Alternative Parties and PAP

"I explained to them my plans for forming a party to represent the workers and the dispossessed, especially the Chinese-educated, not in order to win the coming election, but to gain a significant number of seats so as to show up the rottenness of the system and the present political parties, and to build up for the next round. - LKY, on formation of the PAP, 1954.

".. it was perhaps fortunate that the PAP had not set out to form a government and therefore would not be implementing our proposals. ..we had aroused expectations of great changes. We had got the people interested enough to come and listen to our speeches, and then tossed them stirring ideas, instilling in them a spirit of defiance" - LKY on the formation of the PAP, 1954.

Way back in 1954, the above reasons were given for the formation of the incumbent party, PAP which was then the opposition or alternative party. However, it seemed PAP has forgotten its own humble beginnings and is now behaving in a thug-like manner towards the opposition/ alternative parties as well as towards its voters who voted them into power in past elections. The founding father of the incumbent has even warned Aljunied voters they will have to live and "repent" for the next five years if they vote in the opposition.

The PAP has forgotten its roots. It started out "not to form a government" but to "represent the workers and the dispossessed" in order to "gain a significant number of seats so as to show up the rottenness of the system and the present political parties". The voters then, listened to their speeches, took a gamble, gave PAP a chance and voted it into power. However, over the years it has slowly become that which it was first formed to oppose. Sadly, money and power have gotten into the way of serving the people.

Are the alternative parties of now any different from the PAP of 1954? It is a resounding no. The alternative parties are doing exactly what was proposed by the founding father of the incumbent back in 1954. The alternative parties want only to "gain a significant number of seats so as to show up the rottenness of the system and the present political party". The alternative parties are not asking to replace the incumbent party but only to have enough alternative voices in the parliament so that there is check and balance. The alternative parties are only asking for a chance to be the voice of the people. However, the incumbent and its supporters said that the alternative parties have not proven themselves, they have no track record and that the alternative parties have not done anything other than talk. It is an unfair statement to make. Without given a chance, how can the alternative parties prove themselves? It will remain words because the alternative parties are not given a chance to put words into action. Imagine if our forefathers decided not to vote for PAP just because they didn't have a proven track record but only stirring ideas, would there be a PAP today? At least our forefathers were fearless. At least our forefathers were willing to embrace change. At least they were willing to take the risk. They voted for the PAP to give them a chance to prove themselves.

Polling Day is tomorrow. I wonder what will the voters of today do? Will they be fearless like our forefathers? Will they embrace change? Will they vote for an alternative voice to represent them in parliament?

It is unfortunate that I have been denied the chance to vote because of the Tanjong Pagar GRC walk-over (yet again). If I can vote, I know where my vote will go. To the party which is willing to listen to the people. To the party who is willing to be the people's voice.