Have to really give it to the opposition parties and their supporters. They have consistently been asking for change. And they indeed practise what they preach.
A certain ex-presidential hopeful was from one party, left to start his own party, dissolved it and returned to his original party.
Another young lady rose to prominence with one party, and subsequently took a breather in the last elections, but had already changed allegiances to another, and is now standing under her new party’s banner.
Another ex-presidential hopeful declared that his original party had changed, but has constantly changed his tune as so much of what he says now contradicts what he used to say back then.
The party itself has inspired changes in the opposition sphere – with many very vocal and prominent ex-candidates dumping their original parties to join this new party.
And in the very top of this new party – the central executive committee – at least 40% changes happened within the first year of existence, including a senior member from another party joining them as vice chair, and in 2 months – you guessed right – changed to yet another party
A true change agent in every sense of the word! So many changes that as a neutral political bystander, I get dizzy with and cannot keep up with what each of them truly stand for.
It’s no wonder why this word is on all of their lips. It has been ingrained and programmed into their psyche.
When talking about change, we cannot omit the other force behind so much changes over the years. Back in the day, their rallies using the predominant dialect of the district won them a seat in parliament. The elected member then swapped his candidacy which saw him winning a GRC with his team, while his replacement retained the seat he vacated (more drama on this, but not relevant here). And the party has itself made major changes to their own leadership recently, with the retirement of 3 very senior party members – all of whom were elected MPs.
Perhaps all this was done as an adjustment to appeal to the shifting demographics of the voters, but it has come at a price. Of the 3 who are retiring from politics, 2 of them possessed a high language proficiency, and have been described as articulate in Mandarin.
Their absence has already been felt when the party was unable to seize the opportunity to challenge their opponents in a live nationally televised debate as their candidates while able to converse, admitted that they were not up to the mark as the “proficiency required to participate in a live debate is of a higher order”.
Which begs a question. Has this change alienated the Mandarin-speaking community? Are they “less important” since the popular choice amongst the younger voters is English?
Change! Has this change alienated the Mandarin-speaking community? Are they “less important” since the popular choice amongst the younger voters is English? Change is good, change is necessary. I totally agree. But it is only applicable if change is for the better.