How can this be? The majority must always represent the majority or else they can’t be the majority. This is not really true in a democratic system like Singapore. How many really believe the majority, or the politicians elected by the majority of the voters really, represent their interests?
Take the recent sub judice bill passed in Parliament. The media was trying its best to tell its readers that 72 voted for the bill and only 9 from the WP voted against it. So we have the majority 72 saying yes to the bill. The 72 MPs voted are representatives of their constituencies and technically represent them. But are the majority of the voters of these constituencies in favour of the sub judice law? In a worse case scenario, other than all the good reasons Shanmugam said about how necessary is this law and how important is sub judice , and the 72 votes, the law could be used to silence the voice of the people as the WP has said in Parliament. And Lee Wei Ling also urged the people to speak up against this bill, now law, that it is not in the interest of the people, that it’s aim is to ‘muzzle public opinion’. This may be just her opinion, but could also be the opinion of the majority, not the 72 that voted for it.
If the majority of the people are against this bill, would not the 72 MPs, a big majority in the Parliament, not be representing the majority of the people when they voted for the bill?
What do you think? Did the 72 MPs represent the interests of the majority of the people? They could, if the people are so daft and so happy to have their mouths zipped.