Singapore September 11th 2015 elections

[2952-0-0]

Is this not more of an electoral-type event?

Probably not. The PAP enjoys genuine support of a clear majority and won't need to stuff any ballot boxes to win a landslide. It's more an election than event.

[2952-0-0]

Is this not more of an electoral-type event?

Probably not. The PAP enjoys genuine support of a clear majority and won't need to stuff any ballot boxes to win a landslide. It's more an election than event.

Yeah, but they turn off the electricity in areas that don't support them.

The PAP is too suave to do that. The Party provides scholarships to the highest achievers in school, to study at the world's best universities so that they would return to Singapore and enter the civil service. Hence, it can legitimately claim to be the most competent choice. Its vast patronage network also means, of course, that only by joining the PAP can anyone realistically effect change.

On the other hand, it uses its courts to disqualify opposition candidates on technicalities, harass critics with libel suits, and uses the media to highlight the opposition's unreadiness to assume power.

Once it's safely in power, it's surprisingly open to debate on actual policy matters. As long as you don't threaten their hegemony of course.

[2952-0-0]

So did the PAP really shift to the left to retain power, or are they stealing the Liberal Party of Canada's tried and tested method of campaigning on the left and governing as catch-all centrists?

[2952-0-0]

PAP is a strange beast - like Singapore itself. The fact that Singapore is "business-friendly" is often misinterpreted to mean it is a free market place. In fact, it is almost a Soviet-style planned economy, with the government heavily interfering into even minute business and private decisions. In that sense, the regime has always been true to its socialist roots. So, how are you going to be defining "left" and "right" for Singapore?

That's rather like Hong Kong too. Hong Kong has never been, contrary to what libertarians keep claiming, a free market paradise. The government doesn't intervene with Soviet-style Five Year Plans, but its cozy relations with business tycoons means it does their bidding. It *does* throw bones when the proles get too uppity, like introducing a pitifully low minimum wage and regulating the price of basic food items.

Ironically, "leftist" in Hong Kong typically means "pro-China", which often means "pro-business tycoons"!

[2952-0-0]

I believe Hong Kong is a lot less heavy-handed and controlled. It may be crony capitalism, but, at least, it is capitalism. Singapore, actually, is demonstrating that central planning does not need to lead to penury.

Half of Hong Kong's population live in government subsidized housing of some sort. The other half pay the highest rents in the world. Even under British rule, the government still intervened when necessary. The Commies were always looking for opportunities to exploit grievances, after all. And, since the handover, intervention has markedly increased. Where else in the world, does the government own a majority stake in a Disney resort?

Sure, anti-government activists don't get sued on phony pretexts in Hong Kong, nor is the right to protest so regulated to be dead letter. But the place is Singaporizing in more subtle ways: the unfair electoral system was the proximate cause of last year's protests. Newspapers which criticize the government find it difficult to attract ads from conglomerates who are reluctant to upset Beijing. The leaders of many social organizations (universities, trade unions, etc) have been steadily replaced by those more friendly to the government. And I guarantee you that the students who led last year's protests will undergo a very difficult job search.

Unfortunately the bureaucracy's competence isn't Singaporizing.