WP, where do you stand?

I refer to Mr Low Thia Khiang’s letter <<With the big picture in mind>> published in Zaobao on 12 Feb 2016. In his letter, Mr Low goes to great lengths to repeat WP’s criticism of the NCMP scheme, portraying it as a scheme designed to get opposition to endorse the PAP.

However, Mr Low fails to address properly the fatal flaw in WP’s stance on the scheme. If the WP truly believes that NCMP seats are second class and that the scheme benefits only the PAP, why does it continue to accept the NCMP seats?

Mr Low claims that WP did so because it believes that a responsible party should work within the system. To this end, he even cited how Mr Lee Kuan Yew contested in the 1955 general election held in Singapore under the Rendel Constitution despite openly criticising the Constitution as undemocratic.

It is true that the PAP did not support the Rendel Constitution. How could it, when it was fighting to overthrow British colonialism? But the PAP and Mr Lee Kuan Yew never pretended that it wasn't worth participating in the legal, constitutional process. Nor did they put down their positions in the Legislative Assembly as Mr Low did when he said that being an NCMP was equivalent to being duckweed. On the contrary, Mr Lee accepted his limited position in the Legislative Assembly then to build up the PAP to eventually take over the govt.

The PAP is not objecting to the WP's position on the NCMP scheme. It is objecting to the sheer hypocrisy of its behaviour -- saying one thing and doing another; and speaking from both sides of its mouth. The actions of WP’s leaders today cannot be compared to the actions of that of PAP’s leaders in 1955.

If WP is serious about its promise to build up an alternative political force, it will do well to emulate the actions of the PAP pioneers.

First, WP can do so by acknowledging that WP is accepting the NCMP seats because it benefits them and their ultimate goal of expanding their political influence. Mr Low should not deny that Ms Sylvia Lim made good use of her “duckweed status” between 2006 and 2011 to help WP win a GRC in 2011. Mr Low should also not deny that WP is even now benefiting from the NCMP scheme as it can profile three of its young leaders in parliament.

Second, it cannot be the ruling party’s responsibility to give the opposition ground for them to grow and bloom. Through the NCMP scheme, the Government has already done its part to provide for diversity in parliament in accordance to the wishes of the voters. It is up to WP to reap the ground and convince voters to allow WP to sink its roots in constituencies. It is not impossible for the opposition to gain ground, as WP proved when it won Aljunied GRC in 2011.

In conclusion, Mr Low Thia Khiang can continue to try to muddle the issue, but actions speak louder than words. A gentleman’s action is true to his beliefs, WP’s action of dismissing the NCMP scheme as a PAP ploy while accepting NCMP seats is that of a hypocrite’s.