- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Why does Mrs Chiam persist in attacking the SDP? </TD><TD class=buttonheading width="100%" align=right>
</TD><TD class=buttonheading width="100%" align=right>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Chee Soon Juan
Mrs Lina Chiam insists on continuing to attack the SDP and me on the issue of Mr Chiam See Tong leaving the party when there are a whole host of issues that she and the Singapore People's Party need to focus on with the PAP.
In her first interview with the Straits Times, Mrs Lina Chiam accused me of ousting Mr Chiam in 1993 and usurping his position.
I explained - providing detailed documentary evidence - how this was not true (read Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 below). It is indisputable that Mr Chiam resigned from the party on his own accord and that his resignation was precipitated by the acrimonious relationship he had had with the other party leaders began way before I had joined the SDP.
In a bizarre twist, however, Mrs Chiam now says that I "conveniently failed to mention that the motion by Mr Chiam was to censure Dr Chee for his hunger strike" in a letter she wrote to the Straits Times published today (see below).
What has this to do with my refuting her accusation that I was the one who had forced Mr Chiam out? I never disputed that there was a motion and that the motion was to censure me for my going on a hunger strike to protest my dismissal from the NUS.
In fact I had posted in Part 2 Mr Chiam's resignation letter which stated what the motion was about. The entire CEC rejected his motion.
Why does Mrs Chiam abruptly change the subject? I would be happy to address any dispute she wants to raise in my four-part series.
But rather than refuting what I wrote, she brings up another point which I have not disputed and which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
More important, why does Mrs Chiam persist in wanting to dredge up a matter that happened 17 years ago? Why does she insist on attacking a fellow opposition party when there are so many other important national matters to take issue with the PAP such as the unaffordable HDB prices, ministers' salaries, Sheng Siong's raising of stall rentals, etc?
I have set out to expose the untruth that the PAP have been spewing about my so-called ousting of Mr Chiam. I am happy to let Singaporeans read the PAP's/Chiams' account versus what I have written and let readers draw their own conclusions about the matter.
I have no desire to let the PAP media continue to feed on this issue. The SDP has moved on and we will concentrate on speaking up on the weighty issues on behalf of Singaporeans rather than be mired in petty finger-pointing that serves only the PAP's interests. Letter to The </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD><TD class=buttonheading width="100%" align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Chee Soon Juan
In her first interview with the Straits Times, Mrs Lina Chiam accused me of ousting Mr Chiam in 1993 and usurping his position.
I explained - providing detailed documentary evidence - how this was not true (read Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 below). It is indisputable that Mr Chiam resigned from the party on his own accord and that his resignation was precipitated by the acrimonious relationship he had had with the other party leaders began way before I had joined the SDP.
In a bizarre twist, however, Mrs Chiam now says that I "conveniently failed to mention that the motion by Mr Chiam was to censure Dr Chee for his hunger strike" in a letter she wrote to the Straits Times published today (see below).
What has this to do with my refuting her accusation that I was the one who had forced Mr Chiam out? I never disputed that there was a motion and that the motion was to censure me for my going on a hunger strike to protest my dismissal from the NUS.
In fact I had posted in Part 2 Mr Chiam's resignation letter which stated what the motion was about. The entire CEC rejected his motion.
Why does Mrs Chiam abruptly change the subject? I would be happy to address any dispute she wants to raise in my four-part series.
But rather than refuting what I wrote, she brings up another point which I have not disputed and which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
More important, why does Mrs Chiam persist in wanting to dredge up a matter that happened 17 years ago? Why does she insist on attacking a fellow opposition party when there are so many other important national matters to take issue with the PAP such as the unaffordable HDB prices, ministers' salaries, Sheng Siong's raising of stall rentals, etc?
I have set out to expose the untruth that the PAP have been spewing about my so-called ousting of Mr Chiam. I am happy to let Singaporeans read the PAP's/Chiams' account versus what I have written and let readers draw their own conclusions about the matter.
I have no desire to let the PAP media continue to feed on this issue. The SDP has moved on and we will concentrate on speaking up on the weighty issues on behalf of Singaporeans rather than be mired in petty finger-pointing that serves only the PAP's interests. Letter to The </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
