Andrew Loh / Deputy Editor
If our society is ruled by two different sets of laws – or laws applied selectively – for different people or political parties, it cannot but fracture and disintegrate.
Barely two weeks after he announced more space for political expression, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his colleagues from the People’s Action Party (PAP) could very well have just shown what this ‘openness’ mean – for the ruling party.
On Sunday, the PAP Community Foundation organised a ‘PAP carnival’ at West Coast Park. This was reported by the Straits Times on its front page, with a big picture of PM Lee on a bicycle. The event would be nothing out of the ordinary if not for one small detail: outdoor events by political parties are banned – or at least that is what the PAP Government itself says. This was explained in no uncertain terms in Parliament last year (2007) by the Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Professor Ho Peng Kee, and carried in news reports by our mainstream press.
The ban, said Minister Ho, is a ‘longstanding one’ because ‘outdoor gatherings by parties have the potential to cause a public disturbance.’ (Straits Times).
Ho explained this in his reply to questions from the Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament, who asked why the WP’s application to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park was rejected by the police. The Minister had said then:
The East Coast Park is a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families. It is not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.
Apart from displacing the usual recreational users…it is an open area where there is greater potential for breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour.
Minister Ho did not care even if the organisers themselves were ‘well-behaved’:
… even if the organisers were well behaved, others there might still cause problems.
And to top it off, Minister Ho defended his position by saying:
You may be well-behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, and therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid.
And the final nail in the coffin:
He said that police required political events to be held indoors or in stadiums where problems could be contained, adding that the WP could consider these venues. The policy applied to all political parties.
‘The policy applied to all political parties.’
Well, apparently not.
Having adopted such an unequivocal position on the issue, one wonders how Minister Ho would explain the police granting the People’s Action Party a permit to hold an outdoor event on Sunday – where ‘thousands thronged the park’ and ‘a host of ministers and MPs [making] their entrance on bicycles’, as reported by the Straits Times. (One presumes that a police permit was applied for and, obviously, given.)
(Read also: A CASE of double standards?)
While we may criticise the Government, the PAP, Minister Ho or even the police, for this seemingly biased application of the law, there is a wider and more important issue which such selective application of the law throws up – and this is; are we seeing a Government which would, apparently, disregard the law when it suits its purpose; what impact will this have on the wider society? On what moral authority would the Government be able to require everyone else to adhere to and obey the law if it does not do so itself?
Sadly, such behaviour by the ruling party can only breed further resentment and cynicism not only among its dissenters but also increasingly among those who have supported it as well.
As we said in an earlier article on the way the Government explained away the Mas Selamat escape fiasco, the Government’s lack of accountability is bad for the PAP but worse for Singapore.
For if our society is ruled by two different sets of laws – or laws applied selectively – for different people or political parties, it cannot but fracture and disintegrate. The PAP would do well to remember that a leader whose moral authority is questionable is one whom no one respects.
Ironically, the slippery-slope argument which Minister Ho used to explain and justify his rejection of permits for other political parties, in the end, could result in his own PAP sliding down that slippery slope itself.
If it hasn’t already.
———————
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
i duno what standard is this.
But its quite obivous that this is “Double” Standards
It should be the case that the same rule applies to all parties regardless it ruling or opposition.
I foresee even people question PAP, they will reply that times have changed and their organised event will not cause any “harm” to any of the public when Opposition’s do not have any good organisation or plans to do one. Hence their’s will cause ” harm” to public.
How to have a 1st class country when we do not have a 1st class and transparent system?
As far as I am concern, it is PROFANITY to me…
Any comment from PAP on this?
If the majority has any issue with this standard, they would kpkb already right?
spore is young.
spore is also 1st world ah.
stedi until cannot boon ah.
1st world citizens for all to see ah.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE MAJORITY, in me humble opinionated.
I am clueless, nice to meet you!
Now that their MSMs have been caught napping and reported it on front page news, I can see plenty of red faces on these Pappies.
Low and Sylvia should ask about this within or outside Parliament . It would interesting to see how is their reply.
Look for wayang to come! tok tok cheng!
Ah . . . you see, PAP Community Foundation is NOT a political organisation.
PCF is a non-political, charitable orgranisation associated with the PAP. See the PAP website below :
http://www.pap.org.sg/community_pcf.shtml
So, strict technical interpretation will say that the police is perfectly legitimate to issue a permit to PCF without contradicting what the Senior MOS said in parliament last year.
But for all intent and purposes, it is the PAP that is holding the event. It is a way to work around their own laws to stop political organisation of holding public outdoor events.
Naughty . . . naughty . . .
If the WP wants to hold an outdoor event, they can try to do the same. Register a WP Community Foundation WCF. But the catch is : Will the relevant govt authority grant WCF charity status ? Your guess is as good as mine.
1) 123 on September 2nd, 2008 5.07 pm
Your point is interesting.
However, here is how one may see it:
1. there are so many people’s representatives in the parl.
2. If the majority also see this as double standard, would they not want their Representatives to voice up in parl for them?
3. If so, how many of these representatives represented such views, if any? Afterall, their existence is substantially to represent the people is it not?
4. If not, does this mean the Majority had not voiced to their people representative?
5. If not, does this mean the Majority had voiced but somehow not mentioned in parl? Got to give these blokes in parl credit man, they sacrifice for the people whom they represent siah, so great and honorable wor. Of course like this they get paid to represent the people wor.
singaporeans really highly educated until so high can touch the sky.
But study is not everything. Its purely academic. Welcome to the real world.
5) Yamasam on September 2nd, 2008 5.51 pm
so, the question is why had the WP not done so?
If they get approved, I buy you mee siam with or without the hum, as you wish.
double standard? where gawd? hee hee hor?
Maybe Activists do it easier or higher chance success since its non political, on paper.
Like this mean no more runaway cycling anymore ah?
next time how to hold international events?
youth olympics safe to hold or not?
will it attrack people who want to argue as youth olympians cycle on spore road?
safe or not har ah ho?
TOC
Before writing piece, got check to see if “PAP Community Foundation” is different legal entity from PAP the political party?
PAP Community Foundation could be charity.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Dear A Tan,
The PCF stands for PAP Community Foundation which runs all of the PAP kindergartens. I do not believe they are a charity organisation. I also do not see how it would be different or detached from the political party if the “P” in “PCF” stands for People’s Action Party.
Second, if you look at the PCF’s logo, it has the PAP lightning logo within it.
Third, this latest cycling/ouitdoor event is not the only one which seems to contravene the law. In our previous article, we had highlighted the Young PAP’s cycling events as well. Please see here.
Lastly, to run such kindergartens, the funding will have to come from the PAP and not the govt, as I understand it. Also, as I understand it, it is no less than $5 million.
More space for political expression? More openess?
Izit all the lamp posts in Singapore enuff space for expressions of idol worship? What next? Should we have to face people handling out flyers and parading with mobile posters?
Spare me from such daily torture please. Agony once in 5 years is enuff.
Openess? Pls keep it in the closet if it is of such a version.
It is an open secret that PAP is above the law, any law in S’pore!!
PAP-set laws apply to alternative political parties, whereas the former can basically act as they please!!
One country, two systems!
I guess these things have been happening for ages and now with the internet age our good old PAP can’t seem to keep up with their past exposures.
Skeletons in the closet, you might call it.
What the Singapore people need to do now is to wake up and not be scared that change is for the better, and vote for a better Singapore that belongs to you and me and our children. We (the people of Singapore) have come so far to build this nation and it is time to enjoy the returns.
Parties that tell you that “GST is to help the poor” and to “not think of retirement”
should be retired as they are running out of solutions and slogans to serve the people that believe they could provide a better future for Singaporeans.
We still got time and the masses will eventually swam and awake the call for a better govt.
Change is the only constant.
best quotes to date are
1)GST is to help the poor
2) People are homeless by Choice
3) No one will be left behind
4) We can help, but not too much
5) Pay more to prevent corruption
6) your wifes and daughters will be maids in another country
Maybe TOC should have a page where people can put these infamous quotes and make a RAP video and include hip hop beats.
After seeing what is happening in Singapore these days – Thank God I took my family out of Singapore thirty years ago.
13) ronin on September 2nd, 2008 9.14 pm
if you ask Flying duetcheman, what will he say?
hahaha.
catch him on blogtv on cna. he show what he is really about.
TOC 1 man vs 4 similar views that support FT.
Now I know more about TOC.
16) Mum on September 2nd, 2008 10.18 pm
I wonder if a child is born with some disadvantage, with influx from all over , guess what his future will be like?
a company is great for business and work. that’s all.
a hotel is great for temporary shelter.
a home is where the heart is.
a life is ….
u know they alway have double standard but you people still have faith in these people. you people have ‘ double vision.’ ( can’t see what they will lead us to but still vote for these people). you people are the real numb skull.
What the F%@K did you expect?
Are some people still listening to the empty promises. Someone needs to run independent checks on what is being put into the ‘New water’ everyone is drinking.
It is highly disgusting that PAP practice such blatant double standards…this shows that PAP had considered themselves above all laws.
I hope the Worker Party will make this an issue for all citizens to see the true ugly face and hypocritical nature of PAP.
It is a honest mistake! Let’s close ranks and move on! What to do, it happened!
So LTK better wise up and ask who the laws are applied to next time.
I had started to forward this article to all my friends and also foreign publications/news agency, it is a damn good article to dispel PAP’s self-proclaimed righteouness and fair-play.
I have lost that very little respect left for PAP in me forever!
# Rainnix
Well said, but if it was the opposition who had committed such honest mistakes, will PAP and their supporters close rank and move on…we know the answers!
PAP will see that they go to jail or being declared a bankrupt for all to see and FEAR!!!!
everypeoples please join in hands together to fight with the pap!!
everywhere u speak is your voice is demoractic your voice your party !!
yah where gathering together
PAP will see us go to jail or being declared a bankrupt for all to see and let us FEAR i m not scare of them pap members !!!!
told the pap members that they are scared of me hahahahahahahhohohohehehehehe!!!
pap go to hell !!!hahahahaha
The civil service has a HR policy, which states that degree-holder civil servants may join political parties, but they may not hold office in any political party. However, I notice that there are a lot of civil servants who are serving in exco positions in PAP branches. An example is in Taman Jurong where the branch secretary is a teacher called Rencheng. This is clearly a conflict of interest, especially since a teacher is a civil servant. Best of all, the ex-Minister for MOE is the MP there. So ironic. So is the party so desperate that they will go against the govt’s HR policy and appoint civil servants? Why? Are the top minds only in the civil service? Double standards?
As I see it, the govt recognises now that it has to improve on its political openness; hence allowing protest to be held at the Speaker’s Corner. I think that the political space will be increased gradually, depending on how the developments at Speaker’s Corner take shape. If all is well managed, then more rules may be relaxed. Prof Ho’s comments were made in 2007, and much had changed since. WP may try to apply to hold its cycling rally at EC again, and see the response. As with all of us, I am curious to know the status and the reasons.
Andrew
I take the point on the Young PAP activities but that’s another issue.
The assumption of the piece in question was that the PAP and the foundation were one and the same.
Whatever you or TOC may think, the law may draw subtle distinctions between the PAP and this foundation: evidence of close ties notwithstanding. I don’t know. But then I didn’t write the piece.
Surely it would be prudent and responsible to establish the facts? I once practicsed law. And it taught me that the law is about establishing facts not soaring rhetoric and logical arguments. Without facts to back them, they are BS.
TOC should not let its zeal for fairness (something I applaud) overcome the simple but often difficult task of getting the facts right. Remember- JBJ had (and still has) a good heart, but his fact checking led him down.
There is no point in flaming the PAP, it’s like echoes in the empty hallways that goes eventually dies off…. what we need to do is to exercise our vote to ensure we get the hard earned quality of life for Singaporeans, also please share the above article with your fellow Singaporeans to get them to think with their own brain and to make an informed decision when voting
A Tan :
While one can frame an argument on the subtle distinctions between the PAP and the PAP foundation, one cannot believe that Singapore’s law / police stands completely impartial between the political parties.
And if the problem stems from the lack of neutrality then it remains that opposition events will face discrimination, no matter how it is shaped.
How much would you bet, of the WP chances of getting a permit for a WP community foundation event at East Coast Park?
Despite great hopes – it is still ” you hear and hope ” but we can and do continue to do to the contrary and for all to see type of distorted openess.
To my fellow netizen at ” People_ Reprezemted”, above, the flying dutchman will take next budget flight out if there is trouble, so forget that irritant and all the FTs who are only here for the fair weather.
Discounting respectfully the present opposition for the time being, I used to think that we have a hope in Amy Khor – but it may be down to only one – Dr Lily Neo to bravely speak up and take a stand for the people.
If the farce continue, people may decide in 2010 that enough is enough, and It will be a sadder day for me.
I pray that the true Singaporean people’s voices be listened to seriouly before it is too late.
AC (#35)
The point is that if Andrew had made the point you had made: “How much would you bet, of the WP chances of getting a permit for a WP community foundation event at East Coast Park?”, I would not have commented as I think I strret smart.
As it stands, TOC and Andrew could possibly be sued for defaming some government department because the Attorney-General could argue that his piece means “one cannot believe that Singapore’s law / police stands completely impartial between the political parties”.
Such a law suit could ruin TOC’s sterling efforts in promoting fairness etc.
TOC, you have my email. If you want to do some research on this issue, contact me and I’ll give access to a database that may help you clarify the issues. There may be a ministerial statement from the long ago on the subtle differences, S’pore style.
I’m amused at the number of comments here from people who are inflamed by the `cycling’ event’ double standard.
If you look around you will see many more examples of double standard, which perhaps only members of the minority could perceive quietly.
Take a look at the many notices and even newsletters, which are printed only in English and Chinese. Why not in all the 4 official languages, or to be fair, just in English? I was told that it would help the elderly Chinese who can’t read English. Does that mean there are no elderly Malays or Indians who can’t read English? Or is it because the number is so small that it does not make economic sense to spend that much more?
My friends from the minority told me that such double standard is something to be expected and that there is no use making noise about it, as long as generally things are fine, and in more critical matters there are fairness and justice.
So if you are very unhappy about this `cycling event’ double standard, do talk to members of the minorities and they can provide you with a list of things which you may be politically blind to until now.
Ho PK cannot even handle his own consituency, remember the temple row during the last GE? The old man got step in to help him out, that speaks volumes abt our “elected” representatives. The biggest fear I have is that they let this kind of rhetoric elevate their false sense of importance, leading to a “I know it best” or “it is simplistic” kind of answers to feedback. At the end of the day, they choose not to listen to you and treat others like dogs barking in the middle of the night.
Anyone knows how the PAP funds its activities?
“33) A Tan on September 3rd, 2008 5.42 am I once practicsed law. ”
When we give comments and opinions, do not keeping talking about law lah. This is not a Court, this is a internet forum where anyone (not lawyers only lah) can be right and wrong lah. Here, we learn lah and hopefully from someone who can tell us what is right lah. Not everyone is a lawyer here and thinks like a lawyer lah. Common sense lah.
Law is very technical lah (with strict and sometimes conflicting parameters) and the books are very thick lah and decision always depends on the judges lah (who are also human lah). So thick that you can even be penalised technically for abuse of animals / insects for terminating the innocent life of a wonderful creature like a cockroach lah – in short killing a life lah.
“And it taught me that the law is about establishing facts not soaring rhetoric and logical arguments.”
Yes lah. You will always see a face in front of a person and I will always see a backside behind a person lah. That is a fact lah.
So chim, soaring rhetoric and logical arguments. The above article is so clear and here you telling us about soaring rhetoric and logical arguments. Most people do not talk about soaring rhetoric and logical arguments. Most people will say how they feel in plain and simple enlish lah (sometimes always ending with a singlish lahs).
if my memory serves me right, I remember a debate in Parliament where Mr Chiam argued until face turned white that the logo in PAP Community Foundation has a lightning and resembles that of PAP; but was told that it is not a PAP organisation.
what else can we say?
Dear Mr Tan,
May I say that the authority can easily find reasons to sue / charge many individuals with known real life identity for various online activities. However, it is not doing it to conform with its light touch pledge.
For example, Gopalan Nair is not sued for defamation.
While your concern is valid, the question is how likely the authority will take on such action to blow its light touch image?
Regards.
Talking about double standards, a good friend pointed out to me that our division one ministers will tell you that competition by FT is good for Singapore.Why, the simple fact remains that they are not affected by them. Their position is not threatened and never will be. The fact remains that we can have Clinton, Putin, Manmohan Singh and even Wen Jiabaofor the price we are paying our PM,SM and MM. We can have the best talents from the world to help us and the people to achieve better results (definitely better than 2 & 3% return on our CPF, a ripoff of the people’s hard earned money over the years) The argument about national duty, patriotism and honour in serving the country does not apply anymore given the arguments put forward for their salary increase and supported by the Ministers’ statements on the table tennis team. So are we getting the best money can buy, many know that this is not the case but they sit cosy in their self appointed kingdoms where they are untouchable. For that matter, their family and cronies are also not at all affected by the influx of FT and furthermore they benefit as business owners in terms of cost and loyalty.
Ah! Mr Tan, that reminds us, double standards also apply to the law.
38) Slimfold on September 3rd, 2008 10.03 am
I’m amused about people like you who do not mind that this double standard is practised by certain group of people who are supposedly tasked to ensure that this double standard should not happen – e.g by setting a higher standard of example for what they are paid to do.
I guess with your utmost calibre of analysis you should be able to discern that the standard of the normal men in the street and the standard as demanded from a higher breed of some annointed group should be very different. I do not have to part anything with the former but for the latter, I guess you know the meaning of GST and tax.
Just like what some people like to say. Do not oppose for the sake of opposition. Same goes to you, do not give example just for the sake of giving example.
The PAP is not so stupid to apply for a permit. They do these things through proxies (i.e organisations, affiliated groups and such) Therefore they are only invited guests. And they also act as government representatives, not PAP party members. This line is always blurred.
So for WP, or all opp for that matter, just get a kindergarden, a mamashop or whatever organisation they have connections with and get the permit through a proxy la. Then WP people are invited guests.
If you cant win them join them!!
I know.
How about TOC organise a cycling event. Get all the paper work done then invited all the opp as guests.
On boh?
The government wants to engage the New Media.
The 1st lesson it should learn is: don’t threaten to sue.
The 2nd lesson it should learn is: don’t pretend to know all.
The 3rd lesson it should learn is: don’t pretend it can decide when to “move on”.
The 4th lesson it should learn is stop trying to justify its positions with half-baked logics and data.
“9) A Tan on September 2nd, 2008 6.36 pm TOC
Before writing piece, got check to see if “PAP Community Foundation” is different legal entity from PAP the political party?
PAP Community Foundation could be charity.”
Assuming that they are different entities, just legal entities but very ‘dead’ without the people (human element) running it. So what do you think as a legal professional if the key people over them completely overlap, assuming that it overlaps 100% which may not be the case. Hey I am not a lawyer like you, so do excuse me. I guess you have also heard of this famous term “Substance over form”.
I am again assuming that you are the same A Tan as in 33) A Tan on September 3rd, 2008 5.42 am.
My friend, you must learn how to relax and be too sticky about old definitions. A lot of old definitions from the old world (seemingly created by old power) no longer have any real value in this present fast changing frightening world. Real value creation comes from doing the real brick-and-mortar stuff, doing the right thing.