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.
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 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.
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.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3556
