SDP did not use footballers to endorse policies

5 April 2013

This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.

Singapore Democrats


The New Paper
has published a report where it saidthe SDP had used Mr Fandi Ahmad and Mr Terry Pathmanathan as "posterboys” to promote our policies. $CUT$

The newspaper also cited the comments of NominatedMember of Parliament and law lecturer Eugene Tan: "It'snot very ethical [of the SDP] to use [Fandi and Pathmanathan] to endorse the party's views without them agreeing to it.”

These statements are untrue.

Our article quoted Mr Fandi's andMr Pathmanathan's statements in interviews they gave to Todayand The New Paper where they talked about some of theproblems they faced.

As these are problems that Singaporeansin general face with regards to foreign talent, healthcare costs and HDB prices (and because Fandi's and Pathmanathan's statements were already in the public domain),we cited them to demonstrate how the PAP's policies can hurt ourpeople.

We also stated that these problems can be remedied by ouralternative policies.

Nowhere in the article, which can beread here, did we say – or give the impression – that Mr Fandiand Mr Pathmanathan had endorsed our policies.

We often highlight the circumstances orviews of prominent and not-so-prominent Singaporeans on our websiteto describe how SDP's policies can help our people (see here, hereand here for example).

We do this because we feel that an opposition party mustnot only be constructive in making alternative proposals but alsoexplain how these proposals can make life better for our people. Onlythen can Singaporeans have a real choice in elections.

This, of course, does not mean that thepeople whom we cite in our articles endorse our policies or that weare using them as poster boys and girls. We highlight their casesbecause they are speaking on, or are Singaporeans affected by, PAP policies.

In fact, we refrained from contactingMessrs Fandi and Pathmanathan prior to the publication of our articlebecause doing so could be interpreted as seeking endorsement fromthem which we had no intention of doing.

It is regrettable that The New Paperhas chosen to publish such a distorted report. It is not responsible journalism.