工人党不回应批评
对于哈里古玛上周六通过面簿提出的批评，工人党昨天受询时表示不会回应。
这是继律政部兼教育部高级政务部长英兰妮在面簿批评工人党未在头巾事件上表达明确立场后，又一名执政党议员公开发表相同的看法。哈里古玛对比行动党议员潘丽萍与毕丹星在国会针对网站Ashley Madison的口头询问，形容潘丽萍“清楚表明希望政府屏蔽该网站”，而毕丹星的询问则让人摸不透工人党的立场。
在一则题为“独特的新加坡式政治”的网帖中，哈里古玛说，要了解一个政党真正的意识形态，就应了解该党面对特别具争议性的课题时，所采取的立场。他指出，由于行动党是执政党，政府的决定反映行动党的立场，但国会主要反对党工人党的立场却往往模棱两可。
媒体发展管理局本月8日指Ashley Madison无视社会所秉持的家庭价值观和公共道德，违反公众利益，宣布禁止网站，并表示将与网络服务供应商携手屏蔽网站，阻断网民访问该网站。
哈里古玛指出，虽然相信很多人都无法接受Ashley Madison这样的网站，但也知道屏蔽网站会引起对言论自由，以及政府规范道德等课题的讨论。他说：“针对这些课题，反对党经常攻击政府，因此我很好奇工人党会怎么说，结果他们果然采取一贯的作法，没有表明立场。”
哈里古玛也认为，工人党针对刑事法临时条款延长五年、最近的头巾事件，以及挑战“两男性交违法”的第377节法律条文等课题，都不持有立场。
他说：“有些人会觉得这是聪明的策略，毕竟这样别人就没有理由反对你，但这也关乎更重要的问题。一旦政党避开艰难的课题，我们的政治发展就会陷入停滞。除非人们能够知道并了解他们所选的政党真正代表的是什么，否则他们不会拥有选择的自由。
联合早报
2013年11月19日
2013年11月19日
Uniquely Singapore Politics - Hri Kumar's Facebook on November 16, 2013
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."
