Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Gopalan Nair harshly criticises Low Thia Khiang:
[b]Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of
democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians
such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a
member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He
does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to
be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be
a constitutional democracy.
He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers
and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English.
For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad;
get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies
is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let
alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be.
In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but
rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government;
where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide
on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward;
with or without freedom.
To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be
progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do
not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia
Khiang does not understand any of this.
I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press
which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.
He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western
parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition
party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's
mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece,
ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so
that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins
and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions.
Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose
for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I
wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because
it pleases the PAP?
He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that
is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way?
And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should
be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention
this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving
otherwise?
He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the
opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies".
Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.
He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and
research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come
up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses
taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the
opposition form the government, they will too. This does not
prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to
further their interest.
The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who
come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not
just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east;
throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with
alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man
is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that.
Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but
if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not
just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he
believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down
immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action
Party.
He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer
alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I
add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that
way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not
saying anything at all!
I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should
not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain
stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace
the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not,
he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should
continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in
all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not
the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not
challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they
do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is
there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?
And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to
challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very
long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the
WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people?
In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese
speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of
this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very
well.
Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a
constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution.
In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is
not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is
mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of
speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon.
Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have
these rights.
And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit
with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall
be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go
there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a
constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece.
Singapore is an English speaking country. Not a Teochew speaking
country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language.
He should know this by now.
Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.
Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and
appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very
sad.
Gopalan Nair
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007/10/singapore-low-thia-khiang-is-let-down.html[/b]
I can quote Socrates, Aristotle, Marx, Adam Smith and hell even
Immanuel Kant but so what ? Whats the use English as a medium of
communication if both speaks Teochew better than any other language
? If the people in Hougang by voting, thinks LTK is doing a great
job for them then why should Gopalan Nair try to prove otherwise ?
Singaporeans are the ones who cast their votes and know what they
want, no ?
