Senior Minister (SM) Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony called for more political margin in the next general election, due in November 2025.

He emphasized the need for stability and the continuation of sound governance. However, this plea seems to overlook the fact that the People’s Action Party (PAP) had won a supermajority with 83 out of 93 seats in Parliament in the General Election 2020, allowing the government to pass laws or even amend the Constitution without significant opposition.

Singaporeans must ask themselves: Is this level of dominance healthy for the country’s democracy, or does it stifle accountability and transparency?

Unchecked Power and Lack of Opposition

With its supermajority, the PAP faces minimal resistance in Parliament, allowing controversial issues to pass with limited scrutiny.

Recent examples include the Keppel corruption charges, ongoing allegations involving former Transport Minister S Iswaran, the appointment of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin despite his inappropriate relationship with a fellow PAP MP, and the Ridout Road rental controversy involving Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan.

These incidents were largely addressed through ministerial statements, leaving the public dissatisfied with the lack of independent investigations or robust debate in Parliament. This raises a critical question: Do Singaporeans want a Parliament where significant issues are handled behind closed doors, without rigorous questioning from an opposition that can offer alternative viewpoints?

Even when PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) raise questions—such as those regarding the implementation of SimplyGo or the S$556 million ERP 2.0 system—their ability to push these concerns is limited by party loyalty. The likelihood of PAP MPs voting against their own party lines remains doubtful, leaving pressing issues under-debated.

The supermajority also enables the PAP to pass bills and amend the Constitution unchallenged.

A prime example is the introduction of the racial provision in the 2017 Presidential Election, which reserved the presidency for a candidate from a specific ethnic group if no one from that group had held the office in the last five terms.

This rule effectively barred Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a popular former PAP MP who nearly won the 2011 Presidential Election, from contesting. Many saw this move as politically motivated, designed to prevent Dr Tan from running again.

Moreover, laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) were passed despite strong opposition from businesses, politicians, and members of the public.

Despite the government’s assurances, one can argue that POFMA has been abused in various instances by ministers, particularly targeting members of civil society and the opposition, reinforcing concerns that a lack of opposition enables the unchecked use of power.

Policy Decisions Without Contestation

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, which SM Lee cited as a tough but necessary move, was justified as essential for future expenses, such as healthcare and social services.

However, at the same time, the PAP supported a S$900 million grant to SPH Media, a media outlet that had enjoyed decades of monopoly on print media and profited from advertising and property investment, along with the decision to build the Founders’ Memorial on prime land at a cost of S$335 million, excluding ongoing maintenance and land costs.

Notably, the late Lee Kuan Yew himself had opposed the idea of such a monument. Many Singaporeans view this as a contradiction—on the one hand, the government argues for the necessity of raising GST to manage future spending, while on the other, it commits significant resources to projects that do not seem to address immediate public needs.

These decisions highlight concerns that the PAP may be engaging in “profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans”—exactly what SM Lee warned against in the 2015 General Election when he indicated taxes would need to be raised if spending was not carefully managed.

Stronger opposition voices could have played a critical role in contesting such policies, ensuring that financial decisions align with public interests and are made with greater transparency and debate.

Falling Fertility and PAP’s Immigration Solution

SM Lee highlighted Singapore’s economic transformation but overlooked the ongoing demographic crisis. Since he became Prime Minister in 2004, Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has dropped from 1.26 to a historic low of 0.96 in 2023—the first time it has fallen below 1.0.

This means that, on average, Singaporean women are having fewer than one child, a trend that threatens the long-term sustainability of the population. Some fear that the fertility rate may never recover.

Despite this alarming decline, the government has yet to propose a robust plan to reverse the trend. Instead, the PAP has leaned heavily on immigration, bringing in foreign talent to become new citizens. While this may address immediate labour and population shortfalls, it risks creating societal tensions and could erode Singapore’s social fabric.

Many question whether the reliance on immigration is a convenient alternative to addressing the complex issues driving low fertility, such as high housing costs, long working hours, and the lack of family-friendly policies.

The economic transformation touted by SM Lee is also questionable. More Singaporeans are opting to retire in Malaysia, driven by the escalating cost of living and declining standard of living in Singapore.

A recent survey by Singlife found that more than two in five Singaporeans believe they will never achieve financial freedom. The poll, part of Singlife’s second Financial Freedom Index, reveals significant concerns about the financial future of Singaporeans and permanent residents.

According to the survey, 44% of respondents doubt they will ever reach financial freedom, citing major obstacles such as insufficient income (53%), unforeseen expenses (38%), job insecurity (32%), and debt repayment burdens (28%). These factors have contributed to a drop in the overall Financial Freedom Index score, which fell from 60 in 2023 to 58 out of 100 in 2024.

Leadership Stagnation and Groupthink

A deeper issue lies in the leadership culture within the PAP, as highlighted by former Economic Development Board Chairman Philip Yeo in his biography, who warned of a government suffering from “Eunuch Disease.”

He suggested that leadership within the government lacks creativity and boldness, with a focus more on maintaining stability and avoiding risk than on embracing innovation.

This risk-averse culture is exacerbated by the PAP’s long-standing dominance, which has made changes in leadership or policy direction seem almost impossible.

Civil servants, aware of the PAP’s entrenched power, may feel apprehensive about challenging their political appointees, fearing the consequences for their high-paying positions.

The late Ngiam Tong Dow, one of Singapore’s pioneering civil servants, pointed out this issue, observing that ministers hesitate to speak out or challenge the leadership due to the risk of losing their million-dollar salaries.

“In the early days, Lim Kim San and Goh Keng Swee worked night and day, and they were truly dedicated. I don’t know whether Lee Kuan Yew will agree, but it started going downhill when we started to raise ministers’ salaries… aligning them with the top ten,” said Mr Ngiam.

When political power is concentrated, as it is now, bold ideas are less likely to emerge, and groupthink becomes entrenched. Singapore’s challenges—rising inequality, environmental sustainability, and economic restructuring—require innovative solutions that go beyond the status quo.

The GRC System, Electoral Boundaries, and Political Representation

Another aspect of Singapore’s political system that enables the PAP’s dominance is the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the way electoral boundaries are drawn.

While the GRC system was designed to ensure minority representation, it has also allowed lesser-known politicians to “sneak” into Parliament on the coattails of senior ministers.

Candidates like Ong Ye Kung, Desmond Choo, and Koh Poh Koon—who lost in previous General Elections—have entered Parliament through the GRC system and risen to political appointments without facing strong electoral competition as individual candidates.

Additionally, concerns about the fairness of the electoral boundaries review process have been raised. Members of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) are top civil servants appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Historically, the committee has included key figures such as the Secretary to the Cabinet (often the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary), the CEOs of the Housing and Development Board and the Singapore Land Authority, the Chief Statistician, and the Head of the Elections Department, who reports directly to the Prime Minister.

Given this composition, it is reasonable to question whether the committee operates independently of the Prime Minister’s influence or is swayed by the political objectives of the ruling party.

In response to suggestions to review this process, Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing reiterated during the Progress Singapore Party’s parliamentary motion in August 2024 that the EBRC operates in the interest of voters, not political parties.

However, critics point out that the lack of transparency in the boundary-drawing process raises concerns, especially when considering the comments of the late Mr Ngiam and Mr Yeo, who noted how the system has become more entrenched in recent years.

Is a Blank Cheque for the PAP Healthy for Singapore?

Returning to SM Lee’s speech, he emphasized the need for political stability to ensure good governance. However, his request for more political space must be weighed against the risks of granting the PAP further unchecked control.

As LKY himself acknowledged, “There will come a time when eventually the public will say, look, let’s try the other side.”

That time may be approaching. Singaporeans must decide whether giving the PAP another supermajority, essentially a blank cheque, will result in the betterment of the country or if a stronger opposition is necessary to challenge policies, scrutinize decisions, and offer alternative solutions.

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.