there are difficulties and obstacles place to obstruct formations of independent organizations and societies, or even outright outlawing of past social organizations, then the people will have to do something about it.
    BUT, if the people choose not to do anything about it, then what can we say?

  4. Is it legal. What are you going to do about it, as a NCMP. Don have to talk about it, just do it.

Comments are closed.