As noted in a previous post, the buzzword for the past few weeks has been "constructive politics".
However, of late, debates between the People's Action Party (PAP) and Worker's Party (WP) have tended to be less than constructive, due to some rather caustic exchanges which generate more heat than light.
In his speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong criticised the WP for "flip-flopping" even as he lauded the PAP's alleged virtues:
The PAP does our best to practise constructive politics. We offer serious policies and debate the trade-offs even when the issues are sensitive, even when they may cost us political brownie points, for example with the Population White Paper. We uphold the highest standards of integrity and we admit wrongdoings and we put them right whether or not it is politically inconvenient or embarrassing. We represent a broad church where Singaporeans accommodate one another to improve and work on our shared goals. We engage many Singaporeans on our shared future – through the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC), MediShield-Life consultations, through our many other exercises. The Opposition may not think this is constructive politics, but I believe it is and I thank the Singaporeans who have given their time and energy to contributing, participating and helping to make Singapore better.Opposition parties must also uphold the same standards. A case in point: Indranee Rajah on Monday pointed out that the Workers’ Party has flip-flopped on foreign workers. Mr Low Thia Khiang denied this. He said “Whether we flip-flop… No. We are not. If she wishes to have a full debate on that please file a motion, we are prepared to debate that.” Well, Mr Low’s denial is simply false. The Workers’ Party did flip-flop. The record is there in the Hansard, for everyone to see. But his suggestion to file a motion is not a bad idea and I think it is worth considering.
This prompted an exchange between PM Lee and WP chief Low Thia Khiang, with PM Lee accusing WP of being "extremely reasonable" in Parliament while turning into "tigers and heroes" during election time and of being a "sub-standard Opposition".
In the latest of these exchanges, Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah criticised the latest WP statement on Medishield Life in a Facebook post.
She criticised the statement for allegedly claiming credit for something which was "sum of the combined efforts of [Our Singapore Conversation] participants, civil servants who manned the OSC secretariat and those who worked tirelessly on the policy recommendations, the PAP ministers, in particular the Ministers for Health and Finance and Mr Bobby Chin and his Committee". She also slammed the statement as "instructive" in WP's approach, which is to "claim credit", "keep it vague", and "call for more".
This post was shared by Law Minister K Shanmugam, calling it an "excellent response".
In my opinion, many of these moves are unnecessary and inappropriate.
According to MyPaper, in "Indranee hits out, Sylvia is 'puzzled'" (10 June 2014), both former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng and Associate Professor Eugene Tan have warned against an "overkill" even as the PAP is keen to show up WP's deficiencies.
I respectfully agree.
While commendation of good conduct is important, it is another thing altogether to trumpet one's alleged virtues by constantly pointing out the flaws in others. To attempt to score political brownie points like this is futile, if not self-defeating.
Virtue will speak for itself. As PM Lee said in his speech, "[the] record is there in the Hansard, for everyone to see".
By that same token, Singaporeans can – and, I would argue, should – be left to discern for themselves whether or not the parties live up to standards of integrity and honesty.