It is political, like it or not

Mr Steve Tan misses the point entirely with his criticism of Workers' Party MP Low Thia Kiang in his letter.

[T]he Workers' Party chief was quoted as saying that the Government had made three firm commitments on the mother tongue issue. He added that if the Government did not think he was right, it should clarify the situation.

Mr Low's remarks smack of political opportunism or a display of brinkmanship. He knows that once he reduces the interpretation of a complex issue to three simple points and forces a reaction from the Government, he can then find fault with whatever proposition that the Government puts out in response.

To attempt to corner the Government and use the issue to score political points ridicules the very real emotions and lives of people.

His allegation that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Education Minister Ng Eng Hen tried to prevent the issue from becoming a political burden seems to provide the answer to exactly what he is attempting to do: turn this into a political issue from which to profit.

Sigh. This is an argument borne of a gross misunderstanding of how politics work. What Low did was simple, ask if he had understood the PAP government's stance on MT correctly, and if this is an actual commitment from them; a response that was warranted given the wishy-washy way that this issue was handled. Low even allowed the PAP to clarify the situation if he was incorrect, which is more than what some ministers have offered.

It also smacks of a naiveté that consensus building and suggesting alternatives cannot be done in an adversarial manner. Pointing out flaws in current policy is, like it or not, an accepted form of contribution, and an accepted method of refining policies for the better. Of course, proposing an alternative is also a contribution, but to say one is more valluable than the other is nonsense.

If, and when, the PAP government responds to Low, then we will see if Low can come up with an alternative. Otherwise, the PAP will do what Tan has accused Low of doing: "turn this into a political issue from which to profit". This is politics, and while Low may indeed be "politicising" the issue, it is extremely dense to suggest that the PAP, in its sudden reversal against reducing MT weighting in PSLE, is not politicising the issue. It may touch on racial and cultural sensitivities (an argument I don't buy), but this is a major part of the PAP's education policy, and that alone makes it a political issue.

(h/t: Gerald Ho)