Tan Chuan Jin started as Singapore’s 10th Speaker when the House sits on 11 September 2017 / Photo: gov.sg

by Simon Lim
“My response was that now they have done so in the UK, look what has happened? Pandora Box is opened. What then? Life isn’t just about the romanticised notion of change or revolution. Good grief. Look under the coin if you have to see what is on the other side Life isn’t as simple as flipping coins”- Tan Chuan Jin (TCJ).

In short, TCJ was urging Singaporeans not to throw out the People’s Action Party (PAP) government and I agree with him but with an important caveat. I repeat. I agree with TCJ’s call not to throw out the pap government but with an important caveat.
In the next General Election, any outcome is possible. We may still retain the PAP as a government with an absolute majority or we may end up with a PAP government with under two-thirds parliamentary majority or we may even end up with a coalition government, etc. Only the final electoral results will decide how we will eventually end up. Between the deep blue sea and the little devil who has less than a two-third parliamentary majority, I choose the latter. That would be a safer and more sensible choice.
I want a government that is truly accountable to our people and not merely singing sweet nothing rhetorics. I want a government that is not able to change our Constitution so easily and lightly as and when it suits their convenience such as turning an Indian woman into the President of the Republic of Singapore in a Presidential Election reserved ONLY for the Malays. I want a government that is not all so powerful until it can change the laws with no difficulty at all that enables it to renege on its own promise made to Singaporeans not to return to CPF members their lifelong savings punctually. I don’t want a Parliament that has seen so many of the ruling party members blatantly sleeping on their seats when parliamentary sessions were ongoing. I also want a government that will never again allow our Parliament to be used as a venue to clear its member/s of whatever accusations that his or her family members or even members of the public hurled at. There are definitely more suitable places for such settlements etc. The list is long.
Given all that, I hope that Singaporeans can be braver in the next GE, care more for their families’ and their children’ sake, understand our national issues deeper and vote accordingly. One’s conscience must be anytime bigger than one’s fear. Think!
This was first published on Simon Lim’s Facebook page and reproduced with permission.

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

A comedy of chicanery

Yoong Siew Wah, former ISD and CPIB director, comments on the surprising candidacy of Tharman Shanmugaratnam, formerly a PAP member, as an independent in the presidential race. Amid concerns of bias in media coverage and lingering establishment ties, he predicts potential political upheaval in Singapore.

Could the PRPTC and AHTC case look scarily politically motivated? Who will pay for the legal fees?

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh (Singh) is a familiar name among legal circles.…

Critics focusing on the word “folksy” may be missing the forest for the trees

Workers’ Party (WP) politician, Jamus Lim (Lim), has clarified the use of…

We hear of danger, trouble and storms more than any other citizens

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have recently been emphasizing the challenges and dangers Singapore may face in the near future, issuing warnings about a “troubled and dangerous” world. However, Augustine Low criticizes this consistent painting of a gloomy picture, arguing that the Singaporean government, particularly the People’s Action Party (PAP), has been employing fear to suggest that the citizens are better off under their leadership. Low also points out the leaders’ oscillation between pessimistic views and sudden optimistic statements. He notes that this pattern of rhetoric, which has been ongoing for more than two decades, indicates a lack of fresh ideas and messaging from the government.