The Registry of Societies (ROS), which falls under Ministry of Home Affairs, received a report from blogger Ravi Philemon who said the Sunshine Welfare Action Mission (SWAMI) contravened its constitution.

This was after the home allowed the People’s Action Party (PAP) to hold a press conference on its premises on Aug. 14 to unveil its candidates for Sembawang GRC.

Minsitry of Home Affairs responds

Yahoo Singapore reported that a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) spokesperson has since said that the home has been advised to ensure "strict adherence" to its constitution, following a brouhaha online:

"The Sunshine Welfare Action Mission (SWAMI) is a registered society. It is governed by its constitution on what activities are permissible and what are not. It is obliged to adhere to its constitution. SWAMI was advised by the Registry of Societies on 17 August 2015 to ensure strict adherence to its constitution."

Philemon wrote on his blog that the constitutions of most VWOs, including SWAMI Home, contain clauses that state such organisations should not take part in political activities.

Philemon, who has worked in voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), is a member of the Singapore People’s Party.

Swami Home responds

The President of Swami Home, Low Chang Yee, has issued a statement saying they were unaware of this provision in their constitution and explained that their premises was temporarily leased out on commercial grounds:

"The local MPs wanted to rent our premises for their event. We agreed as their rental of our premises on commercial terms was helpful for us. We have never used any of our funds to help any political party. The funds we raised from rental of our premises are used to help us run the Swami Nursing Home and our other charitable causes.

We did not check our constitution at the time we rented our premises but now we have been informed and are aware of this provision in our Constitution.”

PAP Sembawang Team reponds

The PAP team from Sembawang GRC has also acknowledged that a report was made against the Home and have come out to explain why the venue was chosen:

“We understand that a report has been made against a local VWO. We had rented the premises on purely commercial terms, partly to support this VWO and partly because we felt it was an accessible place and had sufficient space to accommodate reporters. We had not checked the VWO's constitution. However, we have nothing but the highest regard for the work done by this VWO and will continue to support it in any way we can.”

Top photo by Jeanette Tan

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.