- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Are WP and their supporters fanning anti-foreigner flames?[/h]
May 11th, 2014 |
Author: Contributions
Straits Times: WP and its supporters fanning the anti-foreigner
flame?
In a poorly written article dressed up as impartial analysis designed
ultimately to promote the PAP, Straits Times reporter Tham Yuen-C made the
insinuation that WP and its supporters were fanning the anti-foreigner
flame:
“…despite the WP’s best efforts, comments by some of its supporters online
show that the nuances have either been missed or just ignored. For example, it
is not uncommon for xenophobic rants online to be combined with a threat to
“vote for the WP instead of the PAP”, as if the WP themselves were the purveyors
of such views.”
Tham Yuen-C needs to use more of whatever little brain she has to think when
she writes.
[h=2]Tham Yuen-C[/h]
E-mail : [email protected]
First, where is the evidence that “xenophobic rants” are being expressed in
conjunction with the call to vote the Workers’ Party? In the first place, what
qualifies as a “xenophobic rant”?
Now, assuming that Tham’s claim is true, why would that be construed as
meaning that voters see the Workers’ Party as a party that will stop all
foreigners from coming into Singapore?
Why wouldn’t it mean that voters have given up completely on the PAP, want it
out and see the Workers’ Party as a viable alternative to usurp the PAP’s
dictatorship?
Supporters of a political party come in many stripes and may hold conflicting
opinions.
As an example: WP recently clarified that it did not issue a definite
statement on the movement to repeal Sect 377A because there was no consensus
among its CEC members.
As this shows, each member of the Party may have his or her own stance on
certain issues. A small group of supporters expressing strong opinion on an
issue does not mean the Party endorses the issue.
In fact, WP had repeatedly stressed during election rallies that they wanted
a more calibrated foreign workers policy with foreign workers entitlement
calculated based on needs of each industry, as opposed to the PAP’s crude
one-size fits all approach.
If we follow Tham Yeun-C’s logic, can we say that the PAP is stridently
anti-gay based on Lim Biow Chuan’s recent vocal criticism of the Health
Promotion Board’s FAQ statement that “A same-sex relationship is not too
different from a heterosexual relationship”?
Can we also say that PAP endorses the sordid, unfounded and ad hominem
attacks made by its supporter Jason Chua Chin Seng on PAP’s
critics?
Boycott Straits Times & Zaobao
Straits Times: WP and its supporters fanning the anti-foreigner flame?
In a poorly written article dressed up as impartial analysis designed
ultimately to promote the PAP, Straits Times reporter Tham Yuen-C made the
insinuation that WP and its supporters were fanning the anti-foreigner
flame:
“…despite the WP’s best efforts, comments by some of its supporters online
show that the nuances have either been missed or just ignored. For example, it
is not uncommon for xenophobic rants online to be combined with a threat to
“vote for the WP instead of the PAP”, as if the WP themselves were the purveyors
of such views.”
Tham Yuen-C needs to use more of whatever little brain she has to think when
she writes.
[h=2]Tham Yuen-C[/h]
E-mail : [email protected]
First, where is the evidence that “xenophobic rants” are being expressed in
conjunction with the call to vote the Workers’ Party? In the first place, what
qualifies as a “xenophobic rant”?
Now, assuming that Tham’s claim is true, why would that be construed as
meaning that voters see the Workers’ Party as a party that will stop all
foreigners from coming into Singapore?
Why wouldn’t it mean that voters have given up completely on the PAP, want it
out and see the Workers’ Party as a viable alternative to usurp the PAP’s
dictatorship?
Supporters of a political party come in many stripes and may hold conflicting
opinions.
As an example: WP recently clarified that it did not issue a definite
statement on the movement to repeal Sect 377A because there was no consensus
among its CEC members.
As this shows, each member of the Party may have his or her own stance on
certain issues. A small group of supporters expressing strong opinion on an
issue does not mean the Party endorses the issue.
In fact, WP had repeatedly stressed during election rallies that they wanted
a more calibrated foreign workers policy with foreign workers entitlement
calculated based on needs of each industry, as opposed to the PAP’s crude
one-size fits all approach.
If we follow Tham Yeun-C’s logic, can we say that the PAP is stridently
anti-gay based on Lim Biow Chuan’s recent vocal criticism of the Health
Promotion Board’s FAQ statement that “A same-sex relationship is not too
different from a heterosexual relationship”?
Can we also say that PAP endorses the sordid, unfounded and ad hominem
attacks made by its supporter Jason Chua Chin Seng on PAP’s
critics?
Boycott Straits Times & Zaobao
