Mr Chew is very much a supporter and friend of Roy Ngerng and Co. He's been a vociferous defender of Roy's antics and actions this past year. In the status update, Mr Chew expressed disappointment at the WP for not supporting Roy and questioned why he's bothering to defend them. To quote him:
'But then, I recall that when my fellow citizen was being attacked by the white devils and accused of the "heckling" that now everyone with half a brain know never happened, 2 of them from the blue party didn't care enough to examine the facts carefully and instead, joined in to attack him. That event left a really bitter taste in my mouth and made me rather depressed for a couple of weeks. I started questioning why do I even bother doing what I am doing (helping to defend them).'
I responded:
'I think you've let your personal friendship with Roy and gang cloud your judgment. You are well within your rights to support them to the hilt, irrespective of whatever arguments to the contrary. But you cannot expect everyone to agree and believe me there's a lot who don't. And it's unfair of you to label those who don't as being blinded to the truth. There are valid reasons why the WP, NSP and others are reluctant to support them and even in the case of the former, do not want to have anything to do with them. You may want to tar them with the same brush as the PAP, but the WP is not the PAP and never will be.
For sure they will agree to some PAP policies, for sure if they ever win power, will not perhaps change certain PAP policies, but they are not the PAP. Period. The fact is that they were unwilling to go after those in arrears aggressively, shows that they are not. They have a certain amount of compassion and certainly they won't be chasing after you with libel suits should you do things or comics against them. They'll just ignore you. Why should they openly be aggressive and attack the PAP like Dr Chee once did? Remember that in 2001, the SDP took a pasting in the polls after Dr Chee went full blast. The WP can be very popular with hardcore opposition supporters and score points with a full frontal attack, they will be hailed by them, but the fact is they will not sway many swing voters.
They have to be measured when discussing and raising serious issues, they have to be mature and rational. Take yourself for instance, yes your comics are great and funny and we all laugh and also agree with them in many respects, but supposing you're an elected MP, can you simply go to Parliament, deliver speeches, write opinions on policy in the same way as your comics? You'll need to back that up with substance and be subject to scrutiny. Your arguments will have to be examined in detail and even rebutted, and you'll have to defend them with logic. You cannot simply attempt to dismiss them and score points with superficial arguments. You have to examine the consequences of each of your arguments in the bigger picture of nation building and justify them. You simply cannot do as Roy and Gang, shouting loudly and not have something to explain away what you will do in the larger sense of managing the economy, your wards and the long term future of the nation. The WP is not making that mistake and have emerged as the main alternative, you dismiss/attack them all you want, but their support is not diminishing. They are merely not after your vote or those hardcore opposition supporters, they are after the hundreds of thousands, who while accepting the past achievements of the PAP, want a different and more to the ground approach. They are not against every single PAP policy, just a change of direction in some of them. The WP understands this, do you?'
Observations
Mr Chew does what he does best - producing comics. It's very popular even amongst neutrals. But Mr Chew from this post and past comics doesn't disguise the fact he's very anti-PAP. That's his right and those who share the same sentiments, however it's unfair for him/them to expect everyone to share such views or to support the cause or groups he supports, in particular the 'Looney Fringe' fronted by Roy and Han Hui Hui and masterminded by Leong Sze Hian. His perception that they did not disrupt the YMCA event, is not shared by a majority of Singaporeans, despite the unquestionable evidence to the contrary. But he has the right to uphold his beliefs of their 'innocence.'
An example of Mr Chew's work. It's not wrong to have political satire, in fact it's healthy in any true democracy.
However he cannot get angry at the WP for refusing to agree/support and even condemning their actions. And neither has the top brass from the NSP and SPP. Even Dr Chee in this instance did not come out to say they did not 'heckle and disrupt.' Instead he suggested that if they apologised, we should be magnanimous, so clearly even among the pro-liberal opposition, there's little doubt that they believe some form of disruption and heckling took place. Mr Chew can remain blind to this, but surely he must accept that if Dr Chee himself, who had similar form in organising protests and heckling, found that it did occur, the vast majority of Singaporeans, be they pro-PAP, pro-opposition and neutrals will share similar views. Only a tiny minority of hardcore opposition supporters who despise everything PAP will agree with him.
Ms Han clearly marching into the YMCA event, screaming into the loudhailer. Mr Chew can be blind to this, but not many are.
And furthermore Mr Chew cannot expect the WP to endorse him or a majority of activists, even if their causes are good or popular. The WP like any other party can only endorse actions of their members where they have given consent. It would be a very risky endeavour, even foolish, for a political party to start giving endorsements to the actions of parties outside of their control. Doing so would mean they would be liable and open to questioning of their judgment, should any of these activists or parties conduct themselves improperly. Take Roy and Ms Han as prime examples - Roy admitted defaming the PM, admitted skiving at work and heckled/disrupted an event for under-privileged persons. Ms Han made highly inflammatory statements against Lee Kuan Yew, repeatedly lies and has plagiarised the work of Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong. Had they endorsed them at any 1 point, they will look very foolish now and people, especially swing voters will question their judgment. They might worry that should the WP or any such party win power, they might end up appointing such persons to key positions.
Conclusion
Mr Chew and others must remember that whatever they are doing, be it producing comics, organising protests or engaging in whatever form activism, they are doing of their own accord and free will. It's unfair for them to start accusing political parties for not supporting them, when things go awry. If they had approached the parties before-hand and got their blessings or approval, then fair enough, they can lament, when such support doesn't come.
Once a firebrand activist, Dr Chee Soon Juan now has realised it alienates voters and is focussed on policies and rebuttals.
Even with the general public, no one has a right to demand unconditional support, no one has the right to demand monies and no one has the right to dismiss or condemn others for refusing to support them. The Looney Fringe like Ms Han and Roy whine and cry, when people like me and others criticise their actions as unbecoming and reprehensible. Everyone who disagrees is labelled a PAP IB (internet brigade). They supposedly champion freedom of speech, but refuse to let others have the same freedoms to disagree and to call out their antics. What an irony!
It's not just a question of the message, it's the messengers themselves. Nobody elected them to anything, no political party endorsed or encouraged them to do anything. They chose to do it on their own, but they themselves lack the basic criteria, judgment and maturity that's required, so why must they demand unconditional support? Even Dr Chee and the SDP has shied away from activism and now wants to focus on policies, so why must people like me and many others who vehemently disagree with their antics be labelled as PAP IB?
