constructive debate?

Now Vivian has spoken. Actually there are many points that he raised which are very interesting and deserve for more discussion. But I will just touch on this comment, '...If someone says something we disagree with, we will say so. If someone says something which is unhelpful, we have a right to say it is unhelpful.' And 'He added that what is important for Singaporeans, particularly on serious issues, is to have an honest and constructive debate with no extraneous agendas involved.' Taking both comments into context, there should be constructive debate and a right to reply. The only tricky part is the 'extraneous agendas.' What does it mean? Lets leave this aside first as we will be guessing what all the way. Now, the Brown episode. Mr Brown may have written in a humorous way, he has a good sense of humour which sadly many don't, on a serious issue affecting many Singaporeans. He was serious in what he said. But what was the official response? There was an official reply, alright. But was there a constructive debate? I think everyone will find this part missing. It was a talk down approach. No need further discussion. Mr Brown had touched on something unacceptable, crossed the OB line. Out you go. Where is the engagement and constructive debate to rebut what Mr Brown had said? Couldn't the official postion be one where a point by point rebuttal be more constructive and helped to explain the situation better, that what Mr Brown written were not necessary accurate. Won't it be better to say that 70% of the population are earning more and more and are not affected by the rising cost of living, rising fares and fees? Why wasn't the engagement mode be used to debate on an important issue but instead a disengagement mode be adopted? We are the boss. We do not have to talk to you. You are now history!