I feared MM was going to fire salvos at me
New NMP relieved MM Lee reacted to his 'highfalutin ideas' with more of a lecture on how Pledge started
By Andre Yeo
READ the full text of Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s maiden Parliamentary speech here.
Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part Two)
Written by Ng E-Jay
20 Aug 2009
On Wednesday, Parliament accepted an amended version of the motion submitted by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, after a total of 14 MPs had taken turns over a two-day period to lambast Mr Viswa’s “highfalutin” ideals.
Amongst those who severely criticized Mr Viswa’s motion was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who delivered his scathing rebuttal in a rare Parliamentary appearance after his previous speech in April 2007 during which he defended ministerial pay increases.
Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang also gave Mr Viswa a very humiliating thumbs down by dismissing his motion altogether, and stating categorically that he did not want to have anything to do with the debate.
The MP for Hougang also said that the National Pledge should not be brought up unnecessarily, and that we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.
With both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs ganging up against Mr Viswa, and mainstream media channels like Channel News Asia zooming in on the new NMP in an attempt to portray him as acting nervous under pressure, it is time to give an objective assessment of the debate.
Two False Dichotomies
The arguments advanced by PAP MPs present to Singaporeans two false dichotomies.
Firstly, PAP MPs have once again resorted to using bogeymen like the racial riots of the 1960s and the current political unrest in countries like Thailand to scare Singaporeans into accepting that the ideals enshrined in statements like the National Pledge must often be compromised for the sake of stability and pragmatism.
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen in particular questioned whether Mr Viswa’s political ideals would “magically” work for us, citing the problems faced in India, the Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand where the factionalism of coalition or competing parties have led to political paralysis.
In my opinion, this line of reason presents to Singaporeans a false dilemna, because society has evolved tremendously over the past 5 decades of self-government, and it is increasing unproductive to engage in fear-mongering by projecting our republic as forever hanging on a knife’s edge.
Furthermore, countries like India, Thailand and Taiwan are so varied and their political situations so distinct from one another that it is misleading to lump them all together in an attempt to argue why the PAP has done the right thing for Singapore. Clearly PAP MPs here are talking their own book without any substantial basis.
Secondly, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew put forth the argument that Mr Viswa’s call for equal treatment of all races was in conflict with the Constitution which expressly provides for special recognition of Malays and which places a duty on the Government to pay extra attention to the needs of minority races.
In my view, MM Lee has also presented a false dichotomy to us.
There is no conflict between upholding the tenet of “regardless of race, language or religion”, and taking care of the interests of racial and religious minorities, including (rightfully) recognizing Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.
The tenets enshrined in the Pledge fail to be upheld ONLY when there is discrimination against a particular race or religious group in the negative sense, NOT when there is affirmative action for a particular race or religious group in the positive sense as indicated by the Constitution.
It is my stand therefore that the Pledge and the Constitution can co-exist on equal footing and with each deserving equal consideration, not with one being merely regarded an “aspiration” that “may take centuries to realize”, in MM Lee’s own words.
We must continually recognize and reject the false dichotomies that the PAP continually present to us, because they hold back our nation’s progress.
Why the fury over Mr Viswa’s speech?
Why has there been such an outcry by PAP MPs over Mr Viswa’s maiden Parliamentary speech, with MM Lee going so far as to say that his views must be demolished?
Mr Viswa has not suggested anything that is racially inflammatory or discriminatory. Upon reading his speech in detail, one can readily tell that his intentions are noble and he is all for racial and religious unity.
It was not too long ago when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for sensitive issues like race and religion to be openly discussed in a responsible manner. In his National Day Rally, he said that from time to time, we have to discuss such topics honestly but tactfully, to recognise the trends in our society and tell ourselves where we need to do better.
Mr Viswa’s views were as broad ranging as they were hard-hitting. But they are definitely not upsetting or divisive. They were well-considered, sincere and meaningful.
Why then the outrage and the need to demolish Mr Viswa’s message at first sight? Why is the PAP shying away from the chance to coolly address Mr Viswa’s points and rebut them in a calm and collected manner, as per PM Lee’s suggestion?
Obviously, the ruling party is not walking their own talk. They have shown that they don’t mean what they say, and that is sad.
Has the ruling party belittled the Pledge?
By denying that the Pledge represents any ideology and consigning it to a mere “aspiration” that can only be tentatively approximated but not fully realized for eons to come, has the ruling PAP belittled the Pledge?
What do we tell our school children who recite the Pledge faithfully every day at assembly? Do we tell them they are reciting words that represent merely an abstraction, that are not “down to earth”?
If the ruling party thinks the Pledge is only an aspiration, what is their view about the National Anthem? Only an aspiration and an abstraction too?
This is yet another example of the PAP using its monopoly on political philosophy and ideology to rudely abuse our common sense notion of what our national tenets and what our Pledge means.
The only way to end this peculiar conundrum is for Singaporeans to recognize how our national values are being systematically undermined, and to speak out forcefully in public and at the ballot box.
