TR EMERITUS

In recent weeks, the political buzz in Singapore has reached a new high. Massive crowds at opposition rallies, vibrant speeches, and social media excitement have led many to believe that change is finally at the doorstep. Some are even speculating that the ruling party could lose key ministers—or worse, the mandate to govern altogether. But before we jump to conclusions, Singaporeans must take a step back and examine our electoral history with clarity and calm. We’ve seen this before. In past elections, large turnouts at opposition events stirred headlines and hopes, but when the ballots were counted, the ruling party returned with a strong majority. The perceived groundswell of support, while real in emotion, hasn’t always translated into votes. This doesn’t mean that all is well. Far from it. The recent government-linked Alliance-NTUC controversy has exposed worrying cracks in the system—conflict of interest, lack of transparency, and questions about accountability. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a larger problem: a political system dominated for decades by a single party, whose high salaries have not insulated them from misjudgments and missteps. And what about the daily struggles of ordinary Singaporeans? Soaring cost of living, overcrowded public transport, the pressure of healthcare costs, and an education system that still leaves many behind. Affordable housing feels increasingly out of reach for younger Singaporeans, and the sense of inequality is growing. The question, then, is not whether the opposition can draw a crowd. It is whether Singaporeans will continue to put blind faith in a dominant party system that has, of late, shown signs of fatigue and complacency. At this critical juncture, voters must ask themselves: What kind of future do we want? Do we reward a system that continues to stumble, or do we take a bold but responsible step forward—towards a more balanced Parliament with a diversity of voices? The opposition parties in Singapore are not perfect. But they have worked tirelessly against immense odds. With limited resources, little media access, and structural disadvantages, they have still managed to connect with the ground, speak up in Parliament, and champion issues that matter. It is time we gave them more than just applause at rallies. It is time we gave them a chance to serve—not just for their sake, but for Singapore’s future. A more balanced, accountable, and transparent political landscape can only strengthen our nation. So when you stand before the ballot box, remember: this is not just about politics. It is about your life, your children's future, and the kind of Singapore you want to live in. Will you give them the chance to serve you, to serve Singapore?   CWC-AI    Read More →

I am surprised that Lee Hsien Loong chose to remind us of the 1997 shameful episode when he, his father and nine other PAP ministers and MPs filed 13 law suits against Tang Liang Hong for defamation. The PAP plaintiffs had called Tang an "anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist" at an election rally. Tang who is tri-lingual and an Indian dancer in his youth was naturally angered and demanded an apology and retraction of the false allegations. What followed was disastrous for Tang. He claimed he was harassed by plain clothes officers and was worried for his safety. The late Mr Francis T. Seow wrote a detailed account of the tragedy that befell Tang in his book, BEYOND SUSPICION? THE SINGAPORE JUDICIARY. I recommend anyone who is interested to know about this episode and how the PAP destroys political opponents to read this extremely well written book. Lee and the other plaintiffs were awarded $3.63 million upon appeal. Tang's house which was in the name of his wife was ultimately sold to pay the judgement debt and he himself had to flee Singapore. Tang was subsequently made a bankrupt. So why is Lee Hsien Loong so proud of his role in destroying Tang Liang Hong? In the past few days, we hear daily warnings from the PAP? Reduced mandate a bad for Singapore? Foreigners are attempting to instigate racial and religious disharmony? To this so called threat, all opposition leaders must be asked by journalists if they object to foreign interference. Even after they have all more or less agreed that they do not need foreign assistance, Lee Hsien Loong had to accuse them of their silence before MHA and IMDA's blocked some sites alleged to have interfered in this GE. I said before and I say again. I read some Facebook posts of Fikra Siyasah before it was blocked. I do not agree that the writer attempted to stir up religious and racial issues. I admit that I have not read any postings of the other two persons who are also accused by the government of attempting to interfere in Singapore's politics. But I can say that I am used to hearing such allegations by PAP ministers. In 1987, they accused four Catholic priests of mixing religion with politics. The priests have denied those allegations. But the Catholic Church was terrified and the priests had to leave Singapore for a while. Anyone interested in this mixing religion with politics can read 1987 SINGAPORE'S MARXIST CONSPIRACY 30 YEARS ON and PRIEST IN GEYLANG. The PAP is very good at making false allegations and damaging the good name of people they dislike or fear. I was accused of mixing my work with the Singapore Law Society with politics in the 1980s. Back then, Lee Kuan Yew warned every professional body not to mix their work with politics, as if all the professional bodies have become sworn enemies of the state and fierce political opponents! I have lived long enough to know the tactics of the PAP when their power is threatened. Now they are telling us that it will be quite disastrous if some ministers lose their seats. So? I will be very happy if half of the ministers lose their seats. They can easily be replaced. This is not the concern of voters. We vote whoever is deserving of our vote!   Teo Soh Lung    Read More →

The Singapore government has recently stated that "Good government needs good people" and cautioned against playing dangerous games with tactical voting. However, this claim overlooks a critical reality: while good people are essential, relying solely on their virtue is insufficient for effective governance. Even the most well-intentioned individuals can succumb to temptation or be corrupted over time. This is where a system of checks and balances, particularly through a more robust opposition presence in Parliament, becomes crucial. It is, quite frankly, unrealistic to expect a single party or the government alone to critically evaluate its own actions and policies. Self-reflection in governance often falls short, as it requires a level of objectivity and willingness to challenge the status quo that is difficult to achieve within a dominant, singular system. A vibrant opposition is necessary to bring differing perspectives to the table, question decisions, and advocate for policies that truly reflect the needs and desires of all Singaporeans. Singapore deserves a Parliament that is not only made up of good people but also diverse perspectives, coming from various parties and walks of life. Such diversity will inject the kind of dynamic vigor needed to create policies that are more attuned to the complexities of our society. Singular, uncontested representation will not deliver the balance and adaptability required for governance that works for everyone. The very foundation of a thriving democracy lies in the constant interplay of differing voices and ideas. In essence, we should embrace the idea that a good government is not simply about good people but about creating a system that allows for those good people to be held accountable, questioned, and inspired by a diverse range of opinions and experiences. A healthy Parliament is one that challenges itself to grow, adapt, and truly serve the interests of all Singaporeans.   CWC-AI    Read More →