Saturday, September 20, 2008

SDP toying with sensitive racial issues

Maintaining racial harmony is of paramount importance in a multiracial society like Singapore's. It is therefore dangerous and irresponsible for SDP to toy with such sensitive racial issues to further its objectives.

A talk on getting Tamil language in public signs had been rejected by the Police, as it related to racial issues. The regulations of usage of Hong Lim Park includes:
the person does not deal with any matter-
(i) which relates, directly or indirectly, to any religious belief or to religion generally; or
(ii) which may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore
Majority of Indians in Singapore speak the Tamil language. By threading on the line of language, it could provoke racial tensions.

SDP has quoted oral interviews of some disappointed participants in their online article. Whether the interviews are genuine is worth a thought since none of the names of interviewees were recorded.

The main point is that SDP is playing a dangerous game by toying with sensitive racial issues. A political party should act responsibly and refrain from stoking or fanning racial tensions. Its report on the matter is uncalled for and is sensationalised with strong emotions. Such a report should not be dismissed as a possible spark to racial conflicts.

We hereby hope that SDP remove the article "Spectators cornered at Speakers' Corner" immediately.

NParks Speakers' Corner Registration Guidelines


  1. Nothing new from Cheat Soon Juan. Last time he insist to go Speakers Corner to speak on Tudung. He think he hero but if he starts a racial riot, he will cry that it is PAP fault. Everything PAP fault.

  2. SDP lawyer Chia Ti Lik screws up on his law knowledge!

    Pro-SDP Sgpolitics put it up at the top of the page like they are very proud of it!

    Read more about it here:

  3. One good idea is for this blog to carry the comments critical of SDP that were greyed out by SDP members themselves voting thumb downs for the comment.

    I made my first comment in the SDP website and the same thing happened. I asked them what if the ST greyed out all SDP news because they had a 77% thumbs down in the last election. Guess what? No reply.

  4. Thanks for taking interest in this issue which in fact, has open a can of worms..

    Allowed me to say something (not in defense of CTL)..

    The police inspector which was in-charge of the case, he himself does not want to clearly explain to me what offense have I committed this time round.

    He expected me to go to AGC website to do a search myself..(which I did) or to ask a lawyer about it..

    After speaking to some friends from the legal sector, I was told by them that;

    1) subsidiary legislation is not made freely available unlike primary legislation.

    2) it is meant for practitioners and govt departments to use in administering the law

    3) since it is not meant to be public knowledge..(how the hell does this inspector expect me to know and find out myself from the AGC's website?)

    4) therefore why should definitions and restrictions be made in subsidiary and not primary legislation? (is the intention to keep the actual scope of the law from the people and to use it only to trap certain groups?)

    With all due respect, if even the police cannot / don't want / afraid to tell me what exactly is the offense I have committed, how do they expect the one being questioned to know?

    My point to make is, the MHA are obviously bending all their laws just to "do us in"..

  5. Dear lamei

    There's no need to defend the indefensible anymore. Several Chia Ti Lik supporters agree that he made an oversight. Even if you say you are not speaking up for Chia, it does seem to me that you are.

    Before the police takes action, they would tell you that you are contravening the law. Such was the case outside parliament building. You guys refused to leave.

    The problem with you is that you want to show they have no evidence to arrest you. Do you expect every time the police arrests a thief or robber, they have to carry the statutes and all the sub leg documents around with them?

    The police knows what they are doing and they have the exact laws to arrest you. I can't say the same for you guys. Whether you agree with the laws or not, or intepret them any way you like, that is another matter altogether. If you want to break the unjust laws, say so. Don't say the laws don't exist.


Please note that we will adopt SDP-style of allowing no-reply-to-comments-and-no-allowing-of-anonymous-comments approach