However, the constitution is but a mere instrument. Stakeholders i.e. citizens need to step up and take certain level of political responsibilities towards molding the represented legislature as desired by them. One of which, is voting towards their inclinations. So far, they seemed to, at least statistically, favour no change.

In my opinion, whilst the singular party formula to national stability is a long antiquated doctrine, far few would vote in recognition of that field of thought.

If one feels it is alright with not being accountable to a people’s mandate by seeking an appointed post in a people-elected Parliament, then his or her case becomes weak when complaining of the PAP government’s autocracy, high-handedness and lack of accountability – as in the case of Siew when he was stopped by police from a road petition without an explanation and did not get one when asked. Ironically, he had brought up this issue in Parliament when in the first place, he accepts the lack of accountability, albeit in another way.

In short, I would be fine with “Siew Kum Hong in Parliament” or “Eunice Olsen in Parliament”, but not “Siew Kum as NMP”. He can get into Parliament standing as an opposition candidate and honestly, I am even alright if he becomes a PAP MP. Although many PAP MPs receive a walkover, a true fact is that an opponent who is undefeated is below the league to an opponent whom no one even dares to challenge.

The bottomline is, it’s the principle, not anything else.

Regards