A Uniquely Singaporean Model of Politics: PAP as Party, or PAP as Government?

Previous ArticleTin's $14,000 tuition fees
Comments (7)
  1. jax says:

    some of your arguments reinforce that the pap is right in what it is doing eg
    why cant they use upgrading as a carrot. at the end it is the govt’s job to serve its pple. tough if they happen to be in an opposition ward. what happened to staying tog, moving ahead? oh, just another meaningless slogan. wat the pap is doing is highly divisive, small-minded and mean. dare one describe it as seditious?

    even as it preaches how it cares abt spore’s future, it shows it doesn’t from the way it behaves. it cldn’t care two hecks about the country’s political devt and future. this is why it has so many probs finding good leaders. it works like crazy to suppress them. how short-sighted can u be?

    and then they tell us they’r the best there is? if the leaders are behaving like this, they have no right to expect better from the citizens. neither should they claim they have the moral right to lead.

    1. Koh Choon Hwee says:

      Not short-sighted I hope, but maybe sentimentally and foolishly still clinging on to the hope that the PAP can still reform itself.

      I agree with alot of things you say, just read the recent mrbrown article at CNNGo where grassroots leaders just cleared off residents’ potted plants etc. Hope that PAP leaders can take some of the criticism seriously but if not, as I said in my concluding paragraph, there will still be capable Singaporeans to lead and takeover.

      Thanks for comment!

  2. Russell says:

    Good attempt. What you didn’t ask is who is (the party or the government) funding these programs? Supposed LHL said it is the Party, then one need to ask if the money came from the common pool of taxpayers? Or did it come only from the residents of the constituency? If the former, then clearly there is an abuse of taxpayer funds. If the latter, then one need to ask for proofs? Because if it is the latter, there is no reason to believe why an Opposition Ward would not have been able to fund the same. Trace the money trails and you trace your voting rights as a resident on a constituency and national level. And one should also question how taxpayer money are channelled to PA (or YPAP) activities that has PArty-specific interest tangled, instead of the constituency-specific. As long as there’s no distinction of such independence, cases like Chiam See Tong serving in a makeshift office whereas PAP has its air-conditioned office will not have happened.

    1. Koh Choon Hwee says:

      That is true, thank you for your comment!
      I need to find out how exactly the system works on this I guess, as you said — trace the money trails.

      Best regards

    2. Chetan Cetty says:

      This is a very good point Russell.

  3. Russell says:

    This would be a good place to start understanding the messy art of singapore’s governance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Established in 2009, The Kent Ridge Common is the independent daily of the National University of Singapore. Writers comprise largely of current undergrads with select alumni contributing to the paper. Opinions expressed are of the writer's own. Please visit our disclaimer page for our terms and conditions.

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Kent RIdge Common and receive notifications of new posts by email.