With the new Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) being formed recently, Singapore is now one step closer to the next General Election (GE) which must be held by November 2025. Given the close results in some constituencies during the previous election in 2020, it would be interesting to see how the various political parties would fare this time round.
Being a Christian, I must confess that it is not always so straightforward to decide on who to cast our vote for at the ballot box. Apart from considering a candidate’s character and experience, we also need to take into account the values and track record of the political party that this candidate is affiliated with, as well as the policies the party is proposing to put into place.
As responsible citizens who pray for and seek the welfare of Singapore, we should always strive to make a sound and biblically-informed decision. Although our votes must never be reduced to merely serving the interests of the Christian community, this does not mean we should not vote in accordance to what best represent our Christian convictions on what is good for our nation.
Admittedly, this can be tricky since it is not as if there is only one Christian position on every issue. It is not as though the Bible has spoken clearly on when the government should raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or what should be the quota of foreign workers allowed in our country. Nevertheless, since Christ is Lord of all, biblical principles ought to shape the way Christians think about issues in this world as well as ground us on how life is meant to be.
If God’s law is truly good and promotes human flourishing, then Christians should be careful about giving any tacit approval to those who are seeking to push ungodly agendas and advocating practices which God has declared to be morally evil (Romans 1:32). We need to understand that when we learn to exercise stewardship through our voting and humbly work with others for the common good of society, we are also obeying God’s command to love our neighbours. If righteousness exalts a nation (Proverbs 14:34), I imagine that a Singapore that promotes what is right before God will enable her people to continue enjoying peace and prosperity.
However, how is one to choose if we have some concerns about an individual’s suitability but is generally supportive of the party’s manifesto? Furthermore, what if the candidate is part of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC)? Should this individual be given a free pass since our vote does not necessarily mean we are endorsing all the candidates within the team? On the other hand, what if we perceive this candidate to be a person of integrity, compassion and capability but we disagree with what his or her party hopes to achieve?
Admittedly, given that we usually have our limited knowledge and interaction with a potential candidate, we are unlikely to discern if someone is qualified to hold political office. More often than not, we would simply have to trust that the respective political parties have done their due diligence during the screening process.
Yet, despite the efforts of the political party, there has been significant “pushback” from the ground before. During the GE 2020, there were online allegations about People’s Action Party (PAP) new face Ivan Lim with regards to his past conduct and behaviour at work and as a national service commander. Amongst the accusations on social media were that Mr Lim was guilty of elitist behaviour and being arrogant towards his subordinates.
Although there were others including some colleagues who defended Mr Lim and spoke of his character and qualities, Mr Lim eventually withdrew his candidacy. Regardless of whether those allegations were true, it had unfortunately damaged his reputation and would have inevitably cast a cloud on PAP’s campaign if Mr Lim remained.
In contrast to the “mob-lynching” of Ivan Lim, it appears that at this moment, the public is far more accepting towards other kinds of failing even when it may involve a crime. For example, there do not seem to be a cacophony of voices on social media calling for lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean to step aside from his leadership role in Peoples Voice (PV) and post as secretary general of the People’s Alliance for Reform, a grouping of opposition parties.
It seems likely that Lim Tean will be standing for the coming election even though he was sentenced to six weeks jail and slapped with a fine of $1,000 after attending court hearings on behalf of his clients on 32 occasions without a practising certificate. In addition, Lim still faces four other charges, including criminal breach of trust as an attorney and unlawful stalking, that are pending before the court.
Likewise, another lawyer, Leader of the Opposition and chief of Worker’s party (WP) Pritam Singh who was recently convicted of both charges of lying to parliament and sentenced to the maximum fine of $7,000 for each charge has also unequivocally expressed his intent to stand for election. In his response to whether his conviction might force him to consider stepping down, Singh replied: “Well, I think the need of the hour is for me to step up, not step down” (“Pritam Singh says he will stand in the general election, is appealing against verdict”, Straits Times, 17 February).
Regardless of whether one believes that those two politicians have been telling the truth or not, one notes that in their comments to the press, neither have explicitly claim innocence after their sentencing. At no point did Singh assert that the judge was wrong in his verdict. Instead, he has only instructed his legal team to appeal and to look into the written judgment in closer detail.
Finally, there is also Deryne Sim, an intellectual property (IP) lawyer and a pro-LGBTQ activist. Given that she was previously a committee member of Pink Dot SG and was actively involved with Ready4Repeal movement, which advocated for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Singapore, some questions have been raised as to whether she will continue to advocate for LGBTQ rights if she ever becomes a Member of Parliament (MP).
While Sim has not broken any law of the land and has every right to choose the causes she is passionate about, how are Christians to vote if we respectfully disagree with the promotion of harmful sexual orientation and gender ideologies in schools, media, company policies, etc? As much as we are to guard against becoming single-issue Christians and must never resort to cancelling individuals simply because the person differ with our convictions, there is also the reality of a lack of political alternatives available for us to choose from.
At the end of the day, we need to accept that when it comes to voting, it is inevitable that there are trade-offs. Not all socio-economic, political and moral issues are equal. Sometimes we are voting for one over the other because we feel very strongly on this particular issue. We should bear in mind that this does not grant our position the automatic moral high ground over another who has voted otherwise. It also means that we should not assume that people are always in total agreement with the candidate or party that they have voted for.
Unless Jesus himself is at the ballot, every Christian is voting for someone less than our perfect candidate. To be sure, if a candidate has shown signs of being untrustworthy and having a dubious moral compass, we should have think twice about his or her ability to govern wisely and serve the common good.
Regardless of whoever will be the candidates for this coming election, let us take heart that while we are to honour God and steward our votes, God has already ordained our next political leaders (Romans 13:1). Even if the candidate we voted for did not win, it is not the end of the Singapore. Our greatest hope does not lie in the victory of any political party but in our Risen Lord and Saviour who is able to overcome evil for good and bring glory to God’s name. Our vote does count, but just not always in the way we think it should.
