Lee
Lee
Lee

In remarks reminiscent of those he has made in the past, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Government would go “extinct” if it helped those who voted against it “first”.

“If we take the view that if you voted against me, I should help you first (as) that shows my largeness of spirit, then I think you will go extinct as a government,” Mr Lee said.

He made the remarks during a dialogue on Thursday hosted by Washington Post columnist, Fareed Zakaria, at a Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conference titled, “Singapore at 50: What Lies Ahead?”.

Mr Lee was responding to Mr Zakaria’s opinion that Singapore was one of the only developed economies in the world that has not transitioned to a multi-party liberal democracy.

“We are a multi-party liberal democratic system,” Mr Lee said. “The outcome is not what you would like to see, but that is what Singaporean voters have decided.”

A month before the general election of 2011, Mr Lee also made similar remarks about how those who voted against his ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), would be left at the back of the queue for government programmes.

A student at a ministerial forum at the National University of Singapore (NUS) had asked Mr Lee, who was the guest speaker, why residents in opposition-held Hougang were being penalised when it came to upgrading programmes by the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

“The answer is that there has to be a distinction. Because the PAP wards supported the Government and the policies which delivered these good things,” PM Lee told the 1,200 students in the audience.

“Between the people who voted and supported the programme and the government, and the people who didn’t,” he explained, “I think if we went and put yours before the PAP constituencies, it would be an injustice.”

Mr Lee’s remarks then created a huge uproar, with many criticising his government for discriminating against Singaporeans based on who they voted for, and for using taxpayers’ funds to induce or coerce political support.

Yahoo Singapore, April 2011
Yahoo Singapore, April 2011

“I thought that as PM, he was there to represent ALL the people, without favour or preference,” said one commenter online. “He is not the PM of just those he voted for, but for each and every Singapore citizen, including those who did not vote for him or his party… How can the PM say that if you vote for PAP, you get nice chocolate cake and coffee, but if you vote for other party you only get water and biscuit?”

Another person posted: “Upgrading is not delivered solely based on policies. It is driven by money from the reserves. The money comes from the people and not from PAP.”

The PAP saw its vote share slide to its lowest ever at the 2011 elections, which also saw it lose a group representation constituency (GRC) for the first time. The party also subsequently lost two by-elections following that.

The Government has had to tread a tight-rope since then, especially when it came to discriminatory government practices or policies.

Channel Newsasia, April 2015
Channel Newsasia, April 2015

This could be seen just three months ago, in April, when the Minister of Social and Family Development, Tan Chuan-Jin, struck a seemingly different tune, and said the Government “will work for the people, regardless of who they vote for.”

“I think one of the things we have always believed in is to try and do the right thing. It is really important for us as a small country and I think we will continue to do that,” he said while on a visit to the opposition constituency of Aljunied.

The theme of inclusiveness has been a recurring one in government ministers’ speeches for the longest time.

In fact, on Tuesday, Mr Lee reiterated his government’s commitment to building such a society which, he said, included being gracious towards each other.

“We really want a society which is cohesive and graciousness is an important part of this,” he said at another dialogue at the Singapore Management University.

“Graciousness meaning we are about each other, we feel for each other, we are not just in a rat-race, but we are in a team together.”

He said that despite competing with each other, we also have to “work together, we feel together.”

“I think graciousness therefore is an important part of this,” he said. “You do not want to be a place where you are rich, you live in one little circle, if you are poor, you are cut out from that circle. We are all Singaporeans together, we all eat at hawker centres from time to time, we all visit the same places, even when we go on holiday, we do not go on such drastically different places for holiday and we meet each other overseas. That is the right sort of society we want to be.”

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

装假肢仍骑脚车送货 快递员自力更生千人赞

身有残缺却能自力更生,实属难能可贵,一名右脚装着假肢的外卖(Grab Food)快递员照片最近在脸书上盛传,网民纷纷点赞。 脸书群组Connextaxi于6月2日上传一张外卖快递员的照片,只见快递员两手扶着脚车,两脚着地。令人关注到的是,快递员其中一只脚既然是义肢。 照片上的帖文则写道,“如果你觉得自己活得很辛苦,看看这位战士吧。只要你还活着,就让自己活得有价值。你不需要成为一名百万富翁,你只需要一个无病痛相随的健康身体。佩服这位战士”。 文图上载立刻获得网民纷纷按赞,至今已经获得逾6万的回应,2500个评论和4万7000个转发。 正面提醒和启发 网民纷纷表示对该快递员的精神感动和启发,不对生活困境低头,并活出自己的价值来。 有网友甚至将照片设置为手机平面图,用于自我提醒。 他们也很感谢分享者,因为类似正面的提醒和启发,对自己还有很多青少年们都是最好的,会学着珍惜现有的一切。 网友也称赞GrabFood PH的举止,愿意聘用残缺人士,让他们能够活得有价值。 分享轮椅上的生活英雄…

工业仲裁庭指新捷运集体协定未违反雇佣法

今年9月,五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。 新捷运在本月18日,宣布把上述薪资诉讼申请转移到工业仲裁庭(IAC)审理。此前诉方将诉状提呈推事庭聆讯。 当时,新捷运声称,有鉴于上诉巴士司机提出的诉讼,也牵涉该公司与NTWU的共同协议,故此依法、为了新捷运全体巴士车长利益、与NTWU的良好关系,新捷运决定把此纠纷交由工业仲裁庭作裁决。 至于人力部当时亦赞同,交由工业仲裁庭处理“是建设性举措”。 上述诉讼在本月4日开审,诠释新捷运和全国交通工友联合会(NTWU)签署的集体协定中,有关超时工作和休息日的条款,是否符合法律规定。 不过,根据该庭法官陈成安发布的书面判决,指新捷运在休息日、超时工作薪酬和工时方面,并未违反上述集体协定。 法官是根据新捷运提供的雇佣合同、轮值表和薪酬计算样本作判断,也指休息日条款也未违反雇佣法。 根据合同,新捷运要求巴士司机必须每周工作48小时,包括4小时强制的“内置加班”工时。但是根据雇佣法令,雇员每日工时不超过八小时,或每周不超过44小时。超过这工时就必须支付一般工资1.5倍的酬劳。 而新捷运则告知法庭,如司机拒绝“内置加班”,就可被视为违反合约。此外,每周工作48小时,惟工作日仍有45分钟休息和包餐点。 对此法官认为,扣除了45分钟休息,也意味着每周工时为43.5小时,并未违反雇佣法。 但他指出有关雇佣合同一些差异可能引起混乱和误解,并认为取决于新捷运和交通工友联合会,是否检讨与司机的工作安排,并且依据雇佣法使用的条款定义,如“基本工资率”、“总收入”和“工时”、“加班”等。…

New politician on the block gets swarmed by IBs on CPF post

Brad Bowyer, a member of the People’s Voice Party took his Facebook…

When meeting the people becomes an occupational hazard

Are those in power well-equipped enough to take on such great responsibilities? Kent Ridge Common.