| Yawning
Bread. 18 September 2008
Facing down a grave security threat: politics
|
|
||||||
|
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. 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]
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. 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. * * * * * 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? * * * * *
Gopalan Nair faced the judge for sentencing yesterday, for the offence of insulting a judge, Belinda Ang. In a blogpost he wrote in May this year, he had called her a "prostitute" for what he alleged as her biased way of presiding over a recent trial involving Singapore Democratic Party leaders. Justice Kan Ting Chiu remarked, while sentencing Nair, that unflattering words used on someone can be considered insulting, whether they are true or not.[4] He then sentenced Nair to 3 months' imprisonment. Let's move on quickly to look at another case... * * * * *
|
|||||||
|
The same day that Gopalan Nair was sentenced, Muhammad Iz'aan Mohd Sazali was jailed six weeks (one and a half months) for caning Badingah, an Indonesian maid living with his family. That's right. Physical violence begets half the jail time compared to using offensive words.
Iz'aan's sister, Nur Rizan Mohd Sazali, poured hot wax on Badingah's head, and forcibly extracted two of her front teeth, as punishment for alleged misdeeds. For that, Nur Rizan was jailed 26 months. But there's more. The abuse meted out to Badingah was actually more shocking than just these two instances, as you can read in the archived news stories [5]. One also has to consider that the maid was trapped in their home, both economically, through being dependent on the employer, and psychologically, by being a foreign worker here. Therefore, these were instances not only of assault in the ordinary sense, e.g. the kinds of assault we see in street fights, but were much worse than that. The siblings were taking it out on someone powerless and unable to defend herself, almost imprisoned in their home. Taken together, their various acts put the life of the maid at risk, as at one point, she was so desperate, she jumped from the flat's window to escape. Iz'aan's and Nur Rizan's behaviour was absolutely disgusting, and I do not think the lenient sentences send the right message. * * * * *
The day before Gopalan Nair was sentenced, Philip Yeo Chuan Lock received a term of 10 weeks' jail. As you can see from the sidebar, he drove with another man clinging to the hood of his car for his dear life. Yeo "drove like a crazy man for 600m, even side-swiping a motorcycle, until he had shaken off his unwanted 'passenger'." 10 weeks for an act that could have killed another person. Again, less than what Gopalan Nair got. In Singapore, it seems, we're more panicked
by politics than near
homicide. © Yawning Bread
|
|
||||||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
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.
