This is a letter from a TOC reader.

G Hui/

I would just like to add on to Elaine Ong’s article: “False Identities and disloyalties”. Like her, I have heard many comments levelled against voters who have voted against against the PAP. Comments such as “How can you be so ungrateful?” were indeed rempant. But why would it be ungrateful to vote for an opposition party? The term ungrateful implies that Singaporeans owe the PAP a debt that has not been repaid. This is a misrepresentation of how democracy should work.

By and large, the PAP has done a good job. The streets are clean and safe and public services are generally efficient and fast. However, let’s not forget that it is the job of the government to do a good job. More importantly, they were and are well paid to do a good job! The rewards of past excellence are two-fold:

1. re election at the next elections if voters believe that they can continue to do a good job; and
2. the salaries that they get while in the job, not to mention the cushy post politics employment as consultants and directors in MNCs.

The debt is therefore already paid and the account settled. Why then, do we still owe it to the PAP to vote for them if we, as the citizens of Singapore do not feel that they can continue to represent us adequately?

Democracy dictates that the party who gets the most seats through a fair voting system forms the government,. It is forward looking. Bringing gratefulness into the equation negates the system of democracy and places too much focus on the past.

Indeed, gratefulness should have nothing to do with how one votes. If a particular party has a good track record, voters should vote for them because they feel that that party can continue to do a good job and not because we are beholden to them for their past good deeds.

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

A compassionate “fine” system

Is the govt too zealous in penalising S’poreans?

《网络公民》总编许渊臣仍在警局接受调查

今早,五名警员到《网络公民》总编许渊臣(Terry Xu)住处,充公其台式电脑、手机和笔记型电脑等电子设备,致使本社英语网站至今无法更新。 警方是根据投报,指其中一篇由Willy Sum撰写的文章“The take away from Seah Kian Ping’s facebook post”,严重指控政府高层涉及贪腐,而援引刑事法典第21条(1)的刑事诽谤罪展开调查。…

已拒绝分享照片和个资 网民申诉本地媒体仍报导不实资讯

一名确诊冠病19的网民,申诉自己在社交媒体分享的心得,竟被本地中文主流媒体,在未经许可下仍使用当事人的照片,而报导中亦有不实资讯。 本月7日,《联合早报》在官网分享了文章《阻断措施期间足不出户 南大生不解为何染疫》。内容描述一名许姓南大生,阐述自己一家四口足不出户,但发现自身出现冠病症状等。 本社尝试在《联合早报》官网搜索有关文章, 竟查无此文,相信已被撤下。目前可找到的,多为网民下载或抄录的内容。 网民正杰(Quah Zheng Jie译音)在个人脸书分享,自己确诊冠病19。然而上述标题具误导性,似乎暗示人们即使待在家也可能感染病毒。 考量到《联合早报》或《联合晚报》主要针对年长者群体,他担忧这样的标题,在当前疫情下只会引起恐慌,是很不负责任的。 “这种骗点击率性质的标题,却是在人们最需要保障的时候,动摇民众的信心。” 正杰在个人贴文分享,5月1日,一名记者找他,征求他同意以使用他在社交媒体Instagram上的照片。不过正杰已清楚表明,拒绝授权使用他的个人资料和照片。 “违反新闻伦理”…

28 human rights societies criticise Mahathir’s government over delay in appointing new SUHAKAM Human Rights Commissioners

28 human rights groups and organisations, including MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty…