Dear E Jay
He also said a lot more in his speech then just a call for free and fair elections. If you were honest you would acknowledge that his speech covered both , political, and well economic issues bread and butter all in reference to the Pledge.
His penchant for avoiding even the appearance of politicization stems from his believe that he is able to read the chinese middle ground, or working class middle ground better, but again that is my personal opinion and that is reflected in the manner he engages as a opposition politician.
The issues raised by Visawan were not new in my view. The link to the pledge was. If I read Low correctly he wants the pledge to remain neutral , that all parties and all politicians can refer to of whatever stripe whether SDP PAP WP RP , and that we are all in our own way striving to implement or thinking of ways to bring it true for all Singaporeans. Would you or can you even agree with this ideal ?
That idea I can agreed with though not expressed carefully and caveated enough. The need to have the pledge as a neutral unifying them for all politicians to agree on even as they disagree about the policies to bring it forth.
Locke
Dear lockeliberal,
When I was talking about the confused swamp LTK had moored himself on, I did not mean you to follow in with him.
If you read my postings on Viswa, I gave a concise breakdown of all the main points he covered, and I acknowledged that his motion was as broad-ranging as it was hard-hitting. It is the PAP that has chosen to focus on a narrow segment of his speech. I cannot be faulted similarly.
What does LTK mean by politicization anyway? National values, societal tenets cannot be discussed in isolation, in the abstract. They have to be considered in relation to what Singaporeans are going through on a daily basis, how much rights and freedoms they have. LTK is merely cherry picking on the issue of politicization of the Pledge. In reality, politics, civil society, community life, and pocketbook issues are so intertwined and interlinked that they can never be separated.
LTK wants the pledge to remain neutral? What does that mean?
National ideals can never be neutral. We hold ideals because we believe certain things are right for Singapore, and other things not so right. Behind the flowery words lies our intrinsic notion of good and bad, right and wrong, and our opinions on all the grey areas in between.
Don't obfuscate the issue by talking about the need for neutrality when the Parliamentary debate never even sought to define what that notion meant in relation to the Pledge and our national tenets.
I agree with you on the need to distinguish overarching ideals that we should collectively embrace as a nation, independent of political affiliation, and our specific ideas on how those values can be implemented in practical terms.
In my opinion however, this distinction was lost when MM Lee sought to demolish Viswa in that particular manner and when the mainstream media distracted Singaporeans once again with theatrics rather than substance.
Unlike LTK, Chiam made full use of the opportunity and he did extremely well in my opinion. It is sad that after so many years in politics, LTK, unlike Chiam, does not realize you don't always have to blatantly side with the PAP to secure your own ground. If Chiam was political finesse, LTK was poor table manners.
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, why didn't you play Teochew games and strategies. Look! if you had done that, you will be contributing nothing yet scam a decent salary along with many other opportunities!
