…We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for functional democracy by a loyal opposition must be fought from within the existing system, under the law legislated by Parliament, even though we disagree with them.”
says Workers’ Party Low Thia Kiang, who lamented about the state of Singapore politics in Parliament today (Jan 29).’
I am not sure if this was the exact words of Low Thia Khiang quoted verbatim. I find the phrase ‘loyal opposition’ so creepy. What is there to be loyal or not loyal to be in the opposition? Opposition parties should only be loyal to Singaporeans, and that includes the PAP. There is no need to be loyal to a ruling party. What does Low Thia Khiang meant by calling himself ‘loyal opposition’? What if he is not a ‘loyal opposition’? Should the opposition parties by ‘loyal opposition’ ie loyal to the ruling party or loyal to the state?
Is this phrase superfluous, unnecessary, a sign of weakness, meek? An opposition is an opposition and should disagree when it disagrees with the ruling party. The disagreement should be based on the national good, national interest and the people’s interest. It could be just a different way of looking at things and wanting to do things differently, no one knows which is the right way or wrong way except to look at it from the interest of the people as first principle.
So, when oppose just oppose lah. There is no necessity to claim to be ‘loyal opposition’. What do you think? Tiok boh? No need to be ‘khek kee’ mah, as long as one is not saying or doing anything wrong to the country and citizens.