Just like former Prime Ministers Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong when they first assumed office, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is now expressing his belief in a more open and consultative style of governance.
This vision, on the surface, appears refreshing and hopeful.
However, if we look back at the tenures of PM Goh and PM Lee, the outcomes tell a different story.
Despite their initial promises of a more inclusive and open government, the reality by the end of their leadership was one of increased control and a more stifling environment, both for civil society and for individuals.
Singapore did not become freer; in many ways, it became more oppressive.
I speak from personal experience. As a student during the pre-Goh Chok Tong era, my childhood was relatively carefree.
I didn’t have to endure endless tuition classes, and yet I received a sound education. I was taught to think, express, and grow.
In contrast, students today face immense academic and emotional stress.
Many need counseling, some are prescribed medication, and tragically, a number have taken their own lives.
This speaks volumes about the kind of society we have become—one where even children are not spared the pressures of performance.
My father worked hard to support a large family. But despite the challenges, he found time to enjoy life—meals with the family, mahjong with friends, and a few beers to unwind. There was balance, and there was joy.
Today, the idea of work-life balance feels more like a marketing slogan than a lived reality. For many Singaporeans, it remains an unattainable dream.
And before anyone jumps to say, “Times have changed,” let me offer a gentle reminder: time may move forward, but it is people—especially those in leadership—who shape the kind of society we live in.
If anything, with Singapore’s current level of economic development, material adequacy, and national reserves, we are in a better position than ever to be a freer, more humane society.
So yes, it is encouraging that PM Wong wants to give this another shot.
But let’s ask the important question: Is building a “more open and participatory society” simply about hosting more conversations, soliciting feedback, and implementing selective suggestions? Can genuine participation be choreographed?
I am afraid not.
On the contrary, such initiatives often become performative. They may look inclusive from the State’s point of view, but they often do not empower the individual.
The person who is affected by a policy usually knows what is best for themselves. The State may have good intentions, but those intentions are frequently off the mark.
It is far better to allow individuals the freedom to live their lives as they see fit—so long as they do not harm others—rather than to impose top-down solutions or act on their behalf.
Unless, of course, PM Wong’s vision is to mould a compliant society of obedient citizens—what some might call a nation of sheeple.
The truth is that successive governments—starting with the late Lee Kuan Yew—have constructed a system so vast and powerful that citizens have become dependent on it for even the smallest improvements in their lives.
This system was designed with the intention of serving the people, but in practice, it has become a source of oppression. Even PM Wong is likely constrained by its weight.
So, while PM Wong may offer the promise of more freedom as part of his political messaging—especially with elections looming—will he truly dare to challenge the system and rock the boat?
If he is serious about ushering in real diversity and genuine public participation, then he must go beyond talk. He must:
- Allow workers to form and join truly independent unions;
- Remove the heavy restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and the press;
- Stop orchestrating dialogues that serve more as political theatre than as mechanisms for real change.
Only then can Singapore begin to evolve into the open, participatory society that many of us have long hoped for.
The post A freer Singapore? We’ve heard this before appeared first on The Online Citizen.
