It seems fence-sitting is a favourite pastime of local politicians. Not taking sides and then jumping off the fence when public perception warrants it is convenient and opportunistic since it limits damage to the candidate and to the party at the ballot box. This leaves the electorate confused and baffled as to what candidates actually stand for.

I have taken many unequivocal positions throughout my campaign, most recently about divorce and values in general. Many have branded me as a naive politician for doing so on the eve of an election. Others have predicted that I will have no future in politics because of such a stand. Others have rebutted my claim that values do not change with the times. We need a new class of politician - politicians who can take stands, who can rise up to the occasion to be counted. In a nutshell, politicians with some form of backbone. If you believe fervently in your ideals, defend these publicly rather than shying away out of fear of political backlashes.

Unfortunately, such comments are borne out of our blighted way of doing politics. We expect politicians to adopt popular stands, to move with the times, even when it comes to values.

I imagine myself to be quite melancholic should I get elected on false pretences. I would have won many favours had I called for pro-divorce legislation or something to that effect.

I was fully aware that my anti-divorce stance would seal my fate at the ballot box but upholding the very principles I value most is what matters most to me. "We are the only country in the world besides the Philippines not to have divorce" is frequently bandied about. Is this the mature debate on divorce we have long been calling for?

The first step in a comprehensive debate is for everyone involved to declare on which side of the fence he/she stands. Dithering out of fear of losing votes is certainly not on.