PAP’s Organizing Secretary hits out at WP in latest edition of Petir

21 June 2008

The PAP’s Organising Secretary (Special Duties), Dr Ng Eng Hen, has hit out strongly at the Worker’s Party, in particular, its Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang, in the latest edition of Petir, the official PAP magazine.

In an article entitled “Credible Opposition: Taking A Clear Stand”, Dr Ng Eng Hen, who is also the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, criticized the WP for failing to make its stand clear on important issues at critical points. He said that Low Thia Khiang, who is also the MP for Hougang, was often “quick to criticise, yet offers no serious proposals”.

I don’t really agree what Dr Ng is saying. I have always had the impression that WP was slow to criticize, although I do admit they have picked up speed in recent months. And in the absence of further qualification from Dr Ng, I am also skeptical at his criticism that Low Thia Khiang and the WP offer no serious proposals.

What should be the role of the Opposition? Surely the Opposition cannot be expected to formulate full-fledged policies, as it does not have the machinery of the civil service at its disposal and does not have the benefit of the the kind of research and manpower that Ministers have access to. The Opposition can at most be expected to comment intelligently on current policies and devise a broad framework for alternative policies without going into the nitty-gritty details (which can only be left to civil servants). To some extent, the WP is already doing that, though there is still room for a lot of improvement.

So what does Dr Ng mean exactly by his comment on the lack of serious proposals from the Opposition? Is that a fair comment?

Dr Ng also said, “Singaporeans deserve more from Mr Low and the WP than silence at defining moments, or double-talk when pressed to state their stand.”

He cited two examples to bolster his point.

In the first instance, during the Parliament debate on the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari from detention, Mr Low had said he could not reconcile the fact that, while Ministers’ pay was pegged to that of chief executives (in the private sector), the Ministers did not adhere to the issue of accountability practised in the private sector. Yet, when pressed as to whether he thought DPM Wong Kan Seng should resign as a result of this incident, Mr Low was “totally silent”.

No answer. So I guess that settles the point.

Dr Ng asked rhetorically, “His statement is baffling. What then was the point of his question to the Prime Minister? Was it just another political ploy?”

In the second instance, WP’s Labour Day message asked whether Singaporeans truly benefitted from the job creation that has taken place, stating that the majority of the jobs had gone to foreigners. The WP statement added that Singaporeans must be assured first of their societal standing in the midst of global uncertainties.

The WP May Day message prompted PAP MP Seng Han Thong, NTUC assistant secretary-general, to ask at the time if all Hougang Town Council employees were Singaporeans. The WP said they were, but was very quick to add that it did not object to contractors hiring foreigners.

Said Dr Ng, “This is another cop-out. If the WP truly believes that all jobs should be reserved for Singaporeans, why does it not insist that its town-council contractors hire local workers only?”

I find Dr Ng’s comments very biased and unreasonable. In the first place, WP never said that jobs should ONLY be reserved for Singaporeans. WP was merely making the statement that the majority of jobs created had gone to foreigners, and was asking the very legitimate question whether Singaporeans’ interests were being taken care of.

In the Petir article, Dr Ng had also said, “… to simply criticise or make opportunistic snipes without offering solutions or, worse, to fudge on national issues instead of taking a clear stand, does little to raise the standard of political debate or the reputation of the Workers’ Party as a responsible opposition.”

I agree with the essence of what Dr Ng has said, but I certainly do NOT agree with his usage of the WP May Day message as an example to illustrate his point.

It appears to me that Dr Ng has twisted the facts just to bolster his point, which is a pity because in itself, it is actually a valid comment.

Dr Ng said Mr Low, whether in or out of Parliament, shied away from direct debate with the Government on important points. He said that political leaders, whether in government or not, “need to have their own ideas, to set a direction for the country and tell Singaporeans how they intend to get there.” Dr Ng added, “Perhaps the WP sees no need to play this role as a credible opposition.”

WP chairman Sylvia Lim responded quickly to these remarks.

She said the party’s policy positions were clearly laid out in its manifesto at the 2006 General Election. Since then, the WP has taken a stand on issues such as the goods and services tax hike, ministerial pay, means testing, constitutional amendments and criminal justice.

I certainly agree with Sylvia Lim that WP has indeed taken a concrete stand on all the issues mentioned. But I also feel WP should not back down when rebutted by PAP MPs, but should confidently engage in constructive debate with them, especially when it is clear that PAP MPs are either making silly comments or are shooting themselves in the foot, as has happened on a number of occasions.

Dr Ng has made some reasonable and valid points about the WP, but to be sure, I can also see he is trying his best to take pot shots at WP.

WP should respond vigorously at these pot shots and not let them become another noose around its neck.