Did the PAP break the law?

September 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Posted in But Seriously | 16 Comments

Andrew Loh, Deputy Editor at The Online Citizen, seems to be implying that the PAP did break a law or that the police were lax in the application of the law. I think that Mr Loh should fact check before making such statements as “On what moral authority would the Government be able to require everyone else to adhere to and obey the law if it does not do so itself” (this is a rhetorical question in my opinion and so it is a statement).

The PCF is not a political party in the legal sense. It is a charitable organisation which is related to the PAP, but is a seperate legal entity. This means that when it is applying, it is not a political party at all. Granted that its board is made up of PAP ministers and MPs, its legal existence is distinct from the PAP. Basically it means this… The PAP could some day fade away, but PCF may not necessarily fade with it. Similarly when the PCF is sued for some reason, it is not a suit against the PAP, but against the PCF.

There have been comments after the article with regards to the close relationship between the PAP and the PCF. There is no doubt that they are very tightly linked. To say otherwise would be lying. However when accusing someone of breaking the law, a legal analysis is important. The issue that Mr Loh raises is “did the PAP break the law?”

The answer is no. The PAP did not break the law. The subsidiary question of lax application of the law by the police is also answered with a no.

There were other comments which were making all sorts of emotive arguments that the legal analysis is dry and detached from everyday discussions, but because of the questions there is a distinct need to apply a legal argument. Now if the WP set up some separate legal entity that does not engage in politics, and their request was rejected, then that would be an issue of double standards. However at this point, WP does not have such an entity that is closely related to them, but does not engage in political activities.

I would like at this point to defend PCF. While I am not a product of their kindergartens, I know a large number of people who are. It is affordable education for those who cannot pay for hoity toity Montessori or private kindergartens. They also conduct a lot of other work and support other charities as well. I do not believe that any of their activities are political in nature.

I feel that too many internet dwellers are too quick to believe any arguments made by just about any blogger. In this case Mr Loh failed to see a distinction, legally, between the PAP and PCF. Yet he posed a legal question asking if the PAP broke a law. And then making statements that implied that the PAP did subvert laws. This immediately led many other people to make knee-jerk comments about how evil, morally bankrupt, corrupt or dirty the PAP is. When someone had the courage to point out a factual error, no one bothered to listen.

I do hope my loyal readers (all 4 of you) are far more discerning. Don’t believe everything being said, not even by me. Fact check. That is what I did. I checked to see if the PCF was a part of the PAP, legally, and the answers was no. That made me quite unhappy because I have always trusted the TOC to take a more balanced view.

Well enough of my pontifications. I do hope though that those of you who read this would realise that the internet is full of differing opinions. Be sure to check the facts before believing too much into what is being said. Especially in areas where the good name of one party is being challenged.

16 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I agree PCF is not part of PAP…however it has part of PAP logo in it???

    What im trying to say is, the ruling party leverages on a lot of platform to raise their political appearance. Eg: PCF, RC and PA.

    Comment by Tax-payer— September 5, 2008 #

  2. And your critics would sniff and with a dismissive wave of the hand, say “Whether it is the PAP or PCF, it is merely semantics”.

    But in law, it is all about semantics. :)

    Comment by The Void Deck— September 5, 2008 #

  3. Tax-Payer: I don’t deny that they have strong ties to other organisations, but it would be wrong to call them all a single entity. I am sure people at PA and NTUC would feel a little insulted if they were referred to as PAP people. But to accuse the PAP of breaking a law is perhaps stretching it a bit.

    Void Deck – Brudder. It’s like that one. I’m not trying to educate the rabid anti-PAP folk, just the ignorant fence sitters.

    Comment by Postmaster-General— September 6, 2008 #

  4. I thank Walter Woon for making this term – factually corrupt and legally corrupt. We all know what this PCF and PAP and WP thing is about and the category it belongs to.
    Unfortunately in the blogosphere as well as in coffeeshop, PAP has to hold a higher moral ground and has to be factually and legally incorrupt. It fails on both counts here, and we all know it :)
    no matter how you want to ‘say it’ in your blog.
    You lose.

    Comment by sad man— September 6, 2008 #

  5. Ok Sir you made good points in response to what Andrew wrote.

    How about me highlighting why granting permission to one and denying it to another ? Of course its only the permission granters that have their say on how they arrive at their double-two-type-decisions which is highly subjective, right?

    I can’t remember exactly word for word what one minister said, but it was something like even tho the gathering of one group is peaceful, but it might attract potential trouble makers, whereas what another party doing the same activities may not attract troble makers.

    I am no legal bird which you seems to be, but here isn’t it a simple case of double standards, which I am quite sure we are not talking about who breaking laws.

    Comment by hahaha— September 6, 2008 #

  6. Well, if you say that PAP and the PCF are two separate organisations, then why are some of the staffers PAP members?

    And why have the logo? Go to any democratic country with the rule of law, and any jury will tell you as it is: the PAP and the PCF have links and is mostly likely political as well.

    The best way to rebut this is to make sure both the PAP and PCF come clean and be honest. If they can give a proper explanation, without much of their spin, then fine. But if they keep silent and then sue later on, we know they have something to hide.

    Comment by Tim— September 6, 2008 #

  7. I think that you are wrong about the PA and NTUC.

    The NTUC has been very proud of its “symbiotic” relationship with the PAP.

    Likewise, the PA is clear that it will choose the PAP loser who has been rejected by the voters as the adviser to all constituency bodies in areas that vote for the opposition.

    They are not likely to be insulted unlike a certain minister who said “You may be well-behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, and therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid.”

    I hope he will not be insulted by your characterisation of the PM and Mr Seng et al

    Comment by Paul— September 6, 2008 #

  8. If anti PAP ppl are rabid, and fence sitters are ignorant, pro PAP ppl are?

    PS I went to a Young NTUC meeting last Saturday. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that the general consensus is rather pro PAP.

    Comment by Rachel— September 7, 2008 #

  9. I agree with the author.
    But sad to say, I am disappointed by him.
    Do you look at things in Black and White only?
    Many things can be done by not breaking the law.
    Sometimes, tho rarely, the law needs to be adjusted too.

    I am just a weeny bit disappointed by the author.

    I wonder who you support ?

    Comment by Ah Ter— September 7, 2008 #

  10. Ah Ter – I’m inclined towards the PAP. Don’t think there is a need for me to be coy about that.

    Comment by Postmaster-General— September 7, 2008 #

  11. Political parties are not allowed to hold outdoor events. The law say.

    At west coast park, the event was PAP Carnival, straits times say.

    Members of the PAP were there as guests, if we say PCF is different from PAP.

    Still, it contravenes the law because political parties are not allowed to hold outdoor events.

    Spirit of the law is just as important as the letters of the law.

    Otherwise if the law can be so easily circumvented then the law is an ass, as JBJ once said.

    Non-candidates of a constituency are no allowed to enter polling stations during elections, the law say.

    PAP non-candidate enter polling booth.

    Attorney General, our now-chief justice, then made a world class somersault acrobatic tiwst of the law to save the PAP candidates asses – includng several ministers.

    Don’t kid yourself by using semantics to say PCF is not PAP.

    Comment by Just follow law— September 8, 2008 #

  12. I think we should give credit to Singaporeans that they are no longer that naive and stupid.

    Hey, 40 years of nation building should see some improvements, right?

    We all know how the laws can be twisted and changed to suit any private agenda. We also know LKY is a brilliant lawyer.

    Of course, my parents didn’t, 40 years ago.

    So, please dun give me such semantic crap.

    There is one chinese saying ‘公道在人心”.

    Tell you what, this is why PAP will be losing big time.

    Comment by anon— September 8, 2008 #

  13. the vehicle is merely a vehicle. what’s being transported in the vehicle is the main contention!

    understand, or was that too simple for you literal folks?

    Comment by simple— September 8, 2008 #

  14. You talked about black and white.

    PAP works in the gray area that they created.

    They are living on other people’s goodwill and goodwill will run out in time to come.

    Oh yeah, the polling station incident was damn world class of kind of gray too.

    Comment by joe— September 8, 2008 #

  15. PCF and PAP. It takes so many bloggers and debates to tell what legal entities they are and whether they break the law. Totally missing the point, is it?
    The fact is no layman can differentiate it unless they checked thoroughly. So it is natural for anyone to assume that PCF = PAP related => Political event => FREE PUBLICITY for PAP! Again!
    Next, passerbys who are again layman, may walk by and seeing politicians, get excited, and ask political questions. Now, the situation becomes exactly the same as WP’s!

    Comment by tut tut— September 8, 2008 #

  16. While your legal analysis is accurate, it seems to miss the point of why this issue has prompted cries of unfairness.

    Whilst both organizations are indeed separate legal entities, the analysis does not stop there. For example, the courts are nevertheless willing to look behind the the scenes (a term quaintly referred to as “lifting the corporate veil”) where the separate legal entity is a fraud or a facade.

    Further, one should bear in mind the reason why the concept of “separate legal entity” was recognized in the first place. The traditional justification has been to encourage people to set up companies, and this legal fiction of “separate legal entity” is used so that those who set up the business will not face unlimited liability, because the company becomes a separate legal entity. Its initial intent was hardly to allow political parties to use charities as a proxy or as a way to sidestep legislation that would have applied if conducted under the PAP banner.

    But more importantly, the real issue is the rule banning political parties from conducting activities in parks is absurd and unfair to parties that have fewer resources and cannot exploit such “separate legal entities”. The law itself is unfair and inequitable, which is why a technical application of the law gives a result that appears legally correct, but intuitively perverse. When both the PAP and the WP intend to conduct essentially the same activities and the former is allowed though legal semantics while the latte denied, it offends a basic sense of fairness.

    Comment by Nev— September 11, 2008 #


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

- lah.cc :: Blogs For Singapore | sgBlogs :: Singapore's Blogosphere - | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.