PAP's End Of Days - Page 5

byfun · 22-10-2014, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbyist

I thought i see an article that LKY wanted tony tan to be PM, but fate do not arrange it that way.

Yes and it seem fated that LKY son LHL will be PM after GCT..

globalcookie · 20-01-2015, 11:34 AM

PAP in decline? But what if...
Posted on Nov 11, 2014 8:22 AM Updated: Nov 11, 2014 8:41 AM
By Han Fook Kwang

What is it about Singapore that when people talk about its future, it is almost always about whether the ruling party will remain in power?

There was another round of crystal ball gazing recently over this evergreen question.

To be fair, the subject of Mr Ho Kwon Ping's talk at the Institute of Policy Studies was on politics in the next 50 years, so he couldn't avoid the subject.

He spoke a few days after former foreign minister George Yeo related how social media and the information revolution had overturned traditional hierarchies, making governance more difficult, including in Singapore.

These talks have refuelled the question of how long the People's Action Party (PAP) can remain in power.

Mr Ho sketched several scenarios on how the party's dominance would be challenged, and he thought it possible a two-party system could emerge in 15 years' time.

These discussions might seem odd to external observers when there isn't a successor to the ruling party in sight.

The closest, the Workers' Party, has openly declared it isn't ready to form the next government, though it might not be so diffident the next time it makes further electoral gains.

But, for now, we are left with speculating the longevity of the PAP in a political vacuum.

Perhaps it's more useful to turn the question on its head and ask: Under what circumstances can the PAP remain as dominant in the next 50 years as it has been in the past?

Critics of the government might recoil in horror at such a prospect.

But, seriously, it's a question worth asking. And since we are into speculative scenarios, I can think of at least three where the ruling party might continue to reign supreme.

Scenario 1: All change at the party

Most commentators, including Mr Ho, who doubt the PAP's long-term ability to continue in power, have rightly identified the many challenges it faces.

One of the most difficult for the party is its loss of control of information because of the proliferation of social media.

Singapore society is also much more diverse and fragmented today.

Many divisions have grown - liberal versus conservative, gay versus straight, local versus foreign - making it difficult for any party to represent the broad middle ground.

On the economic front, the fruits of growth are not as evenly distributed as before, and even the growth itself isn't a given.

But, ultimately, it is the party's response to these challenges that will determine if it will be able to continue winning the mandate to govern.

Its ability to meet these challenges is increasingly being questioned as it grapples with complex issues on many policy fronts.

From the feedback I get, there is a sizeable group of Singaporeans who say they supported the PAP in the early years but now feel it isn't the party they knew.

Their criticisms: It has become elitist, is no longer in touch with the lives of ordinary people, and its market-driven policies have departed too much from its socialist roots.

Which raises the intriguing question: Can the party change and win over these one-time supporters?

Is it possible for it to again be the party it was in the 1960s and 1970s, trusted by the people to overcome the odds that must have seemed even more insurmountable than today's challenges?

If it is able to make the changes - whatever these might be - and transform itself, who is to say it will not regain its past dominance?

But can it?

More pertinently, can change come from within, or will it have to be from without?

Political parties elsewhere have had to face this same question whenever their survival has been at stake.

In the 1990s, Britain's Labour Party, which had spent almost 20 years in opposition, transformed itself into New Labour under Mr Tony Blair, shifting to the centre and discarding many of its left-wing tendencies.

It won the 1997 elections by a landslide.

Earlier in the 1970s, the Conservative Party was rejuvenated by a leader who went on to become Britain's longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century and the only woman to hold office, Margaret Thatcher.

These parties found new impetus to change and they did so successfully.

To be fair, the PAP has responded to many of the issues that caused it to lose ground in the 2011 General Election.

But whether the changes have been far-reaching enough for it to retain its dominance remains to be seen.

Scenario 2: Out and back again

The second scenario starts with the PAP unable to make the changes needed to stem its decline.

It loses a general election, and perhaps the next one as well.

But the opposition party in power lacks the experience and wherewithal to govern well, fumbles badly, and loses the support of the people.

The PAP is voted back in.

Another 50 years?

That will require the PAP to be so chastened by its years in opposition, it renews itself in heroic fashion to recapture the people's trust.

This comeback scenario isn't unique and has been replayed elsewhere, most recently with the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan.

Don't rule out it happening here.

Scenario 3: A near-death experience

Many people attribute the PAP's long hold on power to the trauma that Singaporeans experienced when the country was expelled from Malaysia in 1965.

That separation was so life-threatening, the people rallied behind the Government to make a superhuman effort to succeed.

Might another near-death experience for Singapore result in a similar outcome?

A long, deep and paralysing global recession? Conflicts in the region? A war between the major powers in Asia?

Faced with impending danger, Singaporeans are more likely to want to unite than divide, possibly behind the party they know.

Without this external threat to their survival, it is likely the opposition tide of recent years will continue, and erode the PAP's dominance.

Which of these three scenarios is the most likely?

The big unknown is the electorate.

A sea change in the people's attitudes and outlook has taken place, especially in their relationship with the Government.

It has ushered in a period of electoral uncertainty, and where it will lead to eventually is hard to say.

As someone once said, prediction is very difficult, especially if it is about the future.

globalcookie · 20-01-2015, 11:41 AM

PM Lee: Singapore politics will change, but not certain yet how
Posted on Jan 16, 2015 4:12 PM Updated: Jan 16, 2015 4:24 PM
By Zakir Hussain

SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong believes that while politics in Singapore will not remain static, how it changes will depend on the voters and the way new PAP MPs and ministers bond with them.

He also drew a comparison with Britain and the United States, where different regions are strongholds of competing political parties, and they tilt one way or the other but "never completely topple over".

But in Singapore, he said: "We are flat. The tallest mountain in Singapore is Bukit Timah so you make one small change, the sky can change."

"That is not a comfortable position to be in, but that is the way our society is and we have to know that."

Mr Lee was responding to a question, in an interview with Singapore media, on how he saw democracy here evolving over the next few decades amid calls for more political diversity.

"It must change. I am not sure which way it will change," he said.

"We are in a very unusual situation where there is a clear consensus for the ruling party. There is a desire for alternative views, yes. But basically Singaporeans want the PAP to govern Singapore.

"If you ask the Opposition parties - whether it is the Workers' Party or the Singapore Democratic Party - nobody says 'Vote for me, I will form the government, I will be the Prime Minister, I will run this place better'."

Hence it is important for the Government to continue to maintain support and be able to carry the consensus of the population over the long term.

But this state of affairs will not remain, he said, and how it changes will also depend on the situations the country faces.

"If you run into turbulent situations, people will be very worried about the dangers and there will be a flight to safety," he said.

"If you are in a peaceful, prosperous environment, people say: 'Well, this is the way the world is, why do you need the government? We can prosper without the government'.

"So there is no safety net. There is no certainty that what we have now is going to continue. And each election is a very serious contest for who is going to form the next government," he added.

Asked what he felt was a healthy version of checks and balances in Parliament, Mr Lee said voters should elect the best person to represent them.

In Singapore, there was no possibility of Parliament being all PAP, with Non-Constituency and Nominated MPs, he said.

"Outside of Parliament, voices are influential, too. There is media and new media, blogs build up a following, and so there is no lack of alternative voices."

But voters should ensure those they elect are up to the mark: "A person who sits in Parliament and is not competent, is not going to be a check on the government.

"A person who can be in Parliament and can raise questions, ask and debate and intelligently questions what is the government doing and why are you doing this and not doing that - that is what you need when you are talking about checks and balances."

MPs must be able to operate on the ground too, as a "test of readiness and competence", he added, in an oblique reference to the WP, which has come under fire from PAP MPs over the management of its Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council.

"How you run your town council, whether your constituencies are well managed or not, there is a reason why we put the town councils under the MPs - because we want it to have this test," he said.

Taking up a similar point in his Mandarin interview, he said: "You can do a lot of work if you have a good opposition MP."

Only three PAP members were elected to the Legislative Assembly in Singapore's first election in 1955 - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Goh Chew Chua, he noted.

"Three of them were sufficient to establish a force, so it is about having the best and not the most," he said.

--------------------------

Very self assuring to think that Singaporeans wants PAP...

So, have YOUR MP represented you? In what ways did he/she?

Harping over AHPETC finances. Why have the PAP not been accountable with mini-bonds issue? Did they? Even the simple Rat problem, they dare not come forth and clean with the issue, but BLAME people.

KAO LUO · 20-01-2015, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ong88

Younger gen no scared die.

Those below 30 all will think alternatives worth a try.

Get ready to run.

I always try ,,,,,,,,,,,, from young to now

therat · 21-01-2015, 09:40 PM

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015...see-step-down/

Who is in ur list?

Heehee

xersion · 26-01-2015, 01:05 PM

fine or no fine....?
got special instructions given not to fine

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=929251673786667

KAO LUO · 26-01-2015, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xersion

fine or no fine....?
got special instructions given not to fine

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=929251673786667

ha !!! . law they nvr kena ........ just always we kena ........... knn ... fair sinagpore .? ha

**Ong88** · 26-01-2015, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xersion

fine or no fine....?
got special instructions given not to fine

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=929251673786667

Usually the event organisers will get LTA & TP permission.
eg church or mosque services along that stretch plus bayshore side road.

The saman idiot dunno how to talk that's all.

xersion · 26-01-2015, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ong88

Usually the event organisers will get LTA & TP permission.
eg church or mosque services along that stretch plus bayshore side road.

The saman idiot dunno how to talk that's all.

i rem got once a bus was booked for funeral...
that means they nv get approval?

**Ong88** · 26-01-2015, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xersion

i rem got once a bus was booked for funeral...
that means they nv get approval?

Yup.

Possibly.
I know can cos last time my son KG near there got permission for graduation day.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

20-01-2015, 11:34 AM	#42
globalcookie Dragon Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,446	PAP in decline? But what if... Posted on Nov 11, 2014 8:22 AM Updated: Nov 11, 2014 8:41 AM By Han Fook Kwang What is it about Singapore that when people talk about its future, it is almost always about whether the ruling party will remain in power? There was another round of crystal ball gazing recently over this evergreen question. To be fair, the subject of Mr Ho Kwon Ping's talk at the Institute of Policy Studies was on politics in the next 50 years, so he couldn't avoid the subject. He spoke a few days after former foreign minister George Yeo related how social media and the information revolution had overturned traditional hierarchies, making governance more difficult, including in Singapore. These talks have refuelled the question of how long the People's Action Party (PAP) can remain in power. Mr Ho sketched several scenarios on how the party's dominance would be challenged, and he thought it possible a two-party system could emerge in 15 years' time. These discussions might seem odd to external observers when there isn't a successor to the ruling party in sight. The closest, the Workers' Party, has openly declared it isn't ready to form the next government, though it might not be so diffident the next time it makes further electoral gains. But, for now, we are left with speculating the longevity of the PAP in a political vacuum. Perhaps it's more useful to turn the question on its head and ask: Under what circumstances can the PAP remain as dominant in the next 50 years as it has been in the past? Critics of the government might recoil in horror at such a prospect. But, seriously, it's a question worth asking. And since we are into speculative scenarios, I can think of at least three where the ruling party might continue to reign supreme. Scenario 1: All change at the party Most commentators, including Mr Ho, who doubt the PAP's long-term ability to continue in power, have rightly identified the many challenges it faces. One of the most difficult for the party is its loss of control of information because of the proliferation of social media. Singapore society is also much more diverse and fragmented today. Many divisions have grown - liberal versus conservative, gay versus straight, local versus foreign - making it difficult for any party to represent the broad middle ground. On the economic front, the fruits of growth are not as evenly distributed as before, and even the growth itself isn't a given. But, ultimately, it is the party's response to these challenges that will determine if it will be able to continue winning the mandate to govern. Its ability to meet these challenges is increasingly being questioned as it grapples with complex issues on many policy fronts. From the feedback I get, there is a sizeable group of Singaporeans who say they supported the PAP in the early years but now feel it isn't the party they knew. Their criticisms: It has become elitist, is no longer in touch with the lives of ordinary people, and its market-driven policies have departed too much from its socialist roots. Which raises the intriguing question: Can the party change and win over these one-time supporters? Is it possible for it to again be the party it was in the 1960s and 1970s, trusted by the people to overcome the odds that must have seemed even more insurmountable than today's challenges? If it is able to make the changes - whatever these might be - and transform itself, who is to say it will not regain its past dominance? But can it? More pertinently, can change come from within, or will it have to be from without? Political parties elsewhere have had to face this same question whenever their survival has been at stake. In the 1990s, Britain's Labour Party, which had spent almost 20 years in opposition, transformed itself into New Labour under Mr Tony Blair, shifting to the centre and discarding many of its left-wing tendencies. It won the 1997 elections by a landslide. Earlier in the 1970s, the Conservative Party was rejuvenated by a leader who went on to become Britain's longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century and the only woman to hold office, Margaret Thatcher. These parties found new impetus to change and they did so successfully. To be fair, the PAP has responded to many of the issues that caused it to lose ground in the 2011 General Election. But whether the changes have been far-reaching enough for it to retain its dominance remains to be seen. Scenario 2: Out and back again The second scenario starts with the PAP unable to make the changes needed to stem its decline. It loses a general election, and perhaps the next one as well. But the opposition party in power lacks the experience and wherewithal to govern well, fumbles badly, and loses the support of the people. The PAP is voted back in. Another 50 years? That will require the PAP to be so chastened by its years in opposition, it renews itself in heroic fashion to recapture the people's trust. This comeback scenario isn't unique and has been replayed elsewhere, most recently with the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. Don't rule out it happening here. Scenario 3: A near-death experience Many people attribute the PAP's long hold on power to the trauma that Singaporeans experienced when the country was expelled from Malaysia in 1965. That separation was so life-threatening, the people rallied behind the Government to make a superhuman effort to succeed. Might another near-death experience for Singapore result in a similar outcome? A long, deep and paralysing global recession? Conflicts in the region? A war between the major powers in Asia? Faced with impending danger, Singaporeans are more likely to want to unite than divide, possibly behind the party they know. Without this external threat to their survival, it is likely the opposition tide of recent years will continue, and erode the PAP's dominance. Which of these three scenarios is the most likely? The big unknown is the electorate. A sea change in the people's attitudes and outlook has taken place, especially in their relationship with the Government. It has ushered in a period of electoral uncertainty, and where it will lead to eventually is hard to say. As someone once said, prediction is very difficult, especially if it is about the future.

20-01-2015, 11:41 AM	#43
globalcookie Dragon Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,446	PM Lee: Singapore politics will change, but not certain yet how Posted on Jan 16, 2015 4:12 PM Updated: Jan 16, 2015 4:24 PM By Zakir Hussain SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong believes that while politics in Singapore will not remain static, how it changes will depend on the voters and the way new PAP MPs and ministers bond with them. He also drew a comparison with Britain and the United States, where different regions are strongholds of competing political parties, and they tilt one way or the other but "never completely topple over". But in Singapore, he said: "We are flat. The tallest mountain in Singapore is Bukit Timah so you make one small change, the sky can change." "That is not a comfortable position to be in, but that is the way our society is and we have to know that." Mr Lee was responding to a question, in an interview with Singapore media, on how he saw democracy here evolving over the next few decades amid calls for more political diversity. "It must change. I am not sure which way it will change," he said. "We are in a very unusual situation where there is a clear consensus for the ruling party. There is a desire for alternative views, yes. But basically Singaporeans want the PAP to govern Singapore. "If you ask the Opposition parties - whether it is the Workers' Party or the Singapore Democratic Party - nobody says 'Vote for me, I will form the government, I will be the Prime Minister, I will run this place better'." Hence it is important for the Government to continue to maintain support and be able to carry the consensus of the population over the long term. But this state of affairs will not remain, he said, and how it changes will also depend on the situations the country faces. "If you run into turbulent situations, people will be very worried about the dangers and there will be a flight to safety," he said. "If you are in a peaceful, prosperous environment, people say: 'Well, this is the way the world is, why do you need the government? We can prosper without the government'. "So there is no safety net. There is no certainty that what we have now is going to continue. And each election is a very serious contest for who is going to form the next government," he added. Asked what he felt was a healthy version of checks and balances in Parliament, Mr Lee said voters should elect the best person to represent them. In Singapore, there was no possibility of Parliament being all PAP, with Non-Constituency and Nominated MPs, he said. "Outside of Parliament, voices are influential, too. There is media and new media, blogs build up a following, and so there is no lack of alternative voices." But voters should ensure those they elect are up to the mark: "A person who sits in Parliament and is not competent, is not going to be a check on the government. "A person who can be in Parliament and can raise questions, ask and debate and intelligently questions what is the government doing and why are you doing this and not doing that - that is what you need when you are talking about checks and balances." MPs must be able to operate on the ground too, as a "test of readiness and competence", he added, in an oblique reference to the WP, which has come under fire from PAP MPs over the management of its Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. "How you run your town council, whether your constituencies are well managed or not, there is a reason why we put the town councils under the MPs - because we want it to have this test," he said. Taking up a similar point in his Mandarin interview, he said: "You can do a lot of work if you have a good opposition MP." Only three PAP members were elected to the Legislative Assembly in Singapore's first election in 1955 - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Goh Chew Chua, he noted. "Three of them were sufficient to establish a force, so it is about having the best and not the most," he said. -------------------------- Very self assuring to think that Singaporeans wants PAP... So, have YOUR MP represented you? In what ways did he/she? Harping over AHPETC finances. Why have the PAP not been accountable with mini-bonds issue? Did they? Even the simple Rat problem, they dare not come forth and clean with the issue, but BLAME people.

21-01-2015, 09:40 PM	#45
therat Arofanatic Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 279	http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015...see-step-down/ Who is in ur list? Heehee

26-01-2015, 01:05 PM	#46
xersion Dragon Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 707	fine or no fine....? got special instructions given not to fine https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=929251673786667

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)