Posted by theonlinecitizen on February 23,
2011
PRESS RELEASE 23/02/2011
The Reform Party www.thereformparty.net.
I can confirm today the resignations as reported in the
Press.
I have no wish to air the Party’s internal matters in public but
I have seen previously how untruths left unchallenged get repeated
and embedded. I am making this statement as it is in the best
interests of the Party and its ordinary members to get the facts
out there. I believe transparency is the best course of action
right now.
The Reform Party will be smaller because of the resignations, it
is true. But we had over 110 members and will come out of this
stronger and firmer of purpose as a result.
We have just had a period of our most successful outreach activity
ever. Our walkabout team is larger, more united and more determined
than at any time in our history. Last night the team RP outreach
support reported that roughly 50% of the residents canvassed said
they would vote for RP.
We had the first women’s wing of any opposition political party,
a rally which attracted 400 people in heavy rain and are about to
launch a new integrated digital media platform. We have a new blog
on economics, sonofadud.com which has been quoted in the media
across the world and we have launched our first podcast.
This coming Sunday we have a joint walkabout planned with Mr
Chiam and SPP and tonight a large group of us will attend the PKMS
50 year Jubilee party.
According to the report in Main Stream Media this group have
cited personal differences as a reason for resigning. But if that
were the case why would they not come to the mediation table? The
timing of this departure, its highly co-ordinated and planned
manner and the way the individuals then went to the Press, hardly
seems an appropriate response to personal incompatibility.
It has the hallmark of an action designed to do maximum damage
to The Reform Party and gain maximum publicity for the political
careers of the individuals involved.
In fact far from being personally intractable there was an offer
from me on the table to step aside from the SG position and to give
Tony Tan or whoever wanted it, my full support in that role. I did
this as I firmly believe that no individual, no matter what his or
her paper qualifications, should be more important than The Party
and its stated goals. In fact without the duties of SG I would be
free to work on my own campaign.
The facts are Tony Tan resigned from CEC on 13th December 2010 and
became an ordinary member.
On 10th February 2011 the CEC, excluding the SG, held a meeting.
The Chair invited prospective candidates to attend the meeting.
Alec Tok declined to attend. Four other prospective candidates did
take up the invitation. Two were allowed in the meeting and for
reasons which are not clear the CEC took a vote which resulted in
another two being barred entry.
The two who were barred became aggrieved and wrote a letter of
complaint.
The crux of their complaint was:
that they had been invited but then barred by a vote.
That some candidates were allowed in and others kept out.
That they had witnessed, whilst being kept waiting, two
prospective candidates give packets of money ( Ang Pow) to one of
the CEC .
The vote of the CEC member who received the Ang Pow had an
impact on the decision of the meeting as to whether to admit them.
They returned home and wrote some angry letters of complaint to The
Chair and to the CEC..
There is no suggestion here that there was any causal connection
between the money given and the resulting vote. The SG did not
attend that meeting and he did not write the letters of complaint.
But the members did raise a legitimate complaint and ask questions
that needed answering.
Subsequently the SG was made aware of the letter of complaint
and spoke to the recipient who admitted to receiving $400 from the
candidates.
The SG recommended that the Party deal with the complaint and
answer the questions raised. The CEC refused to answer the
complaints or to hold an enquiry. The candidates and 4 CEC members
resigned.
I do not see that we can demand transparency and accountability
from the government if we do not demand it from ourselves. The
Reform Party believes in Change and democracy. Our stated aim is to
form an alternative government whether that takes 10, 30 or a
hundred years. There is a group within the Party who don’t believe
in Change. They feel our best route would be to propose only minor
tweaks and to aim for an NCMP seat.
Those of us who go on outreach several times a week have
witnessed a sea change on the ground and a Tsunami of democracy is
currently sweeping the Middle East and Africa. History will show
the Reform Party’s message of change to be the prevailing one.
Released by Kenneth Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Reform Party,
February 23rd, 2011
