|
Weird line of attack from PAP Law Minister Shanmugam?
In an earlier contribution
discussion, see
http://www.singaporechatforum.com/singaporeforum/showthread.php?tid=34, PAP Ms Indranee Rajah's criticism on the WP's vision of
a first world parliament has backfired with Worker's Party Chairman
Sylvia Lim rebuttal - "But let's not forget that the People's Action
Party was once an opposition before, so is she saying that at that time,
the PAP also did not act in the national interest?". This criticism
should not be there in the 1st place as it gives the opposition to use
the past to slap the future. Perhaps the past was overlooked or not
known beforehand to Miss Indranee thereby giving opportunity for
Workers' Party to use it to score points. (Workers' Party 2 vs PAP - 0)
See
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1123734/1/.html
And now we have PAP Law Minister Shanmugam too using the same line of
attack questioning Workers' Party slogan of "Towards a First World
Parliament". What exactly does it mean?' He challenged it to name a country
'which you think we should be like in terms of our Parliament' and said that
as far as he could tell, WP chairman Sylvia Lim has been avoiding the
question. 'Which system, which model, which country does it exactly refer
to? When you put up a slogan you must be prepared to stand by it and justify
it. Rather than hoping the slogan will be catchy and you don't have to
substantiate it.' If Singaporeans were told by the WP that it would like
Parliament here to function like that of a specific country, then they could
make a comparison, he said. 'Is this how they would want their Parliament to
be? I mean, would they like a breakdown that happens in some First World
countries?' he added.
http://www.straitstimes.com/GeneralElection/News/Story/STIStory_659383.html
Again the past was used by the opposition Worker's Party to rebut
PAP Law Minister Shanmugam
questionings - Workers' Party's Mr Low Thia Khiang later added: "Our slogan
is, Towards a First World Parliament. Don't harp on the issue of models.
Tell us, what is the model the PAP took after for its Group Representation
Constituency scheme? Tell us! What political model the PAP is looking at
when they proposed to amend the Constitution to provide for nine
Non-Constituency MPs and to tell Singaporean voters, 'you don't need to vote
for opposition, we'll provide you with nine NCMPs'." See
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1124196/1/.html
This election is getting more weird by the day. Observers are trying to
fathom out what is happening on PAP camp? Haven't they learn anything from
the PAP Miss Indranee Rajah's earlier criticism and then rebuttal by
Workers' Party? Wouldn't PAP be aware then where the line of rebuttal is going to
come from? And if they are aware of likely rebuttal, why then proceed ahead
to question Workers' Party? What is the objective then to question Workers'
Party? What could they possibly gain from such questioning of Workers' Party
knowing full well the line of rebuttal is likely to be using the past to
rebut the future? As it is, it would appear that PAP is in stuck mode as if
there is a fish bone stuck in the throat and it would be interesting to see
what kind of rebuttal from PAP can be put forth against Workers' Party
gaining mileage from such PAP questioning. At this juncture, it would appear
that Workers' Party has the upper hand. (Workers' Party 4 vs PAP 0)
On a side note, observant commentators are wondering if there are some
kind of double standards for new modeling, for example whenever PAP does
something new or without any model, it is called trail blazing or "must find
our own model" or pioneering high salaries for ministers but when opposition
calls for something that is too without any model, PAP insisted and demanded
for a model for comparison.
What do you think? What could be the possible gain from such questioning
by PAP Law Minister Shanmugam? Do you feel that PAP is being hampered by
their past? Do you agree with observant commentators? |
