~by: Ghui~

In the 60s and 70s, we believed wholeheartedly in the PAP. They fought for our best interests and we supported them with unstinting devotion. The PAP led us through our separation from Malaysia and saw us through our turbulent years of nation building. We had unwavering faith in the PAP and believed that they brought our little island state to greatness. Any opposition was ruthlessly suppressed but it was for the greater good, we believed.

Fast forward forty years, Singapore is certainly a beacon of success, especially when compared to our neighbouring countries. It’s cleanliness and high rise buildings testament to a developed country. If this is the vision the PAP had for Singapore, it has certainly achieved it and credit must be duly accorded. Why is it then that the PAP is losing its support and unable to grasp why?
 
In developing Singapore, the PAP ensured that an English education was given to its young. Along with this English education came exposure to the world at large. Singaporeans qualified for foreign universities and travelled. Our eyes were opened to the rest of the world and we began to see the things that were lacking in Singapore. This was of course a gradual process and not at all apparent in the glory days of the 60s, 70s and early 80s.
 
Exposure was good for the country for it was through the exchange of ideas that the country grew. Singapore prospered and the economy surged. On the surface, everyone was happy. The government ruled and we obeyed. It was a seamless system and everyone was content.
 
However by the mid 80s, dissent was simmering once more. A generation of Singaporeans who were children when the PAP first came to power had grown up. They were the first products of Singapore’s streamlined English education. Compared to the generation before, they were independent thinkers. They started to question policies and voice opinions. This led to unease as the government was used to a pliant population who gave their ruling party unconditional support. Operation Spectrum was launched and dissent was seemingly quelled, pushed below the surface but always lingering just beneath the radar.
 
Come the late 80s and early 90s, Singapore was ready to take on the world and complete its metamorphosis from South East Asian backwater to international city. Singapore was more open than it had ever been before. Foreigners were welcomed and Singaporeans travelled on an unprecedented scale. All manner of foreign imports flooded our shops and the country was inundated by building works as condos after condos and shopping centres after shopping centres were erected. Along with this progress came an international outlook. Singaporeans could no longer be shielded from developments in the rest of the world. So, while the PAP created a modern city, they also created a modern population. One that was increasingly unable to condone a paternalistic approach.
 
The late 90s saw the advent of the internet whose proliferation continues today, seemingly unstoppable. It is almost as if the government no longer knows how to deal with it. The internet has become synonymous with how we work today. Without it, Singapore would not be able to function, much less be the financial hub that the government wants it to be. The internet is therefore here to stay. However, along with the internet comes the problem unregulated information. Singaporeans can now access the world at the touch of a fingertip. They no longer have to rely on the state run media for information. With that, comes disenfranchisement as Singaporeans realise that what is told to them may not always be the entire truth.
 
And so, the PAP is a victim of its own success. With Singapore’s development, freedom of thought and behaviour come hand in hand. The PAP therefore cannot embrace one but eschew the other. Surely, they should have seen that this was written on the cards from the very beginning?
 
Overall, Singapore is a glittering success. The PAP did do a wonderful job but is this showcase city the sole achievement of the PAP? I would say not. The government may have laid down the groundwork for development but they could not have done it without the people. It is therefore inaccurate to assert otherwise. It was a partnership from the very start.
 
Now it is time for the PAP to re evaluate and embrace the transition that it created. Singaporeans have matured and need to be engaged in a different way. It is after all the PAP’s success that has created this new breed of educated citizens anyway.
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Patient: SNEC charges only $9,000 but NUH wants to charge $19,000

Last Tue (15 Jan), an elderly doctor, Dr Wong Kai Peng, 71,…

对涉高价售口罩商家发警告信 政府调整发放口罩优先权

部分零售商“趁火打劫”,将口罩售价离谱“炒”高,贸工部今天对涉及高价售卖口罩的零售商和三大网络商家发出警告信。 身兼人民协会副主席的贸工部长陈振声,今天出席武汉肺炎防疫跨部门工作小组的记者会,并指出当局今日(30日)向零售商Deen Express、以及三大网络商店,Lazada、Qoo10和Carousell发出警告信,要求相关单位就高价兜售口罩的依据和口罩成本,向贸工部进行申报。 他表示,政府当局绝对不允许有关的坐地起价行为,并严厉谴责相关业者,更呼吁民众不要向相关业者购买口罩,以免形成不良风气。 九日来发放逾500万口罩仍不足 身在现场的国家发展部长兼财政部第二部长黄循财随后在脸书上帖文,强调我国口罩库存充足,并且呼吁人们遵循医疗建议使用口罩。换句话说,即有不适者才需要戴口罩,而身体强健者,可以将口罩让给那些有需要者。 黄循财指出,当局在过去九天内,从全国库存中向零售商发出超过了500万的口罩,却在数小时内被抢购一空,而且还是有许多新加坡人民无法买的口罩。“显然的,这情况不可持续下去了。” 前线医疗工作者优先权 因此,当局决定更改口罩分发方式,首先建议为基层服务的群体,即处于第一线的医疗保健工作者们拥有优先权。接着,当局将发放口罩给新加坡人,并将为每个本地家庭提供四个口罩。 当局此举是为了确保所有的新加坡居民受到照顾,若家庭成员中有人生病且需要口罩,他们都会有口罩。“但是居民必须有责任地使用口罩,而不是拿到就戴上了,而是家中有人生病,且需要外出看病时才使用口罩。” “我知道许多国人都很担心感染到这种病毒(武汉肺炎),并希望家人和自己都受到保护。” 他表示,最好的防疫方法是保持良好个人卫生习惯,经常使用肥皂洗手、勿用手触碰脸部、生病了请就医,并在家中养病至康复为止。…

罗厘车斗设隔板载客工? 人力部、陆交局:不安全

日前在脸书上流传,一家建筑公司自行改造罗厘车斗,用隔板把乘车客工“隔离”开来以保持安全距离。 但是,人力部和陆路交通管理局商议后,认为此做法或许会危及车上的乘客,甚至是其他的道路使用者,很不安全。 人力部表获悉有关视频后,指出那是该公司向当局提呈的建议和示范,是在建筑公司范围内拍摄,但是还未正式使用。 当局指出,在和陆交局进行商议和评估后,认为隔板会在卡车行驶时突然移动,乘客和其他道路使用者的生命安全或受影响。因此当局在周三(5月13日)已经向该公司郑重声明,并不采纳这种设计,而且也不安全。 此外,人力部也强调已设立新规定,即在罗厘车斗的客工们也必须保持一米的安全距离,因此每辆罗厘的载送客工数量将受到限制。 另一方面,有关公司昨日在脸书帖文澄清,有关视频只是演练,并对引起误会表示歉意。 Shin Khai建筑表示,建议在罗厘上设隔板,主要是保护客工免受冠状病毒传染,并解决客工载送数量限制的问题。 该公司表示,虽然视频引起关注,吸引更多的建议,然而也因此一些误会,以为该公司不人道且无礼对待客工,因此表示歉意。