Question of whether PA is really apolitical returns as PA Comms Head makes a jab at WP on Facebook
SINGAPORE: The question of whether the People’s Association (PA) remains politically neutral has arisen once again after eagle-eyed netizens noticed that the organisation’s Head of Communications, Nick Lim, had made a jab at the Workers’ Party (WP), in a recent Facebook comment.
Mr Lim made the controversial comment in response to an article the Straits Times had posted on social media about where WP star candidate Harpreet Singh Nehal might be fielded. Mr Singh, who has been spotted at Marine Parade GRC as well as East Coast GRC, had said that he would not want to be “parachuted anywhere safe”.
While a number of netizens commenting on the post praised the senior counsel’s spirit, some were not so impressed. One of the critical remarks that drew debate in the comments section was made by Mr Lim. Referring to the Raeesah Khan saga, he wrote, “Senior legal counsel who does not see a problem in lying in parliament and jioing his ppl to carry on the lie, then leave her to dry after. Hmm.”
A number of commenters disagreed with Mr Lim’s take and debated him in replies to his comment. Mr Lim said in one reply, “The WP of today is not the WP of LTK. It’s a fad. lol.” He added in another comment, “so u agree lah, its not the WP of LTK? Hahaha, indeed PAP is not the PAP of LKY though – it had to transform to be relevant. LTK was a badass and never caught for lying in parliament or any of that sorts though. hmmmm.”
As Mr Lim kept repeating the jab about “lying,” some commenters asked him about what he had to say about the cases involving ex-ruling party politicians Tan Chuan-Jin and S Iswaran. Mr Iswaran had resigned from politics after he was investigated in a high-profile graft case while Mr Tan left politics around the same time after an extramarital affair with a fellow PAP MP became public.
It came to light after Mr Tan’s resignation that his party chief, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, had been aware of the affair and told Mr Tan to put an end to it. Mr Tan had reportedly said he would do so but did not end the relationship for months.
When asked about what he had to say about this case, Mr Lim commented, “indeed a mistake by TCJ…and its not a crime yah what TCJ did. in all objectivity yah, are we talking morals now or talking criminality?”
As the debate continued, some netizens online began to ask if Mr Lim was linked to the PA. Mr Lim’s Facebook page is locked, but some netizens have noted that he serves as a Happiness chief at Carpe Diem Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Singapore.
Some also circulated screenshots of his LinkedIn page showing that Mr Lim works as PA’s communications head. He appears to have worked at the organisation as a Community Development Manager (Communications) for close to 7 years since 2017 and was promoted to Head of Communications less than two years ago, in August 2023.
Given Mr Lim’s role at the PA, some Singaporeans online are questioning how appropriate his public comments are, given that the PA has fiercely defended, time and again, that it remains apolitical.
Not the first time PA-affiliated page has taken a swipe at opposition
Interestingly, Mr Lim is not the only one who has made a jibe at the opposition despite being affiliated with the PA. Last year, the official page of the Sengkang West GRO made a public Facebook comment asserting that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) chief cannot be given the benefit of the doubt and that he “clearly meant to cast the Speaker’s impartiality into question” through a quip he had made during a podcast appearance.
The comment was swiftly deleted, but screenshots posted by those who saw it went viral quickly and amplified concerns about whether the management of the PA should be less politicised.
The PA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). Its Chairman is the Prime Minister, and its organisations are commonly run by grassroots leaders, many of whom are members of the PAP.
The PAP has fielded candidates who were active grassroots leaders in PA organisations in past elections, and there are allegations that these organisations have encouraged the public to support PAP candidates at rallies and electoral events.
One of the PAP’s fresh faces in the 2020 General Election was the former Chief Executive Director of the PA, Mr Desmond Tan Kok Ming. He had resigned from his post mere days before the elections were called. Mr Tan coasted to Parliament as part of the team in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC led by Senior Minister Teo.
PA facilities are also commonly used to host community events organised by PAP politicians, but the same benefit is unavailable for opposition MPs, according to Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh. Additionally, opposition MPs are not allowed to be advisers to government-run grassroots bodies.
Shortly after the WP won Aljunied GRC in the 2011 General Election, party Chairman Sylvia Lim said the WP was informed that 26 public sites, including fields and hard courts, had been leased by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to the PA and that the PA had informed them that “booking by WP will not be allowed”.
Long-time WP MP Low Thia Khiang, who has since left electoral politics but is still active in the WP, had also noted that temples were allowed to hold activities in his constituency only if they had supporting letters from the grassroots organisations and not from him, as the elected MP.
The Government, however, has held that the PA and its grassroots organisations are not politicised.
PAP minister Chan Chun Sing said in 2016 that the PA “executes the directions for the Government of the day, as per any statutory board. The PA does not allow any political activity or canvassing on our premises or in our activities. And we certainly do not mobilise anyone for any political party”.
More recently, in March 2023, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that the public service should be “politically sensitive” but “should never become politicised.”
He added, “You must remain impartial and do your work with professional objectivity, while recognising the political context in which we operate.”
