Surprise, surprise... NOT!

Are we actually surprised that this is happening (article by bernama.com, the article has been reproduced below)? It seems that any activity that is not PAP based is considered to have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life.

And how about this line Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Doesn't this sound familiar? I wonder where I've read it before.


Pink Picnic
It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.

As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.

We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.

We seek your cooperation in this matter.

Read the full article Picking on a picnic


The Pink Run
He soon went back to the script and said that he had to inform me that the Pink Run would be against the law -- something about the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to which I replied (to the effect of), "Why are you telling me? I am not the organiser."

Read the full article Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"


It seems we are not the only one that gets the "not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause" treatment.

So people remember PAP based programs and activities "promote social well-being and a sense of community". Non-PAP based programs and activities "are used by political parties/special interest groups to promote their cause" and "have the potential to disrupt community and family life". What was it that George Orwell wrote... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? As it is known, only the PAP can be non-partisan (as we can see from the 3 examples above) and all others are always partisan (a good example is mr brown's article on "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" and the PAP's reaction to it)

It is all so clear to me now.

Bernama.com
27 August 2007

Singapore Police Reject Permit For Opposition Party's Cycling Event

By Jackson Sawatan

SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.

The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.

Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."

"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.

Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.

The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.

It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).

NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.

-- BERNAMA

Self-serving gahmen

I'm so proud of our opposition. In today's Today on the topic of upgrading Mr. Low, Hougang MP said

"The surpluses are generated by the PAP and the people have no part in it?" he asked. "And don't forget, the people in Potong Pasir and Hougang also pay taxes and the Goods and Services Tax. Your justification's logic is selfish and partisan."

This is so true and so right. This has been what people in Singapore have been talking about. The money the gahmen gets, comes from everyone, not just the PAP wards.

But of course, typical PAP answer is given.

"If you go on the Workers' Party's platform, you are not going to have enough money for upgrading, education, healthcare, and so on. When you vote for the PAP, you are not just voting for the goodies, for the package. You are also voting for all the parts of the package that comes together," he said.

I know a lot of people who would agree to this (my dad included) but the problem is this, the opposition cannot offer things like upgrading and such because the money is controlled by the PAP. People continue to vote in Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low because they listen and care (things the PAP doesn't do).

Do you wonder after things like this, why these people from the opposition ward vote for the opposition at increasing rates each year?

Chiam's $80M-request rejected

Am I surprised? Not at all.

As the saying goes, some citizens are more equal than others.

Reference: Good grief!

Today
29 June 2006

CHIAM'S $80M-REQUEST REJECTED

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has rejected Mr Chiam See Tong's request for $80 million in upgrading funds for his Potong Pasir ward.

The Potong Pasir Member of Parliament wrote to Mr Mah last Wednesday asking how he could get access to the funds for improvement works.

But in his reply to Mr Chiam, which was copied to the media, Mr Mah explained that the $80-million upgrading package was proposed by People's Action Party candidate Sitoh Yih Pin as his plan for the constituency if he was elected.

Since the majority of Potong Pasir voters rejected Mr Sitoh and his plan, Mr Mah said the issue of funding no longer arises. He added that as Mr Chiam claimed during the election campaign that his Town Council had enough funds to do lift upgrading for all the blocks over the next five years, he should therefore proceed to do so. - Channel NewsAsia