5 ms·

>What singles out PAP is that throughout its existence, it has offered the citizen exactly what they want and has had overwhelming popular support as a result.

>What singles out PAP is that throughout its existence, it has offered the citizen exactly what they want and has had overwhelming popular support as a result. While it is undoubtedly popular among a certain portion of its citizens, this is not the whole story. PAP is highly UNpopular among a lot of its citizens as well. Elections usually go 60/40 by the popular vote even though at best the opposition wins one or two constituencies. There's a huge number of disaffected people out there. The US embassy wikileaks memo on the opposition kind of explains why: https://wikileaks.org/cable/2004/10/04SINGAPORE3001.html https://wikileaks.org/cable/2004/10/04SINGAPORE3001.html tl;dr: * They have no real ideology other than "stay in power" (so can and do co-opt some opposition policies like 'increase class sizes' with ease). * PAP have become absolute masters of divide and conquer. They pull a lot of tricks to prevent the opposition parties from uniting. * They use legal means to quash the opposition - the most common being suing them into bankruptcy for libel. * They have a stranglehold on the media with one or two exceptions (e.g. the notoriously crazy "The Real Singapore" website). The opposition has essentially no media presence on TV or in newspapers - only online. Much as it irritates me the way that people describe the country as being a dictatorship, I find it equally irritating they deem many of the policies designed to cement the PAP's stranglehold on power as "pragmatic and necessary". No, there's no real reason why Singaporeans couldn't enjoy equal rights similar to those of a Norwegian or an American (or at least, a pre-9/11 American). But, people are so used to the PAP and are kind of incapable of separating their fantastic policies (mercantilism / heavy investment in public infrastructure) from their corrupt ones (maintaining a stranglehold on the press/suing the opposition into oblivion).

frenchieinsg 12y ago
Isn't government (even in a representative system) supposed to listen to the people? So why complain when they do (by adopting opposition policies that the people want)? [leaving aside the "within the constraints of respecting their rights" part] Why is it bad, per se, that a single party has been in charge without change? Regarding libel, I'd much rather libel cases, than gag orders (e.g. Australia recently). From the limited amount of time I've looked into the issue, I don't see cases of blantent abuse of libel laws. Of course, the person getting sued and eventually bankrupted will have a major axe to grind (as per the Wikileaks link you link to), but are they a fair third party to take your opinion of the situation from? If 40% of the people disagree with PAP, why don't they help finance the defendant, instead of letting him go bankrupt? Regarding a press strangehold, today, fewer and fewer people are reading physical papers. Plenty of sites - including Singapore Dissident, linked elsewhere - are available just fine on my home connection (maybe the government classified us as "ang moh" so we get better access?). I'm not defending PAP for the sake of defending PAP. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile my observations with the criticisms of the country I hear over and over again.
- frenchieinsg 12y ago
  As an example of the problem with rumours in the press, look at the candidacy of Herman Cain. The opposition (be that his own, or on the other side) dug up a few women who had a dubious story of sexual harassment (something the US public is sensitive to) and the press gladly ran with it. Cain's campaign was shot down in literally days. From the little I followed, the accusations turned out to be baseless, but it was too late for Cain. In Singapore, the fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would have kept the press from publishing without verifying facts. The original article, of course, makes sure to leave just enough words in the right place to paint a very different picture ("look at how they abuse the national defense theme").
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >In Singapore, the fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would have kept the press from publishing without verifying facts. In Singapore a Herman Cain wouldn't exist in the first place and would probably be sued into oblivion for libel himself. He wouldn't get a radio show either. I've not yet heard of anybody successfully suing the PAP or anybody within it for libel either.
    - frenchieinsg 12y ago
      In Singapore Herman Cain would be a PAP MP :P I did see (in the Straights Times) a PAP politician about 1.5 years ago go down for having accepted sexual favours from the sales staff of a corporation in exchange for granting that corporation government contracts (I can't remember any names with which to google the case). I loved the fact that in Singapore, this behaviour is punished and government members are held accountable. In many Western countries (not to mention guanxi), it's the accepted means of doing business. Let's not even get into what happened with US defense contracts in the last 10 years... In my experience, all government officials I have known have been professional, rational people with great values, imbued by a sense of mission conspicuously absent from the civil servants I have known in other countries (who fit the "House of Cards"/"Yes Minister" profile more closely). I guess we'll know in 50 years when archives get declassified. At the end of the day, we can't know what the opportunity cost of having all the talented politicians join PAP for career reasons is, simply because there is no equivalent anywhere in the world. Other small nations either do not have a strong Federal government (Switzerland), have a strong multi party system (Israel) or are controlled by outside interests (Hong Kong)...

frenchieinsg 12y ago

Isn't government (even in a representative system) supposed to listen to the people? So why complain when they do (by adopting opposition policies that the people want)? [leaving aside the "within the constraints of respecting their rights" part] Why is it bad, per se, that a single party has been in charge without change? Regarding libel, I'd much rather libel cases, than gag orders (e.g. Australia recently). From the limited amount of time I've looked into the issue, I don't see cases of blantent abuse of libel laws. Of course, the person getting sued and eventually bankrupted will have a major axe to grind (as per the Wikileaks link you link to), but are they a fair third party to take your opinion of the situation from? If 40% of the people disagree with PAP, why don't they help finance the defendant, instead of letting him go bankrupt? Regarding a press strangehold, today, fewer and fewer people are reading physical papers. Plenty of sites - including Singapore Dissident, linked elsewhere - are available just fine on my home connection (maybe the government classified us as "ang moh" so we get better access?). I'm not defending PAP for the sake of defending PAP. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile my observations with the criticisms of the country I hear over and over again.

frenchieinsg 12y ago
As an example of the problem with rumours in the press, look at the candidacy of Herman Cain. The opposition (be that his own, or on the other side) dug up a few women who had a dubious story of sexual harassment (something the US public is sensitive to) and the press gladly ran with it. Cain's campaign was shot down in literally days. From the little I followed, the accusations turned out to be baseless, but it was too late for Cain. In Singapore, the fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would have kept the press from publishing without verifying facts. The original article, of course, makes sure to leave just enough words in the right place to paint a very different picture ("look at how they abuse the national defense theme").
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >In Singapore, the fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would have kept the press from publishing without verifying facts. In Singapore a Herman Cain wouldn't exist in the first place and would probably be sued into oblivion for libel himself. He wouldn't get a radio show either. I've not yet heard of anybody successfully suing the PAP or anybody within it for libel either.
  - frenchieinsg 12y ago
    In Singapore Herman Cain would be a PAP MP :P I did see (in the Straights Times) a PAP politician about 1.5 years ago go down for having accepted sexual favours from the sales staff of a corporation in exchange for granting that corporation government contracts (I can't remember any names with which to google the case). I loved the fact that in Singapore, this behaviour is punished and government members are held accountable. In many Western countries (not to mention guanxi), it's the accepted means of doing business. Let's not even get into what happened with US defense contracts in the last 10 years... In my experience, all government officials I have known have been professional, rational people with great values, imbued by a sense of mission conspicuously absent from the civil servants I have known in other countries (who fit the "House of Cards"/"Yes Minister" profile more closely). I guess we'll know in 50 years when archives get declassified. At the end of the day, we can't know what the opportunity cost of having all the talented politicians join PAP for career reasons is, simply because there is no equivalent anywhere in the world. Other small nations either do not have a strong Federal government (Switzerland), have a strong multi party system (Israel) or are controlled by outside interests (Hong Kong)...