SPR, the need to prove transparency.

In the 3 elections of the past, both major and minor, SPR had been heavily criticized by the opposition coalition for allegedly lacking transparency. This is a very serious acquisition but SPR must be diplomatic. By doing so, SPR would at least clear the nebulous mind of the people and reflect its true identity of ‘an independent body by the people, for the people’.

Going back through the passage of history, we find reasons to take allegations of undemocratic acts as something to be reckoned with.

For example, we have Singapore.

In 1945 after the Japanese were chased out of Malaya and Singapore (or Syonan, if you will) by the British, the people started to itch. They saw independence as a ‘once and for all’ solution to the problems.

While the spirit of Nationalism burned in Malaya, Singaporeans at that time were conceived by the same idea, slightly different, led by their leader; David Marshall. It wasn’t too long until Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP came into scene. With the trendy hope of gaining independence, both these leaders decided with the lot to join Malaya not just for a speedy independence but also to take advantage of the communist clean-ups Malaya was on to, backed by the western pack strongly.

Some years before this union, British agreed to grant Singapore a ‘semi-autonomy’ which left Singapore’s defense and foreign affairs matters on the desk of British Colonial Office. Later, an election was held; an election British could not bear to lose (not especially to PAP) for the sake of keeping Malaya free from communist influence; a legacy inherited by the PAP left-wingers, but they did.

If the British were to use their everything to secure their vision of a democratic new world, the election wouldn’t have turn out so.

SPR is trustworthy, for the sake of peace. To pick up the gauntlet, we need a trustworthy and braver SPR.

Just my two cents.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."