SG Matters

12/01/2026

Good morning, Singapore! ❤️🇸🇬❤️

12/01/2026

The world's tallest vertical farm is in Singapore! 😎

12/01/2026

Mr Goh responds to a question on fire safety standards in Singapore in light of the Hong Kong fire.

12/01/2026

Full respect for him!

12/01/2026

Some have floated the idea of a by-election. Bertha has even suggested that WP MPs resign en masse to force one.

Such a manoeuvre is a self-serving manoeuvre.

What's the purpose of forcing a by-election when Pritam Singh will not lose his seat even if he is removed as Leader of the Opposition?

The fact that such an idea is even entertained suggests that there are those willing to manipulate the system to advance their own objectives rather than prioritise residents’ wellbeing.

Suppose Pritam Singh is expelled from the party ( which will never happen).

The Constitution does not require a by-election in such circumstances because there are other MPs to continue serving residents. This is precisely why there was no by-election after Raeesah Khan resigned from the WP.

Let's say the WP does the unthinkable: Pritam Singh and all the WP MPs in Aljunied GRC resign from their seats.

What would be the purpose of doing so? What message would they be trying to send?

Is it to demonstrate solidarity with Pritam and protest his conviction?

Is it to reject the High Court’s judgment despite Pritam himself having said that he accepts it without reservation?

Is it to protest Parliament’s insistence on high standards of integrity and accountability?

Singaporeans will be watching closely.

Or is it simply to seek a fresh mandate in order to prove a point?

If so, is that not self-serving? After all, the mandate is not even in question.

And who bears the expense for such political theatre? The public.

Here's a deeper reality and the whole point of this post:

The PAP remains the only party consistently willing to take the lead in upholding integrity and accountability, even when doing so carries political costs.

Opposition parties, particularly the WP, frequently invoke transparency and accountability as governing principles. Yet when these standards must be applied to themselves, the commitment falters.

Our insistence on integrity and accountability is why Singapore has been able to earn public trust and achieve exceptional outcomes.

If Singapore or the PAP were ever to lose the political will to uphold these standards in the face of pressure or populism, decline would begin not with dramatic failure, but with the quiet lowering of standards.

11/01/2026

Everyone loves a catchy slogan. But I say to you, go beyond the slogan. Bring your logic and arguments to the fight. It's bigger than a gun. The rules are the same for everyone. The law is no respector of persons.

The Prime Minister does not require parliamentary consent to remove Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition.

In February 2022, Parliament passed resolutions to defer imposing sanctions on Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap until the conclusion of criminal proceedings against Pritam Singh.

This was deliberate because to sanction them before the outcome of the criminal case would have been to put the cart before the horse.

Now that Pritam Singh’s appeal has been dismissed, Parliament has to resume from where it left off in 2022 - unless we think Parliament does not need to keep its resolutions, that Parliamentarians can make resolutions and then conveniently forget that they had made those resolutions.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐏𝐬 — 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐏 𝐌𝐏𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐍𝐂𝐌𝐏𝐬 — 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝.

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭?

Bertha Henson wrote that she was “consoled that at least the Parliament isn’t being asked to boot him out because that would be 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔’ 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒆.”

Yet in the same post, she suggested that the WP team should stand down en masse to 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆 𝒂 𝒃𝒚-𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 — to “take a gamble” and put a full stop to the saga.

These two positions contradict each other.

If removing an elected MP through Parliament is gravely disrespectful to voters, then engineering a political reset for tactical convenience is no less so.

The mechanism may differ, but the effect is the same: voters’ mandate is cut short not by voters, but by political actors seeking closure or advantage.

What Bertha advances is an argument of convenience.

She considers voters’ choice as sacrosanct when Parliament might act against Pritam Singh. But that same choice becomes negotiable when she proposes that the Workers’ Party resign en masse to reset its political position.

If voter mandate is truly sacred, then voluntary resignation for tactical reasons is also a form of disrespect to voters — even if it is legally permissible.

So does Bertha truly respect voters’ choice, or does she invoke it selectively?

In any event, the current parliamentary motion is not about removing Pritam Singh as an MP. It's about his position as Leader of the Opposition.

He would lose his seat only if the Workers’ Party chooses to expel him. Given the passage of time and the party’s continued inaction, it is clear this will not happen.

The WP previously dealt decisively with Raeesah Khan, Leon Perera, Nicole Seah, and Daniel Goh. Pritam Singh, however, is treated differently. He is clearly regarded as special.

10/01/2026

Nice.

Had lunch at Buangkok Hawker Centre with Dr Elmie Nekmat in between bursary award presentations.

10/01/2026

Another lovely day in Punggol.

10/01/2026

There was never a need for a parliamentary motion to decide whether a minister convicted in court should remain in office. That was always a given. The minister had to step down.

In fact, even without a conviction, ministers have been to resign if their conduct was deemed unacceptable.

In this sense, the Opposition is much privilege.

A motion is now being filed to consider Pritam Singh’s suitability as Leader of the Opposition following his convictions.

This is happening because, unlike the PAP, Pritam is not prepared to step aside of his own accord. He is intent on holding on to his position of power for as long as possible.

His party, too, has shown no inclination to press him to resign. Instead, they appear more focused on projecting unity — as suggested by the steady stream of large, smiling group photos shared to signal collective support for Pritam.

Is it not all clear to the rational voters?

09/01/2026

What a joy to meet Mr Baey. 😍