Tan Wu Meng’s article ‘politically motivated’ and aimed to divide S’poreans, smear WP: Pritam Singh

SINGAPORE — Opposition leader Pritam Singh said on Sunday (June 21) that an article by Dr Tan Wu Meng casting doubt on his and the Workers’ Party’s (WP) loyalties to the country was “politically motivated” to divide Singaporeans and paint the opposition party in a bad light.

Dr Tan, who is from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary of Trade and Industry and of Foreign Affairs.

Writing on Facebook, Mr Singh was responding to comments that Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam made on Sunday morning. 

Speaking to the media on the sidelines of a walkabout in Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, Mr Shanmugam had weighed in on the matter and called on Mr Singh to clarify his position, pointing out that former WP chief Low Thia Khiang was “very clear” about not taking another country’s side against Singapore, even though he may disagree with PAP on policy matters.

In response, Mr Singh, who took over WP’s leadership in 2018, sought to reaffirm his and WP’s position. He noted how WP stood behind Singapore when a Malaysian vessel entered Singapore waters in 2018, highlighting subsequent comments by Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan that no party politics had interfered with the ministry’s mission.

“When it comes to Singapore’s sovereignty, there can be no doubt where the WP has stood and will continue to stand. We stand with Singapore,” Mr Singh said.

HOW IT BEGAN 

In Parliament earlier this month, Mr Singh gave his support to playwright Alfian Sa’at, whom he called a “loving critic”. 

Last Friday, Dr Tan questioned Mr Alfian’s loyalties by pointing out his criticism of Singapore and his pro-Malaysia comments over the years. Dr Tan also asked Mr Singh which side he was on — something which the PAP was entitled to do, said Mr Shanmugam. 

Explaining why he backed Mr Alfian, Mr Singh said that he has always appreciated the perspective of theatre practitioners on taboo or sensitive subjects.

“Such reflections, which are commonly critical and provocative, give rise to a thinking population. Singaporeans like Mr Alfian Sa’at do not deserve to be admonished in Parliament on the basis of a selective reading of their works,” he said, referring to a parliamentary speech by Education Minister Ong Ye Kung last October that prompted Mr Singh’s comments.

“However, should any Singaporean consistently establish that he or she rejects Singapore or our Constitution or runs Singapore down with a political agenda overseas, neither I nor the WP will stand for such conduct,” Mr Singh said.

He also pointed out that the term “loving critic” was coined by Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh to defend Mr Alfian, as well as other critics and intellectuals, in a commentary by national daily The Straits Times in October.

“Professor Koh, a Singaporean diplomat of international stature who built his reputation by tactfully protecting Singapore's foreign interests over many decades, needs no introduction. I found Prof Koh's use of the term ‘loving critic’ to describe Singaporeans like Mr Alfian Sa’at apt,” he said.

Mr Singh then took aim at Dr Tan’s post, noting that Dr Tan did not make known his objections to Mr Singh’s speech on June 5, during the debate on the Fortitude Budget.

Dr Tan was “entitled to do so” as an elected Member of Parliament holding political office in foreign affairs, Mr Singh said. 

Referring to the online backlash received by Dr Tan after he posted the article on the PAP website, Mr Shanmugam had said that he was surprised at the criticism of the ruling party engaging in character assassination or using bullying tactics.

Noting this, Mr Singh said that the vitriol received by both Dr Tan and the PAP could be down to two reasons: Dr Tan’s “belated but calculated decision” to express his views during a period when the General Election is anticipated to take place soon, as well as Dr Tan’s “leap in logic in extending Mr Alfian’s artistic expressions to an endorsement by the WP of every controversial view Mr Alfian has made”.

“For these reasons, it is my view that Dr Tan’s questions, cloaked as innocent ones, were politically motivated to divide Singaporeans into those who are for or against — not Singapore — but the PAP, and to paint the WP in a negative light.

“The public are equally entitled to respond as they deem fit — within the remit of the law — and at the ballot box,” Mr Singh said.

'ARTISTIC FREEDOM NOT BEING QUESTIONED': SHANMUGAM

Responding to Mr Singh's clarification on Monday, Mr Shanmugam said he was glad the WP would “continue to stand squarely with the government when it comes to foreign relations”.

“This continues the stance that Mr Low Thia Khiang took,” said Mr Shanmugam in a Facebook post.

The minister also appeared to take issue with a portion of Mr Singh’s Facebook post, which said: “As Mr Shanmugam states, there is freedom of speech in Singapore and Singaporeans are entitled to their views. I do not specifically track what our playwrights say about Malaysia. But I have always appreciated the perspective of theatre practitioners in Singapore, regardless of their race or choice of language medium, on subjects considered taboo or sensitive by mainstream standards.”

Mr Shanmugam said that Mr Singh “admits now that he hadn’t examined” Mr Alfian’s views on Malaysia and Singapore before declaring the playwright a “loving critic” and “admonishing the government for not heeding (Mr Alfian’s) wisdom”.

The minister added that he looks forward to Mr Singh “telling us if he still believes that Mr Alfian Sa’at’s views on Malaysia and Singapore merit his support”.

“He need not rush to examine those statements, (set out in Dr Tan’s post), but I hope to hear his views on them in good time,” said Mr Shanmugam.

“This is not about artistic freedom, or license, those are not being questioned,” the minister added. “This is specifically about Mr Singh asking the Government to listen to a specific individual.”