Just sharing one reply I got from ST forum. MY REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION : Just want to clarify a few points you raised. You disagreed that a stat board role should be consistent with the governments stand? So stat board roles should be inconsistent with that of government? The ruling party is not the government? Then who is government, opposition? The definition of family by the writer is not constitutionally approved, narrow, and partisan? Please show which part of the constitution. The role of civil servants must not decide on partisan stand or adopt selectively reinforce values at own discretion, but to serve public......So when the civil servants decide on reinforcing values that favours you, are they not selectively taking a partisan stand and not serving the public where much of the public is not happy? Please take your time to digest this and answer me. HIS RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST : Anthony Kan , thanks for taking the time to read my comment! Heres my response to you, one point at a time. 1) The ruling party is not the government? Then who is the government, opposition? The government consists of the entire governing apparatus as a whole, which includes the rest of Parliament (which includes the opposition), and also the Public Service and other arms of government, such as the Presidency, the Judiciary (Supreme Court). When a civil servant says, I work for the government, he doesnt mean that he works for the PAP for the duration of its incumbency: it means that he works for the apparatus of state that serves the people *regardless of who the incumbent is*. The ruling party forms the Cabinet, which is certainly a very influential part of the government, but is not the government in its entirety. A civil servant, a teacher, or a soldier, serves the people of Singapore as a whole, and their duties and responsibilities do not change depending on the incumbent party. As such, the guiding principles of the civil service and other organs of state must be to provide the best possible service to all Singaporeans without discrimination or favour. Until and unless the party in power uses its parliamentary majority to re-codify these principles in line with its own partisan values, I dont see why any arm of government service should feel compelled to uphold them. In short, the term pro-family as defined by its opposition to alternative lifestyles is not as far as I know codified as one of the responsibilities of the civil service. That term by that definition remains the hallmark of the ruling party, and as such I consider upholding it a partisan decision. If Parliament and the various Ministers decide to include ... be pro-family, to the extent of preventing the dissemination or support of alternative lifestyles... in the Civil Service Code of Conduct or similar guiding document, at that point my argument will no longer hold true, and then it becomes every civil servants responsibility to support that particular stance. Until that happens, however, public services and institutions should remain impartial in such matters. 2) The definition of family by the writer is not constitutionally approved, narrow, and partisan? Please show which part of the constitution. The Singapore Constitution Chapter 353 (Womens Charter) Part VII: Protection of Family, defines in Paragraph 64 family member as: spouse or former spouse, a child of the person including an adopted or step-child, a father or mother of the person, a father-or-mother-in-law of the person, a sibling of the person, or any other relative of the person... who in the opinion of the court should... be regarded as a member of the family. At no point does it define the family unit as consisting definitively and comprehensively of a man and a woman married to each other and the child they have borne. In fact, the implications of the Constitution are that non-conventional family units, including people who are currently single, whether or not they have children (their divorced spouses still count), and people whose parentage may not be apparent or directly connected with their primary caregivers (adopted and step-children are still family members). Under these definitions, if a person with a child divorces and remarries multiple times, each of their current and former spouses counts as a potential family member of the child; the child could potentially have not only two mothers or two fathers, but potentially multiples of each. Presumably with DNA-testing you could discover who the childs biological parents are, but biological parent and legally-recognised family member arent the same thing. And since were talking about pro-family here, the Constitution provides a very wide spectrum of potential family configurations. Therefore, insisting that a family must consist of one father, one mother, and their child is not strictly-speaking in line with the Constitution of Singapore. This definition of family as promulgated by members of whichever political party or parties must therefore be considered a partisan claim rather than a working legal definition. Its so rare to encounter people with a deep enough interest in the Constitution to demand references and, surely, be able to provide counter-citations. Id love to hear your rebuttal :) 3) So when the civil servants decide on reinforcing values that favours you, are they not selectively taking a partisan stand and not serving the public where much of the public is not happy? I must admit that your grammar leaves the main thrust of your question a little hazy. Let me answer as best as I understand. If a civil servant reinforces values that favours me, personally, to the exclusion of others, then yes, they are taking a stand that may not be partisan (if its not in the actual interest of an actual political party), but is definitely discriminatory and against their code of conduct. For example, if my child is admitted to a school on preferential grounds due to values, then yes, the decision-making civil servant has made an error. Unfortunately, making the public happy is not as I understand it within the ambit of any arm of the government. Maybe whichever arm handles media and communications? They certainly try to make people happy through providing TV and other entertainment services :) Serving the public sometimes requires that some people be made unhappy. If a school with 200 places receives 1000 applicants, then by necessity the civil servant who controls school admissions must make 800 applicants and their families unhappy in order to fulfil their duty. If a policeman needs to arrest an individual and thereby make him and his family and community unhappy, it is unfortunately his duty to do so. If the riot squad must put down a popular illegal insurrection, and thereby make huge swathes of the population unhappy, then it is their duty to do so. When it comes to maintaining the integrity of the civil service and fair provision of public services, the happiness of members of the public is unfortunately a secondary concern. Of course, if theyre unhappy enough, they can petition their elected representatives to use government influence to tweak the duties of civil servants back in line with the values of the common people, which is totally fine. But until and unless such change occurs through the proper channels, a civil servant must stand by their duty as is currently defined. So! I hope Mr Anthony Kan I have managed to answer at least some of your questions. Id love to hear your responses :)
Posted on: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:18:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015