- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
The report cited Mr Eugene Tan, associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University, as saying that the new CEC line-up was a sign that “moderate voices” are being “sidelined” in the party.
Is this true? Are there “radicals” and “moderates” within the SDP? What, in the first place, is a radical or a moderate in Singapore’s political context?
To answer these questions, we must first examine the media’s intentions. It is clear that more and more Singaporeans are beginning to understand and support the SDP’s coherent and well-defined alternative ideology.
Thus to ensure that the PAP’s power remains unthreatened, the ruling party finds in necessary to portray the SDP as a radical or confrontational party. It does this through labels like:
confrontational = destructive = bad
moderate = constructive = good
Once it has planted this notion in the public’s head, it can then peddle the falsehood that the SDP is confrontational and, therefore, one that must be rejected because we are out to destroy Singapore. Not only is the party confrontational, but moderates within our ranks have been sidelined. This is the classic divide-and-conquer tactic.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong admitted as much during the TV forum just before the elections in May 2011: “Not all opposition parties are the same. Some work within our system and try to play a constructive role; others try to pull down the system and bring it into disrepute. And I think there’s a difference in the way they approach politics and the way we approach them.”
Singaporeans must not fall into this trap. Just because we seek to change the system – a system designed by the PAP for its own benefit rather than for the benefit of the people – does not make the SDP radical or confrontational.
Rather, it makes us effective and responsible.
- http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=7125#more-7125
Is this true? Are there “radicals” and “moderates” within the SDP? What, in the first place, is a radical or a moderate in Singapore’s political context?
To answer these questions, we must first examine the media’s intentions. It is clear that more and more Singaporeans are beginning to understand and support the SDP’s coherent and well-defined alternative ideology.
Thus to ensure that the PAP’s power remains unthreatened, the ruling party finds in necessary to portray the SDP as a radical or confrontational party. It does this through labels like:
confrontational = destructive = bad
moderate = constructive = good
Once it has planted this notion in the public’s head, it can then peddle the falsehood that the SDP is confrontational and, therefore, one that must be rejected because we are out to destroy Singapore. Not only is the party confrontational, but moderates within our ranks have been sidelined. This is the classic divide-and-conquer tactic.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong admitted as much during the TV forum just before the elections in May 2011: “Not all opposition parties are the same. Some work within our system and try to play a constructive role; others try to pull down the system and bring it into disrepute. And I think there’s a difference in the way they approach politics and the way we approach them.”
Singaporeans must not fall into this trap. Just because we seek to change the system – a system designed by the PAP for its own benefit rather than for the benefit of the people – does not make the SDP radical or confrontational.
Rather, it makes us effective and responsible.
- http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=7125#more-7125
