On 22 November 2023, a debate unfolded in parliament between PAP and opposition MPs over proposed constitutional changes for the President of Singapore. This debate revealed much about the Opposition and their desire to advance their own agenda over that of our national interest.
Indeed, these changes are a stride toward empowering the President to express personal views independently, breaking free from the shackles of representing only Singapore’s official stance. This is crucial as our national interests become increasingly intertwined with global concerns, a point passionately argued by PAP MPs like Chris De Souza, Denise Phua, and Gan Thiam Poh.
On the flip side, opposition MPs, led by figures like Jamus Lim, Gerald Giam, and Dennis Tan, decided to cry foul, peddling the notion that additional appointments might distract our President from national duties and rush the process, pointing at a supposedly hurried affair. But let’s not be naive—the opposition is traversing a perilous path, driven not by actual concern but a dangerous pursuit of their own agenda.
Consider the potential of President Tharman on the global stage, PAP MP Gan Thiam Poh rightly asserts, “It is easy for the international arena to ignore tiny nations like us. We need to have a presence wherever possible.” This move aligns with our national agenda, empowering President Tharman, who is internationally respected, with the ability to speak his own mind without being tethered to Singapore’s official position. In the international arena, this creates increased trust in his words. In an increasingly complex geopolitical climate, making sure our nation’s voice is heard loud and clear is not a small matter. Rather, it is crucial to our survival.
Yet, the Opposition sees this constitutional amendment not as a progressive step but as a mere political chess piece. We must recognize their opposition is not borne out of genuine concern but is a tactical move to bolster their argument for a one-third representation in parliament to prevent PAP from having a “blank cheque”. What this really means is that they would like to block the PAP wherever possible.
Let’s be discerning in understanding the Opposition’s strategy. Despite what they say, granting them one-third blocking power will certainly not be in Singapore’s best interests. Singapore’s success has hinged on an agile government, that can move law and policy quickly, even constitutional amendments. The opposition disregards this – their sole focus appears to be scoring political points for personal advancement rather than safeguarding the welfare of our nation. Put it this way – if Singapore was to take two steps backward for the Opposition to take a single step forward, they would allow it.
We need to recognize the danger of the “blank cheque” argument sooner rather than later. If the opposition were to ever gain a one-third majority in parliament, we risk facing severe political gridlock. Singapore, as we know it, would be at stake. Our agile government would become ensnared in debates, preventing advancement, and our tiny island will slide into irrelevance. It’s time to stand firm against this perilous path the opposition is treading, by supporting the true party of progress – the PAP.