The following is sent to us by a TOC reader.

Tan Hui Min/

photo credit: Aaron Lim at Worker’s Party rally at Serangoon Stadium on 29 April

GE is always an exciting time – it is the time we find Singaporeans, young and old, gathered at public spaces to listen to debates intently and wear their patriotism for Singapore on their sleeves.

This GE, “fear” has been a running theme. The incumbents have warned the dangers of a freak election, possibilities of losing talented MPs and questioned the opposition’s ability to deliver on their promises. The opposition has asked the people to be unafraid to stand up for change and to think about the long-term consequences of having a one-party system. Incumbents and opposition alike have asked voters to consider how each party will use their parlimentary presence to advance their partisan interests.

Should we fear a freak election? Maybe, but what is the definition of a “freak election”? To many, the worst-case scenario is a politically diverse parliament with loss of incumbent office bearers. Yet, a politically homogenous parliament, which can well qualify as a “freak election”, is perceived as an acceptable result of GE2011.

As voters mull over their choices, should we fear a politically diverse parliament? To put things in perspective, we never had a politically diverse parliament since independence. Fears arising from this possibility are likely to be imagined because we have never experienced it. If we have an extremely efficient and capable party-neutral Civil Service, safety nets will be in place should any party tries to capitalise on their parliamentary presence. In fact, a politically diverse parliament itself is another check to prevent individual parties from profiteering at the expense of national interests. A common imagined fear is how political parties cannot agree on ideas. Naturally, we will find it difficult to agree with bad ideas. However, it is hard to imagine how we cannot agree on good ideas that are Pro-Singapore. Shouldn’t partisan interests be national interests?

Fear can be destructive or constructive. Will we let our imagined fears destroy the benefits of having alternative voices in the parliament or will we fear the under-representation of voices? Constructive changes can be effected surely and carefully by electing good and high-calibre opposition candidates to allow them to make good their promises. The opposition needs a chance to prove themselves. Do we want to fear the unknown and never know the capabilities of the unknowns? Like the incumbents, elected opposition MPs too will be accountable and supported by the people of Singapore. Won’t the incumbents make sure there are balance and checks on the policies which opposition MPs propose?

Every Singaporean has a stake in this country. Is it regretable that Singaporeans ask for more balance and checks within the government? Should greater accountabilty and transparency be feared by the people of Singapore?

To borrow a story from Mr Chen Show Mao, Singapore is on a journey to improve governance to improve Singaporeans’ quality of life. As citizens of the Lion City, roar courageously with your head and heart. Fear not.

 

 

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

人力部要求民主党依循程序 申请撤回更正指示

民主党昨日发声明,抨击人力部指控该党发布虚假事实,要求人力部长杨莉明道歉,并坚称该党的相关声明乃是事实。 对此,人力部发言人告知媒体,目前仍未接到民主党提出的要求撤回指示的申请,并要求该党依循《防假消息法》下的程序提出申请。 人力部也指民主党已被知会有关程序。 在《防假消息法》下,若相关人士不满部长的更正指示,可向相关发出指示的部长提出上诉。包括可在www.pofmaoffice.gov.sg,填写表格,挑战相关部长/下指示机构的指示。 而根据条规的14(1)项,相关部长/机构,则必须在两个工作日内对上诉作出决定。 不过,在14(3)项也提到,如果部长未回复,即代表有关上诉申请已被驳回。 如果申请被部长驳回,还可以上诉到高等法院。 上月14日,人力部透过《防假消息法》办事处,援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),针对民主党的脸书贴文和文章,发出要求更正指示。 人力部反驳本地PMET的就业率自2015年实则逐步增长;且并没有出现本地PMET裁员增加的趋势。 民主党则指出,该党文章指的是“失业”( “unemployment”),却被人力部误植为“裁员”(”retrenchment”),张冠李戴,该党却为此被人力部指控发布“虚假事实”。 民主党秘书长徐顺全也在脸书强调,国人面对的职场不确定环境和裁员问题是真实和迫切的,“否认问题存在只会拖延寻找解决方案。”

翁山淑枝遭缅甸军方拘留

据《路透社》报导,据缅甸国务资政翁山淑枝等执政党政要被拘捕! 翁山淑枝领导的全国民主联盟发言人缪纽称,除了翁山淑枝,总统温敏和该党多名高层,也在今早(1日)的搜查行动行动中,被军方带走。 缪纽呼吁有关人士不要草率行动,亦希望他们根据法律行事;也预示自己可能也会被监禁。 全国民主联盟在去年11月选举大胜,新任联邦议会议员原本将于本周一就职,但有组织批评,在受冲突影响的地区,有不少选民被剥夺投票权。 缅甸一些大城市上周六出现亲军方示威,商业重镇仰光有约200名示威者,要求政府和选举委员会,回应选举舞弊争议。

被国大指违反行为准则 郑永年:那是礼节性西式拥抱!

今年9月4日,新加坡国立大学东亚研究所前所长郑永年,透过代表律师许廷芳发表声明,断然否认所有性骚扰的指控,也指警方发出的严厉警告,“并没有构成罪责或事实的裁断”。 新加坡国立大学在本月17日公布内部调查结果,指郑永年在工作会议上,未经同意拥抱东亚所女职员,专业上是不恰当的,违反了国大职员行为守则。 不过,郑永年透过代表律师许廷芳发出声明。他指出,2018年5月30日,与有关女职员会晤,准备送客时,女职员提出想和郑的女儿交朋友。 郑永年告知女儿不在新加坡,女职员露失望之情,他因此礼节性给了她西式拥抱,只用右手拍了她的肩膀,以示安慰和感谢。 郑永年的声明以第一人称叙述:“我的左手臂患有肩周炎,所以我只是用右手臂拍了她的肩膀。”他强调,和女职员没不恰当身体接触。 郑指出,他拒绝担任女职员的博士课程导师,近一年后,后者才报警指控他;郑声称,期间女职员多次主动向他示好,但他都没特别回应。他也指受到女职员在媒体上的人身攻击。 郑永年更批评,国大在声明中,继续对涉案女职员提供支持,“感到遗憾和不解”。 “为什么不保护为它工作20多年的本校教授?难道在这段期间,一个诬告者对我在工作上和精神上造成的困扰和压力,就不在大学考虑的范围内吗?” 郑永年被指控,在2018年5月9日,在一个会议上,将手放在东亚研究所一名女职员的肩膀和头上。 第二项指控:2018年5月30日在会议上,拥抱女职员,并拍臀部 第三项指控:2018年10月在拍群体照时,撑住东亚研究所职员的背部。 郑永年在11月17日的声明中,也反驳女职员的第一和第三项指控不实。对于第一项指控,郑声称当天他们无任何身体接触。至于2018年10月21日集体拍照,当时妻子就站在他与女职员中间。照片显示,他手臂被妻子肩膀遮挡,不可能绕过妻子触碰该职员的背。…

SingPost’s loss-making Indian subsidiary placed under liquidation

In a press release today (1 Dec), Singapore Post announced that Quantium…