3 ms·

From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work. I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort

From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work. I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort issues. Cost of living, high home prices, wages depressed by foreign labour. These are the main issues that drive election results. After the 60% outcome in the 2011 election, the ruling party was shocked into a social-welfare response that resulted in a landslide 70% outcome in the 2015 elections. Opposition politicians, stung by this rejection, decried Singaporeans' general lack of interest in their hobby-horse topics. But the majority of the population really does think things have gotten better. You could say this is the "tyranny of the majority", because they're not interested in many of the topics that concern the minority. (Furthermore, the ruling party moved in the direction of opposition proposals for greater social welfare, giving the opposition less ground to stand on.) There's a great breadth of alternative viewpoints online: activists, anti-PAP people, and so forth. The minority view here is alive and well, even getting to the point of rabid exaggeration (e.g. Roy Ngerng). Ultimately, the objections to the Singapore system lie mostly in differences in principles. Is the current tradeoff of somewhat limited rights and good governance acceptable? To a large majority, it is. Is there a risk of a future government becoming abusive? Yes, but it's still remote in most Singaporeans' minds. I hope it's clear that, while Singaporeans complain about governmental mismanagement, they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment. edit: In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. @mediumdeviation and @visakanv here are clearly liberal in outlook, but they view the current ruling party positively on the whole. Their views really do reflect the majority of the younger, more educated/travelled crowd in Singapore (which isn't the only group that matters, of course).

nickpsecurity 11y ago
"In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. " I'm considering that. Just gotta get more data and it's hard to come by if it's critical as I said to mediumdeviation. Reason I'm considering it already is this... "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment." You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions. Is this accurate?
- creamyhorror 11y ago
  > I'm considering that. Thanks for being open to my viewpoint. > "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment." > You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions. Hmm, yes. You could compare it to the old mandarin system. Top scholars are fast-tracked into civil service leadership, where they play increasingly large roles (and compete with each other), and from among them and a few outstanding outsiders, the party leadership selects its new generation. Policies and directions are debated within that leadership, with an eye to Singapore's future success. This system was established early on by the PAP and maybe we Singaporeans don't expect it to produce abusive leaders in the future, since it hasn't so far (barring perhaps LKY, who's rightly controversial, but also set up the whole system). When the ruling party does a bad job, voters tell it so by voting for the opposition, and the party addresses the issues - that's the ongoing dynamic, whether you label them "rulers" or "caretakers". I think you can summarise how many Singaporeans think this way: 1. The PAP did a good job despite LKY's authoritarian approach and excesses in the earlier decades. 2. The current PAP leadership is quite acceptable and not oppressive (the top ministers like Tharman and even PM Lee can quite fairly be called excellent or visionary). 3. As long as the PAP continues to a) address criticisms from the populace, and b) deliver good governance and societal comfort, there's not much fear of a return to tight controls and clamping down on freedoms in the long term. 4. The strength of alternative viewpoints has grown steadily and doesn't look endangered; online criticism feeds into the main newspaper, where virtually all big issues show up in the end. The genie is out of the bottle, in that regard. Plus, youngsters are getting more liberal by the year, and gradually they'll become the ones running government and making up the PAP. That's the summary of the view of one Singaporean among many. We'll see how long this "one-party experiment" will last.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

"In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. " I'm considering that. Just gotta get more data and it's hard to come by if it's critical as I said to mediumdeviation. Reason I'm considering it already is this... "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment." You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions. Is this accurate?

creamyhorror 11y ago
> I'm considering that. Thanks for being open to my viewpoint. > "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment." > You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions. Hmm, yes. You could compare it to the old mandarin system. Top scholars are fast-tracked into civil service leadership, where they play increasingly large roles (and compete with each other), and from among them and a few outstanding outsiders, the party leadership selects its new generation. Policies and directions are debated within that leadership, with an eye to Singapore's future success. This system was established early on by the PAP and maybe we Singaporeans don't expect it to produce abusive leaders in the future, since it hasn't so far (barring perhaps LKY, who's rightly controversial, but also set up the whole system). When the ruling party does a bad job, voters tell it so by voting for the opposition, and the party addresses the issues - that's the ongoing dynamic, whether you label them "rulers" or "caretakers". I think you can summarise how many Singaporeans think this way: 1. The PAP did a good job despite LKY's authoritarian approach and excesses in the earlier decades. 2. The current PAP leadership is quite acceptable and not oppressive (the top ministers like Tharman and even PM Lee can quite fairly be called excellent or visionary). 3. As long as the PAP continues to a) address criticisms from the populace, and b) deliver good governance and societal comfort, there's not much fear of a return to tight controls and clamping down on freedoms in the long term. 4. The strength of alternative viewpoints has grown steadily and doesn't look endangered; online criticism feeds into the main newspaper, where virtually all big issues show up in the end. The genie is out of the bottle, in that regard. Plus, youngsters are getting more liberal by the year, and gradually they'll become the ones running government and making up the PAP. That's the summary of the view of one Singaporean among many. We'll see how long this "one-party experiment" will last.