Spot the Difference
24th February, I wrote this to the forum in Straits Times:
I refer to the recent article “PAP disappointed with Workers Party (WP)’s response” in which the ruling party criticized for a “superficial” response when it was accused of planting “time bombs” in its manifesto.
It is undeniable that racial harmony is of utmost importance in a plural society like that of Singapore. Nobody would want Singapore history especially in the perilous years of 1950s and 60s to repeat itself.
But these themes of “vulnerability” and the pressing need for “communitarian values” nevertheless have also been seen by critics as an insidious means to preserve the ongoing hegemony over this nation state.
However, my main point of contention is not with the contents of the WP’s manifesto or the ideologies that the government has conscientiously thought out. It is the act of various cabinet ministers calling on WP to rethink it stance which reveals both ethnocentrism and disrespect for its opponents.
I believe these policies whether they are aligned with the official government stand are not cursorily developed. To dismiss a 52-page manifesto with claims charging that it will destroy the key pillars of Singapore’s stability and success is oversimplifying convoluted social issues.
As quoted from our Prime Minister Lee “Singaporeans are not daft. They’re sensible..”, may both parties present their arguments to the public and allow the “sensible” Singaporean to judge for themselves. I will be looking forward to perusing the manifestos of both PAP and WP.
26th February, this appeared on the online ST forum. (NOT the newspaper itself. Grrr...)
Let political parties present their arguments and let S'poreans be the judge
I refer to the recent article 'PAP disappointed with Workers' Party's response' in which the ruling party criticised it for a 'superficial' response when the opposition party was accused of planting 'time bombs' in its manifesto.
It is undeniable that racial harmony is of utmost importance in a plural society like Singapore's. Nobody would want Singapore's history in the perilous years of the 1950s and 1960s to repeat itself.
But the PAP's themes of 'vulnerability' and the pressing need for 'communitarian values' have also been seen by its critics as an insidious means to preserve its political dominance.
However, my main point of contention is not with the contents of the WP's manifesto or the ideologies that the government has conscientiously thought out. It is the act of various cabinet ministers calling on the WP to rethink its stance that reveals both ethnocentrism and disrespect for its opponents.
I believe the WP policies, whether they are aligned with the official government stand, are not cursorily developed. To dismiss a 52-page manifesto with claims that it will destroy the key pillars of Singapore's stability and success is oversimplifying complex social issues.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, 'Singaporeans are not daft. They're sensible.' May both parties present their arguments to the public and allow the 'sensible' Singaporeans to judge for themselves.
I will be looking forward to perusing the manifestoes of both the PAP and the WP.
I refer to the recent article “PAP disappointed with Workers Party (WP)’s response” in which the ruling party criticized for a “superficial” response when it was accused of planting “time bombs” in its manifesto.
It is undeniable that racial harmony is of utmost importance in a plural society like that of Singapore. Nobody would want Singapore history especially in the perilous years of 1950s and 60s to repeat itself.
But these themes of “vulnerability” and the pressing need for “communitarian values” nevertheless have also been seen by critics as an insidious means to preserve the ongoing hegemony over this nation state.
However, my main point of contention is not with the contents of the WP’s manifesto or the ideologies that the government has conscientiously thought out. It is the act of various cabinet ministers calling on WP to rethink it stance which reveals both ethnocentrism and disrespect for its opponents.
I believe these policies whether they are aligned with the official government stand are not cursorily developed. To dismiss a 52-page manifesto with claims charging that it will destroy the key pillars of Singapore’s stability and success is oversimplifying convoluted social issues.
As quoted from our Prime Minister Lee “Singaporeans are not daft. They’re sensible..”, may both parties present their arguments to the public and allow the “sensible” Singaporean to judge for themselves. I will be looking forward to perusing the manifestos of both PAP and WP.
26th February, this appeared on the online ST forum. (NOT the newspaper itself. Grrr...)
Let political parties present their arguments and let S'poreans be the judge
I refer to the recent article 'PAP disappointed with Workers' Party's response' in which the ruling party criticised it for a 'superficial' response when the opposition party was accused of planting 'time bombs' in its manifesto.
It is undeniable that racial harmony is of utmost importance in a plural society like Singapore's. Nobody would want Singapore's history in the perilous years of the 1950s and 1960s to repeat itself.
But the PAP's themes of 'vulnerability' and the pressing need for 'communitarian values' have also been seen by its critics as an insidious means to preserve its political dominance.
However, my main point of contention is not with the contents of the WP's manifesto or the ideologies that the government has conscientiously thought out. It is the act of various cabinet ministers calling on the WP to rethink its stance that reveals both ethnocentrism and disrespect for its opponents.
I believe the WP policies, whether they are aligned with the official government stand, are not cursorily developed. To dismiss a 52-page manifesto with claims that it will destroy the key pillars of Singapore's stability and success is oversimplifying complex social issues.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, 'Singaporeans are not daft. They're sensible.' May both parties present their arguments to the public and allow the 'sensible' Singaporeans to judge for themselves.
I will be looking forward to perusing the manifestoes of both the PAP and the WP.
posted by Kelvin Lim at 9:17 am
4 Comments:
How "original" ...
Hey, no one patented on the words hegemony... Ha.
anyways wow if kel's works keep on appearing on ST online, soon enough he may be writing for WP's magazine. LOL.
hegemony ... thank goodness they edited an idotic word like that out.
Post a Comment
<< Home