An interesting exchange happened this week as I met up with a Youth Executive Committee member of a Constituency Club (CC) located in an opposition ward. The meeting itself was with regard to a school project that I am undertaking but as we discussed the possibilities, he mentioned that using services and venues that come under the purview of the Town Council would be problematic. While he admitted that the Town Council would largely accede to the request, it was not with the same frequency and almost-hassle-free manner in which it could be done under a PAP Town Council.
To this gentleman, the People's Association was non-partisan and focuses on community engagement, while the Town Council was an extension of the political party controlling the institution. He shared that PAP Town Councils work closely with the People's Association and offer many privileges such as the complimentary use of venues like void decks, or at a nominal fee.
source: Singapore Infopedia
It was amusing to me because of two realities. One, the People's Association has a much more closer relationship to the PAP than Town Councils. And two, Town Councils are municipal services that ought to be part of the government machinery - even if it is through an elected representative from the opposition party.
In fact, I would even go as far to say that it is precisely BECAUSE the Town Council is non-political, that there is no preferential treatment for services offered to the People's Association. The Town Council's primary role is to address the residents' basic needs in terms of their living space and manage the services provided properly. To me it makes sense to allow residents more leeway in paying their conservancy fees than to offer nominal fees to community engagement activities.
To use an analogy, if one business charges the same rate to strangers and friends alike while another charges a lower rate for those it considers friends, which would you consider was being professional in its dealings? The friends enjoying the preferential rate would of course describe the other flat-pricing business not as good, but in the larger picture, who is really being fair?
source: CIA
In another observation as the friendly conversation progressed, the gentleman took pains to clarify that the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) were conducted near a block of flats across the road from the CC, and not within the CC itself - "because the MPS is political". I nearly laughed out loud at that because a Member of Parliament meeting the constituents he or she is representing to address their issues is anything but political. The fact that the MP belongs to one political party or another is merely a statement of fact, not implication.
I have no doubt the people volunteering their time through the People's Association have the best intentions to serve the community - after all, I was part of this at one point in my life, not long ago. But to buy into this propaganda that the People's Association is non-partisan in practice and that Town Councils are politically motivated is really sad.
Yes, the political rhetoric can be twisted to suit each party's agenda, but the proof is in the pudding. Who are the ones being invited to People's Association events without fail? And who are the ones NOT being invited - even to the extent of being actively avoided? Who are being appointed as advisers - sometimes with the oversight that supersedes the power entrusted to the parliamentary representative elected by the people?
As I've said many times before - and something in which I believe very strongly - once the elections are over, everyone in parliament becomes the government and should work towards progress for the nation, betterment of society and improvement in the citizens' lives. Some citizens getting penalised for their choice of parliamentary representative is deplorable and is a very dark stain on Singapore's reputation.