The following is a letter sent to us by a TOC reader.

I am reluctant to resurrect the troubles that brewed over MM Lee’s remarks that related to the Malay-Muslim Community but I feel the need to raise a point on accountability that has not yet been resolved.

First, I believe it is better for the Malay-Muslim Community to try to consider MM Lee’s words contextually and constructively. We could also try and keep in mind the positive things that MM Lee has done for the Malay-Muslim Community over the decades. That aside, this letter is not about the merits of his remarks.

Having read and learnt about MM Lee’s incisive world-view and strong convictions, I can understand his rationale behind those observations. As an individual, Mr Lee Kuan Yew may be entitled to say those things. However, as a Minister and a representative of the Government, his words and actions are attributable to the Government. Therefore, he cannot be held unaccountable if such words had the effect that it did.

It is insufficient for the PM to merely say that he holds a different view. If the remarks are wrongful, they must be corrected. If the views are not to be attributed to the government, then they must be clearly repudiated. This must be so even if the words were spoken by the nation’s founder himself.

I have such respect for MM Lee and his dedication to Singapore that I half-suspect that he might approve of this reproach on the Government. It would be too easy for me to let sleeping dogs lie and to quietly yet uncomfortably accommodate for the words and actions of a political giant. It would be much simpler to join the crowd that asserts the existence of a climate of fear and that the Government does as it pleases. But I am convinced that the right thing to do would be to speak up.

Therefore, I have to say that the PM must make clear that his Ministers, including MM, hold themselves accountable for their words and actions. This would send a strong and reassuring signal to Singaporeans that the Government is not only deeply committed to the rule of law but also has a measurable respect for the people’s sentiments.

Thank you

Ahmad Firdaus Daud

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

Hong Kong risks new unrest with China anthem bill: opposition

Hong Kong’s government risks reigniting last year’s political unrest by pushing ahead…

Leong Sze Hian raises full sum for $133,000 defamation damages on Easter Sunday

Veteran blogger Leong Sze Hian raises S$133,000 in funds after 11 days…

新加坡的前车之鉴:因少数精英集权终至衰亡的威尼斯

《海峡时报》前总编冯元良,在《南华早报》撰文,认为新加坡应以史为鉴,他提出800多年前的意大利城邦国家威尼斯,以商贸起家盛极一时,但晚期却因为贵族精英独揽权力,扼杀公民参与决策权,最终引致威尼斯的衰亡。 冯元良在这篇评论文章指出,首先,中世纪早期的威尼斯,之所以能崛起成为强大“海洋帝国”(威尼斯方言称为Stato da Mar),乃是因为威尼斯公民能对行政有话事权,以及可以分享国家的繁荣成果。1171年,实权总督的权力,被稀释下放给主要由商人组成的大议会。 遴选大议会成员的过程也近似民主制度。候选人提名者乃是抽签决定。提名人推举的候选人名单公布,威尼斯公民即可投票选出属意的候选人进入议会。 当代一项具显著意义的制度乃是“colleganze”,即以合股公司心事,来资助远洋商贸探险。商人发起远洋探险航程,而街上任何男性,都可以购买其中一小部分股份来牟利。 经济市场是开放的,任何精打细算的公民都可以从远行至摩洛哥和土耳其进行香料贸易的远航图利,也激发基层企业家精神。几乎没有任何官僚主义的阻,当时的威尼斯,成为该区域最大的商贸城邦国家。 那么,遥远年代的威尼斯,和今天的新加坡有何意义? 新加坡人有否足够发言权? 我认为,威尼斯的兴亡,有值得同样作为城邦国家的新加坡借鉴的地方。首先,除了大选以外,新加坡人是否有足够的发言权?如果国人对影响他们生活的政策有意见,他们的声音是否又被听到? 其二,新加坡的经济繁荣成果,有没有广泛、深入地分享给各阶层国人?如果不是,新加坡又该在不影响国家竞争力和成长前景的情况,解决这种不平等现象? 再者,即便许多保护政策都是出于善意,但这些保障和限制是否束缚了我们在面对21世纪充满变数的经济所需要的承担风险和创业拼搏精神?…

Singapore Customs alerts new email scams acting as its official demanding for personal information or money

Singapore Customs (SC) has alerted members of the public of new scams from…