For advertisement

Sample

1/26/2006

general election : preliminary round 2

the wp's manifesto is perceived as poison, timebombs. wp responded by shouting undemocratic. what are the issues and why? wp sees the grassroot organisations as a political tool and wanted them remove. this includes the grcs and the presidency as well. the pap counters by saying that wp is trying to undermine social cohesion. who is right or telling the truth. both are right from their perspectives. no one can believe that wp would want to create racial strife. they are just calling for the removal of organisations that would give them a disadvantage in the political contest. but pap chooses to see it differently and call it differently. the counter blow of calling pap undemocratic is in response to the call/advice or demand by pap to change wp's manifesto. to pap, it is just an election tactic. they talked down to the wp like a school master. you change or else. this puts wp in a dilemma. they cannot change for doing so will immediately be recognised as a defeat. not changing will put them in a position like they are threatening national unity or worst. is wp's defence on the ground of undemocratic justifiable? can a communist party put up a manifesto for communism be allowed to contest? or can a socialist party put up a manifesto that resembles communism be unconstitutional? or can any party put up any manifesto and be disqualified to contest? who is the final arbiter to say whether the manifesto is acceptable to the people?

No comments: