| Sheng Siong, wet markets and free speech |
 |
 |
| Sunday, 01 November 2009 |
Singapore Democrats The Community Club (CC) at Bukit Panjang has rejected an application by the SDP to rent its hall for a public forum to discuss the controversy over the sale of the wet market at Fajar Road to Sheng Siong. Mr Colin Leow of the CC replied that he cannot rent out the venue to political parties.The police had earlier rejected an application by the Singapore Democrats to have the talk outside the wet market itself. They indicated that the talk could be held indoors or at Speakers' Corner. The only indoor venue that is available for such a forum is the CC at the constituency. But the CC has decided that political parties are not welcome even though the wet market issue clearly involves the community. What about the Speakers' Corner? Why should a local issue regarding residents of Bukit Panjang be held at Hong Lim Park? Why should residents, many of whom are not young and would find it difficult to make the trip, have to do downtown just to talk about a matter in their own backyard? This is why the SDP rejects the notion of a free speech venue, a circumscribed area only where public talks are permitted in the country. This is the clearest example yet of how the curtailment of our political rights affect bread-and-butter issues. In any democratic country, the people and the opposition would be able to legitimately raise the issue of a neighbourhood market being taken over by big businessman that would put many out of work and raise prices. Such a public discussion would necessitate the member of parliament to give an account of what he/she would do to help his constituents. But given the unconstitutional ban on legitimate outdoor political talks, PAP MPs are well protected from the views and sentiment of the residents. The opposition would also be unable to help pressure the incumbent to act in the interest of the people. The ruling party MPs can safely do as they please. Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP fpor Bukit Panjang, can afford do little or even nothing, and not have to pay a political price. The police is disingenuous in calling on the SDP to hold the activity indoors knowing that there is no available venue for such an activity. The Speakers' Corner, for reasons stated above, is also a non-starter. In other words, there is no avenue for the people to speak up and debate the issues that affect their everyday lives. So the next anyone says that democracy and political rights have nothing to do with bread-and-butter issues, remember: Sheng Siong, wet markets, and PAP MPs. Share this article: 
Comments (8)
Joomla components by Compojoom
|
Ads
Awesome Words
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
Other languages
Act Now
| ||||
Blogs of the week
| |||||
|
|
|
Poll Results on...
Login
News feeds
CCs are facilities for the community and if the dialogue were strictly confined to issues related to it, the usage can be considered proper and justifiable.
Although SDP may be handicapped by an opponent that holds most of the cards currently, that is no reason to lose the moral high-ground in the eyes of residents and the rest of the nation.
SDP builds its political credentials by being seen to be challenged or tested, and yet resists resorting to vindictive measures or that which indicates political impetuosity. The perception of reasonableness and maturity is enhanced.
The moral high-ground gained is more valuable than the isolated dents it makes on the opponent's armour with each encounter or issue.
I hope SDP will be to find alternative indoor venues around the estate, but minimally, SDP should be applauded for the restraint it shows (or will continue to show).