Got a record? No appointment for you

What "business" do they conduct there? Please enlighten me

What makes you so sure that the people who are doing Grassroots and helping out at MPS are not opportunists? All go there do business.The PBM fellas are like lobbyists.

Claire: Be the change you want to see!

The challenge I would like to pose to the govt is this (hopefully they will eventually see this):

Now that you can streamline the time it takes to set up a business to X days, can you also reduce the social inertia for an individual, who has an idea, to find and engage like-minded people to start a voluntary movement also in X days?

It is ironic that a small, densely populated nation that has a fairly well-educated population which speaks a common language, and well-equipped telecommunications and public transportation infrastructure, hasn't precipitated much cooperative movement bottom-up without government involvement and direction.

We might have scooped all the low-hanging fruits; and we might just need to do more than "strengthening the grassroots".

Very interesting and insightful observations SingaShadow!

The "bottom-up volunteerism" you have mentioned is indeed something very plausible and I hope will be implemented very soon.

I'm not too familiar with local politics, but as far as I understand, independent political participation is rather scarce. The trend here seems to be either a PAP-supporter/PAP-naysayer.

I'm an 18 year old, and amongst my friends, in other words, the youth in general, most of them are PAP-naysayers.
I'm not sure whether it is a phase in youth to be a non-conformist, but the point is, there are hardly any non-partisan individuals willing to stand up for "what is right". Instead, much focused is placed on "which party is right" or even more so, "which party is wrong".

I strongly hope that healthy, objective and active volunteerism will become a norm in Singapore politics, and that perhaps is the first step to "people power" in which Singaporeans can push for more involvement in grassroots issues.

About "picture-perfect" citizens, I believe that it has very much to do with social stigma. A reformed ex-convict who becomes actively involved in community service can very well be just as "picture-perfect" as anybody else. Individuals should be assessed by their level of commitment as well as their desire to serve and contribute the community before they join the grassroots as a member.

From there, perhaps members should be delegated different tasks and positions depending on their varying aptitudes and inclinations in the various fields available.

Nobody should be denied a place and position as long as intentions are pure (:

I think the practical question is what are your expectations? Are you expecting your perfect government to do a perfect job for you (and if not, blame them), or are you willing to blame noone but yourself in return for more local decision-making power.

Grassroots leaders are perceived to be pseudo-PAP people. It wouldn't do for them to be less than perfect, would it?

This post raises two questions for me on flexibility of decision-making and accountability:

(a) How would we like to reconcile differences?

Should we arrive at a consensus on a blanket policy to prohibit or allow ex-convicts to join the grassroots community? Should the decision be made on a case-by-case basis? Should there be a standardized easy-to-interpret but perhaps rigid screening criteria that apply across the board? Or should more flexibility be granted to local recruitment interviewers "on the ground" (at the expense of less standardization)?

This bring us to the next question of accountability.

(b) How would we like to hold accountability of bad recruitment decisions?

Can we accept accountability to be limited to "local officials" whom have made the decision? Or are we expecting responsibility to propagate up to the (top) government (which in turn are forced to adopt a rigid and conservation protocols)?

The implication of these questions is whether we want and can have bottom-up volunteerism *for* the community *by* the community that is not being driven by the state nanny.