Mr Kaplan,

It is – and was – my view that Resignation is the key reason for the PAP’s dominance, which is somewhat qualitatively different from your argument of “either loyal, deferential or resigned”. So mine is only a partial support, not a total support.

Moreover, I would identify the cause of the resignation as what you gave as reason 1: that Singapore is not a true democracy. Stereotypes may be exaggerated, but as many of your “detractors” would tell you, stereotypes do contain a grain of truth. The tough part is locating and accepting that grain of truth.

As an example – and you will not get this from another outsider – at a recent government scholars’ seminar in London, one of the Permanent Secretaries told the crowd assembled that the “your role as a scholar is to submit to your superiors in the government”. Now how democratic do you think that is?

The available Singapore public opinion is often not very reliable because of the nature and size of the samples involved.

Responding to more specific issues:-

(1) The GRC system. Agreed that some other countries (e.g. in Africa) might face apparently more severe restrictions on electoral matters, but these restrictions are usually skin-deep; they are not systemic restrictions written into the law, like the GRC system is. The GRC system preys on the lack of Opposition politicians vis-a-vis PAP politicians to discourage people from joining the Opposition from the resigned sigh that “we are too small to win”.

(2) The Mass Media. Behind the gleaming advertisements by the Economic Development Board about Singapore’s global connectivity, there is a digital divide prevalent in Singapore, between the younger generation and the older generation, and between the upper middle-class and the lower middle-class. I believe that you can find data for this if you look hard enough. Plus, there is still a minor linguistic divide in Singapore.

(3) Why do workers appear to prefer the companies that are ripping them off? For the sake of personal and economic security. The GRC system is actually a hidden “tyranny of the majority”, and so it works the same for GLCs.

The full answer is an analysis of 3-dimensional Prisoners’ Dilemma, where each person does not know what the other two are thinking. Rationally, the person then picks what appears to be the safest option, which then turns out to be a poor-quality option. Between being ripped-off and being made into an economic pariah, what would you prefer?

(4) The point is accumulation.

(5) Probably none would answer that they fear being “tracked”, but such an answer would not be certain. If Singaporeans thought that you were a secret agent of the ISD, they would reply like that to avoid being punished for political incorrectness. This kind of question is a loaded question in the political atmosphere of Singapore.

(6) The answer to your meta-question: It is irrelevant. The internet (apart from tunnelling software) provides a sheltered environment that abstracts from real life, so that the same discussion expressed vociferously on the internet under pseudonyms would not be expressed as vociferously – or even not at all – on the physical streets.

1) Arix @UK

/// “your role as a scholar is to submit to your superiors in the government”.
Now how democratic do you think that is?///

Actually, i agree with most of your point except for your choice of example.
Using hierarchy within the civil service as evidence of lack of democracy is something lost on me.

Civil servants are not voted in by the public. Like all civil service throughout the world (including US and Europe), all civil servants follow a hierarchy, which goes all the way to the top civil servant and then eventually, to the politicians. So civil servants are never directly controlled by the public (democratically) and only indirectly controlled through politicians.

So having a civil service hierarchy is not a symptom of dysfunctional democracy, it is just how civil service is run. And this is the case even for major democracies.

Perhaps your point is better made if you used the example of the ‘party whip’ because that targets the democracy part more.

RW,

The point is with the word “submit”. My issue is not with the hierarchy in civil service, it is with the idea that PSC scholars – and yes, I am referring to the PSC – who are trained in creative and critical thinking are required to suddenly forgo all of this to “submit” to the government. Having an unquestioning civil service – especially at a higher level – is a symptom of dysfunctional democracy.

In fact, the use of the Party Whip in itself cannot be said to be a symptom of dysfunctional democracy, as you claim. In certain crucial matters, a form of party whip is essential to ensure that these decisions get executed quickly. The alternative to Party Whip is Unanimous Consent, but that is only valid for non-essential matters.

Cheers!

Abt Bryan Caplan’s points..

I beg to differ on the mass media argument. Assuming the presence of internet lead to free flow of information lead to people are able to get the information they need can be tricky.

As Arix @ UK pointed out, there are still many natural barriers to free flow of information through internet- such as (i) lack of tech savvy skills (digital divide argument) (ii) language skills. But one thing that was not mention is the still nascent development of the singaporean bloggersphere. we still lack gd agglomerated websites such as politico. alternative information is still fragmented among various websites so users need to incur a “search cost” to find the information needed. So i don’t think we can equate internet = automatic information empowerment.

i appreciate the point that comparing to other countries, with much more fear and torture, people still step forward despite the odds. So what is unique about Singapore? Maybe we are less brave? Possible, but probably it is because situation in those countries are more dire and unacceptable, that you will have some people who will be ‘crazy’ or ‘brave’ enough to take the cost, thus breaking the collective action problem. In Singapore, we are relatively more comfortable, so even though the barriers are lower (in comparison) for us, the benefits are also lower. So we remain stuck in the collective action trap.

Now if you use international comparison as yardstick, you might think the level of barriers is lower so it is acceptable.

But if we look at it in absolute terms and in it specific context, the barriers will look higher vis-a-vis the benefit. If the goal is to have a functioning ‘market’ choice of political parties, we have to look at it from this MB-MC perspective.

4) Arix @UK

Gd points!

I agree it sounds silly from a management point of view to have submission. It stifles ideas and encourages groupthink etc. But from accountability point of view, if civil servants become disconnected from the accountability chain, they are no longer connected to the people, even indirectly. We can only rely on their conscience not to go amok.

So it’s a tradeoff between management and accountability. That is where gd managers come in- they listen to your ideas, think it thru, and if agree, they will take responsibility for it.

For party whip, i agree it makes things efficient and may be sometime necessary. but from democratic view, it ties the hands of representatives to represent the people. that makes it somewhat uncomfortable from democracy theory. But then again, most people in singapore vote by party not by individuals (who knows all their MPs name?). so maybe the vote on party lines (which is what pple vote for anyway) does not do much damage after all. ;)

Kaplan, Kaplan, my dear. Would you perchance be a Republican or a Republican voter? Please reply.

Also you said:

“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.”

The you go on to say immediately:

Re: “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?”

Kaplan, my dear. Dear, dear professor. Don’t you know even the first thing about the different reach that the internet – and specifically the non-PAP political sites – in Singapore – has compared to the continued and all pervasive influence the traditional media, not to mention the entrenched influence of decades of indoctrination which incidentally is transmitted over the generations.

Or is this too incovenient a fact to include in your oh-so intellectual musings?

Say, exactly how long DID you spend in Singapore, and how well do you know Singapore in-depth to come to such sweeping generalizations ‘that a Nazi-level system of thought-control’ can so easily be dismissed and to ask ‘how important could this thought control have been in the place’ because it ‘doesn’t seem to have made a dent in the PAP’s dominance’?

Just how high were the IQs of the civil servants that you met in Singapore. I ask because it is very discordant with the impression I have formed from having lived in Singapore most of my life and having lived substantially long enough in other countries to know their civil service well enough to compare.

Also, how was your trip to Singapore financed?

WOOHOO, my quote was selected. Let me reply to it.

“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?”

My argument for this is that the PAP has created an idea of thought in Singapore that one’s academic ability and qualification defines one’s worth. The emphasis on education, scholars and scores has created a culture in which a person’s worth in Singapore is based on his alma mater. Even now, many who dislike the PAP are following this paradigm subconciously.

Ask those who dislike the PAP their reasons for not voting in the opposition. They will probably reply that the opposition isn’t good enough (based on their backgrounds and occupations). Yet, the same group of people do not question whether those in power, the academically brilliant ones, about their failures and if they have really done their jobs well. So even with the proliferation of anti-PAP views on the net, it comes down to qualifications for voters, especially academic ones. The cab driver (unless you’re the one with the PHD) will always be deemed inferior to the Havard graduate who is intelligent but callous.

That is why despite the unrest among the non-elites, the PAP still gets voted in power. It comes down an unwillingness among Singaporeans to vote in those who are not academically brilliant, a system created from young.

The Singapore education utilises a streaming system which seeks to develop the abilities of the creme de la creme. From young, students are already being categorised in classes (EM1,EM2,EM3) to reflect their academic abilities and the differences are further accentuated in at the secondary level (NT,NA,EXPRESS, neighbourhood schools, IPS). Although the system is useful in developing skills of those who are gifted, it has also created a culture in which a child’s worth is based on his school and academic results.

Needless to say, these concepts and ideas carry on to adulthood and as long as PAP has a monopoly on the “brightest” brains in Singapore, they can convince the voters to vote for them. I’m also sure some of us here will remember LKY’s atttacks on Chiam’s ‘O’-level results whilst lauding Mah Boh Tan’s.

There are other measures like national education and our social studies textbook (read through the book and be amazed by the BS in it!) but I’m won’t talk about those.

Oh and the Goebbel’s remark was to show the brilliance of this system. The best kinds of propaganda are the sublimal ones, the ones where the victims don’t even realise that they have been affected by it.

Dear Mr Caplan, There is a clear divide between information circulated in the internet and information circulated in the daily newspapers. You just have to compare viewerships of the 2 medias. I suspect the government is allowing this discussion becauset:

1) It is hard to stop the internet but a lot can be done to slow / block certain traffic.

2) It is not YET a significant threat to PAP. When it does become a significant threat, I trust they will put in sufficient resources to control it

If the Government issues another mass daily newspapaer licence, owned and run by non-government officers. Allow this to run for a couple of years before a GE. If the PAP can still defend its share of the votes, I will believe you!

@ Robox

I think its unfortunate you choose to attack Caplan’s integrity rather than address the substantive issues in his comments.

If you had bothered to read his blog AND his books, you would know he is an anarcho-libertarian. Meaning he doesn’t vote, either for Republicans OR Democrats.

Its Ilogical why so many support WP they did not win.
I am trying to tally what i see with the results of the last election.
Still confusing, perplexing to me.

We have to accept a lot of people are unhappy but they carry on to vote for pap. Why? I think they are scared of XXX, but purely selfishness and greed.

1. fear of being blacklisted
2. fear of no upgrading
3. fear of no gst credits to spend
4. fear of estate turning into slumps

The thought process has been formed by through complex national strategies execution done by probably PMO. They understand the weaknesses of many Singaporeans and work on that. But of course, this is not going to be long term as people would eventually get so frustrated that they dont care 1-4 to anymore as they know “Nothing is free” and we dont depend on the ruling for food and living, we work to survive.

So they have decided the next strategy was to import foreigners from India and China and fast track them for PRs within 6 months and offer citizenship in another 6. This influx was quick and furious and over 2 or 3 years, so many imported and given red passports.

Singapore think they are smart but they always behind the people who planned these national strategies at pmo. We need to realise that their strategies are only to ensure they win at all election and in full control of the parliament. The output is just economical growth, ignoring the whole lot of average citizens who would eventually be marginalised and left to fend for themselves.

We have created a national divide, elites and us. And this gap is now so wide, no one has answers. There come a time, when the average citizens discover this ploy, its too late. So influx of so many foreign born citizens, your vote does not mean anything then. And you maybe be unhappy and sad, but your one vote means nothing in the end.

i suspect the mind of most singaporean have being molded into such thinking of no direction i.e in fear in all these years by ruling party. i am just one of them but not anyone as i am struggling as i get older though i hv learned and gain so much experience in works. but what’s the point? the FWs & FTs simply wipe that out on most of us.

#12, its too clear to me, there is ONLY 1 way out.
As time goes by more and more will become new citizens.
More and more who do not like it here anymore would ‘resign’ and be replaced by new citizens.

I wonder why last time they say stop at 2 and then recent years, they want so many new citizens?

If only we can know of all voting-age citizens HOW MANY really support them or not support them.

Alas, we cannot know due to Walkovers.

Could a situation occur where a New Citizen gets to vote but not a citizen who reside in a walkover ward?

To Han on November 7th, 2009 11.31 am:

Re: “If you had bothered to read his blog AND his books, you would know he is an anarcho-libertarian. Meaning he doesn’t vote, either for Republicans OR Democrats.”

A libertarian is not necessarily a liberal especially, in my opinion in the American context.

It’s exactly why I ASKED him about how he votes: because I don’t know myself. Is seeking verification so wrong so much so that you would construe it as an attack?

Still, I disagree with you that he votes neither Democrat nor Republican: at best he is part of the all-important swing vote. But the reason that I want to determine this information for myself is because:

a. like the PAP government that he seems to be in service to, he only targetted US municipalities with a near monopoly of Democrats – he could have done exactly the same with municipalities with a near monopoly of Republicans;

b. the PAP government is effectively the Far Right faction of the US Republicans and the two seem to be in cahoots.

I suspect that he is a Republican based on how he angled his article.

Hi Arix @UK#1,

As an example – and you will not get this from another outsider – at a recent government scholars’ seminar in London, one of the Permanent Secretaries told the crowd assembled that the “your role as a scholar is to submit to your superiors in the government”. Now how democratic do you think that is?

Was this the seminar dated 31 Oct 2009 where PSC Chairman Eddie Teo said that we shouldn’t discriminate rich people? LOL

Hi Robox #15,

Please focus on Bryan Caplan’s reasoning, not his background.

Cheers
Donald
Deputy Editor
The Online Citizen

He sounds like an authoritarian apologist.

Through Singapore’s 44 years of independence and bearing in mind that General Election voting is compulsory by law in this country, it is likely that half of Singaporeans have never voted at all in our adult lives. Does Mr Kaplan know of this?

Also, does Mr Kaplan know that our vote is tied to priority ranking of public housing estate upgrading works? A vote for the ruling party will improve that electorate’s priority qualification for HDB Lift Upgrading Programme.

Laws (just and unjust) are passed by a Parliament of 82:2 with very rare occasions for lifting Party whip. Which MP within a GRC should take up my concerns as a citizen when he/she votes to pass/repeal such law? Are these cogent, Mr Kaplan?

The Pariah, http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com

Maybe us Singaporeans suffer from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

After all, our founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, told us before not to think that we can change the ruling party.

Since we know that we cannot change the ruling party, even though we may be unhappy with the PAP for one reason or another, we learn to develop a sympathy, convincing ourselves that the PAP is for the best, and even develop a liking for it.

Its like how many male Singaporeans actually defend the need for conscription.

It is like drug-addiction. Small doses initially just for thrill and curiosity. Then as years go by, these small doses accumulate enough poison in the body (and the brain) and we get so used to it that we simply cannot do without the PAP. I call this the Addiction Syndrome.

Most Singaporeans have subconsciously developed the clutch mentality, leaning towards the govt for everything. This has been noticed by the PAP leaders and that is why they keep cautioning us not to develop the clutch mentality. But, alas, it is too late.

Singaporeans in general are addicted to the PAP’s rule and it is very difficult for them to shake off their unhealthy urge and desire to cling onto the PAP for as long as possible, even though they are feeling the pains. This is of course good for the PAP but will it be good for the country in the long run? We really don’t know.

However, I see some light in the horizon. I hope the PAP’s present deliberate policy of replacing local Singaporeans with new citizens will backfire in 20 to 30 years’ time, as in the case of the “Two-Is-Enough” family planning policy of the early 70s. The impact of this policy can only be felt 20-30 years down the road. By then many things can happen and it may be too late to engage the reverse gear.

The light I see is that these new citizen policy, like the family planning policy, will be the undoing of the PAP. The new citizens will be the ones who will bring down the PAP!

This is my vision and this is my hope. And when that day comes, my loyalty and my vote will be to the New Citizens Party!

Dear RW

Honestly it is insane, submission means proposing but if your proposals are not taken up by your elected political masters because of their political viewpoint then tough u have to submit.

Its a basic principle of all levels of government, in all democratic countries. Submission of the civil service is vital for policy to work from leaders down to the average civl service joe.

Locke

20) lockeliberal

I think i agreed with you.. that civil servant should submit to elected politicians for accountability reasons. I just think that the leadership in civil service should ALSO adopt gd management skills to avoid the dangers of grp think etc, and mitigate the downside of this accountability chain.

Maybe my point got lost in my rambling. ;)

9) Born-A-Singaporean on November 7th, 2009 10.45 am

If the Government issues another mass daily newspapaer licence, owned and run by non-government officers. Allow this to run for a couple of years before a GE. If the PAP can still defend its share of the votes, I will believe you!

Yeag right! you think the old man will allow all the dirty things of him and his party to surface to the whole lot of pap loyalists who’s been blindfully following the party without questioning even there are doubts? and if the whole truth is out to the awareness of the entire taxpaying citizens of singapore, what do you think will happen to those MIW, anybody’s guess is as good as mine lol. . . . .

If the Government issues another mass daily newspapaer licence, owned and run by non-government officers. Allow this to run for a couple of years before a GE. If the PAP can still defend its share of the votes, I will believe you!

No need to wait for a couple years, the entire truth with concrete evidence and proof will be out within months!

You just have to chop down the big tree and you will see lots of monkeys scatter on the ground level. It’s just natural of how logical things happen in the universe.

The opposition should just constantly state to the electorates that if they are voted in as government,they would be doing,if not,a better job that PAP.

Who for who to said that opposition would do a worst job?what if they can do better than PAP?

anyway,opposition needs to accelerate their campaign.

All they (the oppositions party) need to do is just assure the people that they can and will do those things that those MIW cannot do till today. The rest is not important anymore, at least for now. You people still believing and buying into those MIW stories that without them, singapore will collapse? No man, its their pockets will collapse, not the nation, don’t treat the citizens like idiots!

I believe it is absurd to insists that you can have democracry without liberty.

AhMeng_TheZoo

Yesterday, 10:59 PM

——————————————————————————–

It looks like the PAP’s “open legs wide wide and bend forward” policy to FWs / FTs / PRs is not going to change after all, and we will face another tsunami influx of foreigners into Singapore after the next GE.

It is perhaps timely to remind fellow Singaporeans what we can expect from a MIW Government if we give our votes to them.

Herewith, please find a post by a Hardwarezone forumer Ixnay which says its all :

You voted for PAP, and you get to pay 7% GST instead of 5%.

You voted for PAP, and they peg power to the price of oil even when 80% of Singapore’s power comes from natural gas.

You voted for PAP and your CPF money gets lock up for another 3 years more than the original.

You voted for PAP, and your ministers demanded a 85% pay raises.

You voted for PAP, and your job went to a foreigner.

You voted for PAP, and your neighbors become foreigners.

You voted for PAP, and your elderly gets to enjoy the dignity of employment by cleaning toilets, scavenging trash bins for aluminum cans and selling tissue papers.

You voted for PAP, and your minsters tell you it is your fault that Mas Selemat escaped.

You voted for PAP, and your government would rather lose millions at sinking foreign banks rather than to save you from starvation.

You voted for PAP, and not only do your ministers literally spit on you, but their scions tell you to “get out of their elite uncaring faces”.

You voted for PAP, and you are amply rewarded with ERPs at your doorstep.

You voted for PAP, and Lee Hsien Loong pledged to fix the oppositions.

You voted for PAP, and you got a Division 3 Prime Minister who needs 2 mentors to hold his hand.

You voted for PAP, and you got a large serving of Mee Siam Mai Hum, at your own expense.

You voted for PAP, and your salary stayed stagnant for more than a decade while the cost of living shoot sky high.

You voted for PAP, and you see the foreign kids get a place in school while you child get zilch.

You voted for PAP, and you find that your public transport is no longer “public”.

You voted for PAP, and your ministers want to house 1,500 foreign workers right smacked in the middle of a peaceful neighborhood without any concerns for you.

You voted for PAP, and the government readily reward your men with more hookers than they can ever poked in Geylang.

You voted for PAP, and your government happily demands $5000 ang pao from you when your maid runaway or get pregnant even though you had nothing to do with it.

You voted for PAP, and your government glorify themselves with Olympic sized banners of their ghastly faces to scare away ghosts during the Chinese 7th month, courtesy of your S&C contribution to your town councils which is suppose to go toward making life in your neighborhood better.

You voted for PAP, and they protect the interests of the petrol companies by making you pump 3/4 tank before you cross the causeway.

You voted for PAP, and they see nothing wrong with fining you for driving a foreign registered car into Singapore.

You voted for PAP, and you discover that world-class super talented multi-million dollar minister with all the state resources and manpowers cannot even catch a limping man in this tiny island state
after more than half a year.

You voted for PAP, and you realise that your MP’s job is not to speak out for you in parliament, but to tell you to tighten the belt, bite the bullet, eat lesser and work longer.

You voted for PAP, and your kids have to stay with you till 40 years old, as they cannot afford the cheapest “public” housing.

You voted for PAP, and your government tells you that their interpretation of subsidies is the profit that they forgo making, instead of actually paying part of the cost.

You voted for PAP, and everyone in Singapore suddenly got elevated to Swiss standard of living, except you, and everyone around you.

You voted for PAP, and your neighbors can sell your home for you (en-block), whether you like it or not.

You voted for PAP, and your organs automatically belongs to the government (HOTA).

You voted for PAP, and you have to pay administration fee to use your own money when you are sick (Medisave).

You voted for PAP, and your sons get to spend 2 or more years as free labour in National Service and 13 more years as reservists, so that the foreigners can have a safe country to work in.

You voted for PAP, and you found out that each of your son is worth $30k, because that is what you are going to get if your son die while serving the foreigners.

You voted for PAP, and you get a grand party every year on 9th August celebrating more salaries for PAP.Not everyone is invited though, you will still have to ballot for it.

You voted for PAP, and they tell you that there is a corner called Hong Lim Park where you can go to talk all you want, other than that, shut up unless you have something nice to say.

You voted for PAP, and you get a world-bottom “nation-building” press serving you the latest propagandas, regardless of truth.

You voted for PAP, and in order to buy a car, you have to first pay for a piece of paper that cost more than the car itself.

You voted for PAP, and you must vote for PAP! You cannot even think about not voting for PAP. Because a certain inaccurate old man said that he will call in the army if you don’t.

So vote for PAP.

Read the list above again, and vote for PAP.

Go ahead, vote for PAP.

More good years eh ?? Vote for PAP.

For Swiss standard of living ?? Vote for PAP.

Mee Siam Mai Hum ok ??
=======================================================

In ST online, in reply to Why we need more immigrants by GCT.

Couldn’t have put it better.

@ Robox

The American definitions of “right” and “left” are sadly misleading, and a false dichotomy, and there’s no reason why you should use it in your understanding of political ideology.

Libertarians are the only real liberals in any society, and for that reason we are attacked by those from the “right” and “left”.

Is it any business of the government or any other third party to interfere in consenting agreements between two adults?

This one single sentence encapsulates what libertarianism is about. The “right” in American wants to use the coercive power of government to control your personal freedoms, the “left” want to use the coercive power of government to control your economic freedoms.

If by “far right” you mean the socially conservative religious right, then you are so far off the mark that you will be classified a “bobo shooter”. Bryan Caplan is an atheist. Bryan Caplan is emphatically NOT a Republican.

But if by “far right” you mean a belief that individuals can better their lives by having the freedom to pursue their own self-interests without harming non-consenting third parties, them you really have no idea what “liberal” means.

Social and economic freedoms are two sides of the same coin and you cannot have one without the other.

I shall repeat what I said to you before: your comments attacking Bryan Caplan personally are without merit, and as long as you have not read “The Myth of the Rational Voter”, you have no credibility as far as criticism of Bryan Caplan is concerned.

Donaldson (#16),

Yes that one precisely!!

Han (#29),

2) Which “leftists” attack libertarians?

3) Yes, if that action has implications on other parties.

5) That is interesting. How do you know that Bryan Caplan is an atheist?

8) Economic freedoms tend to be more abstracted from daily life than social freedoms, so you can have economic freedom without social freedom, but not vice versa.

Hi everyone,

Please stop discrediting Bryan Caplan’s reasoning on the basis that he is perceived as a PAP man. He is an academic. I deem this as a personal attack against his credentials. If this goes on, some comments may undergo moderation. Let’s have a proper debate. He has been nice enough to engage the TOC community. Let’s be nice to everyone.

Cheers
Donald
Deputy Editor
The Online Citizen

Bryan Caplan met a handful of civil servants and derived his findings from a narrow scope. We will respect his personal views.

But no foreigner can understand the politics of S’pore better that a Singaporean.

We have grown up with the government. Yes! the first twenty years was nation building with the old guards.

The last 20 years was tax tax tax and enrich themselves to become the world’s millionaires of ministers. And our hard-earned CPF monies are not allowed to be withdrawed but put into compulsory life annuity.

Bryan, do you know what the social divide between the elites and the poor old folks of S’pore. We are our best answer.

What is democracy? What is liberty? We want a fair deal from our government. not just enriching themselves and their elite cronies and balls carriers.

Donaldson on November 7th, 2009 4.09 pm:

1. Re: “Hi Robox #15,..Please focus on Bryan Caplan’s reasoning, not his background.”

Sure, as a good Asian – I mean as an Indian Singaporean who will now succumb to the Chinese demand that we offer ourselves as ‘the nail that sticks out and should be hammered into place’ – I will certainly oblige especially seeing that you have every power to demand total obedience to you and your agenda, whatever that agenda may be.

As an Indian, I am NOT prone to thinking strictly within the box. Thus, I was merely thinking that by drawing attention to Brian Caplan’s background which could have a strong bearing on his reasoning, I would also be pointing towards his vested interests in this entire matter: 1) his vested interests in serving the US Republican cause which I suspect he is in service of; and, 2) his vested interest in serving the PAP’s cause if indeed it is be true that his trip to Singapore, what with such privileged access to so many Singapore civil servants and their opinions that even Singaporeans are not privy to, could actually have been financed by the Singapore taxpayer under the guise of normal government business.

But there is one minor annoyance – to you – I would like to raise now:

Why haven’t the posters in the following thread been similarly instructed to focus on this young SDP member’s reasoning but on his educational background, an already good one I might add? Could an anti-SDP bias by non-partisan TOC be a possible explanation?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/11/youth-in-politics-%e2%80%93-young-democrat-jarred-luo/

New ERA #28

Well written! the analogies of YOU VOTE for PAP. Let these points be picked up by the opposition and publish it in their newsletters and distribute it to the heartlander
citizens to awaken them to the reality of voting for the PAPies.

Donaldson (#32),

Strange – you never seemed to write such a post when people were discussing about Prof Thio Li-Ann. Or are you only defending Bryan Caplan because someone above has said that he is an ATHEIST?

#28 and other PAP critics

One very, very gd reason to vote PAP — since 2000 my property has appreciated by 50% and we are juz out of recession. I had a nice shock when my neighbour sold his house.

This appreciation gives me options. One of which is to cash out and migrate.

So what if the PAP enrich themselves. They enrich me too.

Property-owners of S’pore (who have paid off (or almost) their mortgages, UNITE. Vote PAP in coming GE.

PAP is gd for us property owners who have paid off our mortgages.

Below is a suggestion i put to Professor Caplan.

Hi Professor Caplan

As a Singaporean I am genuinely heartened that an American academic thinks so highly of my country. Thank you!

On the question of government behaviour though, I beg to differ from your observation and opinion that Singapore is not unlike the USA or other western countries.

I suggest a very small piece of research as a litmus test.

Press-gang a public sector chief executive, or one of your academic colleagues, to criticise, say, six significant policies of the Obama administration or the New York mayor on a soap box in Central Park. Hand out flyers in Central Park a week prior to the event advertising it.

Do the same in Hyde Park, London with a UK public sector chief executive or academic.

Repeat it is Hyde Park, Sydney.

Then finally, do it in Hong Lim Park in Singapore.

Publish the findings on your website and The Online Citizen re the response of the governments in the respective countries. The results would prove or disprove your hypothesis to a significant degree.

Over to you.

Regards

Die-hard Singaporean

32) Donaldson

I agree with Donaldson.
We should concentrate on the person’s argument and not the background.

If we feel strongly against the person’s argument, surely we can articulate why we are against it other than a simple “he’s one of them, so he is wrong” answer right?

#32 Donaldson

Please stop discrediting Bryan Caplan’s reasoning on the basis that he is perceived as a PAP man. He is an academic. I deem this as a personal attack against his credentials. If this goes on, some comments may undergo moderation. Let’s have a proper debate. He has been nice enough to engage the TOC community. Let’s be nice to everyone.

Disagree and argue with Coplan by all means but lets not attack the man personally, Here is a chance for Singaporeans to show some political maturity.

36) leesjuanpat on November 8th, 2009 6.29 am

Taken from Straits Times online.

@ Arix (#31)

2) I think its not too difficult to find the usual left-wing criticisms of libertarians through Google. I apologise for not providing you the materials here but I’m sure you can find them easily. =)

3) Define “implications”. Pre-emptively I will point out to you that any reason you may give will be the exact same grounds that social conservatives will use to justify interfering with private consensual behaviour between adults.

5) http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/chrislet1
Note that the above letter is on is personal homepage hosted by his university. He has also mentioned that he is an atheist in past blog entries but I can’t find them at the moment, you may need to Google it.

His profile on Wikipedia also provides some background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan

Also note that he is an anarchist. To call an anarchist “far right” is, quite frankly, laughable.

@ Robox

Now that it has come to light that Robox is gay, riddle me this. Libertarians in the US have consistently argued for full equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/08/civil-liberties-surge/
http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/20/an-odd-silence-on-gay-marriage
http://reason.com/archives/2004/06/01/objections-to-these-unions/

I do not know how you can, in good conscience, accuse libertarians of being “Far Right” “in the American context”. Despite your claims to the contrary, you ARE most definitely trapped to “thinking strictly within the box”. You have swallowed the definition of “left” and “right” wholesale by the American mainstream media without any sort of critical analysis on your own part.

Long before any of you were here leaving comments, during the very first incarnation of TOC I was here arguing FOR the repeal of s377a, and defending my stand against social conservatives on libertarian grounds. You might wish to revise your understanding of the political spectrum to avoid cognitive dissonance.

A part of PAP’s successes could be due to their depoliticisation
of the general poplulation.
From being one of the most politically vibrant people in the region to
the most apathetic in just 2 generations.
Fear hasalso been a major contributing factor. People on the sidelines have
watched and believe me, will still be watching, how opposition politicians
have been hounded, jailed, sued and exiled for just exercising their
democratic rights.
Joining a political party is a thankless job that is unless it is the
governing party

34) Robox on November 8th, 2009 6.13 am

Why haven’t the posters in the following thread been similarly instructed to focus on this young SDP member’s reasoning but on his educational background, an already good one I might add? Could an anti-SDP bias by non-partisan TOC be a possible explanation?

Unlike here, the sentiments on that thread hasn’t went on the hyperbole. Moreover, there are ways to engage Mr Caplan without referring to his background. Arix’s posts #1 and #2 are good examples of that. I usually don’t step in to moderate as long as sentiments are more or less benign. I also don’t moderate commentary threads where I am a participant. Another editor will moderate the thread instead. Also, don’t forget that SDP article is on Jarrod’s profile, so his educational background is relevant to the topic at hand.

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? Singaporeans complain PAP does not listen to ground sentiments, but there are also Singaporeans who refuse to convey their sentiments to PAP on the ground that it is PAP they are interacting with.

Hello, here we have a foreigner (an academic—someone who comes to his conclusions through reading books) telling us SINGAPOREANS about the state of affairs here
And next;;;we cannot question whether he is a Republican, or whether the PAPies has financed him for more propaganda to brainwash the locals
Hello, i was born in Punjab India in 52, and from 53 til now i have spent 56 years here. I know about the state of affairs here too
We dont need this caplan guy to tell us about our country
Hello this is the internet lets have free speech without any restrictions PLEASE

Is donaldson a pap man? why did toc founder resigned? Why did andrew left toc? War going on?

FeverGuy,
perhaps Andrew Loh is spending more time preparing the election.

One very serious question that I ask of Bryan Caplan.
He said in his blog that
“My response:

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 than they would be in the U.S.”

Did you only speak to civil servants to seek their opinions ? As much as you like to believe that civil servants are open-minded, may I ask what type of criticism of government that our civil servants are discussing with you ? Did it occur to you that there maybe some OB markers that civil servants may not conveniently talk about because of the Godfather and his stooges around monitoring ? Perhaps I may have missed something but nowhere did I read from you blog and heard that you speak to opp party members to tell you their side of stories since you are in Singapore ? So how can you be objective to conduct your research and theorize just by listening to the civil servant’s side and criticism only, regardless of whatever discussion take place ?

May i make a suggestion to Bryan Caplan to come into TOC and we can have ‘open hearted’ discussions with him personally. This would allay any doubt about his knowledge of SIN as well as the integrity of his specialization in the local politics.

patriot

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.