The reality of party politics in a jurisdiction like Singapore, where elections can be called anytime, is that one has to be prepared at all times.
For the Workers’ Party (WP), work to prepare for the next elections started in 2020, right after the last general elections. Our main outreach in constituencies where we are not incumbent is through regular house visits. In Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang, apart from house visits and through our constituency committees, we undertake community programmes, organise tours and render town management services through the respective Town Councils.
This approach to grassroots work is very different from the approach of the PAP. The ruling party employs the vehicle of the People Association (PA) for the bulk of their work, which is funded to a significant degree by the taxpayer.
Thanks to former Hougang MP Png Eng Huat’s parliamentary question in 2012, it was disclosed out that as of 31 July 2012, there were 87 Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs), 106 Community Club Management Committees (CCMCs), 567 Residents’ Committees (RCs) and 128 Neighbourhood Committees (NCs). From 2005 to 2011, on average, each CCC received $152,872 per year in Grant funding, each CCMC $46,114, each RC $9,457 and each NC $4,043. To be fair, some of this funding goes towards various community initiatives such as subsidised learning and active ageing activities that are not politicised. It is obvious, however, that many activities are leveraged on by PAP politicians to engage residents with a view towards political ends.
How the PA is leveraged on for the PAP’s political ends
The PA makes the political work of the PAP qualitatively different from that of the WP. The key difference is that the PAP relies on para-political institutions like the PA in a significant way to advance the political interests of the PAP, even if the PAP promises the PA is apolitical. How so?
From a political perspective, the PA provides the necessary cover for future PAP candidates to introduce and start their outreach to voters well before elections are called. For example, unelected PAP politicians wearing the garb of PA Grassroots Advisers are commonly invited to preside over the annual Edusave ceremonies for children living in opposition wards, and liaise with agencies like LTA and NEA amongst many others. The HDB for example implements a taxpayer-funded scheme known as the Goodwill Repair Assistance (GRA) scheme, through Grassroots Advisers or unelected Grassroots Advisers. The GRA scheme subsidises 50% of the repair costs for spalling costs issues in HDB flats, a problem that is particularly rampant in older HDB flats. This scheme, like the Edusave awards, are 100% taxpayer funded.
In other cases, it is no surprise to see putative and unelected PAP candidates showing up at citizenship ceremonies for new citizens in Hougang, Aljunied and Sengkang, while elected opposition MPs are kept at an arms length away – by design – from new Singaporean citizens.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The amount of resident information provided between elections to PA Grassroots Advisers and, by extension, potential PAP candidates, is not to be underestimated. For example, it is not unheard of for our residents in WP constituencies or elsewhere to claim they received a get-well soon package from their Grassroots Adviser, a PAP MP or politician, after an episode of COVID. How such information was made available to the Grassroots Adviser is a question many residents ask.
Only recently, a resident enquired about the circumstances of how the Government knew she was leaving for the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, and why she was being invited to a send-off ceremony hosted by a PAP politician. She asked, do elected WP MPs also undertake such farewell send-offs for Muslim residents? The WP does not, because the information about who is leaving for the Haj is in the hands of the Government.
The PA defends its conduct by asserting that it is undertaking activities to support the Government’s outreach to the citizenry. On one level, there cannot be any complaint about this. But the PA is conspicuously silent about the political signature and impact of the involvement of unelected PAP politicians in PA-related work and their easy access to resident data compared to elected, incumbent opposition MPs.
The WP’s traditional response to this sleight of hand, has been to advance the argument to voters that by voting for the WP, voters secure a two-for-one deal – A WP MP in Parliament, performing a check and balance role one cannot expect a PAP MP to robustly fulfil on the one hand; and the continued extension of government services through the PA Adviser in opposition wards, as should be expected in any democratic society where all citizens pay the same taxes, on the other.
To counter the WP’s two-for-one narrative, the PAP team in Aljunied, for example, loudly advertised after GE2020 that they would scale back their outreach to residents, for example by ceasing their PAP Meet-the-People sessions. This was done ostensibly to allow the WP MPs to go ahead to undertake their outreach without competition from the PAP (of course, they did not surrender their appearances at Edusave and Citizenship ceremonies!).
A change was also noticed in Sengkang GRC after GE2020 when some non-politicians were appointed as PA Grassroots Advisers. This perfunctory and superficial move to “depoliticise” the PA was exposed when these very Grassroots Advisers invited a PAP Branch representative as the Guest-of-Honour to, for example, preside over Edusave and Citizenship ceremonies in addition to other community outreach.
With the beating of election war drums over the past few months, some PAP Grassroots Advisers in Aljunied have quietly performed a U-turn. Some have restarted their Meet-the-People sessions after a three-year hiatus and stepped-up their outreach to voters through the PA apparatus.
Vote WP – Three for One!
In response, the WP will have to update its advocacy on this issue for the next elections.
Quite simply, if the developments in Sengkang GRC are anything to go by, voting for a WP candidate as your Member of Parliament will mean that the voter now has, not two, but three representatives to look after their interests in the constituency. First, an apparently apolitical Grassroots Adviser managing the PA grassroots organisations such as the CCC, CCMC, RCs and NCs; Second, a PAP Branch Chairman who leans on the PA for political ends with the PA’s blessings and finally, a WP MP in Parliament who ensures we have independent checks and balances in Parliament, and a fairer political system in Singapore.
Back to the Future?
In sum, the reality of grassroots politics in Singapore is not likely to change under the 4G. Ironically, in 1981, when Anson was won by WP’s then Secretary-General, JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ), then PM Goh Chok Tong revealed that his 2G team was initially inclined to handover the Community Centre and grassroots organisations to JBJ. However, the PAP 1G team advised and convinced them not to do so. It would have represented the thin edge of the wedge insofar as the political dominance of the PAP was concerned.
It was clear from this episode that as far as political participation in Singapore was concerned, the PA was the PAP’s political opiate.
More than forty years later, the demands for an apolitical grassroots organisation have grown in concert with calls for our political system to embrace greater political diversity. In fact, calls by the PAP themselves for a united population provide a perfect opportunity to reform the PA.
The WP believes that meaningfully decoupling the PA from partisan politics is a good first step.
But the answer given to Sengkang MP He Ting Ru’s 2023 parliamentary question on why it was not possible to have civil servants explain government policies to citizens, instead of a political grassroots adviser doing so, was wholly unsatisfactory. Instead, the Minister-in-Charge breezily said that ‘last mile delivery’ to residents explained the necessity of the PA’s grassroots networks.
To date, the 4G PAP has no blueprint to recognise, as fellow Singaporeans, members of the opposition and Singaporeans who do not vote for the PAP. This was foretold by the conspicuous absence of any reference to a more balanced political system in the 2023 Forward Singapore report.
The WP has sought to advance the cause of a more balanced Singapore despite and in spite of these aforesaid realities at the local, practical but politically-sensitive level. Every general elections is a uphill challenge for the Workers’ Party. With the odds always stacked against us, it is only the people’s vote that can give rise to a more just and equal society.
Whenever general elections come, remember – make your vote count!
23 June 2024
反对党领袖观点篇——回顾历史，
来论第四代人民行动党领导下的基层组织
在新加坡的司法制度规定下，大选随时都可能举行，因此必须时刻做好准备。对于工人党来说，准备下一届大选的工作从2020年上次大选结束后就已经开始。我们在非执政选区的主要宣传方式是定期上门拜访。在阿裕尼、后港和盛港，除了上门拜访外，我们还通过选区委员会开展社区项目、组织旅游活动，并通过各个市镇理事会提供市镇管理服务。
这种基层工作的方式与人民行动党（PAP）的方式非常不同。执政党通过人民协会（PA）来开展大部分工作，这在很大程度上是靠纳税人的钱。
感谢前后港议员方荣发在2012年提出的国会质询，数据显示截至2012年7月31日，共有87个公民咨询委员会（CCC），106个社区俱乐部管理委员会（CCMC），567个居民委员会（RC）和128个邻里委员会（NC）。从2005年到2011年的拨款资助里，每个公民咨询委员会平均每年获得152,872元，每个社区俱乐部管理委员会获得46,114元，每个居民委员会获得9,457元和每个邻里委员会获得4,043元。公平地说，这些资金中的一部分用于各种不与政治挂钩的社区项目，如补贴学习和活跃乐龄活动。然而，显然许多活动被人民行动党政客利用来以政治为目的与居民接触联系。
人民行动党如何利用人民协会来实现政治目的
人民协会为人民行动党执行了许多与民众接触的任务，而工人党却没法这么做。人民行动党依赖人民协会等准政治机构来推进其政治利益，即使人民行动党承诺人民协会是不与政治挂钩的。
从政治角度看，人民协会为未来的人民行动党候选人提供了一个便利平台，使他们在大选前就可以向选民进行宣传。例如，未当选的政客以人民行动党基层组织顾问的身份经常被邀请主持反对党选区的年度教育储蓄颁奖仪式，并与陆路交通管理局和国家环境局等机构联系。就以建屋发展局为例，它通过基层组织顾问或未当选的基层组织顾问实施一项纳税人资助的计划，称为善意维修援助计划（Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme），该计划为旧组屋中常见的剥落问题提供50%的维修费用补贴。这项计划和教育储蓄奖项一样，完全出自纳税人的税收。
在其他情况下，不难发现人民行动党候选人在后港、阿裕尼和盛港的新公民入籍仪式上露面，而当选的反对党议员却被故意排除在外。
然而，这只是冰山一角。在大选之间，人民协会基层组织顾问及其富有潜质的人民行动党候选人获得的居民信息量不可低估。例如，有工人党选区或其他地方的居民声称在患冠病后收到基层组织顾问、人民行动党议员或政客的早日康复礼包。许多居民都在问，基层组织顾问是如何获得这些信息的。
最近，有一位居民询问政府是如何知道她要去麦加朝圣，以及为什么被邀请参加人民行动党主持的送行仪式。她问，工人党议员是否也会为穆斯林居民举办这样的送行仪式？工人党是无法这么做的，因为谁要去朝圣的信息掌握在政府手中。
人民协会辩称其行为是为了支持政府对人民的宣导工作。从某种程度上讲，这无可指责。然而，人民协会对未当选人民行动党政客参与相关工作的政治色彩，以及他们比当选反对党议员更能轻松获取居民数据的做法保持沉默。
工人党对此手法的传统回应是向选民提出，投票支持工人党意味着选民可以获得双重好处——一方面有工人党议员在国会中履行制约和平衡的作用，这是人民行动党议员无法充分履行的；另一方面，在反对党选区，政府服务继续通过人民协会顾问提供，这是任何民主社会中所有公民应享有的平等待遇。
为了应对工人党的双重好处的说法，人民行动党在阿裕尼的团队在2020年大选后大肆宣传他们将缩减对居民的宣传，例如停止人民行动党的接见选民活动。这是为了表面上让工人党议员在无竞争下进行宣传工作（当然，他们没有放弃在教育储蓄和公民入籍仪式上的露面机会！）。
在2020年大选后，盛港集选区也出现了一些非政治人物被任命为人民协会基层组织顾问的情况。然而，这一表面的去政治化行动被揭穿，因为这些基层组织顾问邀请了人民行动党分支代表作为教育储蓄和公民入籍仪式等活动的主宾。
随着过去几个月大选战鼓的敲响，一些在阿裕尼集选区的人民行动党基层组织顾问悄悄地重启了他们的接见选民活动，并通过人民协会的多种管道加大了对选民的宣传力度。
投票给工人党 – 三重好处！
工人党将在下次大选中更新其对此问题的宣传作为回应。简而言之，如果盛港集选区的情况具有参考意义，那么投票给工人党候选人作为你的议员意味着选民现在将有三个代表来照顾他们在选区的利益。首先，一个显然是非政治的基层组织顾问管理着的人民协会组织，如公民咨询委员会、社区俱乐部管理委员会、居民委员会和邻里委员会；其次，一个依赖人民协会并得到其支持的人民行动党分支主席；最后，一个在国会中确保我们拥有独立制约和平衡的工人党议员，以及一个更公平的政治系统。
回顾历史
总之，在第四代政府的领导下，新加坡基层政治的现实不太可能改变。讽刺的是，在1981年，当安顺选区由工人党的时任秘书长惹耶勒南赢得时，时任总理吴作栋透露，他的第二代团队最初倾向于将社区中心和基层组织移交给惹耶勒南。然而，人民行动党的元老团队建议并说服他们不要这样做，因为这将代表人民行动党政治统治的一个危险开端。
从这一事件可以清楚地看出，就新加坡的政治参与而言，人民协会是人民行动党的政治鸦片。
四十多年过去了，要求一个非政治化基层组织的呼声，随着我们政治系统更多元性的呼声一起增长。事实上，人民行动党自身对团结国人的呼吁，是为人民协会的改革提供了绝佳契机。
工人党认为，将人民协会从党派政治中实质性脱钩是一个良好的开始。
但对于盛港议员何廷儒在2023年提出的关于为什么不能由公务员向市民解释政府政策，而必须由政治基层组织顾问来做的问题，所给出的答案完全不令人满意。相反，负责的部长轻描淡写地说，向居民提供“最后一公里配送” (last mile delivery) 的服务，说明了人民协会基层网络存在的必要性。
迄今为止，第四代政府没有任何方案来承认作为新加坡同胞的反对党成员和不投票给人民行动党的新加坡人。这在2023年《新加坡携手前进》报告中显著缺乏对更平衡政治系统的任何提及就已经预示了这一点。
工人党尽管面临上述现实，仍致力于在本地这个政治敏感的层面推进更平衡的新加坡的政治环境。每次大选对工人党来说都是一场艰苦的挑战。在逆境中，只有人民的选票才能迎来更公正和更平等的社会。
无论何时举行大选，谨记让您的一票成就未来！
2024年6月23日
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 