The following is an excerpt from the Econlog
Bryan Caplan responds to the TOC Community.
(Top: Thousands of Supporters turned up at WP’s Rally for Aljunied GRC during GE2006,
Photo Credit: Calvin Teo)
After Singapore’s Law Minister used my article in Ethos to rebut international criticism, Singapore’s The Online Citizen asked permission to run a longer version of “Two Paradoxes of Singaporean Political Economy.” Reactions were… mixed.
***
1. While I did spent a lot of time talking to civil servants, they were happy to distinguish between their own views and the broader public’s. When I tested their claims against the available Singaporean public opinion data, they held up. The data show that that Singaporean “commoners” are very satisfied, not “suffering.”
2. The civil servants I met in Singapore were much more willing to criticize their government and entertain contrarian views that they would be in the U.S.
Other readers accused me of ignoring important undemocratic features of Singaporean politics.
***
[T]he PAP has created a thought-control system that Goebbels would be proud of. By controlling the media and most forms of input, the PAP can shape the thoughts of the young. This is manifested through simple things like singing national day songs, equating Singapore with the PAP and the muzzling of dissenting views.
My reply: Even if Singapore used to have a Nazi-level system of thought-control (and it certainly didn’t), the internet has destroyed it. It is now easy for Singaporeans to hear and voice anti-PAP views. But this doesn’t seem to have made a dent in the PAP’s dominance. So how important could this thought control have been in the place?
***
5.) The use of fear. By putting numbers on voting slip, some who wants to vote for opposition are afraid to do so for fear that it would be tracked and they will suffer consequences for it. Also scaring voters to think that if PAP is no longer government, Armageddon will happen the next day or if their constituency is managed by opposition, it will become slums.
I’m skeptical about the first fear. If I asked random Singaporeans off the record, how many would actually tell me they’re afraid of being “tracked”? The second fear is more credible. But it’s just another way of saying, “Voters believe that the PAP will do a much better job than the opposition.”
Meta-question: How should the fact that Singaporeans are even having this conversation affect your evaluation of our arguments?
Read the rest of the write-up at the Econlog
hi patriot, you think any pro pap people would dare takes on any open debate with anyone here in TOC to have their head chop off or become a fool when they are stucked with questions that they cannot or refuse to answer?
Dear Donald, Robox and all
Prof Caplan has shown us the courtesy to engage with Singaporeans and with the on line community here. I believe we should likewise treat him with the same degree of courtesy and respect in return.
All of you guys are just to hyper sensitive for goodness sake. If Prof Caplan was critical of Singapore like Chirstopher Lingle, most of you would be cheering clapping and applauding him to the rafters
He is at best someone seeking to explain the PAP’s dominance above and beyond the usual explanation of PAP dominance and control of the media, internet , electoral gerrymadering, the fear factor , suppression of freedom of expression etc etc
He has found more deeper systemic reasons which I believe the opposition should consider carefully. Of course if fundamentally one is unable to accept any other reasons apart from the usual explanation of ” control of the media, ……suppression of freedom of expression etc etc etc.” then any discussion of Prof views are moot because you are mentally incapable or disagreeing with him or even accepting his right to comment and to disagree with yours
Its btw made worse by the PAP taking HIS nuanced view and using it to justify their own actions.
Locke
If Singaporedaddy was here , you would certain be in a fix Prof Caplan. Of that I am very certain
Dear Tiredsingaporean #51:
my suggestion is for Prof Caplan to have first hand interactions with the people of Singapore. He may have been briefed and tasked to come up with a report that his host had assigned him and probably had been introduced to some locals to provide him(Caplan) informations and data.
Me guessed Prof Caplan did not have much time to relate with the average Singaporeans during his visit. Should he accept the invitation to visit TOC in Blogosphere, he will avail himself to much more facts about SIN from locals(netizens) which i presumed will satisfy his interests in the affairs of our city.
There is no other reason or agenda from my suggestion.
patriot
47) FeverGuy
///why did toc founder resigned? Why did andrew left toc? ////
thanks for the news.
This new breed of new citizens will not be the 100% same as current native batch because the nurturing is different.
They may eventually after 1 generation become 60% like native citizens, but this also means they will not become 100% like native citizens.
Though I do not like the idea of overcrowding, one good thing that might come out of this influx is CHANGE.
Native Singaporeans have a certain common mindset that cannot be changed based on solid evidence of 50 years.
Only new citizens with new mindsets MAY CHANGE. Our native citizens kpkb and turn out in force to show strong support for the WP in past many election rallies but the results speak the opposite. This speaks volumes.
Welcome, New Citizens, the natives need you to augment their mentality.
@ Arix and @ Robox
Reply is above at #44.
Han (#44),
1) First of all, I need to clarify what you mean by “left-wing”.
2) Implications: any influences and/or effects and/or side-effects that result from a particular activity. I am not going to point out any specifics, because they are not directly relevant to this topic. All I am saying here is that when other people – apart from the two consenting adults – are affected by the action of the two consenting adults, the state should have a right to intervene to judge the quality of the effect.
Incidentally, I do have great unease at the floating assumption that “Libertarians/Liberals are always right; Social conservatives are always wrong” and its lateral inverse. Both are equally dogmatic.
3) Okay, I accept.
5) I am not the one who called him “far right”. I simply wanted to see what evidence there is for saying that he is libertarian and atheist, that’s all. I am not classifying him at all.
And yes, I agree that calling an anarchist “far right” is laughable. But, let me ask you: if I told you that I was a Christian Anarchist, which part of the left-right scale would you put me on?
@ Arix
It wasn’t you who classified BC as far right of course, I was pointing out that Robox was the one who did that, and did so erroneously.
I don’t find the concept of a Christian Anarchist surprising at all, I personally do know some people who’s beliefs flow in that direction. While my knowledge of Scripture is sadly deficient, I know enough to say that Christian doctrine is not incompatible with individual self-government.
As to how would one place you on the scale, I’m sure you would agree that the normal 2 axis scale used by most people cannot capture with sufficient granularity the complexity of any individuals’ political beliefs. Personally I use the multi-axis model, commonly known as the “political compass”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
I do not enough about you to know where to place you on that compass, so I guess you may have to provide me with clues to answer your question. =)
Han (#60),
2) Bryan Caplan would disagree with you. The Letter which you linked to (more an essay actually) argues that Christianity is the source of all modern totalitarianism – Marixism and Nazism are apparently Christian heresies.
But incidentally, he doesn’t mention that he is an atheist in his letter. Maybe you got the wrong one?
3) Okay, just did it. I am Libertarian (-2.97) Left (-5.75). What about you?
Since a substantial portion of Prof Kaplan’s reply quoted the 5 points that I brought up, let me attempt a reply to his still unsatisfactory replies.
1. GRC system
[[True, but in many other countries, far more severe electoral disadvantages fail to keep the opposition from winning elections. What's different about Singapore?]]
I do not know of how other countries suffer their electoral disadvantages and as such, I am in no position to comment. To compare us to other countries is like saying “Singapore has implemented the metric system, so why can’t USA?”
Suffice to say, please take a look at the election results in the last general election before the implementation of the GRC system, circa 1984.
http://www.elections.gov.sg/elections_past_parliamentary1984.html
A simple glance and you can see out of 79 single member constituencies, 30 constituencies were uncontested. Out of those that were contested, the opposition won 1 at Anson and achieved over 40% votes at 13 constituencies. Out of these 13 constituencies, 2 of them is mere 2% away to wrestling control of the constituency from PAP. JB Jeyatratnam who won Anson were later disqualified by the machanisation of PAP and Anson was no longer a single member constituency (SMC) but in 1988, the opposition won Potong Pasir SMC by SDP founder Chiam See Tong.
In 1991 GE, the opposition went ahead and won another 3 more SMCs, 3 by SDP and 1 by WP. While the opposition has consistently garnered more than 40% votes in SMCs and sometimes close to 50% to wrestle control away from PAP, in all the GRCs, they were never able to garner over 40%. Except for 2.
In 1988, in Eunos GRC, the WP garnered 49.1%. In 1991, it was tweaked from a 3 person GRC to a 4 person GRC which causes the opposition votes to dropped to 47.62%. Apparently, the tweaking was not enough for PAP to sigh a breath of relived so in 1997, Eunos GRC was no more. However, another hot spot in Cheng San GRC emerged. Despite the big guns firing on the opposition candidates, the opposition managed to garner 45.18%. And then Cheng San GRC disappeared in subsequent elections.
Can Prof Kaplan claim then that the GRC system has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of opposition MPs?
I dare say that had there been no GRC system, we would easily have 10 to 20 opposition MPs in parliament today.
All Prof Kaplan needs to do is to study the history of Singapore’s General Election, study the trend, see how the shapes of GRCs changes such that a person living in one part of Singapore can still belong to a GRC with a name that is on the far end of Singapore. No doubt we are not a big country, but if I stay in Serangoon Gardens (central Singapore) and can still be considered part of Marine Parade GRC (south east coast of Singapore), then yes, the word gerrymandering really comes to effect.
My question back at prof Kaplan is, have you seen a system like the GRC in other countries used to such effect? Does other countries have the visibility of the election department that they can predict voting pattern up to precinct level? It is not difficult then to guessed based on migration pattern what voting results can happen in the upcoming elections.
I shall attempt to rebuff the subsequent points when I have time but this alone should be sufficient reason to explain why till now we do not have more than 2 opposition MPs in parliament.
btan (#62),
I have already rebutted all his points on his blog and here on this thread. He has not replied to either yet. Or perhaps he is busy writing another article on “Responses to Responses to my Article” which he will post on his blog shortly…
Anyhow, his name is “Caplan”, not “Kaplan”.
48) FeverGuy on November 8th, 2009 3.15 pm
/// Is donaldson a pap man? ////
LOL!
I see whoever does not agree with you (be it an outside academic or TOC editor) becomes a “PAP man”.
It reminds me of Bush’s “either you are with us or against us”.
Don’t question the validity of the issue, just take a side.
Who care if your side is wrong, just support anyway.
Just like the govt is prone to missing its blindspots because of the lack of constructive discussion, the opposition is too prone to missing its blindspots too.
If someone like Caplan or any others makes a valid point, it is beneficial because it points out a blindspot and becomes room for improvement.
In the end, what really helps any party is not a band of hardcore supporters, who are oblivious to all flaws. It is a band of constructive critics that points out its flaws, lead to improvement and the expansion of its supporter base.
This is why i firmly believe we should always argue the logic of the argument and not dismiss anything outright because of someone’s background. We may lose smth important that can lead to self-improvement.
#53 lockeliberal
Agree with you.
“He is at best someone seeking to explain the PAP’s dominance above and beyond the usual explanation of PAP dominance and control of the media, internet , electoral gerrymadering, the fear factor , suppression of freedom of expression etc etc”
The anger against him is I suspect partially because he is questioning the thesis that it is all the machinations of PAP that they (PAP) remain in power.
If there were other reasons for the dominance, it would show that the opposition had a part to play in the PAP’s domininace — eg like having people who could not fill in forms properly or the unwillingness to demonstrate.
In M’sia it too is illegal to demonstrate without a permit, but people still do demonstrate “illegally”.
#53 lockeliberal
Agree with you.
“He is at best someone seeking to explain the PAP’s dominance above and beyond the usual explanation of PAP dominance and control of the media, internet , electoral gerrymadering, the fear factor , suppression of freedom of expression etc etc”
The anger against him is I suspect partially because he is questioning the view that it is all the machinations of PAP that they (PAP) remain in power.
If there were other reasons for the dominance, it would show that the opposition had a part to play in the PAP’s domininace — eg like having people who could not fill in forms properly or the unwillingness to demonstrate.
In M’sia it too is illegal to demonstrate without a permit, but people still do demonstrate “illegally”.
First and foremost, may I ask you Bryan, how long have stayed in S’pore. What were you doing here? Is it as a visiting professor? Who ‘command’ you to summarise the political vissicitudes of our totalitarian country under one despotic ruler?
The long years of political dominance of the PAP left its mark on every facet of its citizerns.
1. Freedom of speech – oppositions are sued till bankrupt before or after elections.
2. Freedom of Assembly – a one person protest is against the law.
3. Strong association of the Myanmar junta in secret sales of weapon to them
like cluster bombs to injure innocent people.
4. The refusal to admit accepting billions of the illegal Myanmese junta money in our banks.
5. The strategies of PA and the grassroots organisations as an eye and ear to the
ruling PAP government. Nothing short of paid informations to the system.
6. The unfair GRC system of control and the re-drawing of boundaries everytime
election is around the corner to dissipate the oppositions’ strength. You cannot do it
in a single constituency.
7. The unregulated propety market and open HDB market through the years escalated the prices out of reach to the ordinary poor folks. Even the middle-class
are squeezed to suffocation.
8. The high deposit to be paid for anyone to be nominated as a candidate for election.
9. The COE tax, seemingly to curb the car population but in actual fact to collect millions from new car owners. And blaming the citizens when the public transport ridership gone down.
10. The influx of foreigners, another way of enriching the government with the billions of levies imposed per head per month.
My dear Bryan, please your take on the above few points of contention. Thank you.
To Donaldson on November 8th, 2009 2.34 pm:
Re: “Besides, let’s look at this in another way. Assume Teo Ser Luck is the target here, not Bryan Caplan. Teo Ser Luck is a PAP man and also a policy maker. Are you not going to engage Teo Ser Luck to opine your thoughts and ideas on Singapore’s public policies just because he is a PAP man?”
Believe me I would. And I already have as a matter of fact, but I have been very greatly disappointed.
Just get him here. On the ground.
If he dares that is.
Teo Ser Luck is very likely to shrivel away at my very first question to him, not unlike how that coward George Yeo reacted when confonted by Dr Chee Soon Juan in the former’s facebook account that he set up for the very purpose of a so-called ‘engagement’ that he was both intellectually ill-equipped and ill-prepared for.
It’s not going to be any different from Today’s Very Macho Derrick Paulo’s own incursions in TOC, and prompt slinking away after his oh-so definitive post @ # 59:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/11/sdp-call-for-government-to-release-electoral-map/
But I would like to turn to the question of the assumptions that appear to have been made by you:
Does any PAP MP ever ENGAGE Singaporeans, or do they merely MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS, or worse TALK DOWN TO from on high the pedestals that imagine they to sit on?
To help Singaporeans smarten up about the internal workings of the PAP government particularly in their secretive dealngs with US personages especially if they are conservatives as well, I am going to post something – in two parts because it is quite long – that I wrote elsewhere in reaction to Thio Li-ann’s well-deserved humiliation by NYU’s law faculty students and her resulting decision to cancel her classes there.
Yes, it is relevant to this thread even if it may not appear to be in its content; there is a big picture view that we need to be aware of.
Part 1
I don’t believe that there will be any significant focus on gay issues in Thio Li-ann’s course although she may just try to lay the conceptual groundwork, as she has with the topic of secularism, in the hope of scuttling LGBTs rights. This analysis is most definitely from an anti-racism perspective which in my opinion makes it stand out from all other analyses that I have come across.
From many similar previous precedents by the Singapore government involving other academics, government appointees – Chan Heng Chee, Kishore Mahbubani and Tommy Koh notably – and one politician in particular, Lee Kuan Yew for what I call the War of Attrition against Human Rights in Asia, I believe that Thio Li-ann will actually be on a political mission for the Singapore government, itself a conduit to the West for China and its quest for global supremacy to replace the US as any superpower at all. The non-separation of powers in Singapore also extends to the non-separation of roles and responsibilities: an academic is as good as being a government appointee and even leaders of private industry toe the government line with the utmost of obedience.
(All such missions have targetted only US liberal venues and there is a reason for this which I eventually hope to make clear.)
Thio’s course is after all “Human Rights in Asia” and not “LGBT Rights in Singapore (or in Asia or Worldwide)”
Ian Burama who writes for the New York Times and is a critic of human rights abuses in Asia should be encouraged to enrol for this course; I believe that he, and not the other students who don’t have the ‘prerequisite courses’, is one person who would be knowledgeable enough about the Singapore government’s disinformation campaign to be an effective check in her class.
Just as with all other missions, Thio’s course will be premised on the following “culture argument”:
1. The concept of human rights in ‘Asia’ – a grossly monolithicizing term that I expect Thio would use in the course to mean only China and Singapore – is so unimaginably different from that of the ‘US-led’ West (“It’s not!”).
2. The reason that will be attributed to this irreconcilable difference is – that’s right! – our pure and virginal culture.
This is a shrewdly calculated move first schemed by Lee Kuan Yew, and now taken up by countries all around the world especially China, to disarm Western critics of human rights abuses perpetrated by their governments. After all, if one criticizes human rights abuses in non-Western countries, then one must be culturally insensitive and therefore RACIST. And here’s where the targetting of US liberals makes most sense because far more that US conservatives, it is US liberals who are terrified of the charge – substantiated or otherwise – of racism.
Disarmed!
(to be continued)
After Thio Li-ann’s humiliating withdrawal from her NYU assignment, the Straits Time ran an article on a US ‘academic’ who had spoken out in support of Thio Li- ann and against the NYU reaction – a very democratically-informed one, mind you.
That academic in question was an obscure individual even in the US, William Donohue. No mention about his rabid homophobia in the government controlled Straits Times.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200412210001
The PAP controlled Starits Times also reported that William Donohue was from the very grand sounding National Association of Scholars, an organization that sounds like a secular one – so, what’s new with deceptive Christians in collusion with the PAP? – but is actually a rag tag collection of Christian academics which no self-respecting academic in the US would have heard of, much less associate with. (Think NAARTH.)
http://www.nas.org/
Make your own conclusions now about Brian Caplan – kind enough to engage us lowly Singaporeans, but not kind enough to work in our interests – and his real involvement in this matter.
There is an alternative: either Caplan or the PAP come clean about all of this.
Robox (#71),
It is not really relevant at all, or else I would have gone into detail when I replied to Han.
Robox (#72),
1) The LGBT issue is a messy one. The LGBT lobby has not matured in the same way that the feminist and other minority lobbies have. Complementing that, we have a reactionary religious fundamentalist wing that sees the LGBT lobby as a bulwark of the New Atheism, which is worsened by the recent offensive that the New Atheists have undertaken against religion.
2) Kishore Mahubhani, Chan Heng Chee and Tommy Koh were staff in the government. Dr Thio has never been a real staff in the government, unless AWARE has suddenly become part of the government. (Incidentally, some people do allege that AWARE is the Second PAP Women’s Wing.) NMPs may be lame ducks, but that is far different from saying that they are stooges of the Ruling Party.
5-8 ) Wow, that is a super-wild allegation, considering that she is after all, still a feminist (did you forget that in all your ranting?). “Human Rights in Asia” is a perfectly legitimate topic for comparative government; or else “Human Rights in Europe” will not be a legitimate topic, and that happens to be the title of a lecture I am attending next week. What might be more controversial is a seminar on “Asian Rights” which would parallel “Asian Values”. You are conflating both together.
Also, your only piece of evidence – which is Prof Thio’s comments regarding LGBTs – hardly supports your assertions. You are asserting that she would use the nationalist line that the PAP uses. But when she was arguing against the abolition of Section 377A, she was appealing to natural moral rights, which are of wider scope than national, regional or ethnic loyalties.
9) I suppose next you will be claiming that the Lee and Thio families have a secret pact for arranged marriage?:S
Arix (@UK) on November 9th, 2009 7.04 am”
This is not about the LGBT issue no matter how the topic gets your crank up.
I stated VERY CLEARLY that my posting was about the PAP’s secretive dealings with US conservatives, which happens to include the Christian far right that is rabid in its opposition to gay rights; that was the link that I hoped to draw.
Sorry, but I will not not be responding to your points, but do save it for a more opportune moment – it sounds debateable enough for me.
Robox (#73),
1) The first line, yes, she said that. The second line … are you sure you aren’t quoting one of her many critics (unintentionally) instead?
2) That was Kishore Mahubhani’s argument in “Can Asians Think?”.
3) She has reservations about LGBT rights; how does that extend to her being against other human rights. Or are you just making a hasty generalization here?
4) Again, an argument that has nothing to do with Dr Thio at all. You are guilty of the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy in most of this post.
5) And this has WHAT to do with Dr Thio?
6-9) Before making any more spurious links between Dr Thio and LKY, take note that the Thios are Evangelical Christians whilst the Lees are Agnostics.
10) LOL; Incidentally, you did forget one crucial point: NYU invited her in the first place.
5)
Sorry, still not falling fo your bait.
Good points, though, and very easily rebuttable.
But do focus on Caplan and his reasoning.
Robox (#76),
My bone was with how fast you are extrapolating from her views on LGBT to an entire conspiracy theory alleging her alliance with the government.
Incidentally, I checked out the NAS website, using the link that you provided. I am guessing that you didn’t, because if you had, you would realize that it is worlds away from the NARTH website. Yes, NARTH is an institution deliberately set up to defend Intelligent Design; but the mission of the NAS is to defend academic freedom pure and simple. I read through its entire mission statement, and there are not many points in that that someone with Prof Thio’s religious inclination would support. “defending against self-serving university administrators” would be treated as un-christian rebelliousness by Thio and her friends, for instance. Not every group whose name begins with “National Association” is a Secular Front for Christian Fundamentalists.
How you came to the conclusion that NAS is a Christian Fundamentalist Association is a mystery to me. Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
@ Arix #61
I’ll try searching for the blog post where Caplan states he is an atheist. Can’t seem to find it at the moment.
I’m Right (4.62) Libertarian (-4.67). =)
So it appears we trend the same on individual freedoms, but diverge on economic issues.
Han (#80),
1) No prob. Take your time.
2) Yep; I wonder: What is your answer to : “To maintain a truly free market, we require government to stomp out monopolies.” (Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree) Mine was “Strongly Agree”.
Well, I guess we would be the same on individual freedoms, except perhaps on LGBT rights. Remember, I am a CHRISTIAN Anarchist. (Anarchist in the human political sense, not in the social sense.)
@Arix #81
“To maintain a truly free market, we require government to stomp out monopolies.”
my answer was “agree”. the fear of collusion between governments and big corps is greater than the fear of big corps on its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Mr. Bryan Caplan is not wrong in his assessment of Singapore in the sight of an economist. Looking at the macro picture of Singapore, only gives him the economical view, skimping through the surface of the social political plane only gives him the front view and not the three dimensional view of the true picture.
The bulk of the people in Singapore are employed and they do not feel Singapore needed any serious makeover. It is true.
Every election there are more people that voted PAP than the opposition and that is again the truth. Everything that Mr. Bryan Caplan said is technically correct but there is one little omission from him that somewhat diminished his creditability as an outstanding economist.
What Mr. Caplan failed to tell the world is that Singapore is one large monopolized economy and politicized nation.
The big brother of the country controls every aspect of her economy and they are rather efficient at it. Surely they need to feed the workers to remain fruitful so that they will benefit the monopoly. At first all were well fed and they start to sing the song of the hand that fed them. They all cast their votes for them. However the controller of the monopoly becomes obsessed with safeguarding their absolute rule they started to recruit people from abroad believing this will strengthened their existing position which then justified the elitist extremely high salaries. This however systematically eroded the value of its workers and they are feeling the bite. The workers needed their voice to be heard. However their voices are muffled by the controllers’ well placed mechanism. They cannot be unified and they will never be able to go on strike even if they wanted to.
Ironically these workers are actually the shareholder of the monopoly but because they are not able to be united in one voice where on earth is their choice? They got no choice. They cannot even vote the controllers out of office because there isn’t any real alternatives. The master plan of the controllers has already fixed the alternatives making sure that they are either too weak or non existent.
Any serious competitor come to being they will be put to sleep. This ensure that they will not be able to break down the wall of the monopoly.
What is wrong with monopoly? There are many things that is wrong with a monopoly. The list of things are too long to be mentioned here. I just hope someone will be able to fill in the gap for me.
It is no secret that everything is in the controlling hand of the government – business, main stream media, institution etc. Everywhere you can find the footprint of the government.
To maintain the monopoly and control of everything, there is a price to pay. The art of getting rid of the competition has become so high handed that it get into the nerve of the better informed people. To keep the competition off so that the monopoly can survive some key people has got to be repressed and that is a wrong thing to do.
The writer just does not understand enough of our country, our culture and the whole political situation here.
fyi, I personally know people who believe voting slips will be tracked to see if you vote for the opposition because of the fact that they are numbered.
Caplan epitomizes the ‘foreigner who thinks that he knows’ role which the government and the local press are often fond of quoting because it sounds pleasing. Many of his arguments are very shallow and doesn’t reflect a strong understanding in issues faced by the average Singaporean imo.
Two points to make.
1) The view of “your role as a scholar is to submit to your superiors in the government” is wrong, although not for the reasons stated by comments here.
The role of a public officer, scholar or not, from PS to admin clerk, is to submit to the people of the nation. Govts can be transient, people will always be there. DO NOT EVER GET THAT WRONG AGAIN.
2) “Even if Singapore used to have a Nazi-level system of thought-control (and it certainly didn’t), the internet has destroyed it. It is now easy for Singaporeans to hear and voice anti-PAP views. But this doesn’t seem to have made a dent in the PAP’s dominance.”
I wrote a thesis about this almost 10 years back, and it is interesting to see that no one seems to be sharing my idea since then. So here it is: “Thought control” is not in the provision/exclusion of information – that could work, but it only resides in information control. Thought control is a discursive practice, i.e. the action of debating on issues, and that is actually more powerful than the mere control of information.
Chew on it…
@ Robox (#86)
Err… nowhere in that article by Alex did he mention anything about BC, or his ideas. Further while accusing other people of being “foul” towards you, you start insulting BC with things like “two brain cells”. Double standards much?
Coupled with your madcap conspiracy theories as set out in the comments, one has to question your capacity for logical thought.
Part 2 of my reply to Prof Caplan’s questions.
2) Control of Mass Media
[[If the Mass Media is so biased and out of touch, why don't Singaporeans just switch to the web?]]
Firstly, it is naive to think that the power of the web is all encompassing. While many countries did use new media to air their grieves, the good it does to them. One just need to look at Myanmar and Iran. Still status quo.
Moreover, the web as a source of political news is still at it’s foetal stage in Singapore. Singaporeans used it for entertainment, leisure, shopping, investment but as a source of political awareness and education? Not so much.
Everyday, I read posts about people lamenting that the opposition has no info or news about themselves. That they are not credible and otherwise repeating what has been said in the mass media for the past decades. This prove that the reach of the web is still limited even till today. No doubt we have politically neutral news and opinion sites like TOC and TR, their coverage of opposition news is at best limited and conservative. Ironically, the best thing that happened to the opposition.
Prof Caplan has never experienced the constant bombardment of PAP from mass media and other means. Posters of every MPs are displayed prominently all year round, reminding us who the PAP candidates are, that will put a communist country to shame.
How then do the voters make an objective decision when 365 days a year, you see the faces and hear the news of PAP and little or no news or info in the MSM on opposition party?
Is it a wonder then voters “prefer” PAP when they are ignorant about the alternatives? In fact many voters of opposition vote them out of anger at PAP more than genuine appreciation of opposition candidate. Some even declare they will vote for a dog if a dog would stand against PAP.
With PAP controlling the GRC system, and controlling all information access for the past 40 years, with the web’s reach being new and unknown, can Prof Caplan then dismiss these facts so casually?
I will continue to reply on the other 3 points as I am now busy suffering the effects of the conscription that Prof Caplan has kindly highlighted.
“Even if Singapore used to have a Nazi-level system of thought-control (and it certainly didn’t), the internet has destroyed it.”
Our dear professor is much better. At least, he has not being fed a regular diet of propaganda since he was a kid like many of us born 1970 and before.
People here only got to know about this BS the long and hard way with the machinery geared up to precisely ensure that it would indeed be long and hard way. By the time internet arrived, the ghost of fear and robotic programming (conditioning) would have already done its work on many people here. It will take time for the internet effect to really bear fruit and shift the balance.
Howelse those on top need to drool so badly for the foreign talents without any real repercussions on themselves after implementing all those unpopular policies and the occasional talking down on its own people.
Did not our dear professor say “In most democracies, advocating any of these policies could easily cost a politician his job.” Does he really think that we are so bloody different that we do not want any change.
Han (#82),
That is our difference then. I put “strongly agree”.
How can ANY of you know How many voting-age citizens really support any party given the walkover system denies people from voting?
If Voting is made mandatory and illegal to cast a spoilt vote, how difficult is it to know the answer ?
With GRC system citizens who want to cast either an Anti vote or Support vote cannot do so.
For such a tiny city, why the need to deny citizens from voting ?
I mean the GRC system.
correction: “With Walkover, citizens who want to cast either an Anti vote or Support vote cannot do so.”
My reason for the slight ‘deviation’ from the topic at hand with my posts re: Thio Li-ann etc, was for a specific purpose: to bring to attention the guerilla warfare that the PAP government has been conducting for a long time; it is a warfare that is ultimately against ALL human rights in Asia by pleading that Americans – the citizens from that country that will continue to hold power globally for a long time more – and other Western liberals just don’t have the cultural sensitivity to understand that the abuse of human rights is part and parcel of good Asian values.
They’re just RACIST!
And for merely caring about the downtrodden in Singapore and Asia!
I’ve been trying to establish that there is a pattern detectable in their covert strategy to this end and that’s exactly why the PAP government has been targetting liberal establishments in the US in particular of late for their disinformation campaign.
The corollary to this strategy is to get the soft headed conservatives into Grand Plan by co-opting them into the very same disinformation that singaporeans themselves have been subjected to.
Enter, Bryan Caplan. And he DID NOT disappoint.
Take a good a deeper look at his original article.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/11/hitting-a-nerve-in-singapore/
Hus argument is constructed such:
1. The PAP government has largely delivered on the *material* standard of living in Singapore.
But,
2. Puzzle #1: Singapore frequently adopts the kind of policies that economists would call “economically efficient, but politically unpopular.
Yet,
3. Puzzle #2: Even though it follows the forms of British parliamentary democracy, Singapore is effectively a one-party state.
Conclusion: Singapore DOES NOT need a two- or multi party scenario for economic success.
Now, where have we hear that before?
Dear Robox
He did not conclude that Singapore DOES not need a multi party scenario for economic success.
His conclusion was that Singaporeans or the majority of Singaporean’s have been willing to forgo the fruits of political liberalism for greater economic prosperity, pocke book politics over ideology.
That equation might change in time because politics is never constant, but that is a better refrain or a more in depth analysis than ” Control of the Media” , ” Suppression of freedom of expression .” etc etc
The explanation or the disagreement over the analysis matters because from that root stems disagreements over what should be done about the democratic deficit in Singapore and how that deficit should be addressed through opposition politics
Locke
The conclusion that I wrote was meant to be the sublimal conclusion that Caplan was drawing, not what he stated more explicitly in his paper.