by Bertha Henson, Arin Fong and Anna Fernandez
EVERY now and then, you’ll hear about the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) in the news. This is the leading People’s Association (PA) committee that oversees all other community groups in your ward. You ought to know who the members are – and not just because they could very well be living right next-door to you. The CCC makes decisions on plenty of stuff, like whether you should get a walkway or playground, even when and where your next block party will be. Its funding comes directly from PA, which of course is funded via your tax contributions. They can apply for money to make “community improvements”. And yes, they are the G’s go-to people on the ground.
Earlier this month, the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) found lapses in the management of tenancy contracts and procurement at a number of Community Centre/Club Management Committees (CCMCs), which come under the CCCs. The AGO reported that 35 of the 91 CCMCs that were checked did not obtain approval from the relevant authorities for awarding 53 tenancy contracts amounting to $17.78 million.
It also found “numerous errors and omissions in the updating of disbursements” from the CCC’s ComCare Fund (CCF) by seven of the eight CCCs that were checked. Five CCCs did not take into account cancelled and expired cheques to reflect the actual CCF used. This led to the submission of inaccurate CCF utilisation reports, which resulted in PA obtaining excess CCF funding amounting to $84,394 over a two-year period.
Then there was the Admiralty CCC ex-chairman who had approved the award of contracts to a company he had an interest in.
You would have thought that it would be easy enough to find the names of these top grassroots leaders.
But no. When we tried to identify these people who sit on the top rung of the grassroots organisations in a constituency, that is, the chairmen of the CCCs, it was surprisingly difficult. They are practically anonymous; they are not on the People’s Association website or on the website of every community centre/club.
When we couldn’t find this information online, we took the next logical step by asking the grassroots committees themselves. We called the community centres. But even this proved to be more difficult than we thought. Some flat-out declined our request. Others said we had to send in an official media request – just to get a name.
Why so hush-hush?
One chairman spoke to us about how the committee operates, the initiatives they plan, and how they handle their finances. But he, too, declined to go on the record with his name.
How much do you know about your CCC and what it does? If you have no clue, read on. Here’s what we found, including the full list of all the CCCs and its decision-makers.
According to the rules and regulations for CCCs drawn up by the PA, the CCC’s role is to promote good citizenship among residents, disseminate and channel feedback from residents to the G, lead grassroots activities at the constituency and national levels and recommend amenities and improvements to the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). There are as many CCCs as there are seats in Parliament. This means each of the 87 wards has a CCC, including the Opposition wards.
The CCC sits at the apex of an alphabet soup of groups such as Residents’ Committees (RC), Neighbourhood Committees (NC), People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM), Community Sports Clubs (CSC), and Community Centre Management Committees (CCMC), under which there are executive committees (EC): Senior Citizen’s EC, Women’s EC, Youth EC, Malay Activity EC, and Indian Activity EC.
So you can see how powerful they are…
All of the CCC chairmen are Chinese and male, except for two women, Madam Lee Tee Choon of Sembawang CCC and Ms Chan Hui Yuh of Serangoon CCC. Ms Chan’s appointment in 2014 created quite a buzz, especially since it was reported that she might be open to standing for the next election.
We managed to unearth many businessmen and directors of companies. Some sit on school boards and several are also Justices of Peace who are empowered to solemnise marriages. Except for a handful, individual chairmen seldom make the news in their grassroots capacity. The exceptions include Mr Andrew Chua Thiam Chwee, managing director of SME Care, a moneylending company, who was appointed to the commission of inquiry into the Little India riots in December 2013.
More often, CCC chairmen make the news in their corporate capacity or when speaking up for other interests that they represent. There is entrepreneur Sam Goi Seng Hui of Tee Yih Jia Food Manufacturing Ptd Ltd, also known as the Popiah King. He is the Ulu Pandan CCC chairman. Mr Chua Thian Poh of Bishan East CCC was former President of Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI). Mr Chng Hwee Hong, of Yuhua CCC, heads the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) which looks after the rehabilitation of prisoners and ex-offenders.
One of grouses about the CCCs and the community network is that they seem intertwined with the People’s Action Party grassroots. It is the elected PAP MP who is the adviser to the CCC. In Opposition-held wards, it is usually the neighbouring PAP MPs who do the caretaker work. Opposition MPs do not have access to the network, not even the use of the community centre. The G’s response to such grouses has always been the same: that the network is under the PA and serves to carry out the G’s interest. That is it is “official”, not “partisan”.
PM Lee Hsien Loong went a bit further in a book commissioned by the PA published 10 years ago. He acknowledged that some grassroots leaders may be PAP members.
“Many of them, when it comes to the election, will be actively helping the MP. But in the CCC, they are not wearing the party badge. This is a Government activity. If they are out of sympathy with what the Government is doing, they won’t be here. So, I assume that most of the CCC members will support the Government’s objectives and will try to work with the Government to make life easier for the residents. I think there is that role.”
One such CCC chairman who wears both CCC and PAP hats is Mr Victor Lye Thiam Fatt, aged 52. He is the CCC chairman of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol CCC and also PAP branch chairman. He is said to be part of the PAP team that will try to wrest Aljunied from the WP in the coming GE.
There is no denying, however, that the CCCs started out as a political vehicle for the PAP. Formed from remnants of clans, trade associations and school alumni which had not come under the communist sway, they began as constituency “welcoming committees” who were in attendance at the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s walkabouts at the height of the PAP’s tussle with Barisan Sosialis in 1963.
They morphed into goodwill committees after the outbreak of racial riots in 1964, instrumental in keeping the peace at the grassroots. Because they proved effective in mobilising political participation and promoting social cohesion, they were transformed into CCCs a year later, and parked under the Prime Minister’s Office. You can say that they were the brainchild of Mr Lee and counted among his most loyal supporters. So much trust was placed in them that they were given an added role: to decide on what was needed in terms of amenities, such as drains or standpipes, in their areas. And they were given a sum of money to get it done.
If you think they seem to be old, greying men, they were actually much older and greyer in the past. There is an age cap, 65, imposed in 2002. But they aren’t booted out on retirement, veterans are made honorary chairmen or immediate past chairmen. That way, links are kept strong even as new blood fills the posts. In fact, members of the CCC can number up to 57, with as many as 15 patrons.
Over the years, there was the question of whether CCC members, who can be citizens or permanent residents, should be appointed from among residents who live in the area. This conundrum seems to have been resolved. They have to either reside – or work – in the ward.
After Mr Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister in November 1990, he took the CCCs out from under the PMO and parked them under the People’s Association to “professionalise” the grassroots network. He also started Residents’ Committees in the HDB estates.
But the CCCs’ role still remains the same.
They are still the welcoming committees who arrange ministerial walkabouts and they still have a role in maintaining racial harmony. They set up the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC), formed after the Sept 11 attacks in 2001, which aims to promote inter-racial and inter-religious harmony.
Increasingly, they are playing a bigger role in relaying public announcements from G agencies to residents. For example, the CCCs played a role during the SARS outbreak in 2003, in disseminating national announcements on quarantine and prevention. In 2013, they were given the task of distributing masks to residents when the PSI hit a record of 371.
The chairman who declined to be named recalled carrying out the Nationwide Haze Responder and MERS-CoV Awareness Programme last month in his ward, where 300 grassroots volunteers were trained on healthcare and personal hygiene to educate residents and share haze and MERS advisories. Some 300 packs containing N95 masks, thermometers and hand santisers were also delivered to needy residents.
The CCCs still approve the types of amenities in the ward, through applications to the Community Projects Improvement Committee (CPIC), which is headed by Minister of State for National Development Maliki Osman, much to the chagrin of opposition MPs.
According to National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan, the budget for CIPC allocated each year to the CCCs is based on the number of HDB residential units in each town. He did not give a breakdown but this means it can run into the millions.
Since 2005, the CCCs also handle CCC ComCare Funds, disbursing cash, shopping vouchers, and food rations to needy residents in their ward.
The focus on the CCCs was sharpened in recent years when the Workers’ Party took over Aljunied GRC and Punggol East in addition to Hougang in the last GE. The WP complained that they were being stonewalled by the CCC when it wanted to request for CIPC funds. Then there was the fuss over whether the grassroots groups were holding back sums from the new WP town council and why the CCCs were given the authority to approve community fairs held by the town council.
Although most of the fuss in the past has been about the political links of the CCCs, the recent AGO report threw the spotlight on their handling of money. To some, a particular finding had faint echoes of the accusations that had been levelled over the way the WP town council handles its funds, especially with regards to “related-party transactions”.
The People’s Association Act under the section on disclosure of interest says:
“If a member of the Association or of the Board is, directly or indirectly, interested in any contract, proposed contract or other matter and is present at a meeting of the Association or of the Board at which the contract, proposed contract or other matter is the subject of consideration, the member —
(a) shall, at the meeting and as soon as practicable after it commences, disclose the fact; and
(b) shall not thereafter be present during the consideration or discussion of, and shall not vote, on any question with respect to, that contract, proposed contract or other matter.”
According to the AGO report, the Admiralty CCC chairman, Mr Oh Thai Nan, did not adequately manage conflict of interest in related-party transactions. He was involved in approving awards of two contracts (totalling $32,000) and corresponding payments to a company of which he was a member of the senior management. He also approved his own claims which amounted to $114,767, with no supporting documents for three of the payments. There was no evidence of dishonesty, according to the PA, which pledged improvements. Mr Oh has since quit the post.
Said the chairman whom we spoke to: “No one wants to get red marks. We are handling public funds and I’d feel ashamed if we found dishonesty in managing our accounts.” He said he appoints a different member to handle different project accounts, to ensure no one person wields too much control. This also means that members will be familiar with procedures and are able to countercheck other members.
The Opposition would be hard put to match the kind of resources and network that have been established since 1963. And they can be forgiven for wondering why they seem rather less powerful in their wards compared to grassroot leaders, despite being elected. More important is what sort of duty of care does the G or the PA owe residents? Given the kind of money and power that the CCC handles, shouldn’t there be more transparency over who sits on them and what they do?
Check out part 2 of our CCC exclusive, where all the names are revealed.
Featured image from PA website.
If you like this article, like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!
For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.
The post [TMG EXCLUSIVE]: The “unseen” CCC appeared first on The Middle Ground.