What kind of policies and issues do you want a party to have
-
Originally posted by simikai:
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.
-
Must find a way to get rid of PAP.
Cannot be under their rule forever.
But they keep on suppressing political activities, destroy opposition parties, also hard to see a way out.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Must find a way to get rid of PAP.
Cannot be under their rule forever.
But they keep on suppressing political activities, destroy opposition parties, also hard to see a way out.
Get rid of them and replace them with what? If the next party is the same as the PAP in policy, what is the point of replacing the PAP?Personally, I would want the opposition to have a greater voice. But replacing the PAP as the government is totally another new matter.
Poh, answer my question please? What kind of policy do you want your beloved party to adopt? Beyond saying the PAP needs to be replaced?
I really want to ask you Poh, is it worth our taxpayer's money to pay people like CSJ, and earn money by saying the PAP sucks. Do we need to pay someone to critise the PAP?
-
Originally posted by ray245:
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.
I have to agree with you that the PAP is flexible, actually versatile is the word I would use to describe their capacity to swing left and right whenever it suit them to do so.
Why do you consider them as centre-left?Other than state intervention and control of 'production' being constant, their activities and policies seem more incline towards capitalist ideals.
Aren't privatisation of state owned companies and the adventures of Temasek and GIC considered as such?
-
If companies are transparent, competitors can anticipate their next moves how ar?
So, you guys support this idea is it?
TRANSPARENCY - what is it ha?
Can there be 90% transparency?
I was told there is no such thing as x% transparency - there is either Transparency, which equates to FULL TRANSPARENCY or there is no Transparency.
I wonder what are your views on this thingie?
-
Originally posted by likedatosocan:
If companies are transparent, competitors can anticipate their next moves how ar?
So, you guys support this idea is it?
TRANSPARENCY - what is it ha?
Can there be 90% transparency?
I was told there is no such thing as x% transparency - there is either Transparency, which equates to FULL TRANSPARENCY or there is no Transparency.
I wonder what are your views on this thingie?
I would disagree with the fact that there is only full or no transparency. And it is impossible for any company to have full trasparency.One reason is, copyright laws will be thrown out of the window, national security secrets will be known and so on.
Even in the most liberal nation on earth, there is no such thing as a full transparency.
Asking for full transparency is like asking you to let everyone know all your secrets in life. Every single thing, from the time you sleep to you hating or being annoyed with someone.
Yet at the same time, it is impossible to have zero transparency. Some form of knowledge will be leaked, one way or another. Moreover, zero transparency go against the role of a government, which is supposed to keep the companies from doing to wrong things.
How transparent things can be depends on how feasible it is.
-
Everybody including myself would have something to hide.
-
Originally posted by ArtBoon:
Everybody including myself would have something to hide.
The difference is; are your secrets vital to the well-being of the nation?
P.S. everyone masturbates so its no secret eh.
-
I must admit this is one of the better discussion topics in this forum, more discussion rather than quote wars and endless bold/red letters.I rather enjoy the insights from ray
Must find a way to get rid of PAP.
Cannot be under their rule forever.
I don't think anyone in the forum would really disagree with you on this Poh, the main issue however is we don't want change for change's sake.I don't want to trade Chen Shui Bian and Chee Soon Juan simply because i dislike some of PAP or LKY's policies.
I want the opposition to give good ideas for alternate policies, to actually have an idea of what they want. Not just opposing for opposing's sake.
-
Free Flow Alchohol at the party.
-
Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy
-
Originally posted by simikai:
I have to agree with you that the PAP is flexible, actually versatile is the word I would use to describe their capacity to swing left and right whenever it suit them to do so.
Why do you consider them as centre-left?Other than state intervention and control of 'production' being constant, their activities and policies seem more incline towards capitalist ideals.
Aren't privatisation of state owned companies and the adventures of Temasek and GIC considered as such?
Not really. A privatisation of companies is a left wing idea actually, The concept of socialism, as compared to a free market, where there should be no government intervention.Just because they nationalise a company does not make a nation any less captialistic. Within the system of captialism, there has been camps who are more pro-socialism, and pro- deregulation.
Which is why the opposition needs to create a political stand in the next election and has to show us that they are even more flexible to run a nation, also they need to have the intention of running a nation, not just a GRC.
Their arguments that singapore needs an opposition hence we should vote for them does not stand. We should vote for the party because we agree with a new approach in running a nation.
Just because the PAP swings from left to right, does not mean standing a stand on issues isn't possible. The opposition can even agree with the PAP from time to time, because they can share similar ideas.
They have to show us that the issues that they disagree with the PAP is more important than the issue which they share with the PAP.
-
Originally posted by ray245:
I would disagree with the fact that there is only full or no transparency. And it is impossible for any company to have full trasparency.One reason is, copyright laws will be thrown out of the window, national security secrets will be known and so on.
Even in the most liberal nation on earth, there is no such thing as a full transparency.
Asking for full transparency is like asking you to let everyone know all your secrets in life. Every single thing, from the time you sleep to you hating or being annoyed with someone.
Yet at the same time, it is impossible to have zero transparency. Some form of knowledge will be leaked, one way or another. Moreover, zero transparency go against the role of a government, which is supposed to keep the companies from doing to wrong things.
How transparent things can be depends on how feasible it is.
Its good to hear comments about TRANSPARENCY.
Lets put things in perspective.
1. What is the definition of the word?
source : Wall street words
transparency
- The full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information.
2. How is this word used ? Is it the right word to use? Based on the definition, many companies are not TRANSPARENT. What I mean is the wrong word is used.
Another word more suitable and appropriate should be used.
3. Is TRANSPARENCY measurable in a SCIENTIFIC absolute way?
I want to ask everyone here, how much you really understand this simple word, is TRANSPARENCY measured QUALITATIVELY or QUANTITATIVELY?
If it is a qualitative measurement, to me, its a subjective measurement. To different people, the assessment can be different?
If its a quantitative measurement, who has the exact formula?
if no one has a convincing reply, then, I like to say that the word Transparency is used loosely and not completely correctly and another word more appropriate should be used.Disclaimer : I am not financially savvy. Just a layman, brudder. so, if you know better, please clarify.
-
Their arguments that singapore needs an opposition hence we should vote for them does not stand.
We should vote for the party because we agree with a new approach in running a nation.
Why doesn't stand?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Why doesn't stand?
Do you really want to pay people money just to oppose their policy? If you want to vote for a political party, you do need to think that I am actually going to vote that party into power, as compared to voting in a opposition.The only useful opposition is one that can actually put up a decent fight, and actually BE the government. Only then, will that party have a meaningful role as the opposition, one that actually oppose policy when it is bad, and agree with policy when it is good.
When you want to vote for a party, how can you really tell if the party that you vote for will definelty BE a minority, hence becoming an opposition? What about the fact that MAYBE, just maybe, the majority of the people in singapore is thinking the same thing, and vote for the opposition just because they want an opposition, and in the end the opposition party become the new government?
Moreover, even within the PAP, there are different factions within a party. In any large orgainsation, differnent factions will be form, each with their own ideas to run a nation. Especially with a versatile party like the PAP. When they swing left to right on issues, have you ever wondered that there might be people who support a new direction, and the people who oppose a new direction?
So when you are voting for a opposition party, vote for them because they can lead the nation, not because they can oppose. Please, you don't even to have qualification to be the opposition and oppose almost policy. Members here can do a rather good job opposing almost every policy. So why do we have to vote and let people have an easy well paid job?
You vote for a party because they can run your area or GRC well, then they can also run the country on a national level.
-
Moreover, even within the PAP, there are different factions within a party. In any large orgainsation, differnent factions will be form, each with their own ideas to run a nation. Especially with a versatile party like the PAP.
I don't see any factions in PAP currently.
I don't see how PAP is versatile party.
Do you really want to pay people money just to oppose their policy?
Pay money? What do you mean?
I will vote for opposition party to put people in parliament to question PAP policies and to keep a check on them.
So when you are voting for a opposition party, vote for them because they can lead the nation, not because they can oppose.
Like that, we follow your way, PAP will be in power forever.
MIght as well declare one party state, ban other parties.
I don't think PAP would had come to power in 1959 if we vote according to your logic.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I don't see any factions in PAP currently.
I don't see how PAP is versatile party.
Pay money? What do you mean?
I will vote for opposition party to put people in parliament to question PAP policies and to keep a check on them.
Like that, we follow your way, PAP will be in power forever.
MIght as well declare one party state, ban other parties.
I don't think PAP would had come to power in 1959 if we vote according to your logic.
And people called me naive. Come on, in any large group, in a class for example, people will always form a smaller group of friends. Officially there is no division, but logically speaking, we all know that there is a divsion inside every party.Look at the SDA for example, where people has disagreement over the new recruits for their party.
Now the pay money part. Look, do you seriously think the any proposal bring up by the PAP has never been discussed among the party ?
What is the reason for an opposition party? Is it suppose to serve as a check on the policy bring forwards by the PAP? The opposition party is there to bring forward a opposing ideaology, and using the principle of a different ideaology, they hope to oppose that motion, and bring forward their own proposal.
Seriously Poh, I have no idea why do you keep contridicting yourself...on one hand, you said we need someone to put a check on the PAP, on the other hand you said that we need to remove the PAP from power. Make up your mind?
Like that, we follow your way, PAP will be in power forever.
MIght as well declare one party state, ban other parties.
I don't think PAP would had come to power in 1959 if we vote according to your logic.
Coming from a person who said that we need to remove the PAP, I find this very funny. So you are saying that we should remove the PAP by voting for the opposition to be the opposition?
And if the opposition show us that they are willingly and is able to lead the nation, you are going to stop voting for the opposition parties?