Grassroot Leaders Who were Convicted Appointed by People’s Association

88 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) for each year from 2001 to 2021, what is the number of grassroots leaders appointed by the People’s Association (PA) who were convicted of a crime; and (b) whether the Government has plans to tighten up the eligibility requirement for PA grassroots leaders.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Grassroots leaders (GRLs) come from all walks of life and volunteer their time, effort and resources in an effort to make Singapore a better home for all. Since the People’s Association was set up over six decades ago, GRLs have played an integral role in building and serving our communities, often quietly and behind-the-scenes.

GRLs are part of the fabric of our community. They help to promote a diverse, united and resilient society and also connect the Government and the people by explaining Government policies and often serve as the hands and legs which close the last mile in policy communications and delivery.

The work of our GRLs can be done effectively because of the trust which GRLs have built up over the years with the community, incrementally, over time, both through good times and bad. Many of them are active and on the ground on a daily basis. They meet with and see residents. Over time, their work contributes to our racial harmony and social cohesion and also serve a larger national purpose.

This reservoir of trust and goodwill is also what has enabled us to respond effectively as one Singapore during crises, such as SARS in 2003 and, most recently, COVID-19. When the pandemic hit us, GRLs stepped up to look after our residents, sometimes at risks to their own personal well-being.

Members will know that throughout our fight against COVID-19, GRLs were constantly active on the ground, reaching out to residents, in tandem with our national responses. GRLs and volunteers disseminated important information to residents, worked on the frontlines supporting nationwide COVID-19 operations, such as mask distribution, the roll out of TraceTogether and helping our people with vaccination at Community Vaccination Centres.

GRLs also played an invaluable role in helping our people, particularly those who were more acutely impacted due to the pandemic, through these challenging times. They worked with community and corporate partners to distribute food, daily essentials, and vouchers, which helped to defray household expenses for low-income families and assisted to process Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) applications of Singaporeans who lost their jobs during the pandemic. Many of them also volunteered to provide help for persons under quarantine and those serving Stay-Home Notices and Home Recovery Programme (HRP) despite personal risks to themselves. With the help of GRLs and volunteers, we have distributed more than 92,000 WeCare packs to households with residents on HRP. And as we speak, GRLs continue to be active as we prepare for the possibility of a next wave of heightened COVID-19-positive cases due to Omicron.

Members will recall that when we started our national vaccination campaign, there was, initially, some hesitancy among people, especially seniors. Our GRLs went from door-to-door to reach out and explain and also encourage residents to get vaccinated and help address and dispel misinformation surrounding vaccinations. These vaccination outreach efforts allowed us to lend further assistance to seniors who were staying alone or residents who needed help. In 2021, through the support of 14,000 GRLs and volunteers, we were able to reach out to over 300,000 seniors.

These efforts have contributed greatly to the high rates of vaccination that we have today. This is possible, in no small part, because residents, by and large, trust our GRLs. This relationship is a precious one, cultivated over time, and should not be taken for granted.

But in singling out GRLs as a group, the premise of the Member’s question not only does a disservice to the work of 40,000 GRLs and thousands more who came before, it also undermines the very trust that GRLs have painstakingly built up with residents over many years. There is no basis to contend that GRLs are disproportionately more involved in criminal activity than any other group in society.

As leaders in the community, we expect GRLs to conduct themselves in a manner that befits their standing and role in the community. There are, therefore, sound processes and due diligence in place when it comes to the appointment of GRLs, and we constantly review the appointment system to ensure that there is sufficient rigour. For instance, before GRLs join the grassroots organisations and are appointed to leadership positions, they will serve as observers for a period of time and are given a direct and hands-on assessment on their suitability for appointment into the GROs as full-fledged GRLs. We make the best judgement of a person before the appointment is made. But that is not to say that the system, or, indeed, any system, can predict in advance who might then run afoul of the law subsequently.

In those cases where GRLs are accused of crimes and it undermines his or her ability to perform their roles, they might be suspended from active involvement in the grassroots organisations or be immediately removed from all grassroots appointments if they are subsequently convicted.