The recent dialogue over the hijab issue has revealed significant differences in the way PAP and the opposition parties tackle difficult issues, said MPs Indranee Rajah and Hri Kumar Nair in separate postings on their Facebook accounts.
Both noted that the Workers' Party (WP) have refused to take a clear stand on this issue - as well as on several other potentially thorny matters - but have preferred instead to "[straddle] both sides of the fence and merely [call] for public dialogue"
"This does little to help resolve a delicate and difficult national issue and runs the danger of encouraging groups, including those from other communities, to take rhetorical positions and make public demands which they may then find difficult to move from, " said Ms Indranee.
In his post, Mr Nair said: "On almost every contentious issue, where taking a position risks loss of support, the WP has either sat on the fence or has heavily qualified its position, while giving the impression that it has seriously considered the matter."
He pointed out that "the best way to understand a party's true ideology is to look at the positions it takes on specific issues, particularly contentious ones where there is a genuine diversity of views."
Explaining that Singapore's political development will "stagnate if political parties avoid difficult issues," Mr Nair warned: "Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything."
Their full postings on Facebook are as follows:
Ms Indranee Rajah:
I am heartened by how the government and the Malay community are approaching the hijab issue, through calm and constructive dialogue. The issue is a difficult one. While I fully understand the desires of many Muslim Singaporeans, we also have to consider carefully its impact on our racial integration and harmony.
Two opposition parties - the NSP and WP - have made statements on this issue. Unfortunately, they have presented it as a simple, straightforward matter, with no trade-offs or downsides. If it were that easy, we would have been able to solve it long ago, and countries like Turkey (even with a government led by an Islamic party) would not be grappling with similar difficulties.
NSP, at least, have stated their stand. WP avoids stating clearly their position on the issue. It sounds sympathetic, but if you read the statement carefully, WP straddles both sides of the fence and merely calls for public dialogue. This does little to help resolve a delicate and difficult national issue and runs the danger of encouraging groups, including those from other communities, to take rhetorical positions and make public demands which they may then find difficult to move from.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair:
In most democratic countries, political parties are differentiated by their ideologies. They are given labels like left wing, right wing, socialist, liberal, conservative etc. However, these are not always accurate. The best way to understand a party's true ideology is to look at the positions it takes on specific issues, particularly contentious ones where there is a genuine diversity of views.
In Singapore, things are rather different. The PAP forms the government and its decisions therefore reflect its position on issues. So what is the ideology of the main opposition party, the Workers' Party? What is its position on tough issues? The record is clear - it sits on the fence.
It was for this reason that I found the debate on the Ashley Madison issue interesting. Most will agree that it is an obnoxious website. But blocking it raises questions of free speech and the role of the Government in regulating morality. Opposition parties are constantly attacking the Government on such issues. So I was curious to know what the WP would say. They kept true to form. See for yourself:
First, this is Denise Phua's question in Parliament:
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information if the Ministry will block the Ashley Madison website or other online services of the same nature which target persons already in relationships and openly glorify and promote infidelity including extramarital affairs.
It is clear where she stands - she wants the site blocked. Now, this is Pritam Singh's question:
Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the community reaction to the Ashley Madison website in Singapore, what is the Government's approach in dealing with societal agents and forces that harm the institution of marriage.
Can you make out WP's position? Neither can I. Was this obfuscation deliberate? Undoubtedly. Why not make its position clear? Because the WP knows that either position it takes would put it at odds with one group of Singaporeans or another. So the safest thing to do is to sound like you are saying something without actually saying anything.
Is this an exception? Actually, it is the rule. On almost every contentious issue, where taking a position risks loss of support, the WP has either sat on the fence or has heavily qualified its position, while giving the impression that it has seriously considered the matter.
In the recent Bill to renew the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the power to detain without trial, Ms Sylvia Lim in her speech did not take a position, but when asked directly by Minister Iswaran, said that she supported its renewal "with a heavy heart".
On the current Hijab debate, the WP did not take a position, but called for "a public dialogue".
On the repeal of s.377A of the Penal Code (which criminalises homosexual acts), Ms Lim said that the WP could not reach a consensus on the matter and therefore declined to take a position.
On the amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act, the WP abstained on voting and called for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.
One could go on. What, for example, is the WP's position on the allocation of COEs or Primary One places - issues where interests of different groups are seemingly irreconcilable? There is none.
Some might say say that this is a smart strategy - after all, why voluntarily give people reasons to oppose you? Because there are larger issues at stake - our political development will stagnate if political parties avoid difficult issues. Because there can never be freedom of choice unless people know and understand what their choices really represent.
Because as one of the founding fathers of the United States, Alexander Hamilton, once said: "Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything."
Source: People's Action Party website