Uniquely Singapore Politics (Part 2) – The Sounds of Silence

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

Quote:
In an earlier post, I criticised the Workers’ Party (WP) for refusing to take a stand on contentious issues. Many have commented on the post, for which I am grateful. Some agreed with me, some offered excuses on behalf of the WP, others resorted to insults. But nobody, not a single soul, disagreed with the assertion that the WP runs away from difficult issues.

Some have even highlighted other matters the WP has kept mum on, such as the hacking of government websites and where the government should draw the line on welfare and social assistance programs.

So what would the WP say about my post? The ST on 18 November 2013 reported that it was considering whether to respond. Three weeks have passed, and not a squeak from them.

How far will the WP run?

In October this year, the Singapore Forum on Politics and Policy organised a panel discussion entitled "IS IT SAFE TO SAY... THERE IS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN SINGAPORE". One would have thought that this was the kind of platform the opposition would jump at to share their views. The organisers invited a representative each from the PAP and the WP. I agreed to participate. Two days before the event, I received a call saying that it was cancelled.

Why?

The WP declined to send a representative.

Last Saturday’s edition of the ST referred to my post and noted that Gerald Giam had recently spoken in Parliament about healthcare. But that misses the point. The crux of Gerald’s speech was that Government should spend more on healthcare. That is precisely the kind of safe position the WP takes because it carries little risk of losing votes.

Let me be clear – there is nothing wrong with asking the Government to do more. But a call to “do more” does not require any genius. The more difficult questions include “how much more?”, “where is that more going to come from?”, “will there be better outcomes?” and “are there any down sides to the government doing more?”. These are necessary to test the feasibility and rigour of any proposal. Unless you offer your views on these questions as well, you are giving the misleading impression that there are simple solutions to every problem.

Opposition parties have long campaigned on the premise that it is unhealthy to have only one party in Parliament, and that it is good for alternative views to be expressed. This is a reasonable argument. But it presupposes that the Opposition, once elected, will pull their weight and give serious alternative views, especially on difficult issues. A multi-party system only works if there is a genuine clash of ideas, and the pros and cons of policies and alternatives are scrutinised.

Singapore is at a critical phase of her development. We will have to confront serious and difficult issues which affect our social compact. Important policies on healthcare, education, welfare, taxation and redistribution are currently being re-examined. The interests of Singaporeans are not advanced when the Opposition’s instinct is to say only what they think people want to hear, and then retreat from difficult questions. Is this how a “First World Parliament” operates? In truth, we do not know how one functions in the real world because the WP has declined to identify any. Just like Humpty Dumpty in "Through The Looking Glass", when the WP uses a word, it means just what it chooses it to mean.

Benjamin Disraeli once said that silence is the mother of truth. We now know the truth about WP’s brand of politics. Singaporeans are best served by politicians who make a stand, not those who sit on fences. Because we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-k...28550650524869


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.