“What is clear from the comments made from Nizam is his wish to be more politically-active. The government considers AMP as an important Malay/Muslim self-help group like Mendaki, and offers assistance to help AMP handle social and education issues in our community. However, this assistance should not be used to aid political activities or self-help groups to carry out political agendas.” (Yahoo Singapore)
What about the president of the Young Sikh Association (YSA), Mr Malminderjit Singh? The YSA also receives funding from the Government. Yet, Mr Singh is a PAP member, in fact he was elected Chairman to the PAP Policy Forum last year, 2012.
Mr Singh is also the “recruitment head” for the SINDA Youth Club, according to his LinkedIn page.
I am really trying to understand where the line is, and how it is determined.
Why is Nizam Ismail’s participation in a forum/event seen as he being involved in “political activities” and the AMP possibly having “political agendas”, while those like Mr Singh are free to associate and even be members of the PAP and hold senior positions as in the PAP Policy Forum?
Anyone can explain?
I wonder what the authorities would think if Mr Singh was, say, the president of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.
Separately… on 29 April 2013…
“If any ethnic community were to organise itself politically, other communities would respond in kind. This would pull our different communities apart and destroy our racial harmony.”
– Ho Ka Wei, Director of Corporate Communications, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. (Straits Times Forum, 29 April 2013, “No to exploiting NGOs, VWOs for political ends“.)
But in August 2011…
“PRESIDENTIAL hopeful Tony Tan has been endorsed by the Federation of Tan Clan Associations, which has over 10,000 members, in his bid to become Singapore’s third elected president.”
– Straits Times, August 2011.
Maybe it’s just me, but can someone please explain the apparently double-standards being applied here?
Recently, some people have talked about trust in our public institutions, and how this must not be eroded by cynics – or words to that effect. I would argue that trust in our public institutions, in fact and on the contrary, could be eroded by the seemingly biased application of the law by those who are trusted to uphold it impartially.
Which is why it is of utmost importance that in order to preserve the trust, integrity and faith in our institutions, that its abuse or exploitation or unfair application of the law – perceived or otherwise – be called out and questioned.
This, in fact, is what bloggers and those online (aka “government critics”) have been doing – protecting the integrity of our public institutions by calling out bullshit, contrary to what their critics say.