Tag: AHPETC

Did PAP Activists Break Law In Distributing Flyers?

By Ariffin Sha

A team of activists from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had distributed flyers urging residents of Aljunied GRC to question the Workers’ Party past midnight last Friday. Enough have been said about the morals, or lack thereof, of their antics. I would now like to explore whether the actions of these activists were even legal in the first place.

Mr Pillai and Mr Lye from PAP Aljunied

To start, we should also note that PAP activists Victor Lye, who made a Facebook post thanking his team for distributing the fliers, and Muralidharan Pillai, who confirmed to media that the flyers were from PAP, have both clearly indicated the origins of the flyers. In spite of that, the documents in question do not carry any PAP logo. The flyers were also distributed past midnight, as if done to avoid direct contact with residents.

Notwithstanding the highly mysterious and secretive air surrounding the distribution, Muralidharan had insisted to media that they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”.

Precedence set by the SDP

Ms Chee Siok Chin was jailed for a week for distributing flyers which were critical of the Government.

In 2008, six members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) were charged for distributing flyers which were critical of the government.

Their charge sheet read:

You are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.

Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008

The SDP members were charged under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules which states: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

Here’s what political blogger Alex Au had to say about the charge,

It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance

The point made by Mr Au definitely makes sense – the execution of laws should target the intended consequence, rather than the offending act itself. Unfortunately, the way the law was applied in the case must be taken into account in evaluating the present facts.

In the judgement passed by District Judge Chng Lye Beng, it is understood that, if a group of five or more persons distribute flyers of a political nature in a public place without a permit, they may likely be in breach of the law. Let us now compare the first three elements of the offence with the facts of the case at hand.

Five or more persons?

After the distribution of the flyers, Mr Lye posted this image on his Facebook page. According to his post, the people featured in this picture are the “(PAP) activists who worked through the night… to distribute flyers.” From this picture, one can easily make out seven people, which suggests that there were more than five people who helped to distribute the flyers. There might also have been more who helped out in the distribution but were not featured in this photo.

Post on Mr Lye’s Facebook page after the flyer distribution

Public places?

The flyers in question were placed at the doors of HDB flats, as seen in the picture above. This means that Mr Lye and his team were operating at the common corridors of HDB flats. It is also clear from the photographs taken from Mr Lye’s Facebook page that the flyers were left outside the flats – which suggests that they in no way entered into the home, or what might be considered private property.

Flyers of political nature?

To give the reader a better understanding of what would constitute ‘political nature’, it would be good to look at the contents of the flyers that the SDP members distributed. The flyers contained the following words:

Tired of being a voiceless, 2^nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore? Then join us for the

EMPOWER SINGAPOREANS

RALLY & MARCH

Saturday, 16 Sept 2006, 11 am

Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park

FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO

www.singaporedemocrat.org

In comparison. here are the contents of the flyers that the PAP activists distributed:

Comparing the contents of the two flyers, I opine that if the former can be constituted to be of a political nature, the latter undoubtedly is of a political nature too. The later also makes explicit references to the Workers’ Party and its Town Councils which should dissipate any doubts one may have about the political nature of the flyers.

Without a permit?

Prima Facie, it seems as though the actions of the PAP Aljunied team on Friday evening have satisfied the first three elements of the offence. In other words, Mr Lye and his team of five or more persons did distribute flyers which were of a political nature in a public place.

The question now would really be whether they had a permit for the distribution of the flyers. Both Mr Lye and Mr Muralidharan had not any any point in time produced any evidence to show that a permit has been obtained. If they do not have such a permit, they would technically be in breach of the law.

Alternative charge of Sedition

However, the SDP is not the only precedence we have of people distributing flyers without a permit and getting into trouble for doing so.

In what was popularly referred to as the “poison letters“, a flyer that was critical of the PAP was distributed to residents in the heartlands via letter boxes. The Strait Times described the flyer as “an A4-sized sheet with the criticisms in English and Chinese, made allegations about corruption and exploitation and complained about cost of living issues, among other things.”

It was reported that Police investigations were ongoing although we didn’t get to hear the end of the matter. TODAY reported that the flier was in breach of the Sedition Act which states, among other things, that a seditious tendency is one which seek:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore

The “poison letter” incident raises another bag of issues for the PAP flyer distribution in Aljunied GRC. While the target of the flyers – the Workers Party – do not form the government, its members are rightfully elected Members of Parliament, who are part legislative arm of the government. The contents of the flyers might possibly be also be construed instigate dissatisfaction among the residents of Aljunied against WP. Might it have the consequence of causing political unrest? The potential is unthinkable. However, to a certain extent, it may be possible to interpret the contents of the flyers to amount to a “seditious tendency” under subsections (b) and (d).

Conclusion

Ultimately, if this case ever goes before the courts, the issue of the legality of the flyer distribution lies with the Judiciary. Personally, I do hope that it never will, just as I wished the case of SDP and the “poison letter” never did. Even though I believe the actions of Mr Lye and team are akin to a political lowblow, I am of the firm opinion that, as far as the law is concerned, they should be free to do what they do – just like how all political parties distribute flyers during their house visits. I an no fan of laws that can be interpreted and applied in a manner that is over-reaching and discretionary.

However, should a police report be made by a recipient of the flyers against the PAP activists, might it be an uphill task for PAP activists to justify the legality of this flyer distribution?

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

March 16, 2015
PAP Activists Distributing Flyers Urging Residents To Quiz Their Workers’ Party MPs

People’s Action Party (PAP) activists in Aljunied GRC have gone on the offensive, distributing flyers today (March 13) urging residents to quiz their Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) over the accounting and corporate governance lapses committed by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).

Titled “What You Should Ask WP’s Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council”, the flyer — which was in English and Chinese and came complete with a chart — compared AHPETC’s managing agent rates with those of some PAP town councils. Among other things, it charged that there was improper governance by AHPETC and that the town council had “overpaid its friends at FMSS by at least S$6.4 million”.

“This is our ‘lost money’. It means we have less money to clean and maintain our estate,” the flyer said, reiterating that serious problems that could affect residents were flagged by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO).

The lapses, which were highlighted by the AGO in its audit report on AHPETC, prompted National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan to table a motion in Parliament last month. Among other things, the motion called on town councils to uphold higher standards of accounting and reporting to safeguard residents’ interests.

During the parliamentary debate, PAP ministers and MPs had zeroed in on a potential conflict of interest: AHPETC secretary Danny Loh and his wife, the town council’s general manager How Weng Fan, are also the main directors and shareholders of AHPETC’s managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS).

Adding that the WP had deliberately remained silent to queries posed by auditors and in Parliament, the flyer also listed questions that residents should confront the WP MPs with, including how much FMSS and other businesses owned by AHPETC employees earnt from the town council, as well as what the town council’s latest financial situation is. The flyer added: “Why did AHPETC allow the husband-and-wife team to verify and approve payment on work done by FMSS, which is owned by them?”

It was not stated on the flyer who had come up with the contents. When contacted, PAP Paya Lebar branch chairman K Muralidharan Pillai confirmed that the flyers — which were distributed to units in Kovan — were handed out by PAP activists today. Adding that it was a ground-up initiative by the activists, he said they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”. The plan is to distribute the flyers throughout Aljunied GRC, he said.

He pointed out that the WP MPs had said in Parliament that they would answer to residents directly on AHPETC’s lapses. Adding that the flyers contained publicly available information, Mr Muralidharan said: “Our activists decided to help residents understand the core issues and suggested questions that they may wish to ask of their MPs. Residents are free to make up their own minds as to what they wish to do after reading the flyer.”

The WP did not respond to queries by press time.

Some Kovan residents who received the flyer told TODAY that they were wondering who had distributed them. Nevertheless, a resident who gave his name only as Mr Seah said: “Everything in the flyer is directed at WP. It is quite obvious that it is from the PAP.”

Source: www.todayonline.com

March 14, 2015
NSP: For Benefit Of Residents, Do Not Politicise Town Councils

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has called on the government not to penalise residents Aljunied residents, tighten the framework of the Town Council Act and to depoliticise town councils so that it does not hinder the ability of MPs to serve as the people’s representatives.

The remarks were made in a statement issued by NSP’s new secretary-general Mr Tan Lam Siong, in the wake of the parliamentary debate on the financial audit by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) on Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) accounts.

NSP called on the government not to withhold the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) grant to AHPETC in the light of the adverse findings by AGO, but instead to continue disbursing the grants to let AHPETC pay for essential services.

“As it is, the collection of S&CC charges from residential and commercial units is insufficient to cover all town council expenses and hence a government grant is required,” wrote Mr Tan. “Any withholding of the S&CC grant amounting to S$ 7 million per year will therefore affect residents if AHPETC is unable to pay for essential services.”

NSP also supported the move to enforce greater standards of accountability and governance, but said that this should not lead to a penalty framework in the management of town councils that would impact on town councillors who are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament.

“A MP’s fundamental duty is to represent his constituents who elected him or her and to participate in the functions of Parliament,” said Mr Tan. “This duty cannot and should never be subjugated to any other duty. By putting in place a penalty framework in relation to town councillors who are also MPs, the concern is whether such a framework would lead to their secondary role as town councillors overshadowing and undermining their primary role as MPs.”

NSP also noted that the constant accusations of an un-level playing field and political bias, which opposition MPs have often raised against the government.

“NSP hopes that the government will re-examine the political wisdom of the notion that the competency of political parties aspiring to form the national government can be tested through their management of town councils,” said Mr Tan. “Such a notion has no empirical basis. The ability to manage a town council and the ability to govern the country have no correlation whatsoever. Any suggestion of a correlation would imply that the best people to govern the country are town planners and estate managers, which cannot be true.”

Mr Tan recalled that the first generation of government leaders were “fully capable of governing the country” although they were by no means managing town councils, and they have depended on a politically neutral civil service to fulfil that task.

“NSP urges the government to consider allowing town councils to be managed by a statutory board or a centralised agency instead,” said Mr Tan, “so that residents will not only benefit from a seamless continuation of all services when there is a change of town councillors who are MPs from a different political party but also from lower S&CC charges because of economy of scale.”

“Residents will be spared the vagaries of a political change in what is essentially a municipal function that can be performed by those equipped with the knowledge and skills to manage estates. If the management of town councils continues to be politically charged, public confidence in our political system will continue to be eroded.”

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

February 18, 2015
AHPETC Saga: The Politics Of Stupidity

Some of us might be bewildered by what happened in Parliament last week, when a motion was tabled to discuss at length about the Accounting General’s investigation into the finances of Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council.

Two whole days were spent niggling over the finances of a single town council, with various Ministers taking the stand to chastise, lambast, accuse and denigrate the effectiveness and integrity of the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament in charge of AHPETC, who then had to defend themselves against these allegations.

That was followed up by countless media reports, and even all the way to this week, we can hear the topic being discussed on national radio. The circus continues.

With such a big fuss, what exactly was the issue about, you might ask?

The Minister for National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan would have you believe that it was about transparency and accountability. Much was said about how AHPETC was not able to cobble together a proper audit report, the figures were all in a mess, and how the way its managing agent attended to the affairs of the town council was anything but lawful.

Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim

Indeed, AHPETC has a lot to answer for. The dearth of any managing agent or existing company willing to take up contracts run by opposition party town councils might mean the need for the party to appoint a preferred vendor that has little experience in running such affairs, but it then becomes the party’s obligation to ensure that nothing should ever slip through the cracks.

This has nothing to do with the risk of being picked on by their opposition, but the simple need to break in new vendors and ensure they can more than adequately comply with existing regulations.

Yet for all the accountably owing, is this issue worthy of time in Parliament and national media? In truth, AHPETC needs to address the concerns of its residents in how their money had been used. This issue is at best a municipal one, hardly worth a two-day debate in the House.

In spite of all the red marks AHPETC received in its annual town council audits by MND, to question the effectiveness of its leaders is very different from questioning their integrity. In fact, putting the same spotlight of scrutiny that AGO had on any other town council might have yielded similar results.

What is of national concern, however, was not given the air time it deserves in Parliament. We are talking about many millions more, given to the government led by the ruling People’s Action Party for the management of the nation, yet with clear transgressions of proper accountability. We are talking about yet another report by AGO, this time on the financial irregularities in government agencies. This is not money given to one town council, but money that an entire nation of tax-payers had entrusted to the government. Were any of these financial issues debated as robustly as AHPETC’s finances?

Khaw Boon Wan

We should also note that Mr Khaw’s own Ministry had more recently been called into question for oversights in tendering the Fernvale temple and columbarium. Amazingly, Mr Khaw was allowed to explain this away by making references to, of all things, Chinese folklore.

My intention in drawing up these examples is not to heap it on Mr Khaw or do a tit-for-tat, but to ask, really, what should Parliament be focusing on?

Yet another rationale for focusing on AHPETC was given by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, who opined that it was about serving the interests of residents well. Mr Heng also went as far as to make unsubstantiated claims that WP MPs have been avoiding residents’ queries on the issue during their walkabouts.

Oddly, a recent media report on radio, where reporters actually went to the Aljunied ward to talk to residents to get their views on the issue, indicated that residents generally trust AHPETC to do the right thing, and indeed, their neighbourhoods are no worse than before despite the fracas.

Heng Swee Keat

That aside, it is perhaps a tad contradictory that the actions by Mr Heng’s colleague should disagree with his concerns for the residents. For all the review to the Town Council Act that Mr Khaw had promised, his Ministry’s decision on the matter was to withhold about S$7 million of service and conservancy charges grants for the financial year 2014 from AHPETC until it can fill in the gaps for its finances.

Is this withholding of funds meant to penalise AHPETC, or to punish the residents? Where exactly is PAP’s focus on this issue? Has it lost focus, or did it have any to begin with?

In net effect, the berating of AHPETC using precious time in Parliament was not about accountability. It was also not about the rights of citizens, as the actions of MND have proved. But if it was about politics, then it was clearly not the smart kind.

Indeed, Mr Heng had claimed that the issue was not about partisan politics. Perhaps he was right. Partisan politics would require that you put in some effort to defend your party’s interest against your opponent. What we saw in Parliament last week was little more than the PAP going for WP’s jugular, completely disregarding that the ground had already been stained with its own blood.

PAP, in letting its key office holders loose to freely attack WP, need to realise that the residents of Alijunied, Hougang and Punggol East did not vote in WP because they wanted MPs who are fantastic at running their estates. By PAP’s own admission – and in case it has forgotten – WP won because voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.

Last week, voters saw that voice being drowned out in Parliament and in media. One can only wonder what their reaction might be, come the next general elections.

If this had been about projecting a positive perception among the electorate, WP might have taken a bruising, but it was surely the PAP that has bashed itself to a pulp. But of course, it is not. It has been about, and will always be told to be about, public accountability and the interest of residents – if you would believe it.

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

February 17, 2015
AHPETC Saga: Separate The Facts From The Myths

Know the facts from the myths in the AHPETC saga…

Myth:
The TC Secretary and its General Manager, who are the main directors and shareholders of the Managing Agent (MA) are freely being given contracts without tender and paying themselves handsomely without accountability.

Fact:
The MA has no decision-making power in relation to the award of tenders. Tenders are awarded by a Tenders & Contracts Committee consisting of Members of Parliament and appointed Councillors with no interest whatsoever in the MA.

The MA is not involved in evaluating any tender in which it is participating. When the MA and EMSU (essential maintenance services unit) tenders are involved, the MA is excluded from the deliberations.

Myth:
AHPETC has shown disrespect to auditors or Parliament for not submitting documents as requested.

Fact:
Throughout the audit, thousands of documents were provided. For example, more than 16,481 payment vouchers were produced.

In Appendix C of the AGO report (p.3, Attachment 2), Members will see there is just one out of 22 requests outstanding. In Attachment 3, just three out of 75 are outstanding.

Myth:
The Secretary and General Manager issued invoices, certified work done and approved and signed cheques to FMSS. Appendix C Attachment 1 and its total amount for 84 invoices of $6.6 million has been the subject of a front page headline on 9 February 2015. The Lian He Wan Bao headline entitled: “TC Secretary and GM pay their own company $6.6 million”

Fact:
The TC adopted an SOP on 8 September 2011, soon after the new management took over.

It was the policy that no cheque to FMSS, of whatever amount, could be issued unless either the TC Chairman or one of the Vice-Chairmen co-signed the cheque.

Thus, it was not possible for FMSS to pay itself unless authorised by the TC Chair or Vice-Chair, who have no interest in FMSS whatsoever.

Myth:
In the TC’s audit for FY 12, our auditors put in a disclaimer that because the project management fee details were not disclosed in the Financial Statements, they were unable to determine the completeness of the related party disclosures

Fact:
There was no clarity of practice in the financial statements of Town Councils. For instance, the same auditors audited us in FY 11, and only required a related party disclosure of the MA fees. The former Aljunied Town Council management also had related parties, and yet there were no related party transaction disclosures in Financial Statements, which had no disclaimers.

Source: The Alternative View

February 16, 2015