|
|
|
Straits
Times wants opposition unity to defeat the PAP? Think
again
Singapore
Democrats
1 Mar 08
Mr Kong Soon Wah
Forum
Editor
Straits
Times
stforum@sph.com.sg
Dear Sir,
I
would be grateful if you would publish my reply to Mr Peh Shing
Huei's column The
Partitioning of the opposition.
Please do not make any amendments or alterations to my letter
without my consent. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chee Soon
Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Is
it possible that a Straits
Times'
journalist is pointing out the way for the opposition to defeat
the PAP? This is what Mr Peh Shing Huei would have Singaporeans
believe in his article "The
partitioning of the opposition"
(ST,
29 Feb 08).
Reality check: The newspaper is run by the
Singapore Press Holdings whose chairman is Dr Tony Tan, former
deputy prime minister, GIC deputy chairman, and card-carrying
member of the PAP.
So what is the real agenda behind this
piece? Here are a few pointers:
Distortion
#1: SDP = radical = bad
Mr
Peh labels the Singapore Democrats as "radicals" for
our "brazen actions flouting the law." In the context
of his piece, this is a bad thing to be shunned by society.
The
loaded terms Mr Peh chooses for the two camps are telling. They
give away the writer's instincts and, more importantly, his real
intentions.
What Mr Peh doesn't point out is that it is
not the Singapore Democrats who are flouting laws but rather the
PAP which is making up and/or using unjust laws to deny citizens
their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly,
rights that are essential to their well-being.
I have
written countless articles and even published a book to explain
why civil disobedience is the correct and necessary response to a
government that rules by whim especially when it comes to the
political and civil rights of the people.
A good example
is the recent banning of the planned SDP protest outside
Parliament House on 15 March 2008. In contrast CASE was allowed
to hold a similar event at the same venue in 2007 and will do so
again on 16 March this year.
Yet the writer glibly
ignores all this, opting to portray SDP as a bunch of renegades
out to wreak havoc in Singapore.
In contrast, Mr Peh
paints the "moderates" as "limit[ing] their
challenges to the Government to constitutional means, contesting
elections for seats." How can such an approach to politics
be criticised? Isn't this being practiced by opposition parties
in democratic countries all over the world?
What he
doesn't tell readers is that the PAP bribes and intimidates
voters, fixes the opposition, and makes up the rules as it goes
along.
The opposition has been playing the game under PAP
rules for close to half-a-century with disastrous results. The
SDP is calling attention to the fact that these rules must be
reviewed and reformed, and for elections to be run by a genuinely
neutral body. How radical is this?
Distortion
#2: SDP not focused on bread-and-butter issues
Mr
Peh further writes that "moderates focus more on
bread-and-butter issues...Not so for the radicals." This is
a not-so-subtle comment that the SDP is not in tune with
sentiments of the common folk.
A check of the SDP's
website and our newspaper The
New Democrat shows
this to be completely false. We have consistently and repeatedly
raised pocket book issues such as the need for minimum wage, the
escalating cost of living, the retention of CPF funds, HDB prices
and so on.
In fact, Mr Yap Keng Ho and I are facing eight
charges of speaking in public precisely for highlighting such
kitchen-table issues in The
New Democrat during
the election period in 2006.
Here is how it really works:
The
Straits Times continues
to blackout SDP's views and positions on these matters. It then
uses this lack of coverage to tell the people that the Singapore
Democrats are neglecting bread-and-butter issues.
Distortion
#3: SDP does not want opposition cooperation
Mr
Peh relates that at the Workers' Party's 50th anniversary last
year "only leaders of the moderate parties attended. Dr Chee
and Mr Jeyaretnam were both absent," giving readers the
impression that I had chosen not to attend the dinner. He refused
to tell readers that I didn't attend because I was not
invited.
Even when he mentioned about the SDP inviting
other opposition parties for the forum on election reform, Mr Peh
emphasized on the other speakers "taking shots" at
other oppositionists but avoids mentioning my continued call for
the opposition to come together on this issue.
Apart from
the election reform forum, past events show that the SDP has
tried to work towards greater opposition cooperation. Mr Peh
tries very hard to distort our record.
SDP's
support
The
columnist points out that support for the Singapore Democrats in
the Internet has grown. This is because the SDP does not take our
support for granted. We work for it.
We are acutely aware
that Singaporeans are thinking, discerning individuals. They
don't want to be talked at. If we make sense to them instead of
patronising them and explain to them the logic of our positions,
we believe that we can win their support.
More to the
point, the mainstream media cannot censor or distort our views on
the Internet like what Mr Peh has done. In an environment where
information is not controlled by the PAP, people can see who is
working and who is lying.
Mr Peh can pretend that he has
the interest of the opposition at heart. He wants the opposition
to unite "against a hegemon like the PAP" and "focus
their attention on the polls" (polls which, as I have
pointed out, are managed and controlled by the PAP). Nice try.
For people who still cannot see through Mr Peh's motives,
we'd like to remind you of two words: Tony Tan.
Chee Soon
Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
|
|
