The Singapore General Elections ended on 8 May 2011.  For the first time in Singapore’s history, almost all the Parliamentary seats were contested, and many of the candidates — from both the incumbent party and the opposition parties — appeared highly qualified.  As a result, this was also the first time, or the first time in a long time, that many Singaporeans (including myself) had a chance to vote, or could exercise a real choice between two highly qualified political candidates, instead of a highly qualified candidate and a looney.

There is, understandably, still a lot of excitement over its outcome.  In the pantry and over lunch with colleagues, in the car with my wife and over dinner with the family, discussions on what the General Elections means for Singapore continue to dominate.  The Internet community (see for example The Singapore Daily and The Temasek Review) also remains abuzz with excitement. 

Excitement over the fact that Singapore is not only a democracy, but is also beginning to feel like one.  (Readers from foreign countries, please try not to snigger).  I think this is positive.

Excitement over the fact that Singaporeans can finally slam (or screw) the ruling party — which continues to dominate by retaining an impressive 81 out of 87 sets — real good. 

"It is not the people that should be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people" (from V for Vendetta) has been a popular status update on friends’ Facebook pages in recent days.

What I find troubling is that the negative sentiment appears to feeding off itself, and generating more negative sentiment.  Facebook status and wall updates which used to be filled with jokes, well wishes, recommendations of where to dine or take your kids to, are now used to spread invective against the new government, criticise minister’s speeches for apparent lack of "humility", and petition for unpopular elected members of parliament to step down.

I question if this is healthy, for both society and the individuals.  Do we really want to spend the next 5 years (or maybe even the rest) of our lives making and passing negative comments from person to person?  What sort of "democracy" are we turning into, if citizens instead of engaging the government in constructive debate, subvert any genuine attempt by the government to reach out to the electorate by immediately shooting down or undermining what it has to say?  What are we teaching our children, about having a healthy respect for authority?

——-

In the next few paragraphs I will offer my personal views as a Christian, because I note that I have a good number of Christian friends who appear to be dwelling excessively on the negative.

In his letter to the Christians in Rome (ie. Romans), the apostle Paul touched on the issue of Government.  The Government of the day was the Roman Empire, and Rome was not a democracy; it had a senate but was very much a dictatorship under the Roman Emperor.  Jewish Christians at that time were possibly agitating other believers not to pay taxes, or maybe to even rebel against the Roman government to restore the kingdom of Israel.

Against this backdrop, the Apostle Paul wrote that :

"… there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13 : 1 - 2)

"For he [ie. the Government ] is God’s servant to do you good." (Romans 13 : 3)

"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone what you owe him : if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, the respect; if honour, then honour." (Romans 13 : 6 - 7)

(I have quoted only a few verses which I wish to focus on.  You should read the whole of chapter 13 and in fact the whole of Romans in full to better understand the context of Paul’s letter.)

The principles which I draw from the above are that governments (including modern democracies) are established by God to do good for the people whom they govern, and that governments which do good deserve an appropriate measure of respect and support from Christians.  (If a Government is clearly "bad" because it perpetuates injustice and brutalises its people, I think that a different principle would apply.)

In the case of Singapore, I think there is no question that the present Government does what is generally good, and intends to do what is generally good, for its people.  The question which the electorate was asked to decide in the recent elections, and which it will again be asked to decide in the next elections in about 5 years time, is whether there is some group of people who can govern better than the present, incumbent Government.  And because the Government is generally good, it deserves our respect and support (though not mindless obedience).  This is notwithstanding its imperfections and the possibility that there may be some other political party which is able to govern more capably.

So my appeal based on Romans is this : let us engage the new government in respectful and constructive criticism and debate, let us continue to speak out against and correct that which we observe to be unfair and unjust, whether through the government or by charitable work, and let us steer away from loose and irresponsible talk which breeds unnecessary resentment and disunity.