Imagining Singapore without PAP: Why Not?

February 4, 2010 by admin
Filed under: Political Discussions 

Written by Ng E-Jay
04 Feb 2010

Mr Ling Tuck Mun’s ST forum letter “Imagining a Singapore without the PAP” (03 Feb) is a classic example of using vague, unrealistic, hypothetical scenarios to plant in readers’ minds the notion that it is unimaginable for Singapore to function without the PAP.

His exercise of building sandcastles in the air starts with asking the reader to imagine that the PAP distributed all the reserves to Singaporeans, making them millionaires overnight, and then stepped down from power to make way for a new party to take over the governing of Singapore.

Mr Ling then stated that he doubts if any Singaporean would still feel confident of the worth of having a million dollars without the PAP at the helm controlling the CPF, import of foreign workers, our defence, housing, and so on.

First of the bat, who is Mr Ling trying to fool with his atrocious mathematics? Distributing our reserves of $400 billion to a population of 4 million Singaporeans (excluding PRs) would only yield $100,000 per person, hardly making everyone a “millionaire”.

Mr Ling’s excursion into fantasy land to justify his support for the ruling party would have made hilarious bed time reading were it not indicative of very deep faults in the Singapore system.

The reason why Mr Ling doubts if anyone can realistically imagine Singapore without the PAP is because over the decades, the PAP has systematically hollowed out civil space and political discourse, entrenched itself in all aspects of society, and either co-opted or eradicated individuals or groups that did not conform to its ideology.

Over time, as the PAP monopolized all forms of political and civic discourse and established a complete hegemony in the Singapore psyche, it became almost impossible to contemplate life without the PAP — exactly what Mr Ling is experiencing.

This quote from the book “Paths Not Taken” by Michael Barr and Carl Trocki sums up the situation:

… … by the end of the 1960s, pluralism was fighting a rearguard action against the monopolisation of all public discourse – not just politics – by the state. The PAP had won the 1959 elections as a radical socialist party with strong left-wing backing. Once in government, however, the right wing of the party under Lee Kuan Yew embarked on a more conservative and authoritarian course.

In 1963 the Singapore government arrested most of the leading leftists in a security operation called Operation Cold Store, and then systematically began to dismantle and marginalise all forms of civil society in the country – from the labour and student unions to the clan associations and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

By the beginning of the 1970s, it was clear that all paths were closed except for the one being built by the ruling party. This path of elitism, meritocracy, ethnic essentialism, state-directed industrialisation, and – a radical departure from reigning political orthodoxy among post-war nationalist movements – integration with global capitalism.

By the mid 1970s, the ruling party’s hegemony was so complete and its rule so successful – at least by its own measures – that it had become difficult to conceive of the earlier alternatives having ever had merit. Public discourse now contemplated with horror the possibility that the nation-building project could have had form other that which emerged. Alternatives were seen as options for failure, if not chaos and anarchy.

Yet the studies presented here suggest that was not necessarily true. Alternative outcomes to the current state of affairs used to be well within the imagination of Singaporeans, and some of these alternatives may have have even contained viable seeds for a different kind of social development than that which Singapore experienced.

The present did not just happen. It was crafted.

It used to be within the imagination of Singaporeans to contemplate and indeed to chart a course different from the one the PAP has designed.

It should not be impossible even today, because people are meant to be free, not permanently bound by the dictates of an authoritarian regime.

Those who, like Mr Ling, accept the status quo as permanent, will not be at the vanguard of change which is inevitable as Singaporeans mature socially and politically.

To accept the notion that it has to be the PAP managing our CPF pension scheme, our foreign talent policies, and our housing policies is to accept the idea that regardless of how flawed those policies currently are, we have to continue accepting the status quo and that no one else can manage them better than the PAP.

I find such a notion belittling to Singaporeans as a whole because surely in a population of 4 million citizens, it cannot be just a handful of PAP cabinet ministers and slightly over 80 PAP MPs who are knowledgeable or qualified enough to implement policies that will benefit Singaporeans over the long run.

I also find such a notion belittling to Singapore as a nation because the PAP is not Singapore and Singapore is much more than the PAP.

To Mr Ling who challenges us to imagine life without the PAP, I say: Why Not?

Tags:

Comments

18 Comments on Imagining Singapore without PAP: Why Not?

  1. singaporean on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 9:45 am

    2. actually, after reading the pap lackey’s letter, i got very very ANGRY!

    why the hell is PAP keeping all my and my family’s money for themselves!!!

    vote out the pap

  2. Because We Don’t Give a Shit – Digital Terrorist on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 10:44 am

    3. [...] all the talk of increasing the presence of the opposition party in Parliament to speculating if Singapore could do without a PAP, I think the general sense of our political will in Singapore can be summed up in one miserable [...]

  3. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 4 Feb 2010 on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 11:22 am

    4. [...] Road to Election – Molitics: Reclaiming Our Imagination – Sgpolitics.net: Imagining Singapore without PAP: Why Not? [...]

  4. George on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 1:27 pm

    5. Favourite cliches of the govt with regard to giving more help to the poor, aged and sick. Remember, LKY and company’s favourite excuse for not doing more for these citizens is their ‘crutch-metality’ bogeyman?

    Well, what do you call what this chap is saying? Isn’t he precisely seeking to make sure we continue to hold on to the pap ‘crutch’. So it’s OK, for Singaporeans to continue to with this mentality- that we cannot survive with pappy!?

    I think, they are getting stupider and more desparate by the day when confronted with this ‘unthinkable’ prospect of Singaporeans THROWING AWAY the pappy crutch as proof that there is life AFTER the pap!

    That fear is clearly there if you recall LKY using the threat that Singaporeans should be taught a lesson by having a couple of bad govt to bring home how good the pap is! It was LKY Freudian slip – he vocalised HIs fear by projecting it on Singaporeans!

  5. George on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 1:34 pm

    6. Please remove earlier post and replace with following, due to typos:

    Do you remember, the favourite cliches of the govt with regard to giving more help to the poor, aged and sick? Remember, LKY and company’s favourite excuse for not doing more for these citizens is their ‘crutch-metality’ bogeyman?

    Well, what do you call what this chap is saying? Isn’t he precisely seeking to make sure we continue to hold on to the pap ‘crutch’. So it’s OK, for Singaporeans to continue with this crutch mentality that we cannot survive without the pappy!?

    I think, they are getting stupider and more desperate by the day being confronted with this ‘unthinkable’ but probable prospect of Singaporeans THROWING AWAY the pappy crutch as proof that there is life AFTER the pap!

    That fear is clearly present if you recall LKY using the threat that Singaporeans should be taught a lesson by having a couple of ‘bad govts’ to bring home how good the pap is! It was LKY Freudian slip – he vocalised his fear of seeing his party being displaced by projecting it on Singaporeans!

    The psychologists have a term for this.

  6. fievel on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 1:40 pm

    7. Try sending to ST as ridiculous a fictional piece but let it be truly anti-PAP…it will never ever get published…

  7. The Singapore Daisy on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 2:16 pm

    8. Some people need to feel important. That is why they need to apper larger than life.

    That is fine if you can make money and still manage to provide employment to people.

    But some people just talk, talk and talk and they believe by the sheer power of

    talking they can reinvent themselves, the world and others around them, they cannot.

    Even North Korea is not doing that anymore

  8. hahaha on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 5:43 pm

    9. Nowadays i feel LKY is just another Yuan Shikai.
    Imagine Lim Chin Siong being Dr Sun Yet Sen and LKY being Yuan Shikai, You know the history….

  9. Wee on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 8:18 pm

    10. LIfe in Singapore, in my honest view, would be just GREAT without the PAP.

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam of the Reform Party would, in my honest view, make a GREAT Prime Minister of Singapore!

  10. Muhamad Nur on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 9:29 pm

    11. A dream comes true. Life without PAP.

  11. DavidSeeLeongKit on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 11:03 pm

    12. PAP say: Without the PAP (and, of course, million-dollar salaries), Singapore will sink into NOTHINGNESS and YOUR WOMEN will become maids in other countries.

    S’poreans say: We must hire a top Queen’s Counsel to take out a class action lawsuit to SUE THE PAP for grossly insulting/defaming our grandmothers, aunties, wives, sisters, daughters and nieces !!!!!!!!

  12. Pratamad on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 9:21 am

    13. Let’s face it. There are many good people in Spore, both inside and outside PAP. When one day PAP did disappear from Spore, those people are still there. So what’s the fuss with ‘Spore without PAP’? Unless Mr Ling is alluding to say that those people will not exist without PAP. In fact, it is more probable that without a PAP the good people will step forward to participate more in the nation building of Spore!

  13. WS on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 2:00 pm

    14. A good leader is one that serves its people and not themselves.

  14. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 06 on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 9:03 am

    15. [...] of elections PAP takes pride in winning – Molitics: Reclaiming Our Imagination – Sgpolitics.net: Imagining Singapore without PAP: Why Not? – The Teamsek Review: Confusing times for a confused PAP leadership – TOC: Polarization: The [...]

  15. Moe Gan Thai on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 9:34 pm

    16. Without pap or Lee kuan yew, horses still run in turf club, toto still will be available, universities still be around, what is so great about pap or lee kuan yew? In fact without pap, the govt can save millions of salary by retrenching SM, MM, these 2 or 3 redundant post. WE are a small country, no need so many old ministers, who can’t contribute much

  16. mockingbird.sg on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 3:30 pm

    17. Yes it does not make sense! Distributing out the reseves to every Singporean is ludicrous! It would just result in inflation (imagine if everyone became $1M richer, it would just mean everything will cost a million dollars more. No nett gain)

    As for the need for PAP. I think they may have been too entrenched into the system to be removed. As we pan out for the upcoming budget and looking at the ESC’s guidelines, we will have to see how the union’s workplan comes along tmmr.

  17. Enol Tan on Sun, 11th Apr 2010 3:09 pm

    18. What the sensible Singaporean should do: Vote out the fucking PAP in the coming GE.

  18. PG on Sat, 31st Jul 2010 7:16 pm

    19. If the country can’t exist without the PAP , then it proves that LKW and the PAP did a bad job and never looked to the future and changes .

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!