Is the SPF being partisan? - by mrbiao

Strangely, mrbiao deleted this insightful article, so I thought it would be in the public interest to republish it.  Nevertheless, I would like to note I disagree with this article in some points. I do think all parties should have to organize open air events if they do not cause chaos. However, since on party in Singapore has a record of doing that, there is no basis for refusing a permit!

Is the SPF being partisan?

By mrbiao ⋅ September 9, 2008

Today’s ST Forum carried a response from the SPF about a letter written by someone who questioned why the Workers Party’s application for a permit for its anniversary cycling event last year was rejected, while a similar event held by the PAP Community Foundation’s was allowed.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after [1] taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and [2] not a political party. The event was [3] not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. [4] The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

I attempt to explain this response from the SPF using the Theory of Reasoned Action.

The Theory of Reasoned Action states that behavioural intention is a function of attitude and subjective norms. Attitudes is defined as ” the sum of beliefs about a particular behavior weighted by evaluations of these beliefs”, while subjective norms is defined as “the influence of people in one’s social environment on his/her behavioral intentions”.

We can apply TRA in various areas, including politics in Singapore.

From SPF’s reply, we can derive that they probably have positive beliefs and evaluations for the PAP, and negative ones for the WP. [1] implies that the SPF issued the permit as it believes the PAP Community Foundation is a law-abiding organization. That’s fine, until you see how it implies that the WP, comparatively, is deemed as less credible. I thought Singaporeans are often taught not to discriminate?

[2] is an attempt to justify the SPF’s decision (the behaviour) based on a techicality - that the PAP Community Foundation is a charity. However, we all know that the PCF is at the end of the day, an orgajization related to the PAP which is obviously a political party. Nice try. Perhaps the opposition parties should register some charities to do good for the society as well as to use them for applications to the SPF for permits to hold events where opposition MPs are the VIPs.

[3] tells us about the SPF’s attitude towards PCF (not assessed to have potential for unruly behaviour and disorder). This again when looked at in the context of the SPF’s nay and yay decisions for the WP and PCF respectively, tells us that the SPF has no faith in the WP’s ability to keep their events orderly and, worst, implies that WP members are deemed to have potential for unruly behaviour.

[4] is the outcome of these predispositions, beliefs and attitudes. While it is a factual statement describing what happened at the event, it is odd that such a statement included in the SPF’s reply. It seems to be an endorsement of the PCF’s good work, which is strange since the police should not be seen as taking sides with a charitable organization, or any other private organization (remember, the basis for the decision to issue a permit was based on the technicality that the PCF is a charity).

As for subjective norms, I am wondering if it can be applied to this situation based on the hypothesis that the pro-PCF attitude may be a result of SPF’s norms of siding with pro-government organizations (i.e. those related to government organs or the ruling party).

I am of course not saying that the SPF was wrong in its decision not to issue a permit for the WP. Afterall, the anniversary event is primarily held for the purpose of commemorating a political party’s anniversary. The pertinent issue is about how the SPF’s reply seems like it is taking sides.

At the end of the day, I think whatever decision (and media statements) the SPF makes should be based solely on merits of each case and not on generalizations based on the identity of applicants.