Did NMP Viswa Sadasivan just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part Two)

August 20, 2009 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs, Political Discussions 

READ the full text of Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s maiden Parliamentary speech here.

Sgpolitics.net Special Feature (Part Two)
Written by Ng E-Jay
20 Aug 2009

On Wednesday, Parliament accepted an amended version of the motion submitted by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, after a total of 14 MPs had taken turns over a two-day period to lambast Mr Viswa’s “highfalutin” ideals.

Amongst those who severely criticized Mr Viswa’s motion was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who delivered his scathing rebuttal in a rare Parliamentary appearance after his previous speech in April 2007 during which he defended ministerial pay increases.

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang also gave Mr Viswa a very humiliating thumbs down by dismissing his motion altogether, and stating categorically that he did not want to have anything to do with the debate.

The MP for Hougang also said that the National Pledge should not be brought up unnecessarily, and that we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

With both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs ganging up against Mr Viswa, and mainstream media channels like Channel News Asia zooming in on the new NMP in an attempt to portray him as acting nervous under pressure, it is time to give an objective assessment of the debate.

Two False Dichotomies

The arguments advanced by PAP MPs present to Singaporeans two false dichotomies.

Firstly, PAP MPs have once again resorted to using bogeymen like the racial riots of the 1960s and the current political unrest in countries like Thailand to scare Singaporeans into accepting that the ideals enshrined in statements like the National Pledge must often be compromised for the sake of stability and pragmatism.

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen in particular questioned whether Mr Viswa’s political ideals would “magically” work for us, citing the problems faced in India, the Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand where the factionalism of coalition or competing parties have led to political paralysis.

In my opinion, this line of reason presents to Singaporeans a false dilemna, because society has evolved tremendously over the past 5 decades of self-government, and it is increasing unproductive to engage in fear-mongering by projecting our republic as forever hanging on a knife’s edge.

Furthermore, countries like India, Thailand and Taiwan are so varied and their political situations so distinct from one another that it is misleading to lump them all together in an attempt to argue why the PAP has done the right thing for Singapore. Clearly PAP MPs here are talking their own book without any substantial basis.

Secondly, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew put forth the argument that Mr Viswa’s call for equal treatment of all races was in conflict with the Constitution which expressly provides for special recognition of Malays and which places a duty on the Government to pay extra attention to the needs of minority races.

In my view, MM Lee has also presented a false dichotomy to us.

There is no conflict between upholding the tenet of “regardless of race, language or religion”, and taking care of the interests of racial and religious minorities, including (rightfully) recognizing Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.

The tenets enshrined in the Pledge fail to be upheld ONLY when there is discrimination against a particular race or religious group in the negative sense, NOT when there is affirmative action for a particular race or religious group in the positive sense as indicated by the Constitution.

It is my stand therefore that the Pledge and the Constitution can co-exist on equal footing and with each deserving equal consideration, not with one being merely regarded an “aspiration” that “may take centuries to realize”, in MM Lee’s own words.

We must continually recognize and reject the false dichotomies that the PAP continually present to us, because they hold back our nation’s progress.

Why the fury over Mr Viswa’s speech?

Why has there been such an outcry by PAP MPs over Mr Viswa’s maiden Parliamentary speech, with MM Lee going so far as to say that his views must be demolished?

Mr Viswa has not suggested anything that is racially inflammatory or discriminatory. Upon reading his speech in detail, one can readily tell that his intentions are noble and he is all for racial and religious unity.

It was not too long ago when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for sensitive issues like race and religion to be openly discussed in a responsible manner. In his National Day Rally, he said that from time to time, we have to discuss such topics honestly but tactfully, to recognise the trends in our society and tell ourselves where we need to do better.

Mr Viswa’s views were as broad ranging as they were hard-hitting. But they are definitely not upsetting or divisive. They were well-considered, sincere and meaningful.

Why then the outrage and the need to demolish Mr Viswa’s message at first sight? Why is the PAP shying away from the chance to coolly address Mr Viswa’s points and rebut them in a calm and collected manner, as per PM Lee’s suggestion?

Obviously, the ruling party is not walking their own talk. They have shown that they don’t mean what they say, and that is sad.

Has the ruling party belittled the Pledge?

By denying that the Pledge represents any ideology and consigning it to a mere “aspiration” that can only be tentatively approximated but not fully realized for eons to come, has the ruling PAP belittled the Pledge?

What do we tell our school children who recite the Pledge faithfully every day at assembly? Do we tell them they are reciting words that represent merely an abstraction, that are not “down to earth”?

If the ruling party thinks the Pledge is only an aspiration, what is their view about the National Anthem? Only an aspiration and an abstraction too?

This is yet another example of the PAP using its monopoly on political philosophy and ideology to rudely abuse our common sense notion of what our national tenets and what our Pledge means.

The only way to end this peculiar conundrum is for Singaporeans to recognize how our national values are being systematically undermined, and to speak out forcefully in public and at the ballot box.

Tags:

Comments

16 Comments on Did NMP Viswa Sadasivan just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part Two)

  1. ahkong on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 8:35 am

    2. I take to task what MM Lee said that the pledge is more an aspiration. Why then the students are made to recite the national pledge everyday is it is only an aspiration? For 50 years the students are doing that and yet MM Lee says it is a long way to go. Then may I ask how long do we make the students recite before we have arrived? If we do not take the first step being serious about the national pledge then when will we be?

  2. sandra.oh on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 9:28 am

    3. I fully agree with MM Lee Kuan Yew. I found NMP Viswa’s detailed motion/speech to be high-handed and bombastic in style.

  3. Sandra Oh on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 9:31 am

    4. I agree with MM Lee Kuan Yew.

    In my opinion, NMP Viswa’s speech/sharing, the details are perceived to be high-handed and bombastic in style.

  4. Educated Barbarian on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 11:25 am

    5. When i read the ST, U know the PAP Paliament member in house not just only criticise the opp. Even like Chiam had said, Whenver he open his mouth ,The ruling member start laughing at him (He is luckier than JBJ). When JBJ was elected 2 House. Those PAP member “Phui” at him. What type of people the ruling party had? (Educated Barbarian)

  5. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 21 Aug 2009 on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 11:30 am

    6. [...] vs Sadasivan – Sgpolitics.net: Did NMP Viswa Sadasivan just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part Two) – Blowin’ In The Wind: Equality for all? Not in Singapore – Diary of A Singaporean Mind: NMP [...]

  6. Donaldson Tan on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 11:47 am

    7. Chiam did not gun down Viswa.

  7. Good speech by NMP on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 12:11 pm

    8. Thanks to Mr Viswa. A good speech.
    The citizens are bigger than MM Lee.
    The pledge, fortunately, does not belong to MM Lee.

    MM Lee should step down from cabinet for belittling the spirit and goals of our pledge.
    How can we start this movement??
    ST is definitely not doing this….

  8. Packrat on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 12:34 pm

    9. The pledge, grammatically speaking, is phrased AS an aspiration. It talks about what we are constantly striving to build as opposed to the defense of said principles. The founding fathers did word the pledge very carefully so that it’s not about upholding said values, but about striving toward the ideal. Insidious? Maybe. But it’s also the acknowledgment that we cannot (really) have these ideals working in the real world. Quite pragmatic I would say.

    I would like to be proven wrong about the last part. I hope that we will get there. We still have a long way to go. It would be nice if the MPs that we have as leaders really did lead the way on this one. (Or get out of the way)

  9. Justice My Foot!!! on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 1:48 pm

    10. To this very day, the Old Man still regards Singaporeans as a bunch of idiots that must be constantly reminded by the govt. of our vulnerabilities. His response reminded me of the pre-2006 elections when Mediacorp journalists were given a free hand to ask him stinging questions, one of which I remember was: What do you think of the perception that the PAP is arrogant?

    The response from the OLD Man was not only defensive but overly agressive and intimidating which was like telling the journalist: Say that again and see what you get from me!

    The Straits Times wasted no time days later to publish letters from readers who chided the journalists for being “rude and ungrateful” to our “founding father”.

    I still remember the Old Man saying:If Singapore ever declines, I will not hesitate to get up from my grave to do my part”. Many readers wrote in to say how touched they were by his words.

    But I look at it this way: A country that needs a dead man to come out of his grave to put do something is a country that does not deserve to exist.

    Is Singapore’s existence being threatened? Judging from the pathetically low birth rate and the aggressive import of immigrants to “help the population replace itself”, I think the answer is obvious!

  10. Ivan on Fri, 21st Aug 2009 2:39 pm

    11. Ng E-jay: “The tenets enshrined in the Pledge fail to be upheld ONLY when there is discrimination against a particular race or religious group in the negative sense, NOT when there is affirmative action for a particular race or religious group in the positive sense as indicated by the Constitution.”

    Dear E-jay, thank you for pointing out that there is no conflict between the ideals as set forth in the Pledge and the relevant articles in our Constitution. What you said about affirmative action brings to mind the same quote by Anwar Ibrahim from his keynote address at the CLSA Corporate Access Forum in 2008, that you have on the right of this page. I now see that in order for there to be equality for all, the playing field has to be made level for all, and one way to do that is to implement affirmative action for the presently poor, under-represented or marginalized in society.

    Having said that, I now see how very sly MM Lee and the PAP are now in their ability to twist and turn the true meanings of the Pledge and our Constitution to serve their own selfish ends.

  11. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 34 on Sat, 22nd Aug 2009 11:49 am

    12. [...] of universities – running legs: Something I’ve learnt today.. – Sgpolitics.net: Did NMP Viswa Sadasivan just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part Two) – Blowin’ In The Wind: Equality for all? Not in Singapore – Diary of A Singaporean Mind: NMP [...]

  12. George on Sat, 22nd Aug 2009 3:55 pm

    13. This is simply one more reason why talking with the ruling party is a wholly pointless
    and futile exercise.

    There is a Chinese saying: they will not cry unless they are confronted with their own coffins.

  13. concerned on Sun, 23rd Aug 2009 2:48 pm

    14. It was really sad to see the ruling party twisting their arguments like a pretzel and for what? Viswa had a great point, which any sane individual would back. He was merely asking the powers that be, to remember to strive for racial equality. Since when did that become a bad thing? MM in my opinion buttressed Viswa’s point. By pointing out we are light years away from true equality, he only underscored all the more the importance of parliament needing to reaffirm the tenets of the pledge and keeping them in mind when devising policies. The hysterical response to Viswa’s speech was very telling. No one else can set an agenda but the party.

  14. paru on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 8:23 am

    15. No matter how good the speech is & how well he spoke is of little value. Don’t forget he is a PAP chosen NMP. How genuine can he be unless he is elected by us?
    How could the foxy team simply allowed Mr Viswa to even speak without ‘checking’ his speech & that too in the ‘Imperial House’?
    Can you believe this? Happening in sg? It is not so simple as it seems!

    I just don’t know who Mrr Viswa is or what he can do for us as a NMP, but from past experiences we know for sure that our HONORABLE Mr JBJ & our very own CSJ was/is genuinely SINCERE., not every NMB of THEIR CHOICE! Not even the one we elected , the boot- lickeing LTK .

    ‘Parliamentary wayangs’ are not real, GET REAL PEOPLE!

  15. pirapong see on Sat, 29th Aug 2009 11:17 pm

    16. Dear e-jay, I like to question your first false dichotomy point. Indeed other countries have such complicated environments that it requires a more contextual approach to their system of politics. You are indeed right that countries are all so different that it might be difficult to compare as you claim Ng Eng Hen falsely did.

    And this is also WHY Singapore must be taken in context of our very own unique circumstances which unfortunately among the online community, I noticed a common bias towards the western liberal model, which I think is an example of lumping everything together: assuming that singapore should simply evolve into one of those western types. I am not saying the pap-style is all right, but that the very fact of our different circumstances warrants an entire different approach in our evolution of our politics.

  16. ross on Sun, 13th Sep 2009 5:22 pm

    17. “Why has there been such an outcry by PAP MPs over Mr Viswa’s maiden Parliamentary speech, with MM Lee going so far as to say that his views must be demolished?”

    What happens to our rights to freedom of speech? What happens to our rights as a Singaporean, when we cannot express our thoughts and share our views? Then how can we safely say that the ruling government is treating us all as equals and as citizens of this very country?

    Someone please enlighten me.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!