Dr Tan Wu Meng's post was a very serious post, was a very thoughtful post.

I think the point may be missed quite easily.

He put out what Mr Alfian Sa’at had said and he didn't make anything up.

He just put out the various posts by Mr Alfian Sa’at.

In summary, one can say that Mr Alfian Sa’at's position is that he would like for Singapore to merge with Malaysia and he thinks that the Chinese are being wrong in not wanting a merger.

He dislikes Mr Lee Kuan Yew intensely and loves Dr Mahathir and he takes Malaysia's side and Malaysian government vessels are in Singapore's waters and in a very tense standoff on territorial issues, as well as air issues, he takes Malaysia's side and says that Singaporeans are egoistic, and various other things.

You know, this is a free country, and he is entitled to his views and most Singaporeans know him for what he is. That doesn't call for any comment.

Mr Sa’at is irrelevant in this issue to that extent, but when Mr Pritam Singh, as leader of the opposition, stands up in parliament and support Mr Alfian Sa’at, and say he is a loving critic of Singapore, then I think we are entitled to ask, in a healthy democracy, which side do you stand on?

Because, under Mr Low (Thia Khiang), it was very clear, we may disagree on policies within Singapore, as Singaporeans, what is better for Singaporeans.

Workers' Party can take one issue, we might take another issue, we may take different positions but politics stop at the boundary, you never take another country's side against Singapore.

So, Dr Tan Wu Meng's note, is a very serious note, saying this is what Mr Low and the Workers' Party used to be like, does that continue to be the position?

And to give Mr Pritam Singh the benefit of doubt, Dr Tan asked, 'have you read those posts before you said Mr Alfian Sa’at is a loving critic of Singapore and should not be criticised?'

Or perhaps to give you the benefit of doubt, maybe you haven't read them, and after reading them, are you still of the same position?

Mr Singh has put up something which seems to suggest that everyone is not, no one is perfect, which means he seems to accept that Alfian's posts do mean what Dr Tan said.

But he (Pritam) doesn't make clear what his position is, whether he knew what Alfian has said. Now that's one part of it.

It's a very serious issue - what should politics be like.

And all that Dr Tan did, was to set out the posts that Alfian has said, and then ask, 'Did you know about this when you supported him in parliament?'

There was nothing about Mr Pritam Singh's character, there was nothing about attacking Mr Pritam Singh, it was a legitimate question.

But what surprised me, for the vast majority of people who read it and I think they understood, both in Mandarin and in English.

But you have a group, it's almost a Pavlovian response, by a small group of people 'Oh, this is character assassination', 'oh you know this is an attack, bullying tactics'.

You know, everyday, PAP (People's Action Party) MPs and PAP Ministers are attacked, 'Shameless lot, you are this, you are that'.

Personal attacks, which are untrue and unfair, attacking the family, attacking the individuals, gutter politics.

These people who now rise up to complain about Dr Tan Wu Meng, never breathed a word about that.

Oh that's fine, it's a democracy, free speech.

When somebody on the government side raises a question, 'Oh it's gutter politics'.

It's sheer hypocrisy.

And I say it's Pavlovian. PAP says anything or the government say anything, 'oh it must be wrong, it's unfair'.

I think people ought to be more honest, go and look at the post, what did Dr Tan Wu Meng say and then ask themselves, is he entitled to raise this question.

And deal with it, rather than attacking the man. Or rather than trying to do character assassination. Which character has been assassinated in this process?

What did Dr Tan say? He just sets out what Alfian says and he says to Mr Singh, did you know this?

So you get, you know, but it's a group, the usual people, they will come up and they will all foam at the mouth. But that's one group.

There's a separate group of people I accept, middle of the road, honest, reasonable people who either didn't read the post, they just read what other people said about it and got the impression that something wrong has been said, 'oh Dr Tan has attacked'.

I can understand. If you don't read the post, you just read what other people say, you get mistaken.

And there are others legitimately, after reading Dr Tan's post, nevertheless, feel, 'why does he have to say this'.

I can understand that.

There are people who feel react that way.

That's legitimate. In a free society, you are entitled to take that view too.