I think that declining invitation and breaking bond are two different matters. Furthermore, this is a political party forum, not a secret society meeting. I think that invites and declines are open, not secret. When not invited, there shouldn't be any offence taken. Neither should any offence be taken when invited but declined. Unless of course, Braema Mathi specifically requested the SDP not to tell about the invite and the decline. Otherwise, I don't see any problem with Seelan Palay knowing and saying.
Don't think you got my point.
The issue was naming and the attempt to "shaming", not whether it was related to merely bond breaking or declining invitation. Naming can be applied to more examples, like naming the student who had the lowest marks in class. Schools are not secret societies either, but they don't normally announce everyone's marks to the public except the best ones.
The second issue is the issue of "singling out". AWARE might not have been the only organisation that declined the invite. The problem is "singling out" is that it gives those the impression that they "acted against majority public interest". It would be good that the SDP reveal the entire list of those who rejected their invitation.
The third is the issue of the writer finding out when #2 is absent. I would guess the leaders are the ones who send the invites. Since the list of declined invites were not formalised, who bothered to spread it around? Obviously, they were being "bitched" around during conversations.
