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
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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,
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
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