But if Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC) set-up by RI(JC) should not be described as partisan activities that favour a specific political party or politician, why was it included in the September/October 2010 edition of PETIR magazine, which is the official organ of the People's Action Party? Through publicising the activities and accomplishments of BLYC, Petir has clearly identified BLYC to be a part of PAP.
In replying to Siew Kum Hong's charge that the Ministry of Education and the schools must remain impartial and stand clearly above the political fray, MOE said, that BLYC was appropriately recognised as an official co-curricular activity (CCA) because the main objective of BLYC is to give its members opportunities to volunteer at community level.
Kum Hong's suggestions that BLYC may not have survived without the intervention of Madam Ho Geok Choo (Member of Parliament in Boon Lay ward of West Coast GRC and the mother of the President of BLYC) and without MOE's and RI(JC)'s official support, were not at all addressed in MOE's reply.
Even The Straits Times seem to think that BLYC is an initiative of West Coast GRC (they first ran the story as a sidebar to an an article on West Coast GRC), but somehow despite all these facts, PAP (or for that matter MOE) refuses to acknowledge that BLYC is partisan grassroots activity. Because if so acknowledged, it would be an admission that the schools are not impartial and stand above the political fray.
Many of our opposition politicians' children also go to our local schools. If suppose one of their children want to start a youth club to give its members opportunities to volunteer at community level, would such a club be supported by MOE? Will the public schools in Singapore recognise such activity as CCA?
Comments