SINGAPORE: Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh has rebutted a claim by former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng that the WP strengthened its position on Palestine to appeal to voters during the 2025 General Election.
In a Facebook post on Thursday (Aug 28), Mr Cheng said that WP "cynically" took a stronger stance on the issue of Palestine "just before the elections".
"They knew these issues upset certain communities, and that certain constituencies they were challenging had demographics which were more upset about the Palestine issue," Mr Cheng said.
The WP therefore "took the stand that Singapore should recognise Palestine even before any negotiated two-state solution is agreed to", he said, adding that the party also "fielded candidates that appealed to certain pro-Palestinian communities".
Mr Singh refuted the claim in a comment on Mr Cheng's Facebook post, saying: "I can understand why you would want to perpetuate this narrative given your political persuasions, even if the opinion is wrong in my view.
"Quite simply, the demographic numbers don't add up to secure 'victory', and thinking they would, from my perspective, is reckless."
He added that the speeches made by WP MPs during the parliamentary debate on the Israel-Hamas war and Singapore's stance on the creation of a Palestinian state in November 2023 should have made the party's position "predictable".
In a speech during the debate, WP MP Gerald Giam affirmed WP's support for the creation of a "viable Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with Israel through a negotiated two-state solution".
He added that Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas "must be wielded within the bounds of international humanitarian law, ensuring that the sanctity of human life, particularly that of civilians and children, is upheld even in the midst of a war".
The exchange comes after Mr Singh said on a local current affairs podcast that it was not wrong for political parties to take positions on foreign policy matters.
Mr Singh was answering a question on how he felt about party members expressing their views on "contentious" issues that arise outside of Singapore, including on the Palestine issue and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
"The lenses that we're seeing it through is not through the lenses of race, not through the lenses of religion, but we're seeing the issue through the lenses of humanity as Singaporeans, and I don't think we are worse off or weakened by that sort of view on a particular international issue," said Mr Singh in an episode of the Yah Lah But podcast released on Monday.
"I'm not going to fetter the right of the party to have an opinion on these things. But if people think that the WP is using this to appeal to certain communities. I think that's a very mistaken view," he added.
In his Facebook post, Mr Cheng agreed that political parties have a right to take a stance on foreign policy and said that Mr Singh was "absolutely correct" in saying that the WP should have a stance on the matter.
"But I do not believe that the WP did not cynically take a stronger position (on) Palestine just before the elections," said Mr Cheng, adding that the WP "should be honest about its tactics and not be disingenuous".
He said that, as racial and religious politics are "taboo" in Singapore, the WP "dresses" up its position as being "pro-humanity". "Nobody should fall for this," he added.
In his comment on Mr Cheng's post, Mr Singh said: "On the ground ... the humanity-focused concerns are realer than you think."
In a reply to Mr Singh's comment, Mr Cheng countered his assertion on demographic numbers, saying that they "do add up", and that a 15 per cent to 20 per cent voting bloc is "enough to swing any constituency".
"The humanity-focused concerns, of course, are real. In all countries. Nobody wants to see civilians suffer," Mr Cheng added.
"But whether these more general concerns, rather than religious affinity, are strong enough during an election to affect votes is a separate question. But agree to disagree."
Continue reading...
In a Facebook post on Thursday (Aug 28), Mr Cheng said that WP "cynically" took a stronger stance on the issue of Palestine "just before the elections".
"They knew these issues upset certain communities, and that certain constituencies they were challenging had demographics which were more upset about the Palestine issue," Mr Cheng said.
The WP therefore "took the stand that Singapore should recognise Palestine even before any negotiated two-state solution is agreed to", he said, adding that the party also "fielded candidates that appealed to certain pro-Palestinian communities".
Mr Singh refuted the claim in a comment on Mr Cheng's Facebook post, saying: "I can understand why you would want to perpetuate this narrative given your political persuasions, even if the opinion is wrong in my view.
"Quite simply, the demographic numbers don't add up to secure 'victory', and thinking they would, from my perspective, is reckless."
He added that the speeches made by WP MPs during the parliamentary debate on the Israel-Hamas war and Singapore's stance on the creation of a Palestinian state in November 2023 should have made the party's position "predictable".
In a speech during the debate, WP MP Gerald Giam affirmed WP's support for the creation of a "viable Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with Israel through a negotiated two-state solution".
He added that Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas "must be wielded within the bounds of international humanitarian law, ensuring that the sanctity of human life, particularly that of civilians and children, is upheld even in the midst of a war".
Related:
EXCHANGE FOLLOWED PODCAST APPEARANCE
The exchange comes after Mr Singh said on a local current affairs podcast that it was not wrong for political parties to take positions on foreign policy matters.
Mr Singh was answering a question on how he felt about party members expressing their views on "contentious" issues that arise outside of Singapore, including on the Palestine issue and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
"The lenses that we're seeing it through is not through the lenses of race, not through the lenses of religion, but we're seeing the issue through the lenses of humanity as Singaporeans, and I don't think we are worse off or weakened by that sort of view on a particular international issue," said Mr Singh in an episode of the Yah Lah But podcast released on Monday.
"I'm not going to fetter the right of the party to have an opinion on these things. But if people think that the WP is using this to appeal to certain communities. I think that's a very mistaken view," he added.
In his Facebook post, Mr Cheng agreed that political parties have a right to take a stance on foreign policy and said that Mr Singh was "absolutely correct" in saying that the WP should have a stance on the matter.
"But I do not believe that the WP did not cynically take a stronger position (on) Palestine just before the elections," said Mr Cheng, adding that the WP "should be honest about its tactics and not be disingenuous".
He said that, as racial and religious politics are "taboo" in Singapore, the WP "dresses" up its position as being "pro-humanity". "Nobody should fall for this," he added.
In his comment on Mr Cheng's post, Mr Singh said: "On the ground ... the humanity-focused concerns are realer than you think."
In a reply to Mr Singh's comment, Mr Cheng countered his assertion on demographic numbers, saying that they "do add up", and that a 15 per cent to 20 per cent voting bloc is "enough to swing any constituency".
"The humanity-focused concerns, of course, are real. In all countries. Nobody wants to see civilians suffer," Mr Cheng added.
"But whether these more general concerns, rather than religious affinity, are strong enough during an election to affect votes is a separate question. But agree to disagree."
Continue reading...