Don't be unfair - with funds and news coverage
May 13, 2006
The Straits Times
FOR me, three things stand out about the general election last Saturday which I feel need to be addressed.
Firstly, love it or hate it, the People's Action Party (PAP) has built Singapore into the nation we are today. That is undeniable. We have gained international recognition, have economic progress which is the envy of many nations, good security and amenities, and a competent and incorrupt government.
We could easily have gone the other way but we were set straight by our leaders. We owe them much. The PAP has just won the election and I look forward to it continuing its good work for the people.
Secondly, there is the issue of the disbursement of public funds, which should be for the good of all citizens. I have great difficulty in accepting that Singaporeans are being treated differently because of their differing political affiliation. I cannot, in all conscience, see an old woman struggling up a flight of steps in Potong Pasir while an able-bodied boy walks merrily in a sheltered walkway in Marine Parade, and affirm that all citizens are treated fairly and equally in Singapore.
The PAP has won the election and will form the Government. While it can reward its supporters as it pleases, the moment it becomes the Government it assumes a higher responsibility and has to work for the benefit of all the people, not just its winning constituencies.
The Potong Pasir and Hougang predicament cannot be allowed to continue. I hope the Government sees its total responsibility in this light and works for the benefit of all its people.
We have seen the repercussions of using carrots and denying certain constituencies access to public funds. If this trend continues, 2011 promises to be a bigger testimony to this failed and unfair political strategy.
Lastly, my remarks relate to the mass media. Both the press and TV have done a disservice to the people. Their blatant one-sidedness and suck-up mentality led me (and many others, I am sure) to search for alternative views, and this I found in abundance on the Internet.
As expected, these alternative voices were very parochial, extremely biased and often purveyed matters which were simply untrue. Readers accepting these points of view could easily have been misled.
If only the press and TV had been fairer, giving all sides equal coverage, we would all have had balanced views of the issues and, hopefully, have made the right decisions.
The mass media has definitely not lived up to its responsibility of helping in nation-building, at least in this instance.
Errol Pereira