Affective Divide Doesn't Exist
-
12 years ago, Catherine Lim wrote an article about the affective divide between the people and the government.
http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2006/07/pap-and-people-great-affective-divide.html
While she raised some interesting issues, I disagree that there is any affective divide.
The reality is that the people and government have co-evolved through these years. It isn't a simple "us vs them" relationship. The people of Singapore are politically very conservative - they prefer the ruling party. This has been amply demonstrated by the polls, where thousands of Singaporeans have a chance to express their displeasure, but didn't.
I think most Singaporeans simply vote for the ruling party and then complain a lot after that. This gives the opposition an illusion that they will become supported, but people actually heck care them. For better or worse, the government and the people of Singapore have been dancing around each other for many decades.
For those people who are trying to make a difference - your challenge is not so much the government, but much more the people of Singapore as a whole. -
mmm... pragmatism...Originally posted by Cystaire:... - your challenge is not so much the government, but much more the people of Singapore as a whole.
-
You know what I'm saying right? Everyone seems to root for the underdogs, but when it comes time to walk the talk, you see nobody.Originally posted by eyebuzz:mmm... pragmatism...
Everyone is so scared to die. They some more expect the government (which has been overwhelming supported at the polls) to give space to an opposition that can check back on the government. That is obviously impossible.
No people elsewhere in the world is that naive. If the government doesn't satisfy us, we complain. When alternatives exist, we "give" them chance by ignoring the opposition due to "poor quality" of candidates and complain some more. -
Henry Peter Brougham remarked that "Education makes people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave." There's still hope, somehow, somewhat, someday.
-
Dare to speak but do not act = nothing. But speaking is the step before acting. Affective divide does occur, the public and the government never coexist. The gov dominate the public. Due to this there will always be a divide for there is no equal grounds for both parties.
-
I REFER to the Review article, 'A dash of tolerance and a big helping of smart power' (ST, Dec 7), by Dr Catherine Lim.
It was frustrating reading her oft-repeated thesis of an imagined 'Great Divide', first mooted in 1994, or 'disconnect' between the PAP Government and the people that therefore necessitates the Government to impose 'tight (political) control' in order to remain in power. Frustrating, because she offered no new evidence to support her arguments.
With the General Election in May this year giving a decisive 67 per cent victory to the PAP Government, the people of Singapore had categorically disagreed, again, with Dr Lim's understanding of their true feelings towards the Government.
Even Dr Lim admitted that Singaporeans have 'an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the Government to continue to give them a good life'. She resented this by branding as 'politically naïve' the vast number of Singaporeans who provided tremendous political support to the PAP Government by returning it to power repeatedly over the last 40 years.
Prior to the May election, the economy grew by 8.4 per cent and 6.4 per cent in 2004 and 2005 respectively, while unemployment dropped to 2.5 per cent last December.
I am therefore baffled by her logic that Singaporeans should have a distrusting, more critical and sceptical attitude towards an incorruptible government whose policies have created jobs and provided affordable housing, education and medical services as well as social peace and stability.
The PAP-people relationship has a solid, unbreakable unity of purpose and commitment to the national interests of survival and sustainable economic prosperity.
I would like to suggest that the relative absence of open and widespread political dissent in Singapore is the result of good government, instead of some sinister covert network of political controls.
More young people stood as candidates in the 2006 General Election, and also joined various political parties since.
The Straits Times Forum page, its Review section, and the many blog sites also reflect a great diversity of views from Singaporeans.
It is difficult to reconcile Dr Lim's lamentation about the lack of political freedom with her two-page article appearing in the main pages of our major English newspaper, after her speech to a government-linked think-tank!
Dr Lim's numerous speeches provide the most conclusive rebuttal of her thesis on the lack of tolerance of political dissent in Singapore.
Michael Heng Swee Hai
(Forum Page, Straits Times, 13 Dec) -
Even Dr Lim admitted that Singaporeans have 'an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the Government to continue to give them a good life'. She resented this by branding as 'politically naïve' the vast number of Singaporeans who provided tremendous political support to the PAP Government by returning it to power repeatedly over the last 40 years.
The real question is after all this talk if are these singaporeans "politically naive"?
I believe it is yes, if not your kind would likely be represented in roughly the same proportion as indicated by voter populations here.