Percentage of Grassroots Advisors who are Members of Political Party

Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association (PA) is a Statutory Board under MCCY. Its role is to promote social cohesion, and to act as a bridge between the Government and the people. The PA appoints grassroots advisors (GRAs) to guide its grassroots organisations (GROs) in communicating and implementing the policies and programmes of the government of the day. These include difficult and unpopular policies which are necessary for the good of Singapore, such as CPF cuts during the 1986 recession, the increase in retirement age and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Hence, in appointing grassroots advisors (GRAs), the PA's principal consideration is that the advisor shares the Government's objectives and convictions and can be relied upon to carry out his role faithfully. Membership of a political party is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for the purpose of being appointed a grassroots advisor (GRA).

I would like to clarify that it is the PA and not the grassroots advisors (GRAs), that appoints all of its grassroots leaders, including volunteers who serve on the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCC). Among other things, the CCCs help to administer Government and local schemes such as the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF).

The CDWF supports community bonding programmes and welfare assistance for needy residents. The CDWF Committee manages and oversees the disbursement of funds, according to established criteria. In addition to receiving some funding from PA, the CDWF Committee also raises funds to supplement ground efforts.

Ms Anthea Ong appears concerned whether the disbursement of CDWF may be politicised and perhaps whether any resident might be denied access to welfare assistance under the CDWF. I would like to assure Ms Ong and this House that no resident who meets the qualifying criteria will be denied welfare assistance, regardless of the constituency that they may be residing in.

In addition to the CDWF, there are also other Government assistance schemes to help Singaporeans, such as the CCC ComCare Fund and various localised assistance schemes. Anyone who needs help and meets the eligibility criteria may apply for assistance. Members of this House can also apply for assistance on behalf of their eligible constituents.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the response. Could I ask if the Ministry or PA would consider having this fund, the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF), be managed by relevant Ministries like MCCY and MSF, so that these Government funds are neutral in nature? And also, this adds to the advantage of having these funds be better managed and coordinated in terms of support and assistance rendered to the citizens especially the low-income ones.

So, my question is, are we looking at this fund being disbursed and managed by civil servants instead of grassroots advisors, or the same way as how MSF manages ComCare and so forth.

Mr Speaker, let me take some time to explain to Ms Ong how the system works. When residents need help, they are generally referred to the respective agencies, for example, the SSOs, the Social Service organisations or the SGO, AIC in the past. These are Government agencies. The role that the grassroots volunteers play is to help bridge this, linking up the residents with the respective agencies. So, the Government agencies already do what exactly the Member described.

In addition, the grassroots organisations sometimes help to raise funds for their localised programmes. Sometimes, they do it themselves; sometimes, they work with other VWOs; sometimes, they work with the Government agencies. These are the networks of help on the ground. What the Member is describing is actually already happening on the ground.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I do understand, of course, the policy is the Government does not believe Opposition Members can support Government policies. That is one of the reasons for the current situation. But would the Government consider allowing elected Opposition Members to advise on the use of some of these community welfare funds with the proviso, of course, it must be clearly communicated that these funds are from the Government; they are not from a political party. The Opposition Members, of course, can decide whether they are willing to work under those restrictions or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the schemes to help the residents are public schemes. They are made available to all residents who qualify. So, I do not think there is any politicisation of the application of help. The Member is right. As I have mentioned in my reply, the People's Association (PA) selects, appoints, the grassroots leaders because we need them to execute and explain policies, often, difficult ones. And that is why they must share the same objectives and the conviction as the government of the day.

The PA is a Statutory Board. It serves the government of the day, just like any other Statutory Boards from SportSG to other equivalent organisations. I think it is best that Government functions continue to work in a way which allows us to serve all residents regardless of which constituency they stay in.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister on my last question? What are the policies or guidelines that are already in place to ensure that all elected Members, including Opposition Members, can tap on these funds to serve their residents?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no difference in the guidelines between any elected Member of Parliament, referring the help to the respective agencies for their respective residents. There is no difference. No matter where you live in Singapore, if the resident is eligible for help according to the national guidelines, everyone is helped equally. It can be referred to by their respective Members of Parliament; it can be referred to by the VWOs; it can be referred to by the grassroots advisors. Everyone. All of us can play a part to refer needy residents to the agencies for help. And I do not think there is any discrimination based on that. The qualifying criteria are the same.