• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not political

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Written by Ng E-Jay
17 Sept 2008


Parliamentary debates sometimes detract from the real underlying issues, with both questioner and responder missing the forest for the trees. This phenomena was again observed during Parliament on Tuesday, 16 Sept 08.

With regards to the PCF event at West Coast Park on 31 Aug 08, Ms Sylvia Lim (NCMP) asked what is the basis upon which a permit was given to enable the Prime Minister to participate in the cycling activity.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (NMP) also asked if there has been any change in the rules and considerations governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties.

To this, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Associate Prof Ho Peng Kee replied: “The position remains unchanged. Police will not grant permits for outdoor political events. (The) police’s position on outdoor political events is due to the assessed potential for public disorder which politically driven events can lead to, even when this is not intended by the organiser.”

Can this self-serving statement really be taken seriously at all?

Firstly, PAP MP house-to-house visits are certainly “outdoor” political events, even though the interview of residents often takes place indoors, but no one has seen the police stopping PAP MPs from carrying out that activity.

Secondly, if politically driven events always have the potential to lead to disorder, why bother to allow Speaker’s Corner to be used for demonstrations? And why bother to allow election rallies to take place in the run up to an election? Surely, going by Ho Peng Kee’s logic, those have much greater potential for disorder compared to, say, cycling events.

Thirdly, why is it that the Government only regards politically driven events as having the potential for disorder? That appears to be just a little bit too disingenuous. Surely other non-political events like pasar malams and marathons also have the potential for disorder.

Fourthly, the Government’s self-given ability to arbitrarily decide which events are political and which are not ultimately gives the Government a blank cheque to abuse its authority.

In response to Sylvia Lim’s question, Ho Peng Kee said, “Let me first clarify that it was not a cycling event but a Family Day Carnival. The only cycling was when the Prime Minister and the other special guests made their entrance by cycling a short distance from where the Prime Minister had alighted from his car to the stage. Secondly, it was not organized by a political party but by a registered charity.”

But isn’t the PCF affiliated to the PAP?

Ho Peng Kee tried to address this sticky issue by saying: “While it is affiliated to the PAP, the PCF has remained completely non-political since its setup in 1986, running kindergartens, child care, student care and aged care centres, charging very reasonable fees. It also offers community health screening with other providers and raises funds for charitable causes.”

My reply to Ho Peng Kee is exactly as before: Don’t try to FOOL the masses, because you most assuredly can’t. Even though the activities of the PCF are non-political, the way it is branded and its use of the PAP logo such as in kindergartens and child care centres is a subtle form of political advertisement for the PAP. The “soft” political message being sent out by the PCF is that the PAP is intimately involved in your child’s life from very young. Most HDB heartlanders can see and feel that.

But I too have digressed far enough from the real underlying issue.

The key issue at stake here is not so much whether PCF should be seen as a political entity, or the merits or lack thereof of assuming that politically driven events have the potential to become disorderly, but rather, whether Singaporeans are being denied their basic civil and political rights.

If the Government has the arbitrary power to deny a political party the right to carry out all outdoor activities simply by using the excuse that any such activity has the potential to lead to chaos, it is an abrogation of citizens’ basic rights, no more no less.

This consideration alone should make all other considerations pale in comparison.
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

You missed mentioning Low Thia Kiang's argument about PCF threatening to withdraw from opposition wards in the past. That is the key factor
 

zack123

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

Why not the opposition exploit this loophole and create their own charitable oraganisation which can infiltrate further into the society thus at the same time make positive contributions to the people.
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

Cool idea. So long as the charity is not SDP run
 

Avantas

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

Wayang LOW din even have the money to upgrade Hougang.


You missed mentioning Low Thia Kiang's argument about PCF threatening to withdraw from opposition wards in the past. That is the key factor
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

Wayang LOW din even have the money to upgrade Hougang.

At least Low does a bit towards Hougang. Chee has draw up no policies at all
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: The issue is about civil and political rights, not merely why PCF is not politica

You missed mentioning Low Thia Kiang's argument about PCF threatening to withdraw from opposition wards in the past. That is the key factor

Good point, but still not the key factor.
 
Top