Chen Jiaxi Bernard
17 hours ago near Oxford, United Kingdom · Edited
Hri Kumar said in a post on Facebook today that "Opposition politicians who want a platform to share their ideas should organise their own forums. If their ideas are really better, people will support it. That’s how things work." They did but they was a lack of a level playing field.
In 2009, when the Workers' Party Youth Wing forum wanted to organise a Townhall forum, it foresaw a larger than expected audience for its usual forums that were held at the Party's headquarters. Attempts to source for a commercial place were not very successful and it was only late into the preparatory stage that we did managed to secure a space at the Marketing Institute of Singapore Training Centre.
Fast forward to 2014, when the National Solidarity Party (NSP) tried to organise a public dialogue to discuss about CPF reforms and the minimum sum, they faced much difficulties and in the end they had no choice but to host it at their Party's headquarters, which had a limited and small capacity.
As an elected member of Parliament in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Mr. Hri Kumar would be delighted to know that he can host a public dialogue under the care of the People's Association-run Thomson Community Centre. The People's Association granted permission for Mr. Hri Kumar to host a public dialogue in the constituency. Likewise, the People's Association should allow elected members of Parliament in Aljunied GRC to use the respective community centres in their wards and also allow Mr. Png Eng Huat to use Hougang community centre to host public dialogues on pertinent issues facing Singaporeans. But we all know that therein lies the double standards and the dissonance in the language of constructive politics used by the PAP. We also remember what happened in 2011 when 26 community sites were taken away. So, the People's Association had achieved the political objective of preventing (non-PAP) elected MPs from holding activities at sites which are strategically located and convenient to residents. In wards under the Workers' Party, this right to host public dialogues and give out edusave bursaries and scholarships etc is the prerogative of the local grassroots advisors, i.e. the PAP losing candidate at the last election.
& in the event that WP MPs moves a public dialogue to the Party headquarters, it would be construed by constructive politicians like Mr. Kumar and Mr. Janil Puthucheary as an attempt to "politicise the issues" and not offering constructive feedback and alternatives policies.
Such blatant act of partisanship cruelly exposes the dissonance between the language of national unity and constructive politics employed by the Prime Minister and the actions of his MPs and the para-political tools under his charge.
So Mr. Kumar, before you accuse others of "itching for the opportunity to run you down", I appeal to your good office to consider leveling the playing field, both locally and nationally and granting the citizenry equal access to important and key policy information. The information that the Prime Minister has should also be given to the de-facto Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. Ultimately, it is the interests of Singaporeans and the future of this nation that matters, a point which you, a member of the PAP and I, a member of the WP would agree with.
In the words of Mr. Kumar, "If their ideas are really better, people will support it. That’s how things work." So PAP should have nothing to worry about (of course, provided the Straits Times do not misreport your good intentions and points raised) when the playing field is leveled and that equal access to information is granted to the Workers' Party in Parliament
