the following is a media release by the 6 who recently resigned from Singapore People's Party:

We are glad to hear that the recent SPP OPC elections was held constitutionally. Such public clarification and accountability bodes well for the SPP's credibility.

Our differences in opinion over leadership style have never ever been with Mr Chiam. We hold Mr Chiam in high regard and have never ever questioned his role as Sec-Gen and leader of the Party. We have sought hard to hear from Mr Chiam directly on all matters. We all want to continue his legacy and spirit of standing for consultation, democracy and inclusion, in society, in Parliament, and in the Party.

In the spirit of building a consultative collective team leadership, we have brought many matters (including the proposed Foundation, the photobook, and the NSP's CNY walkabout invite) formally to the Chiams and the CEC for collective consultation, response and decision. Many other CEC members other than those of us who left can attest to this, and there are email trails and CEC meeting minutes that record this. We together tried hard to seek consulted, collective CEC decisions on these and other matters.

We stand together with the Chiams and the SPP in stating that Mr Tan Jee Say was never ever involved with any Party internal CEC matters, nor with our leaving. We also fully agree with the Chiams and SPP that the details that led to our leaving is an internal Party matter.

Our clear public statement that our leaving was due to differences in leadership style and Party direction within the CEC, was to be publicly accountable to our Party members, supporters and voters for our leaving. We also want to state publicly again that our leaving was not due to any dispute over who was to take over the Sec-Gen post from Mr Chiam.

We chose to leave, to prevent further internal conflict and damage to the SPP leadership, and to allow Mrs Chiam and her team to continue to lead the Party in her chosen style and direction.

We continue to wish Mrs Chiam and her new CEC all the very best, as they lead the SPP forward.

Benjamin Pwee

Wilfred Leung

David Tan

Mohamed Hamim bin Aliyas

Mrs Mohamad Hamim bin Aliyas

Ting Sze Jiang

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Free disposal and early disposal incentives of $100 per registered non-UL2272 e-scooter

Free disposal and early disposal incentives of $100 per registered e-scooter will…

Catherine Lim’s letter to parents on CSE programme

“In the foreseeable future, as more homosexuals come out into the open, the last vestiges of the old stigma against homosexuality will disappear altogether.”

尚穆根称《防假消息法》不阻碍言论自由

《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》于昨日国会进行二读时,内政兼律政部长尚穆根重申,当事人可以对政府所做的相关指示向法院提出上诉,启动上诉程序后,最快九个工作日,法庭就可以展开审讯。 据法案内容指出,只有影响了国家公共利益,政府才会采取行动。他也强调虽然部长是有更正与撤下不实信息的权利,但部长也必须对此提出理由。 而当事人若对政府的指示有所异议,可申请向部长提出撤销指示,而部长需在两日内日决定是否该撤销。若部长最终决定不撤销,上诉人也可向法庭提出上诉,由法官决定是否接受上诉。整个过程将尽速进行且前三日的上诉审讯无须支付。 部长尚穆根解释全球都在面临民主体系与公共机构被削弱的问题,其中以传统媒体与新媒体是部分原因之一,尤其是新媒体的功能更容易迅速散播及扩大假消息,为其带来严重后果。 例如在印度,人们因为错信在Whatsapp上传播的有关孩子被拐卖的假消息,引发私刑冲突,导致33人死亡,或是包括法国巴黎圣母院失火的视频,就被利用来推动反回教情绪法国 他认为一些有政治动机的机构,利用新媒体的便利误导民众,散播谣言以至于影响公共利益。 他表示,假消息无疑是制造民众与政府之间的不信任感。“假信息会破坏公众的信心,它被用来分化、极端化和撕裂社会凝聚力。民主对话、相互包容和寻求妥协将变得非常困难。”他持续说道。 他解释“言论自由不受这个法案的影响,我们这里谈论的是假信息,机器人写作程序、网络喷子、假帐号等,英国上诉法院的判决就提出,散播假信息不应获得基本人权保护民主社会的顺利运作,取决于社会民众是否能获得真实的消息而不是受到误导。” 部长逐一回应近期对法案提出的评论,包括法案对事实、个人看法、公共利益的定义,以及可能造成寒蝉效应,阻碍言论自由等。