- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]REBUTTING EUGENE TAN: WHY SINGAPOREANS' TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT IS ERODING[/h]
Post date:
17 Jun 2014 - 6:52pm
I would like to point out some flaws in the article “Eugene Tan: Don’t take good government for granted”.
The argument put forth by the learned professor is that Catherine Lim has made a wrong conclusion by saying that Singaporeans do not trust their government. In backing up his case, he highlights the phenomenon of self-opinion bias (with a 66 year-old example to back it up) as well as the 2001 General election results, which he believes is evidence of Singaporeans trusting the PAP most in times of crisis.
Foremost, we live in an internet age where information and feelings of the average man are more easily transmitted that ever over cyber means than ever when compared to 66 years ago: Looking at the collective response over recent government policies such as the PWP as well as the CPF MS, it would seem clear that trust in the PAP is eroding: this is certainly more reflective than the 1948 survey that the learned professor has pointed out.
Moving forward, the learned professor has also vaguely stated that the PAP has shown concern for the electorate because the PAP government has trying hard to improve lives of citizens with its policies. Such an argument is flawed in my view because any reasonable single-party government would have to repair the harm it has caused in the first place when they realise that their power is in jeopardy.
Consider this: Back in 2008, the PAP government built 3050 units of HDB flats while opening the floodgates to 145,000 foreigners. This caused a shortfall of almost 30,000 housing units and thus HDB prices shot up 15-25% in a year after accounting for COV. Given the uproar and the extent of damage to the lives of ordinary citizens, restoring the balance cannot be constituted as a “caring policy” but should be constituted as a necessary damage control instead.
Recently, over the perceived inequality caused by our conscription policies, the PAP government has embarked on a year-long exercise to solicit public feedback on how National Service can be improved. After unnecessary study trips and an unbelievable time lag, measures introduced have been slammed as mere tokenism without any real and substantial impact for conscripts. Further to the Singapore Conversation, it becomes clear that trust for the PAP is continually eroding.
Looking at the 2 by-elections subsequent to the 2011 General election, it would seem that the electorate has instead increased its trust in the opposition parties. In politically-comatose Singapore, support for the opposition necessarily implies a drop in trust for the PAP government: When their respective MPs “let the[ir] electorate down” through having an extra-marital affair, the PAP suffered a 10% vote swing against a 2% vote swing for the opposition.
Indeed the popularity of the government cannot be led by polls alone, but the reality of Singaporean life is that the electorate is losing trust in the PAP.
J Leow
TRS Contributor
Post date:
17 Jun 2014 - 6:52pm
I would like to point out some flaws in the article “Eugene Tan: Don’t take good government for granted”.
The argument put forth by the learned professor is that Catherine Lim has made a wrong conclusion by saying that Singaporeans do not trust their government. In backing up his case, he highlights the phenomenon of self-opinion bias (with a 66 year-old example to back it up) as well as the 2001 General election results, which he believes is evidence of Singaporeans trusting the PAP most in times of crisis.
Foremost, we live in an internet age where information and feelings of the average man are more easily transmitted that ever over cyber means than ever when compared to 66 years ago: Looking at the collective response over recent government policies such as the PWP as well as the CPF MS, it would seem clear that trust in the PAP is eroding: this is certainly more reflective than the 1948 survey that the learned professor has pointed out.
Moving forward, the learned professor has also vaguely stated that the PAP has shown concern for the electorate because the PAP government has trying hard to improve lives of citizens with its policies. Such an argument is flawed in my view because any reasonable single-party government would have to repair the harm it has caused in the first place when they realise that their power is in jeopardy.
Consider this: Back in 2008, the PAP government built 3050 units of HDB flats while opening the floodgates to 145,000 foreigners. This caused a shortfall of almost 30,000 housing units and thus HDB prices shot up 15-25% in a year after accounting for COV. Given the uproar and the extent of damage to the lives of ordinary citizens, restoring the balance cannot be constituted as a “caring policy” but should be constituted as a necessary damage control instead.
Recently, over the perceived inequality caused by our conscription policies, the PAP government has embarked on a year-long exercise to solicit public feedback on how National Service can be improved. After unnecessary study trips and an unbelievable time lag, measures introduced have been slammed as mere tokenism without any real and substantial impact for conscripts. Further to the Singapore Conversation, it becomes clear that trust for the PAP is continually eroding.
Looking at the 2 by-elections subsequent to the 2011 General election, it would seem that the electorate has instead increased its trust in the opposition parties. In politically-comatose Singapore, support for the opposition necessarily implies a drop in trust for the PAP government: When their respective MPs “let the[ir] electorate down” through having an extra-marital affair, the PAP suffered a 10% vote swing against a 2% vote swing for the opposition.
Indeed the popularity of the government cannot be led by polls alone, but the reality of Singaporean life is that the electorate is losing trust in the PAP.
J Leow
TRS Contributor
