Voters choice in past elections: choice they now regret

In past elections Singaporeans gave the PAP the mandate to rule but gradually it lost its mojo, and touch with public opinion. As a one-party state, it was able to change the constitution as easily as you change your socks to maintain its grip on power.

For instance, the Singapore Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and assembly but the PAP amended the Constitution to deny Singaporeans such rights.

The Constitution states:

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

But the PAP amended these rights and imposed restrictions claiming it is in the interest of security and public order.

I don’t find these reasons convincing. Have free countries like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea been torn apart by security and public order issues? Have their properties plunged in value, their economies wrecked and the enemy waiting at the gate? 

Electoral reform is another very fundamental thing. Group Representation (GRC) was rammed down our throats. By contrast, the proposed Alternative Voting system (AV) in England has sparked a spirited debated, and a referendum will be held next month to decide the issue. 

And where is the democratic society as envisaged in the National Pledge? 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and fundamental laws should not be changed without consulting the very people who are affected by amendments.

Singaporeans allowed themselves to be fooled in the past by rhetoric and threats, but this time round people have become more sceptical and won’t blindly vote for the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. LORD ACTON


%d bloggers like this: