<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=760 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width=480>http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-936.htm
Facing down a grave security threat: politics
<HR>
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right width=280>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width=480>
The picture of the prime minister cycling away at a PAP Community Foundation (PCF) event last month immediately reminded many Singaporeans of the ban imposed on a similar cycling event mooted by the Workers' Party last year. Adverse comments about what appears to be bias on the part of the police have been made on a number of blogs.
Speaking to Parliament on 27 August 2007, Ho said, "When you have an event organised by a political party, that may have a greater potential for law and order problem, because you may be behaving well but there may be other people who may disagree with your point of view and there could be quarrels and debates on the ground, attracting other people." [1]
So why was PCF allowed its cycling event this year? Ho said the difference in treatment was because the recent event with the prime minister in it was not organised by a political party, but by a charity foundation.
But "if we are concerned about Singaporeans causing a scene and confronting politicians, is it not artificial to draw that distinction between the PAP and PCF?" Nominated member of Parliament Eunice Olsen asked. [2]
Ho tried to reiterate that unlike the Workers' Party, the PCF was a registered charity, and anyway, "the PCF has remained completely non-political since its set-up in 1986." [3]
Unsurprisingly, Ho did not concede the point. However, Singaporeans would be able to see it clearly: The police had acted in a politically partisan way.
* * * * *
A more important question was raised by the issue, but it was not addressed. That question is: Should a registered charity be affiliated with a political party at all?
To what extent is the charity engaging in politics when it helps to raise the profile of certain politicians, or when it gives cover to political activities under the guise of charitable events? Surely, these are questions that the Commissioner of Charities should put his mind to.
At what point does the giving of such soft help to a political party breach rules on political fundraising, at least in spirit? Surely the Elections Department should look into it -- if only it were not a subservient part of the Prime Minister's Office.
Even more troubling is the potential conflict of interest arising from the fact that the PCF runs kindergartens and child care centres. In the public interest, these have to be regulated to ensure safety and standards.
Suppose one day, its purchasing officers buy cheap, contaminated milk powder, or a policy of money-pinching maintenance leads to faulty electrical devices that pose a danger to the kids. Will the Education Minister (or whichever minister kindergartens come under) be tempted to cover up the scandal lest public anger is directed at the party too?
Is it right to allow such a conflict of interest to continue?
* * * * *
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Facing down a grave security threat: politics
<HR>
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right width=280>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width=480>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=235 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=10></TD><TD>
PM Lee Hsien Loong cycling at the PCF event at West Coast Park. Photo from Mr Wang Says So blog (perhaps originally from the Straits Times?)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Asked by the Workers' Party last year why they weren't allowed to proceed with their plan, Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee argued that outdoor party events with politicians in them posed a potential law and order threat.
PM Lee Hsien Loong cycling at the PCF event at West Coast Park. Photo from Mr Wang Says So blog (perhaps originally from the Straits Times?)
Speaking to Parliament on 27 August 2007, Ho said, "When you have an event organised by a political party, that may have a greater potential for law and order problem, because you may be behaving well but there may be other people who may disagree with your point of view and there could be quarrels and debates on the ground, attracting other people." [1]
So why was PCF allowed its cycling event this year? Ho said the difference in treatment was because the recent event with the prime minister in it was not organised by a political party, but by a charity foundation.
But "if we are concerned about Singaporeans causing a scene and confronting politicians, is it not artificial to draw that distinction between the PAP and PCF?" Nominated member of Parliament Eunice Olsen asked. [2]
Ho tried to reiterate that unlike the Workers' Party, the PCF was a registered charity, and anyway, "the PCF has remained completely non-political since its set-up in 1986." [3]
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=310 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
A typical kindergarten or child care centre run by the PCF. There are dozens of them throughout Singapore.
</TD><TD width=10></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Frankly, in no way does that satisfactorily answer her question, which was whether the distinction was artificial. After all, as she pointed out, the PCF explicitly declares on its website that it is an arm of the People's Action Party (PAP), and its logo incorporates the parent party's logo. Everybody knows the PCF is part of the PAP.
A typical kindergarten or child care centre run by the PCF. There are dozens of them throughout Singapore.
</TD><TD width=10></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Unsurprisingly, Ho did not concede the point. However, Singaporeans would be able to see it clearly: The police had acted in a politically partisan way.
* * * * *
A more important question was raised by the issue, but it was not addressed. That question is: Should a registered charity be affiliated with a political party at all?
To what extent is the charity engaging in politics when it helps to raise the profile of certain politicians, or when it gives cover to political activities under the guise of charitable events? Surely, these are questions that the Commissioner of Charities should put his mind to.
At what point does the giving of such soft help to a political party breach rules on political fundraising, at least in spirit? Surely the Elections Department should look into it -- if only it were not a subservient part of the Prime Minister's Office.
Even more troubling is the potential conflict of interest arising from the fact that the PCF runs kindergartens and child care centres. In the public interest, these have to be regulated to ensure safety and standards.
Suppose one day, its purchasing officers buy cheap, contaminated milk powder, or a policy of money-pinching maintenance leads to faulty electrical devices that pose a danger to the kids. Will the Education Minister (or whichever minister kindergartens come under) be tempted to cover up the scandal lest public anger is directed at the party too?
Is it right to allow such a conflict of interest to continue?
* * * * *
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
