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

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?

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.

That is our difference then. I put “strongly agree”.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

“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

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.)

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.

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?

Good points, though, and very easily rebuttable.

But do focus on Caplan and his reasoning.

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)

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.