PAP versus the Opposition.
-
Singapore's democracy is a joke. Fullstop.
Lionnoisy and all other's critical against the state of opposition in Singapore, didn't Singapore experimented with a new party back then?
PAP was formed on 21st November 1954 with every intention of ending the British colonial rule. Fast-forward to the 21st Century, couldn't we argue that our opposition party could also achieve the same, ending PAP's iron-fist rule over the political scene?Lee contested and comprehensively won the Tanjong Pagar seat in the 1955 elections. He became the opposition leader, pitting himself against David Saul MarshallÂ’s Labour Front-led coalition government. He was also one of PAP's representatives to the two constitutional discussions held in London over the future status of Singapore; the first being led by Marshall and the second by Lim Yew Hock, Marshall's hardline successor. It was in this period when Lee had to contend with rivals from both within and outside of the PAP. While Lee had to keep a safe distance from his pro-communist colleagues as they actively participated in mass and often violent actions to undermine the governmentÂ’s authority, he also consistently maintained his opposition to the ruling coalition, often attacking the latter as incompetent and corrupt.
The PAP is in danger of becoming what it has fought to overcome and overthrow. With a new generation of increasingly disgruntled, young educated Singaporeans, PAP is finding hard to secure sentimental votes in the elections.
I vote based on what I see now, results I saw after the last election, not results and legacies of the past generation of PAP ministers.
What i felt strongly however, was that MM Lee made a mistake in assigning the post of PM to PM LHL... PM LHL has taken an almost scholastic approach in tackling issues close at heart to Singaporeans, resulting in the displeasure and ire of the general public.
His exceptionally bad timing in implementing touchy policies is extraordinary to say the least; not to mention the often humourous reasoning behind those policies.
Singapore took a big step forward with MM Lee. On the other hand, will PM Lee prove to be the catalyst in PAP's downfall? -
After a crew change, NKF function even better and cost less to run as well. More people with kidney problems are qualified for admission and patients get more subsidies.
The new CEO is paid less than SGD200K per year(although I think the pay is still too high to run a charity organization).
Some people can continue to give reasons to justify the ministersÂ’ high pay to govern Singapore.
IÂ’m hoping to see more opposition members voted into parliament in the next election. -
Problem is... with the opposition.
I had wanted to give my vote to the Opposition. However, when I see the faces of the GRC contestants (SDP), the way they talk, and the method in which they just ask for votes and not put forward a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they were voted in, it's really hard to put a cross beside their party logo. -
Were you listening with an open mind, or were you being negative at each word spoken by the speakers from the Alternative Parties ?Originally posted by eagle:Problem is... with the opposition.
I had wanted to give my vote to the Opposition. However, when I see the faces of the GRC contestants (SDP), the way they talk, and the method in which they just ask for votes and not put forward a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they were voted in, it's really hard to put a cross beside their party logo.
One can listen, but one can also listen with a closed mind and ridiculing each word from the Speaker.
How can one convince anyone with a mind that is already closed and attend an Election Rally simply to have good theatre, and soak up the atmospheric hype of an Election Rally ?
Can you blame the Alternative Parties if you cannot be convinced of any plans in 7 days of campaigning ?
Was the Ruling Party being fair towards Singaporeans for limiting the campaign to only 7 days before the ballots are cast on Election Day ?
Why did they treat a National Election in such a casual manner, when even the ''Great Singapore Sale'' lasted more then one month ?
In any case, is a 7-day campaign the place for anyone to review and understand any plans put up for Singapore's Future ?
Should it not be for you to have listened to the various Political Parties standpoints at all the available public events and public publications before the Elections ?
If you have not heard any convincing plans at the 2006 Election - should you then not blame the Ruling Party for starving Singaporeans from having any other valid Alternative Views ?
If you remain interested and willing to keep an open mind, then try reviewing the following Election Archive. -
Sure, the government tries its best to limit whatever the Opposition can do. But which government in the world will give their opponents a chance to strike back if it is within their means? Suppose you are the government/leader, would you give a chance to your opponent to bring you down?
There are things which I support, and things I don't. It's up to my decisions. Voting for the Opposition blindly just because they are the Opposition is something I do not do. However, neither is voting for the government just because of a proven track record something I would do to.
I would gladly give the Opposition a vote if they can show me some good candidates. An example of a good candidate is Slyvia Lim. I have seen her face to face, and I'm very impressed with how she carry herself, her views and opinions, and how she attempts to converse with everyone present. I will give her my vote if she ever comes to my constitutency.
However, when I see Steve Chia talking (face to face too), all I sense is that he is appealing to others to vote for him just because he's the Opposition. He's appealing for votes because he do not want Singapore to be owned only by the PAP. These are reasons not strong enough to warrant my vote. Furthermore, he cannot carry his speech with enough fluency and confidence to persuade.
What I hear from some attended election rallies: Other than the main committee members of the party, the rest of the candidates go up to report their names, say something against the PAP, garner applause, make everyone laugh, and that's it.
There's a difference in the people who contest, and not just the policies of the parties. We have enough back-benchers in the PAP; we do not need back-benchers from the Opposition too. -
nasi pok mai hum.
-
Sure, every Political Party will do its best to prevent its poliitical opponent from scoring points.Originally posted by eagle:Sure, the government tries its best to limit whatever the Opposition can do. But which government in the world will give their opponents a chance to strike back if it is within their means? Suppose you are the government/leader, would you give a chance to your opponent to bring you down?
No other Government in the World that believe in the ''Democratic Process'' - which has got it into power - will abuse the ''Process'' in the same manner that this Government has done over the last 50 years in continuous power.
Which Government and Political Party in any 'First World Country' has monopolise the control of the 'Mass Print and Broadcast Media'; and prevent their Political Opponents from ''reaching out to the Electorate'' by making it impossible to hold political gatherings and making public speeches; and will change the 'Electoral Boundaries' to ''dilute the Electoral Support'' to the Opposition; and will prevent even a legitimately 'Elected Member of Parliament' from the Alternative Political Parties in even having similar facilities (as the Ruling Party) in their Constituency so as to serve their Electorate; and will treat Constituencies as ''Pariahs'' for electing a MP from the Alternative Parties - starving these Constituencies from any development budget ?
Which Government and Political Party will dare claim itself to be a member of the 'First World', and will unashamedly practise such churlish political policies that help itself in continuous political power ?
Everyone is entitled to be dominated, controlled, passive, as much as they will think that it is their Political Right to participate, be free, and be active in the 'Political Process'.
There are things which I support, and things I don't. It's up to my decisions. Voting for the Opposition blindly just because they are the Opposition is something I do not do. However, neither is voting for the government just because of a proven track record something I would do to.
No one is asking you to vote for the Alternative Parties simply for the fact that they belong to the Alternative Parties.
Is it not odd that you should have a view that ''neither is voting for the government just because of a proven track record something I would do to'' ?
What will your ''value system'' be, if you do not vote anyone from any political party based on ''proven track records'' ?
If everything needs to be proven before one is given an opportunity to change, how will any ''newbie in the Employment Market'' be given a shot at a career ?
Even this Government has said that ''the Future belonged to Singaporeans who will Dare to Face Changes'' - spoken in an ''Economic Sense'' but somehow never encouraged in any ''Political way''.
You do an injustice to both Sylvia Lim and Steve Chia - and it is just as well that you have not mentioned CSJ or CST and LTK.
I would gladly give the Opposition a vote if they can show me some good candidates. An example of a good candidate is Slyvia Lim. I have seen her face to face, and I'm very impressed with how she carry herself, her views and opinions, and how she attempts to converse with everyone present. I will give her my vote if she ever comes to my constitutency.
However, when I see Steve Chia talking (face to face too), all I sense is that he is appealing to others to vote for him just because he's the Opposition. He's appealing for votes because he do not want Singapore to be owned only by the PAP. These are reasons not strong enough to warrant my vote. Furthermore, he cannot carry his speech with enough fluency and confidence to persuade.
Anyone who has dared to give up a stable career and risking themselves - to the ire and pressures from the Ruling Party to their private lives - should be given help and a fair chance to represent our interest in Parliament.
Can ''objectivity'' be achieved based on superficial judgment alone ?
As the proverbial saying goes : ''Do not judge a Book by its Cover''.
By your standards - did Steve Chia performed badly while in Parliament - when he had even won the admiration from GCT ? If not for his personal hobby of nude photography - that was capitalised by the Government controlled media - he would have continued to provide another voice in the otherwise ''MONO-TONE' in Parliament.
What is so unusual in warming the crowd with ''sound bites'' during an election campaign ?
What I hear from some attended election rallies: Other than the main committee members of the party, the rest of the candidates go up to report their names, say something against the PAP, garner applause, make everyone laugh, and that's it.
Even the PAP has their own rabble rousing clowns to entertain their audience before the main speakers come on stage.
The Incumbent Political Party had the advantage of their ''big guns'' actually venturing into contested Constituencies to lend their support and political weight to their candidates.
It was a joke that the big gun end up shooting themselves with political slips of the tongue - which showed their true deep colors in wanting to ''FIX the Opposition''.
continue below -
I somewhat agree.Originally posted by eagle:Sure, the government tries its best to limit whatever the Opposition can do. But which government in the world will give their opponents a chance to strike back if it is within their means? Suppose you are the government/leader, would you give a chance to your opponent to bring you down?
There are things which I support, and things I don't. It's up to my decisions. Voting for the Opposition blindly just because they are the Opposition is something I do not do. However, neither is voting for the government just because of a proven track record something I would do to.
I would gladly give the Opposition a vote if they can show me some good candidates. An example of a good candidate is Slyvia Lim. I have seen her face to face, and I'm very impressed with how she carry herself, her views and opinions, and how she attempts to converse with everyone present. I will give her my vote if she ever comes to my constitutency.
However, when I see Steve Chia talking (face to face too), all I sense is that he is appealing to others to vote for him just because he's the Opposition. He's appealing for votes because he do not want Singapore to be owned only by the PAP. These are reasons not strong enough to warrant my vote. Furthermore, he cannot carry his speech with enough fluency and confidence to persuade.
What I hear from some attended election rallies: Other than the main committee members of the party, the rest of the candidates go up to report their names, say something against the PAP, garner applause, make everyone laugh, and that's it.
There's a difference in the people who contest, and not just the policies of the parties. We have enough back-benchers in the PAP; we do not need back-benchers from the Opposition too.
During the last election, Worker Party was suppose to contest at my Woodlands area. But then CSJ came
I would have galdly cast my vote for the Worker Party but will NEVER do so for SDP as long as the Chee's are around. My personal view. -
continuation
Backbenchers in Parliament are similar to the situation that you have described earlier :- ''Other than the main committee members of the party, the rest of the candidates go up to report their names, say something.... ''
There's a difference in the people who contest, and not just the policies of the parties. We have enough back-benchers in the PAP; we do not need back-benchers from the Opposition too.
How many of these Backbenchers will finally vote according to what their view are towards their OWN Party Policies ?
The difference - between elected MPs from the Ruling Party that act as Backbenchers and those elected MP from Alternative Parties - is that when the vote is called to pass legislation, the MP from the Alternative Party will be able to place an 'HONEST Vote' according to their political views expressed and recorded in Parliament. The Backbenchers from the Ruling Party will be REQUIRED to vote according to their PARTY Political Policies as demanded by their Party Parliamentary Whip that exist to maintain Party Discipline.
In the present circumstances, despite the unending abuse towards the intelligence of the Citizens by the Ruling Political Party that has formed the Government - it is amazing that Singaporeans will continue to look at the brigher side even in the face of unending price increases, regular calls to tighten our economic belts and lower our expectations, change our lifestyle to accept lower wages that are made are made unstable through the flexible wage policy and with short term employment contracts being the norm, and with Singaporeans encouraged to plan to retire later at 65 or 70s at lower wages and lower employment CPF, while the release of the CPF Minimum Sum is again being changed for a fourth time since the Howe Yoon Chong review in the 1980s.
All these are being dictated to Singaporeans while the Ruling Party will insist on increasing their own wages and controlling the Political Environment to keep themselves firmly ahead of the Alternative Political Parties.
In any other 'First World Countries', the Citizens would have marched to Parliament House, and there will be endless days of organised protests that allow the Citizens to express their anger.
Is it not ironical that even the citizens in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand has more Political Rights than the citizens of a 'First World Singapore'
This political injustice alone is sufficient ground to cast one's vote to support any SINGAPOREAN who is prepared to sacrifice his own interest and face the arrogant ire and political persecution from the Ruling Party. -
The opposition are like forumers here, they are colourful in criticising the government, but cannot present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win.Originally posted by eagle:Problem is... with the opposition.
I had wanted to give my vote to the Opposition. However, when I see the faces of the GRC contestants (SDP), the way they talk, and the method in which they just ask for votes and not put forward a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they were voted in, it's really hard to put a cross beside their party logo.
Singapore's democracy is not to be doubted. A vote cast is a vote cast. The definition of democracy does not include a term that you must like the outcome.
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam knows the Singaporean voters when he says:
"They come, they enjoy my speeches, and then go and vote PAP". -
And pray tell how much of a large tarring brush do you love?Originally posted by mancha:The opposition are like forumers here, they are colourful in criticising the government, but cannot present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win.
Singapore's democracy is not to be doubted. A vote cast is a vote cast. The definition of democracy does not include a term that you must like the outcome.
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam knows the Singaporean voters when he says:
"They come, they enjoy my speeches, and then go and vote PAP".
Secondly, why should anyone share some of their policy work in a public forum?
-
Originally posted by mancha:
''A vote cast is indeed a vote cast'' - has anyone complained about this, or were the complaints about the manner in which the ENTIRE electoral process has been manipulated in a supposed ''DEMOCRATIC Process'' ?
The opposition are like forumers here, they are colourful in criticising the government, but cannot present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win.
Singapore's democracy is not to be doubted. A vote cast is a vote cast. The definition of democracy does not include a term that you must like the outcome.
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam knows the Singaporean voters when he says:
"They come, they enjoy my speeches, and then go and vote PAP".
The entire ''Democratic Process'' is but a sham when seen from the tight grip on the mass media that slant news reporting in their own favor; to the police harrassment and indifference towards the efforts of the Alternative Parties in gaining access to the Electorates; to the manipulation of the Electoral Boundaries that dilute the known grass-root support to the Alternative Parties by merging these support with known strongholds of the Ruling Party; to a tight and short electioneering period of 6 days and election held on the 7th day that leaves Singaporeans to digest what little intelligent process that can surface, while at the same time the Ruling Party will distract the electorates with mundane issues that deal with local neighborhood upgradings and distract attention to larger long term national issues.
If this is the ''Singapore Democracy'' that you will claim is ''not to be doubted'', do we need to guess the kind of democratic process that you have been educated with, and will defend with your Life ? -
If endorsing the principle of checks-and-balance through ensuring no party could command a large enough majority to amend the Constitution at its whim and fancy is not sufficient reason to sustain a democracy, I don't know what is.Originally posted by eagle:Problem is... with the opposition.
I had wanted to give my vote to the Opposition. However, when I see the faces of the GRC contestants (SDP), the way they talk, and the method in which they just ask for votes and not put forward a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they were voted in, it's really hard to put a cross beside their party logo.
Quite frankly, it's not hard to see what a press ranked 154th for press freedom has done to hordes of the populace inundated with its propaganda on a daily basis... -
Is there any credible miinister in the ruling party today?
If we donÂ’t vote some opposition members in, how can we know the oppositionÂ’s credibility?
How many PAP MPs are credible? Assuming that the opposition members who are voted into parliament are just as ‘good’ as the PAP MPs, is there anything to lose?
What do we gain if we donÂ’t take a chance to vote a few more opposition into parliament?? -
Can you tell a democracy apart from a dictatorship?Originally posted by eagle:Sure, the government tries its best to limit whatever the Opposition can do. But which government in the world will give their opponents a chance to strike back if it is within their means? Suppose you are the government/leader, would you give a chance to your opponent to bring you down?
Going by your reasoning, I suppose even Francis Seow wouldn't have made a credible opposition candidate based on the image perpetuated by the fascist mouthpieces (or do you genuinely believe the press here is free and credible enough to paint an accurate picture of an opposition's credentials?). -
That's a classic illustration of underestimating the importance - and that's assuming you even know its function to begin with - of a Constitution.Originally posted by mancha:The opposition are like forumers here, they are colourful in criticising the government, but cannot present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win.
Singapore's democracy is not to be doubted. A vote cast is a vote cast. The definition of democracy does not include a term that you must like the outcome.
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam knows the Singaporean voters when he says:
"They come, they enjoy my speeches, and then go and vote PAP".
In how many of your elections have you actually been afforded a luxury of a scenario where it's even theoretically possible for you to have a Legislative that wouldn't fall under the control of the incumbents? Knowing full well the Legislative would remain in the hands of the incumbents prior to the polls, how then would you reasonably expect the opposition to "present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win"?
If, in spite of being unjustly marginalised, the opposition's primary function of holding the government to account is insignificant, why should anyone even recognise the need for a Constitution and to subcribe to notions of the rule of law in a democracy? Maybe, it really isn't that hard to understand the due processes that are quintessential in sustaining the functions of a democracy are no less fundamental than the rights accorded by a democracy - or is it? -
Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam?
-
How do you define good? Taking money from the poor to give to the rich?Originally posted by PRP:Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam?
Mr Chiam gains the respect of the people, for the work he does with the budget he is given. He gains the respect of the people for the respect that he accolades upon them, and them returning the favour.
He is down to earth, close to the people and most important of all, working for the people.
I wished he was running in my constituency...
-
An impression made is an impression made. Chee shouldn't had followed behind Goh. Neither should the PAP had attacked Gomez because of a minor mistake; they themselves had made much more mistakes.Originally posted by hloc:I somewhat agree.
During the last election, Worker Party was suppose to contest at my Woodlands area. But then CSJ came I would have galdly cast my vote for the Worker Party but will NEVER do so for SDP as long as the Chee's are around. My personal view.
And although the media is pro-PAP, it doesn't stop many from re-considering events from a different point of view. The arguments I see here are, when someone makes a post favourable to the PAP, an Opposition supporter will conveniently put it down as influenced by the media.
Sure, many countries enjoy "better" political rights. However, all the mentioned countries has a much larger population than sg, with the exception of HK, which has just abt 3 mil more than sg. In my humble opinion, a larger population is usually followed by a larger political arena. In the case of Singapore, our population is only at 4 mil, with many still being 1st/2nd generation citizens. I would expect them to be contented with a roof over their heads and a full stomach, and thus not as interested in the Sg politics.
This continuous criticism of the lack of political rights has been around for a very long time, and this is the main point that certain Opposition members are putting forward to garner votes, i.e. "VOTE ME JUST BECAUSE I'M AN OPPOSITION". I would not want to give a vote to an opposition with that mentality. -
And to add on, not only does Chiam work for the people, he cares for them and tries his best to keep in contact with them.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:How do you define good? Taking money from the poor to give to the rich?
Mr Chiam gains the respect of the people, for the work he does with the budget he is given. He gains the respect of the people for the respect that he accolades upon them, and them returning the favour.
He is down to earth, close to the people and most important of all, working for the people.
I wished he was running in my constituency... -
Frankly, I will not vote the opposition just for the sake of voting otherwise.
No doubts, there are problems with the PAP (eg minister pay), but I have to say that our opposition have not exactly helped themselves either by being fragmented and disunited.
Seriously, I read through the arguments here. Very convincing about the electoral, media processes about how the incumbent seeks to enhance and consolidate its position in politics. However, are such measures only restricted here? No no no. In fact, it is so prevalent everywhere, even in so-called democratic havens such as USA, Britain and Taiwan. Jerrymandering (redrawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party) is a widespread practice overseas and the way they do it really make the Serangoon-North-in-Marine-Parade-GRC incident look very very normal. Another example, the first-past-the-post system which were invented by the British and still used here. It allows the ruling party to control the Parliament even though they get the minority of the votes.
Ok, the restrictions on protests and public speeches are a tad too restrictive but I do not wish to see oversea situations of riots and violent protests breaking out here either.
Yes, the ruling party is not perfect, but neither is the opposition. Are there avenues for them to broadcast their political ideas and policies? Yes there are legal ways. Since the last GE, I have not ahd a whiff of the opposition in my GRC. It would have been good if they gone around distributing their newsletters but no, I have not seen them in action. Please give me an opposition that does not disappear during non-election days and only mysteriously materialise during election period.
Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.
Seriously, I may not like the ruling party that's not a good enough reason to vote the opposition, not when the quality of some of them I see (some of the GRC teams seem to be just banded together for the sake of elections).
You can go an call me a PAP-centric elitist boot-licking lap dog, but I will tell you that for now, I will NOT vote the opposition, but neither will I vote the PAP either.
You can list all the bad points and shortcomings of the PAP all you want, but at the end of the day, if given a choice to choose between 2 rotten apples, I will prefer not to eat and drink water instead.
BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.
I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective. -
PAP was started in 1954 as an opposition party to the Labour Front, would it be where it was today if people was afraid of changes?
True, the opposition parties are not appearing as often, but can I say the same for the PAP? They hide behind their armies of clerks and secretaries...
Even worse of all, the PAP is appearing in the limelight for the wrong reasons. With the expected changes in CPF coming out, I expect another public outcry... -
Please run through the forum, and please only ask those that have started working... The real world is different from the reel world (helped by Singapore's media no less).Originally posted by teraexa:BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.
I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective.
I was once like you, in awe of the greatness of the PAP. But my respect for them eroded over time... -
ALright, you are labeled as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education !Originally posted by teraexa:Frankly, I will not vote the opposition just for the sake of voting otherwise.
No doubts, there are problems with the PAP (eg minister pay), but I have to say that our opposition have not exactly helped themselves either by being fragmented and disunited.
Seriously, I read through the arguments here. Very convincing about the electoral, media processes about how the incumbent seeks to enhance and consolidate its position in politics. However, are such measures only restricted here? No no no. In fact, it is so prevalent everywhere, even in so-called democratic havens such as USA, Britain and Taiwan. Jerrymandering (redrawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party) is a widespread practice overseas and the way they do it really make the Serangoon-North-in-Marine-Parade-GRC incident look very very normal. Another example, the first-past-the-post system which were invented by the British and still used here. It allows the ruling party to control the Parliament even though they get the minority of the votes.
Ok, the restrictions on protests and public speeches are a tad too restrictive but I do not wish to see oversea situations of riots and violent protests breaking out here either.
Yes, the ruling party is not perfect, but neither is the opposition. Are there avenues for them to broadcast their political ideas and policies? Yes there are legal ways. Since the last GE, I have not ahd a whiff of the opposition in my GRC. It would have been good if they gone around distributing their newsletters but no, I have not seen them in action. Please give me an opposition that does not disappear during non-election days and only mysteriously materialise during election period.
Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.
Seriously, I may not like the ruling party that's not a good enough reason to vote the opposition, not when the quality of some of them I see (some of the GRC teams seem to be just banded together for the sake of elections).
You can go an call me a PAP-centric elitist boot-licking lap dog, but I will tell you that for now, I will NOT vote the opposition, but neither will I vote the PAP either.
You can list all the bad points and shortcomings of the PAP all you want, but at the end of the day, if given a choice to choose between 2 rotten apples, I will prefer not to eat and drink water instead.
BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.
I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective. -
I believe that was a different scenario. Back then, people were almost forced to change. The British empire was leaving Singapore.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:PAP was started in 1954 as an opposition party to the Labour Front, would it be where it was today if people was afraid of changes?
True, the opposition parties are not appearing as often, but can I say the same for the PAP? They hide behind their armies of clerks and secretaries...
Even worse of all, the PAP is appearing in the limelight for the wrong reasons. With the expected changes in CPF coming out, I expect another public outcry...
Furthermore, they had only contested 4 wards in their first election. They became the government from the 2nd election onwards and was the government ever since. I don't see much changes.