-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
PAP could lose dominance in 15 years: Ho Kwon Ping
- Thread starter krafty
- Start date
'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
The Straits TimesSunday, Oct 26, 2014
pap.jpg
'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
0 0 0
0
0
Print
I share Mr Ho Kwon Ping's observations on the future of Singapore ("The next 50 years in Singapore politics"; Tuesday).
Of the three possible causes for loss of power by the ruling party, a freak election result and a split in the party are unlikely to happen ("Split-party scenario may not be all doom and gloom" by Mr Lin Howard; yesterday).
The People's Action Party seems to have taken the loss of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the last election seriously, and introduced a slew of measures to address unhappiness among citizens. Significant new policies include MediShield Life and the Pioneer Generation Package.
Voters are a practical and sensible lot, and would not risk voting in an untested government even if they are not happy with certain policies. Most people want a stable government to improve their lives, so a freak election result is not likely to happen, while a party split is not imminent.
It took a credible opposition party so long to win a GRC. But if the ruling party does not improve its performance, opposition parties may take less time to win more GRCs.
I agree with Mr Ho's observation that if future political leaders become blase about corruption, then the calculus of governance would change forever.
I see his "Dominant Party Scenario" slowly taking shape over the next 30 years if our brand of democracy still works well, if new immigrants assimilate well into our society, and if the ruling party can regain the vitality and vigour of its founding members.
Singaporeans prefer a tried-and-tested government with a good track record working with constructive opposition parliamentarians in the House.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
This article was first published on Oct 24, 2014.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/dominant-party-scenario-more-likely#sthash.XteNAERW.dpuf
'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
The Straits TimesSunday, Oct 26, 2014
pap.jpg
'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
0 0 0
0
0
I share Mr Ho Kwon Ping's observations on the future of Singapore ("The next 50 years in Singapore politics"; Tuesday).
Of the three possible causes for loss of power by the ruling party, a freak election result and a split in the party are unlikely to happen ("Split-party scenario may not be all doom and gloom" by Mr Lin Howard; yesterday).
The People's Action Party seems to have taken the loss of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the last election seriously, and introduced a slew of measures to address unhappiness among citizens. Significant new policies include MediShield Life and the Pioneer Generation Package.
Voters are a practical and sensible lot, and would not risk voting in an untested government even if they are not happy with certain policies. Most people want a stable government to improve their lives, so a freak election result is not likely to happen, while a party split is not imminent.
It took a credible opposition party so long to win a GRC. But if the ruling party does not improve its performance, opposition parties may take less time to win more GRCs.
I agree with Mr Ho's observation that if future political leaders become blase about corruption, then the calculus of governance would change forever.
I see his "Dominant Party Scenario" slowly taking shape over the next 30 years if our brand of democracy still works well, if new immigrants assimilate well into our society, and if the ruling party can regain the vitality and vigour of its founding members.
Singaporeans prefer a tried-and-tested government with a good track record working with constructive opposition parliamentarians in the House.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
This article was first published on Oct 24, 2014.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/dominant-party-scenario-more-likely#sthash.XteNAERW.dpuf
Re: 'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
This papee por lan par is still complacent the papee is the best party for the island. Sinkies are now so pissed off they do not care any more as long as the papees are voted out.
After LKY is gone, LHL will not be able to hold the papees together without LKY behind him. There are other papees waiting to unseat him as Sec Gen.
This papee por lan par is still complacent the papee is the best party for the island. Sinkies are now so pissed off they do not care any more as long as the papees are voted out.
After LKY is gone, LHL will not be able to hold the papees together without LKY behind him. There are other papees waiting to unseat him as Sec Gen.
Re: 'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
fom what i understand and feedback i received, the more likely scenario will be diverse political parties, comprises of pap and other oppo. good to see that cos as a genuine pap supporter:o
:p, i know there is a need for diversified opinion on issues rather than one man action jackson.
fom what i understand and feedback i received, the more likely scenario will be diverse political parties, comprises of pap and other oppo. good to see that cos as a genuine pap supporter:o
:p, i know there is a need for diversified opinion on issues rather than one man action jackson.Re: 'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
Everywhere in the island, one can see the new shitizens do not believe in assimilation. They created their own exclusive community. The only assimilation is to join the papees grass root to advance their personal causes or benefits. This is not assimilation, this is exploitation of the papees' desire for more political support.
Everywhere in the island, one can see the new shitizens do not believe in assimilation. They created their own exclusive community. The only assimilation is to join the papees grass root to advance their personal causes or benefits. This is not assimilation, this is exploitation of the papees' desire for more political support.
Re: 'Dominant Party Scenario' more likely
Given the way PAP has rule this country with their many major failures, if they ever get voted out, it is expected and will only be a freak election result to the PAP.
See how he claim credit for PAP for the Pioneer Generation Package.
Here, this pic below should give him a slap in his face and wake him up.
This sycophant is still in dreaming that PAP would change.
Given the way PAP has rule this country with their many major failures, if they ever get voted out, it is expected and will only be a freak election result to the PAP.
See how he claim credit for PAP for the Pioneer Generation Package.
Here, this pic below should give him a slap in his face and wake him up.
This sycophant is still in dreaming that PAP would change.
Ho Kwon Ping is politcally correct, PAP may fall faster than expected
Ho was being politically correct by saying “PAP could lose dominance in Parliament in 15 years, or lose power completely in the second half of the next 50 years ”. Did anyone expect Ho to say the PAP will likely lose power at the next election?
When Ho’s views get splashed across the mainstream media, they achieve the same effects of propaganda where the gullible may start to believe the PAP will unlikely lose the next election.
Ho cited historical trends such as Mexico’s Institutional Party, and India’s Indian National Congress, which lasted 71 years and 49 years respectively. Why did Ho cite a country 16,000 km away instead of neighbouring countries like… Malaysia?
Singapore and Malaysia possess a lot of historical, political and cultural similarities. The Barisan National (BN) and the PAP were ruled by ‘strongman’ Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew respectively. The PAP has ruled Singapore for decades and so did the BN which ruled Malaysia for 51 years from 1957 to 2008. In 2008, the BN lost more than one third of parliamentary seats.
Similarly, the PAP has been the ruling party for 55 years since 1959. If history is any guide, the PAP has already overstayed and should lose its dominance in parliament at the next election.
The PAP has overextended its stay by:
http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.c...ly-correct-pap-may-fall-faster-than-expected/
Ho was being politically correct by saying “PAP could lose dominance in Parliament in 15 years, or lose power completely in the second half of the next 50 years ”. Did anyone expect Ho to say the PAP will likely lose power at the next election?
When Ho’s views get splashed across the mainstream media, they achieve the same effects of propaganda where the gullible may start to believe the PAP will unlikely lose the next election.
Ho cited historical trends such as Mexico’s Institutional Party, and India’s Indian National Congress, which lasted 71 years and 49 years respectively. Why did Ho cite a country 16,000 km away instead of neighbouring countries like… Malaysia?
Singapore and Malaysia possess a lot of historical, political and cultural similarities. The Barisan National (BN) and the PAP were ruled by ‘strongman’ Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew respectively. The PAP has ruled Singapore for decades and so did the BN which ruled Malaysia for 51 years from 1957 to 2008. In 2008, the BN lost more than one third of parliamentary seats.
Similarly, the PAP has been the ruling party for 55 years since 1959. If history is any guide, the PAP has already overstayed and should lose its dominance in parliament at the next election.
The PAP has overextended its stay by:
http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.c...ly-correct-pap-may-fall-faster-than-expected/
PAP losing power should not be the concern
By Andrew Loh
In the past week, much has been discussed about how the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) could lose power.
Ho Kwon Ping, former detainee and current chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings, laid out various scenarios at a public forum last week of how this could happen.
On Sunday, Straits Times opinion editor, Chua Mui Hoong, picked it up and went one step further – she said that the gap between the ruling elite and the masses “is [the] biggest political risk for the PAP.”
“I think the biggest and most dangerous political divide in Singapore that can arise is that between the political and socioeconomic elite, and the hoi polloi,” Ms Chua wrote.
It is ironic that she used the term “hoi polloi” to describe the masses, in an article to raise the alarm about the detachment of the elite from the common folk.
“Hoi polloi” is often used in a derogatory sense.
Be that as it may, before we get into what Ms Chua and Mr Ho said, it is worth remembering that a collapse of the PAP is not a new idea.
Presidential candidate, Tan Cheng Bock, had raised this scenario in 2011, after the conclusion of the presidential elections.
Dr Tan, who lost to the PAP’s chosen candidate, Tony Tan, said:
“There’s definitely a division in the PAP. I can see many of the grassroots openly come and tell me they support me in spite of being told by others not to. They obviously abandoned that expected stand and it’s reflected in the votes. The PAP split is right down in the middle.”
So, there is nothing new in the idea that the PAP may collapse and how this can happen, which seems to be the focus of Mr Ho and Ms Chua.
What we should realise is that the PAP will lose power – because nothing stays permanently, forever.
So, to speculate why this will happen is really quite a meaningless and useless thing to do. It is a waste of time because it is a given that it will happen.
The real question we should focus on is, instead: do we have a system in place which is robust enough to carry Singapore forward when the PAP loses power, and when a new party takes over, or if we have a coalition government?
This is the more important question which will focus our minds on what is crucial – for the country, not for a political party which will come and go, be it the PAP or the Workers’ Party or any other.
And if the PAP govt is failing the people, isn’t it good that it loses power?
Isn’t it the responsible thing to do to vote them out?
The real question is thus: how can the system be changed or improved – so that no matter which party is in power, Singapore will not go under.
And for this, it is clear that we cannot depend on the PAP to change or for it to change the system. This is because even if it wants to, it cannot. Why?
The vested interests are too entrenched.
Do you think a grassroots chairman, for example, will tell the PAP Govt that the grassroots should be allowed to serve any MPs who have been elected by the people, whether PAP or opposition MPs? Has any grassroots chairman ever told the PAP Govt this?
And even if some have, will the PAP listen and agree to this?
Of course not.
The chairman of the grassroots umbrella organisation is also the secretary general of the PAP.
And the Board is filled with ministers from the PAP as well.
On Monday, the Straits Times reported how PAP MPs and activists were in Sembawang GRC helping to paint the homes of some rental flats residents.
It reported MP Hawazi Daipi emphasising “the importance of having grassroots organisations and party activists working together and gelling in GRC-wide activities.” [Emphasis added.]
You may well ask, “Why are grassroots organisations ‘working together and gelling’ with PAP activists?”
One would have hoped that the grassroots organisations would be apolitical or politically neutral.
The same grassroots organisations do not seem to want to work with the opposition WP or its activists.
This is but one example of how the PAP cannot change the system – it is too valuable for it at times. Being able to make use of the grassroots organisations to further its political agenda is something which it will never give up, unless there is a change from the outside, even as Singaporeans keep telling the PAP Government that the grassroots should be politically neutral.
So, it is not whether the PAP will lose power which should concern us. Instead, it is a question of how the system can be improved, which can only happen via others outside the PAP.
There are also other examples of how the PAP will not listen even to good ideas and suggestions....
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/pap-losing-power-should-not-be-the-concern/
By Andrew Loh
In the past week, much has been discussed about how the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) could lose power.
Ho Kwon Ping, former detainee and current chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings, laid out various scenarios at a public forum last week of how this could happen.
On Sunday, Straits Times opinion editor, Chua Mui Hoong, picked it up and went one step further – she said that the gap between the ruling elite and the masses “is [the] biggest political risk for the PAP.”
“I think the biggest and most dangerous political divide in Singapore that can arise is that between the political and socioeconomic elite, and the hoi polloi,” Ms Chua wrote.
It is ironic that she used the term “hoi polloi” to describe the masses, in an article to raise the alarm about the detachment of the elite from the common folk.
“Hoi polloi” is often used in a derogatory sense.
Be that as it may, before we get into what Ms Chua and Mr Ho said, it is worth remembering that a collapse of the PAP is not a new idea.
Presidential candidate, Tan Cheng Bock, had raised this scenario in 2011, after the conclusion of the presidential elections.
Dr Tan, who lost to the PAP’s chosen candidate, Tony Tan, said:
“There’s definitely a division in the PAP. I can see many of the grassroots openly come and tell me they support me in spite of being told by others not to. They obviously abandoned that expected stand and it’s reflected in the votes. The PAP split is right down in the middle.”
So, there is nothing new in the idea that the PAP may collapse and how this can happen, which seems to be the focus of Mr Ho and Ms Chua.
What we should realise is that the PAP will lose power – because nothing stays permanently, forever.
So, to speculate why this will happen is really quite a meaningless and useless thing to do. It is a waste of time because it is a given that it will happen.
The real question we should focus on is, instead: do we have a system in place which is robust enough to carry Singapore forward when the PAP loses power, and when a new party takes over, or if we have a coalition government?
This is the more important question which will focus our minds on what is crucial – for the country, not for a political party which will come and go, be it the PAP or the Workers’ Party or any other.
And if the PAP govt is failing the people, isn’t it good that it loses power?
Isn’t it the responsible thing to do to vote them out?
The real question is thus: how can the system be changed or improved – so that no matter which party is in power, Singapore will not go under.
And for this, it is clear that we cannot depend on the PAP to change or for it to change the system. This is because even if it wants to, it cannot. Why?
The vested interests are too entrenched.
Do you think a grassroots chairman, for example, will tell the PAP Govt that the grassroots should be allowed to serve any MPs who have been elected by the people, whether PAP or opposition MPs? Has any grassroots chairman ever told the PAP Govt this?
And even if some have, will the PAP listen and agree to this?
Of course not.
The chairman of the grassroots umbrella organisation is also the secretary general of the PAP.
And the Board is filled with ministers from the PAP as well.
On Monday, the Straits Times reported how PAP MPs and activists were in Sembawang GRC helping to paint the homes of some rental flats residents.
It reported MP Hawazi Daipi emphasising “the importance of having grassroots organisations and party activists working together and gelling in GRC-wide activities.” [Emphasis added.]
You may well ask, “Why are grassroots organisations ‘working together and gelling’ with PAP activists?”
One would have hoped that the grassroots organisations would be apolitical or politically neutral.
The same grassroots organisations do not seem to want to work with the opposition WP or its activists.
This is but one example of how the PAP cannot change the system – it is too valuable for it at times. Being able to make use of the grassroots organisations to further its political agenda is something which it will never give up, unless there is a change from the outside, even as Singaporeans keep telling the PAP Government that the grassroots should be politically neutral.
So, it is not whether the PAP will lose power which should concern us. Instead, it is a question of how the system can be improved, which can only happen via others outside the PAP.
There are also other examples of how the PAP will not listen even to good ideas and suggestions....
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/pap-losing-power-should-not-be-the-concern/
Similar threads
