ray245, your topic deserve more than the regular flippant
remarks so I would like to answer you properly, that is if you can
help me out.
I belongs to a cohort with little to no knowledge on economic
policies and politics, and this is mainly due to our education
level. We probably make up the bulk of the rantings and whinings on
our government policies in the forums and coffeeshops too.
So maybe you can help by telling me; what would you label the
current PAP government economic policy and politic?
Frankly speaking, I do think that the PAP is quite flexible.
Politically speaking, they are considered to be a center left
government, and do lean towards socialism.
Their role as a party government as the governments and their
idea of pragmatism means their political idealology can be
altered.
In Economic terms, the PAP is liberal, yet at the same time, do
pratice socialism. Government intervention in the market is there,
regulation is also part of the PAP policy.
The only area where the PAP leans towards the right is social
issues. From unnatural sex, the rights of homosexuals, political
repression and free speech wise, this is the only area where their
idealology leans towards the right.
Religous issues, they are more conservative in some ways, mainly
due to the fact that their power base do have a sizable make up of
christians, which are more conservative( not saying anything good
or bad with being conservative) than other religion.
Perhaps wikipedia can offer some help?
Since the early years of the PAP's rule, the idea of survival
has been a central theme of Singaporean politics. According to
Diane Mauzy and R.S. Milne, most analysts of Singapore have
discerned four major "ideologies" of the PAP: pragmatism, meritocracy, multiracialism, and Asian
values or communitarianism. In January
1991, the PAP introduced the White Paper on Shared Values,
which tried to create a national ideology and institutionalize
Asian values. The party also has 'rejected' what they considered
Western-style liberal
democracy. Some claim largely as a political
statement because of the heavy utilisation of many aspects of
liberal democracy in Singapore's public policy, specifically the
welfare
state and recognition of democratic institutions.
Professor Hussin Mutalib, however, states that for Lee Kuan Yew
"Singapore would be better off without liberal
democracy"[4]
The party economic ideology has always
accepted the need for some welfare
spending, pragmatic economic interventionism and
general Keynesian economic policy. However,
free-market policies have been
popular since the 1980s as part of the wider implementation of a
meritocracy on Singaporean
civil
society and Singapore frequently ranks extremely
highly on indices of "economic freedom" published by
economically liberal
organisations such as the World
Bank and the International Monetary
Fund.
Lee Kuan Yew has also said in 1992: "Through Hong Kong watching, I concluded
that state welfare and subsidies blunted the individual's drive to
succeed. I watched with amazement the ease with which Hong Kong
workers adjusted their salaries upwards in boom times and downwards
in recessions. I resolved to reverse course on the welfare policies
which my party had inherited or copied from British
Labour Party policies."[5]
The party is deeply suspicious of communist political ideologies,
despite a brief joint alliance with the communists against colonialism in Singapore during
the party's early years. It has since considered itself subscribing
to social
democratic ideologies, though the party has
clearly moved to towards neoliberal and pro-market
reforms since the 1970s.
The problem with the opposition party right now, is they attack
the PAP using one angle of attack, attacking the social
conservatism of the PAP, hence the free speech argument and so on.
However, you cannot win an election if your arguments and base of
attacks relys on one single issue. You have to expand your
approach, and let people know that even by fluke, and the
opposition manage to take the election as a new government, the new
party can manage the country from day 1.
The attack dog angle, where all a political party aspire to be
is to form an opposition, is something that almost everyone can do.
The coffee shop uncles, to the forum members here. One should not
use the popularism angle to gain votes. Inciting a mob for example,
is not helpful.
I do think that forum members need to be more liberal, and less
conservative when they approach the PAP. You cannot say that
everything argued by the PAP is lies and etc, try and understand
the issue which they have brought up, and find opposing political
ideaology to counter it. If you agree with the PAP, you can just
agree with them. Agreeing with the PAP is nothing to be ashamed of,
other all, not one can be absoulte in their political belief. Hence
if possible, try and visit the PAP's website, go to their forum,
and you will notice even among the PAP, there is disagreements with
the issue. Hence talk about the issue at hand, and less on the
party itself. Reason being, you can agree with the hated PAP on
certain issues!
If the voting system is based on a system, where you vote based
on issues and policy, you might be surprised with the party
you are voting for. Instead of voting for the name, you are voting
on the issue itself.
Like you have to answer a MCQ, where in regards to one issue,
you have several choice available, and choose those issues that you
agree with.
