Health Minister Ong Ye Kung’s recent remarks on the allocation of Galaxy Community Club (CC) have reignited concerns about the political neutrality of the People’s Association (PA).
His comments came in response to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee’s (EBRC) report, which recommended that the Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) be restructured into a five-member GRC and the new Sembawang West Single Member Constituency (SMC).
In a Facebook post on 12 March, Ong stated that if he and his team were re-elected, he intended to assign Galaxy CC to the new SMC, even though the club is outside its official boundaries.
Ong justified this decision by stating that Sembawang West SMC would continue to be an “integral part” of the wider Sembawang area, and the CC’s allocation would support continuity in community development.
But since when do elected Members of Parliament (MPs) have the authority to dictate the assignment of publicly funded community resources?
The PA, after all, is a statutory board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), supposedly independent of party politics.
The fact that Ong’s statement has gone unchallenged further blurs the already questionable lines between the PA and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
This is not the first time the PA’s role has been called into question.
In 2016, then-Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing, who was also the PA’s deputy chairman, emphatically denied accusations that the organisation was politicised.
In response to concerns raised by Workers’ Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim, Chan claimed that the PA does not check on the political allegiance of its members and prohibits political activities on its premises.
He went as far as to declare in Parliament, “I will be the last person to ever allow the People’s Association to be politicised.”
Yet, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
If the PA is truly apolitical, then on what basis is Ong unilaterally deciding that a community club should be allocated to an SMC after the General Election (GE)?
And if MPs are not supposed to have direct influence over PA resources, shouldn’t Chan—now the Minister for Education and Minister-in-Charge of the Public Service—step in and clarify whether Ong’s comments were appropriate?
The PA’s selective appointment of grassroots advisers
One of the clearest examples of how the PA is tied to the PAP is its appointment of grassroots advisers. Unlike their PAP counterparts, opposition MPs are not allowed to be grassroots advisers in their own constituencies. Instead, losing PAP candidates or PAP-endorsed individuals take on these roles, giving them continued access to community networks and government-linked events despite failing to win at the ballot box.
This was evident in Sengkang GRC after the 2020 GE, when the WP won the newly formed constituency with 52.12% of the vote. Despite being elected by residents, WP MPs were not appointed as grassroots advisers. Instead, PA grassroots organisations continued to work with PAP representatives, sidelining the elected WP MPs from key community activities.
As a result, WP MPs in Sengkang, Aljunied, and Hougang are barred from attending events such as the Edusave Awards ceremony, where MPs typically present bursaries to students. Meanwhile, losing PAP candidates like Theodora Lai, the new chairperson of the PAP Sengkang North branch, are granted access and privileges that elected opposition MPs do not have.
Financial disadvantages in opposition wards
Beyond access to events, opposition MPs also face barriers in securing government funding for estate upgrades.
In opposition-held constituencies, MPs must submit proposals for the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs), which are grassroots organisations under the PA.
Unlike in PAP-held constituencies, where the process is relatively straightforward, opposition MPs have to go through an additional layer of approval—one controlled by the very organisation that denies them grassroots adviser roles.
This system effectively gives losing PAP candidates more influence over local projects than the elected opposition MPs themselves.
By controlling grassroots access and discretionary funding, the PA creates an uneven playing field where opposition MPs must navigate additional bureaucratic hurdles to serve their residents.
A publicly funded organisation serving party interests?
A review of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth’s (MCCY) budget for FY2025 shows that the PA receives a significant portion of public funds.
The revised operating expenditure for FY2024 is S$2.08 billion—a 6.9% increase from the previous year.
Out of the FY2025 budget, S$634.22 million—27.9% of total expenditure—is allocated to the PA Programme, which the government claims is meant to foster “social cohesion.”
Yet, the PA’s operations raise a fundamental question: Can an organisation that excludes elected opposition MPs from grassroots roles and funding decisions truly claim to be politically neutral?
Ong’s recent remarks, coupled with the long-standing disparities in access to community resources, reinforce the perception that the PA functions as an extension of the PAP rather than a genuinely independent statutory board.
As Singapore heads into another GE, these issues will likely come under greater scrutiny and emerge as key talking points for politicians in election rallies.
If the PA is truly non-partisan, as PAP leaders like Chan Chun Sing have insisted, then the government must explain why opposition MPs continue to be sidelined while losing PAP candidates are given privileged access to grassroots networks.
Otherwise, the PA’s neutrality remains little more than a convenient talking point—one that does not reflect reality.
The post Ong Ye Kung’s remark on Galaxy CC exposes deeper questions about the PA’s political neutrality appeared first on The Online Citizen.
