I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?', regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.
Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.
The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.
DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force
When the PAP Comm Foundation is used as a stick to threaten voters (you don’t vote PAP in your constituency, you will not get Kindergarten), it is non political?
I hope Singaporeans aren’t that forgetful, nor that brainless?
So, ask yourselves, is the PAP Comm Foundation really a “Charity”?
Yeah Right!
Remember PCF increased the kindergarten fees recently, if it is charity, why the increase ??
A ridiculous law will force even sensible people to look like fools defending it.
According to the police’s explanation, does that mean political parties should also be banned from doing anything at Hong Lim Park? The same reasons apply, don’t they?
Or is the police saying that just because Hong Lim Park is a designated area, thus no problems will arise?
It’s not a matter of whether there are ‘families’ and ‘children’ or that the event was organised by the “PCF”. The point here is that it is an OUTDOOR event – which is forbidden by law. To say that it was organised by the PCF, which is a “charity”, is a red herring. It doesn’t matter who organised it .
The point is that the spirit of the law meant to prevent political parties from conduting or taking part in OUTDOOR events – because, in Ho Peng Kee’s words, “trouble may happen”.
Sadly, we see civil servants, presumably intelligent ones, having to do acrobatics in order to explain a dumb law.
It makes not only make asses of the Govt and the PAP, it makes the law itself an ass – which can be contorted to suit a semantical argument.
again we have to thank Walter Woon and AG chambers for this point – PAP and PCF actions – we all now know who makes the rules of the land and what is factual guilt and moral guilt. For PAP, they have to appear whiter than white and they failed miserably here.
Without any by elections in Jurong I also worry for PAP. They may lose everything in one fell swoop. plus a few ministers. Sigh.
Maybe they should revert to single seat constituency to keep those worthwhile ministers while they are ahead. I mean, come on – Lee Bee Wah in LHL GRC? I wish them luck.
To me personally this is a question fairness, honour , intregrity and the moral authority to lead. They have sunk to an all time low but I trust the division one elites to set new standards. Do these men even prescribe to the same standard they impose on ordinary men , let alone the opposition. We’ll let people be the judge. I for one have lost all respect for them and without respect no amount of rhetoric is going to win me over.
when they keep a moronic piece of law like this, they are bound to be caught offguarded themselves like in this case. Looks like they can do anything they like and get away with it. (Do we still remember the within or outside the polling station case ruled by the then AG)
Any fair minded person wouldn’t have bought ASP Tay’s reasoning.
Are the people in the civil service here to serve the people or their political masters?
Then y use the name PAP in the 1st place, though its registered as a charity.
Isnt that a ‘meshing’ of political agenda with charity?
unless the word PAP means something else other than the People Action Party in the word ‘PAP community foundation’ and independent from the goverment, i don’t see why it is not “events organised by all political parties” as stated by ASP Tay.
We have the best police FARCE in the world ok!
obviously the police is under pap.
Maybe opposition parties should go register foundations as charity. Then we will have WP-CF, SDP-CF. So on and so forth, the more charity, the better! Yay!
“The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance”
This is the stupidest statement I have heard from a public servant ever. Was the distance cycled really the issue in question?
If I was DSP Paul Tay, I would be ashamed that I have to write such nonsensical drivel, and feel a deep sense of disgrace in wearing the police uniform. Instead of protecting the public and ensuring the security of our nation, he is insulting the public’s intellect.
“If I was DSP Paul Tay, I would be ashamed that I have to write such nonsensical drivel,”
If they are not nonsense and not bullshit, they are not PAP. Papstard, a better word ?
The original reason Ho Peng Kee gave for rejecting the permit was that people would stop the WP members from cycling and debate with them and cause public nuisance. Granted the PCF was the organizor here, but they are clearly affiliated to the PAP, and the effect of them going cycling is still to bring politicians out into the public space to interact with the public.
Shouldn’t the consequences of the WP public cycling and PAP public cycling be the same?
Apart from the organizational difference, which is a wafer thin distinction to draw, this idiotic letter highlights some differences in the events:
1) PM only ccled a short distance
2) The PCF raised plenty of money while cycling
My Dear DSP Paul Tan, you really should be fired for the most shameful and embarrassing piece of spin I’ve ever read that makes a mockery of the spirit of the law in favour of a strict legalistic view of the law.
PAP = Shameless Double Standard
As if the negative image of the police force is not enough..
Stupid colleagues like asp Tay, always asigned to harrass the opposition, held responsible for big boss mistake, tasked to forcefully execute an organ transplant….
no wonder so many are leaving the force…
Zheng Xi
Waz wrong with “strict legalistic view of the law”?
I suppose you do not know English legal history. There have been episodes in English history such as the Ships’ case and the judical attempts to curb the Star Chamber (olden version of IS Act) where the “strict legalistic view of the law” ensured that the monarch’s self-presumed powers were checked. Or at least that is the Whig version of history.
And invoking the “spirit of the law” is something dictators seem to do regularly: Stalin is a case in point.
The problem abt dispensing with the former in favour of the second, is that dictators can use “spirit of the law” to stifle freedom of expression etc.
Yes I qualified in England a long time ago in law. Never used it much thereafter but the subject taught me to think rationally, I hope.
Andrew
I agree with you on the absurdity of the law.
But pls get your facts right before attacking it.
Yoy didn’t know PCF was a charity, legally distinct from the PAP.
Now you say “The point here is that it is an OUTDOOR event – which is forbidden by law”. Not an accurate statement of the law.
Leave the topic. If WP can’t be bothered to stir itself on this issue … Save yr energy for other battles.
TOC
TOC has by hard work built up its credibility. It would be sad if TOC gets carried away by wanting to shout louder than the PAP.
Keep cool and do more Rd Junction, Seragoon Garden videoes; Jurong polls; and Tpt week. And wait for events.
In !917, Lenin was in despair and in exile. Then something happened, the Germans wanted to detach Russia from the War. The rest is history.
Resist the temptation to outdo others in BS. And if you want to shout louder get the facts right.
Now that the PM has relaxed rules on political films and outdoor demonstrations, I feel it is timely that political parties be allowed to hold outdoor events and celebrations , does the police honestly believe there is a risk of “disorder” ?
A Tan,
We know you are very legally trained but for once can you stop throwing your
legalistic jingolistic elitism here. We are all laymen making arguments that can be understood by the common man here. Make no mistake, no matter how LEGALLY they make their case to be, the people PERCEIVED a great deal
of unfairness, double standards of the some of the issues here.
What have such a stupid, moronic law or ruling in the first place unless their
intention is to fixed the opposition and deny them whatwever space they can
access to the people.
A Tan, (comment 16),
You got headache from spinning round and round or not?
http://www.pap.org.sg/community_pcf.shtml
The People’s Action Party Community Foundation (PCF) was established in 1986 as a non-political, charitable organisation ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTY..
PCF Council Members:
Mr Teo Chee Hean (Chairman)
Mr Mah Bow Tan (Member)
Mr Lim Swee Say (Member)
Assoc Prof Yaacob Bin Ibrahim (Member)
Mr Khaw Boon Wan (Member)
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (Member)
Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee (Member)
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Member)
Mr Gan Kim Yong (Member)
“16) A Tan on September 10th, 2008 7.12 am Zheng Xi
Waz wrong with “strict legalistic view of the law”? ”
Not wrong lah but only useful in certain areas where you can fruitfully enagage in legal gymnastics and derive pure satisfaction for being legally right and gain recognition.
What “18) lee on September 10th, 2008 9.53 am” has said perfectly makes sense lah, “We are all laymen making arguments that can be understood by the common man here. Make no mistake, no matter how LEGALLY they make their case to be, the people PERCEIVED a great deal.”
Sometimes, you need to know that being legally right does not equate to common laymen street right which will even score you more points with the common people.
Can’t you see that you are much guided by the books. The moment the books change tomorrow, you will change your argument again. Laymen have the luxury not to be contrained as strictly as people like you.
What is the use of being legally right 100% of the time but you have already lost your moral authority to convince. Please use your fantastic legal arguments with fellow lawyers of equal standing lah. Do not keep on using 20th century methodology on 21st century mindset especially in this context where you know I know what is going go lah.
“TOC has by hard work built up its credibility. It would be sad if TOC gets carried away by wanting to shout louder than the PAP.”
Wow at this pace and with so many lawyers participating, it will surely soar to even greater height.
re my post, it should be the people SEE and not PERCEIVED.
A Tan, I might also add, please throw away your smugness as well
that way you can win people more to your arguments.
Do not blame the PR guys – Home Affairs, MOE, University , PSC, etc – they are just doing their job.
It is a WP’s affair which started the comments and observation.
What is done cannot be undone. Whatever reasons given and published are the only reasons available for the department’s reply..
What is a good thing is that with this thread; political people will have to look closely at themselves – to be exemplary at all times in public. It is more than foundation versus politics.