PM Lee: only lip service over pledges at swearing-in ceremony?


AT THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONY of newly-elected , newly- parachuted and unelected (walkover) MPs and Ministers three months ago, Prime Minister Lee made some stirring pledges.

Now the electorate is wondering what the PM has been doing these past three months to carry out those pledges or was it merely lip service?

He said, “Our politics cannot remain static either. More interest groups and alternative views have emerged, competing for support. Our political system can and must accommodate more views, more debate and more participation.”

Encouraging words but the reality?

When some members of the public wore black and sipped coffee at Starbucks, the police turned up. This implied that it was somehow illegal to relax and chit-chat in public.

“I pledge to work together with all Singaporeans to create a just and fair society,” PM Lee declared.


When citizens cannot even gather peacefully to drink coffee and enjoy the right to privacy without the police turning up, PM Lee’s pledge about a fair and just society sounds hollow isn’t it?

I am not surprised therefore that the ruling party, the PAP, is suffering from a host of problems ranging from its image to its credibility.

PM Lee must realize the public have not gone into hibernation mode but are watching his every step to see if he carries out his pledges.

He must honor his words or else his own credibility as Prime Minister will be called into question. And this is “dangerous”, to borrow a favorite word of PAP Ministers.

After being largely MIA (missing in action) for the last three months, PM Lee has finally re-emerged on the public radar.

We already have a quiet President. But a quiet Prime Minister would have Singaporeans asking, “Why no government”?


8 Responses to “PM Lee: only lip service over pledges at swearing-in ceremony?”

  1. Even our national pledge contains high falutin ideas, what more LSL’s personal pledge?

    • The father said the national pledge to build a democratic society was only an aspiration.

  2. It seems our PAP leaders are not very far behind those UMNO leaders across the causeway in making empty pledges and promises. Talk is cheap, the same with saying sorry, I stand corrected, etc.

    You just name it, the Swiss standard of living, open inclusive society, free meals will be delivered to your doorstop, the poor will not be left behind, how many have been met ? Even with our CPF savings, they can even go back on their word about withdrawal at age 55 and make it last until the day that you die, what else can they not go back on their word ?

    Politicians must be the greatest liars that any profession can produce!

  3. Real change will only come when we change the percentage of PAPs in the gahmen. For the past 10 years or so, the PAP have only been paying lip service to “listerning” to us and to “consider” our points of view. Do you think they care? Do you think they bother? Do you think that they will run Singapore like a country and not a company?

    Baldadash to all who believe the PAP can and will change.

  4. No need to tell our know all leaders what they have to do, what they have ought to have done.
    No need to listen to their sweet talks, apologies and repents.
    All that Singaporeans need is to vote wisely.
    And wisely means never give any single political party a majority in any election.

    • You are absolutely right. PAP has abused their two-thirds majority and has become arrogant, self-serving and authoritarian.

    • Best we not think of it just as “any single political party”; I’m sure the PAPpies can Astroturf themselves an “independent” party or six to stand at the next election and enter into a “Grand Coalition”. The propaganda value would be so enormous I’m amazed it hasn’t already happened.

      Rather, we should commit ourselves to seeing a diversity of views and backgrounds represented in Parliament and at the Ministerial level. Several of our Government’s greatest failings were due to scholar-bureaucrats’ predilection for thinking through the problem rather than seeing it. Having other factions and backgrounds with sufficient strength to challenge them to ensure their ideas match reality would go a long way towards making Singapore a better, more inclusive place for all. I expect the PAP supporters to rise up and cry “stalemate!” at the idea, pointing to, for instance, the current partisan theatrics in the US Government which are doing enormous and lasting damage to that nation. But Singapore has an advantage; our Westminster system means that the Ministers (and PM) are MPs, and if enough other MPs (usually of different parties/factions) get too upset with the Government, they can cause it to fall and trigger new elections. We could use a bit more of that sort of thing here, yes?

      • Thanks for your insights and views. The demise of Supreme Leader will usher in changes I’m certain.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: