The Singapore government’s blunt assertion that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s proposals don’t have a “snowball’s chance” of contributing to Singapore is both disappointing and troubling. Such a sweeping dismissal reflects not just political arrogance, but a deeper unwillingness to engage in genuine debate about the issues that matter to everyday Singaporeans.
If we honestly compare the manifestos of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the SDP, a different picture emerges. The issues championed by the SDP — cost of living, healthcare affordability, housing, job security amidst rising foreign competition, congestion, and the pressures of an aging population — are the very concerns voiced daily by ordinary citizens. A simple side-by-side comparison of both manifestos clearly shows that SDP’s ideas add value, and in many cases, offer pragmatic, humane solutions to long-standing problems.
Yet, the government’s addiction to total dominance blinds it to any contribution that does not originate within its own circles. This addiction risks not just complacency, but an avalanche of policy failures in the future. The PAP’s repeated inability to fully address Singaporeans’ anxieties about the rising cost of living, the difficulty of affording homes, overstretched healthcare systems, and overcrowding due to an unsustainable influx of people underscores this danger.
The presence of a credible opposition in Parliament is not a luxury — it is a necessity. It serves as an essential check and balance against a government that, time and again, has proven it cannot effectively critique itself. To believe otherwise is as unrealistic as allowing students to mark their own exam scripts — or worse, letting their “good friends” do it for them.
At the end of the day, we must recognize the tremendous courage of opposition candidates. They have little to gain and everything to lose. In Singapore, it remains an unspoken truth that ministries, statutory boards, government-linked corporations (GLCs), and major companies are unlikely to hire former opposition candidates. Despite the personal and professional risks, these individuals step forward to offer Singaporeans a real choice.
The least we can do, as voters, is to seriously consider the opposition’s candidates and policies before casting our votes. It is not about abandoning what has worked; it is about demanding better — for ourselves, for our future, and for the country we call home.
CWC-AI
