|
|
|
Complaints
Choir saga: MHA's last minute flip-flops must be
challenged
Singapore Democrats
28 Jan 08
It is important
to not forget that rules governing society apply not only to
citizens but also to authorities. In Singapore, the disregard for
such rules by the state has been shown up again and again. The
latest manifestation was over the ban of the Complaints Choir's
pubic performances.
It was revealed that permission for
the group to sing at various public places including Vivo City,
the Esplanade, and Speakers' Corner was rescinded the day before
the performances were to be conducted.
In any other
civilised society, the police would have been sued. Imagine the
logistical preparations that would have to be cancelled, not to
mention the hours of practice gone to waste.
Then again,
a civilised government would not have banned a choir. But this is
Singapore. Here, the police have absolute power and never has to
account for anything.
Ostensibly, it was that there were
foreigners within the choir that prompted the police to do the
about-turn over the permit. But wait a minute. The choir has been
practicing for weeks and the police had known that there were
non-Singaporeans in the group. Yet, strangely, they chose not to
do anything until the day before the choir was scheduled to
perform.
But foreigners regularly perform in Singapore,
don't they? What's the difference this time?
Apparently,
the song mentions public policies like the CPF and foreigners
cannot comment on, or in this instance sing about, such matters.
But then someone in the choir pointed out that the Media
Development Authority had approved the lyrics. (Singapore must be
one of the very few places on modern earth where the state still
vets the lyrics of songs sung to the public. It's beyond
pathetic.)
If the authorities had known the content of the
songs and that non-Singaporeans were going to be singing it, why
did they wait until the very last minute to ke-belakang
pusing?
To be sure, this is not the first time that
the police, or more precisely, the Ministry of Home Affairs has
pulled off such a stunt. In 2007, it rejected a permit for
Professor Douglas Sanders to speak at a forum after initially
saying okay. (See here
for details.)
In 2006 it did a more
damaging U-turn. Prior to the WB-IMF meeting meeting in
September, Singapore had agreed that NGO representatives who were
accredited with the World Bank could participate in the meeting.
But just days before the conference, the Government changed its
mind and refused these people entry.
The decision sparked
off a firestorm. One that raged on but received little attention
was within the cabinet itself. The SDP understands that foreign
minister, Mr George Yeo, was livid with the decision to ban the
NGO representatives as he had, during the negotiations, agreed
that they could attend.
It was the home affairs minister,
Mr Wong Kan Seng, who stepped in and vetoed Mr Yeo's decision.
Big loss of face for Mr Yeo, no can do. And so the two faced
off.
After an almighty altercation and intense pressure
from the president of the World Bank, the decision was reached to
allow some of those accredited to come in.
Too late. The
NGOs decided to return the slap by boycotting the meeting.
The
incident is revealing on two counts. First, it gave an indication
of how not-in-charge the Prime Minister was.
Did Mr Lee
Hsien Loong know about the Foreign Ministry's agreement to let
the NGOs attend the meeting? If he didn't one has to ask why,
given the prominence of the conference. If he did, then why did
he flip to agree to ban the NGOs from attending and then flop to
allow some of them in when pressured? Just who is in
command?
Second and more relevant, how do you work with a
government that makes up its mind only to change it at the last
minute and, worse, refuses to give an explanation?
The
Ministry of Home Affairs must not be allowed to continue running
this place like a fiefdom. When it says no, it better have a good
reason. And if it changes its mind at the last minute, it must be
ready to pay compensation to the organiser.
If the
Government can take liberties with agreements it makes and with
answers it gives to public applications like the Complaints
Choir, then one shudders to think what it does behind closed
doors with our CPF funds and reserves.
|
|
