I think it would be fair to say that when the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was alive, those within the ranks of the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP), those who worked within the civil service and people affiliated with the PAP run government presented a united front. They appeared to seamlessly toe the party line with no hint of dissension. Now that  LKY is gone, is that veneer of solidarity crumbling?

When LKY was ailing and less “present” in the political scene, we had people affiliated with the PAP becoming more vocal in their disagreements with the PAP. Notably, we had former Member of Parliament (MP), Dr. Tan Cheng Bock (TCB), openly contesting the elected presidency against a PAP endorsed candidate in the form of Tony Tan. TCB even went as far as challenging the change of criteria for the elected presidency in court! Would this have happened under the late LKY’s watch? One cannot help but question if the current PAP leadership is able to project the same level of confidence to unite the PAP itself. Is there dissension in the ranks?

What about former MP Inderjit Singh publicly disagreeing with current PAP policies? Have the younger PAP leadership veered too far right?

Singaporeans would also remember the very public spat between the Lee siblings over LKY’s former residence in Oxley Road. In that dispute, we had Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) nephew remarking on the pliancy of the Singapore courts, LHL’s sister calling him a “dishonourable son” and LHL’s brother leaving Singapore with his family. When LKY was alive, it is no doubt that the Lee clan were loyal to him and kept their dirty linen to themselves. With his unifying power now gone, it appeared that all hell had broken lose.

Professor Tommy Koh (Koh) has publicly urged the gay community in Singapore to mount legal challenges against the hotly debated Section 377A of the penal code despite the government declaring that it felt that the controversial section should remain in the statute books despite the assurances that it would never use Section 377A to prosecute anyone. Now, Koh has openly challenged the impartiality of The Straits Times by querying the way the paper had covered the minimum wage issue. Rightly or wrongly, The Straits Times has the reputation of being a mouthpiece of the PAP government. This has never however been so openly and publicly stated by someone who is seen as either part of or affiliated with the PAP establishment.

The seeming disintegration of past loyalties have made me think about the importance of a unifying figure. The PAP methodology of government has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the death of its unifying figure. With LKY now gone, will dissension become even more common?

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

感谢英女皇御用大状彭立克建言 李绳武分享仍遭新加坡政府起诉

“朋友很常问我,即便是到现在,新加坡政府是否还在起诉我。答案是,是的。我才刚提呈我的书面证词。” 李显扬之子、也是哈佛经济教授的李绳武,今日(25日)在脸书分享近况,他的朋友关心,他此前的脸书贴文,被指涉嫌藐视法庭一案,是否还遭到新加坡政府起诉。对此李绳武证实,他刚提交书面证词。 回顾2017年7月15日,身为建国总理李光耀孙子、也是现任总理李显龙侄子的李绳武,在脸书贴文批评我国政府“好诉讼”(ligitious),法庭制度“温顺”(pliant),被总检察署指控藐视法庭。 他透露,过去两年,他的法律团队都得到英女皇御用律师彭力克(David Pannick,也是知名宪法专家)的建言,他感谢后者的引导和协助,“即便他仍努力赢取英国最具有里程碑意义的宪法诉讼之中。” 陈清木也曾针对总统选举议题,请教彭力克 据了解,彭力克男爵此人非同小可,在英国乃至国际都是知名的法律人士,最擅长公民法、公民自由和人权,也曾多次参与香港的法律诉讼。 除了李绳武,实际上前总统候选人、也是现任前进党秘书长的陈清木,曾在2017年请教彭力克,询问他有关民选总统是否从黄金辉算起。对此,彭力克提出不同意总检察长的建议,并指出有关民选总统选举(修正) 法令第22节条文是不符合宪法的。 今年四月,由大法官梅达顺、上诉庭法官郑永光和庄泓翔所组成的三司,裁定驳回李绳武的上诉,总检察署获准在美国递交法律文件给李绳武。 当时,李绳武对上诉裁决表达失望,不过也指出,总检察署仍要拿出足够理据证明,他的私人脸书贴文何种程度上贬砥了新加坡的司法机构。

MINDEF’s reasons and excuses for not granting NS deferment to Ben Davis, don’t make sense?

I refer to the article “Ben Davis has no intention to fulfil NS…

印尼失守出现两起确诊病例 当地也掀抢购潮

昨日(2日),印尼总统佐科维亲自证实,该国出现首两起武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)确诊病例。 根据《雅加达邮报》报导,两名当地人,64岁和31岁的印尼母女,曾与一名日本游客有近接触,该名日籍人士到过印尼,在上月27日,在马来西亚确诊。 此消息也引起当地民众恐慌,印尼出现抢购潮,一些超市甚至出现粮食、肉类、米等全被扫清的现象,十分夸张。 当地人拍摄民众在超市排队等候结账,购物车上满满都是各种食粮或日用品。 上月,贸工部长陈振声出席一项闭门会议,当时他曾揶揄一小撮新加坡人,在政府提升警戒级别后,就到超市疯抢日用品囤货、抢购口罩的行为“下衰”,认为这是“白痴”(idiots)行径。 陈振声更直言:“每个人都可以表现得像白痴,但是新加坡人不可以。” 事实上,疫情当下出现抢购潮,不仅曾发生在我国,其他也传出疫情的先进国如韩国、日本、意大利,也出现有民众扫货囤积粮食的现象。