The PAP is challenging that remark by Prof Tambyah whether character matters. It was not so easy to find the source of where and when Prof Tambyah was quoted but with some persistence and thought I found it. See below.
I want know and then to understand the context of those statements but most important the broadest context which everything is happening under is we are having a by-election and both contesting sides are trying to score points with the voters. They are all behaving not like your friends, colleagues or even bosses. They are totally political animals for these few days. As they act and react to each other the quality of the debate could go up or down. Traditionally it has gone down but in recent times we have improved. The electorate is more sophisticated now, no more trading in gossips but growing in rationality.
In the context of those words, Prof Tambyah was pushing it. Diseases with basis in physiology do not define a person heart and values. Even mental illnesses do not do that. On the other side, if I were the PAP I wouldn't want to respond as they had because voters hate it and turn many of them off as it makes them remember the ugly and often bullying PAP. You can offer evidence that CSJ's heart is not for Singapore and his values are wrong. You can propose that CSJ would have chosen differently then and now because those with the right heart and values would do this or that which CSJ failed to do etc., but don't do something so inane like children in school quoting and accusing each other as bad eggs. Grow up!
When political parties fight elections this way, all of them are losers. Sure someone will still win but all of them are worse for wear. I guess you all only cared abut winning and not how to win. That is very bad. All are black pots.
Therefore don't preach about character to us until both parties impress us with fighting honorably and with respect for each other. If you must turn the cheek, please do. Anything less is an insult to voters. Raise the bar, why does it always have to be so low?
Update: May 2 7:55 am
He said he would not engage in
personal attacks, and had never
brought up what Mr Lee’s sister had
said until last night.
“I had ampleopportunity to attack
him on this but I did not. And it
would have been a very potent attack
because this is not your politicalopponent
saying it. It is yourown
flesh and blood making these statements
about you,” he said. “I refrain
from using Dr Lee Wei Ling’s dispute
with her brother because that’s
not the kind of politics that I want to
But of course is it really competing on the way up? More like going down but looking up eh? If you asked me, I do not trust CSJ. With the PAP you can trust but from time to time need to verify. Nobody is to be completely trusted. There are plenty of Goujians out there. It is only a matter of degree.
Update: May 2 8:25am
At the end of the day you take a risk with people. You make your calculations and manage your risk bearing in mind that to a fair degree people are like investing in mutual funds, i.e., it has done well but past performance is no guarantee of future performance. After very careful "stock or fund selection" the PAP could not avoid Michael Palmer or David Ong. How many more their kind or worse are still in hiding?
Update: May 2 3:10pm
Interesting how reading an article on the CCP direction to its media to produce anti-corruption TV drama has led me to this very popular British political drama set around the time Thatcher left office. All the lust, greed and corruption. In other words all so human bearing in mind at the level of the lizard brain which we all have our leaders are more like than different from us.
Honesty and probity is so unnatural and to be practical we have to keep not just working but fighting for it!