By The P.A.P. Insider's guide
The secret to the PAP's success is fear.
That's the simple truth, and although only a brave few will ever say so publicly, everyone knows it.
The PAP actively works to make Singaporeans fearful, and there are basically two types of fear that we use.
The first is fear of the PAP itself. This is the fear that anyone who stands up to the PAP or the government will be punished and be made to suffer. Standing up to the PAP might mean voting for or joining an opposition party, or speaking out about something that the PAP or government is doing. The ways that someone might suffer for that could include being sacked from their job, having family members lose their jobs, not being able to find another job, or being sued and bankrupted.
The second type of fear that we use is the fear of the alternatives to a PAP government. We create exaggerated scenarios for what might happen if Singapore had more opposition MPs, or a government formed by non-PAP parties. These scenarios are many and varied, but they all involve either the economy taking a turn for the worse, or political instability.
Fear is the cornerstone of the PAP's strategy in this election , just as it has been in past elections. It has served us well for 40 plus years, and is as effective today as it ever was.
Here are the first two examples which I found in the media today of PAP public figures playing the "fear card" in the election campaign.
Jalan Besar GRC candidate Denise Phua said on Tuesday that if more opposition members were elected to parliament "the analysts will rate our political risk very high, it'll be negative; the stock market will tumble; potential investors will hold back their investments; current business will seriously think about moving business out of Singapore."
On Monday, SM Goh said "Be careful of planting seeds of Opposition in the Parliament as a tree may grow out of it. What kind of tree? No one knows."
Of course we know that the real danger of strong opposition parties in Singapore is not to Singapore itself, but only to the PAP's chances of reelection. All democracies in the developed world have strong opposition parties and political and financial instability are no more likely to occur in those countries than they are in Singapore. Even though the dangers that we speak of for Singapore don't really exist, if we can keep Singaporeans believing that they do, we will remain in government.
It might seem strange to think about fear in Singapore, because the PAP spends a lot of time telling everyone what a safe country we live in. Does it ever occur to you that you are afraid? Maybe not. Singaporeans are so used to living in fear that that most of the time we don't even notice it. Others notice though. When foreigners come to Singapore, they comment that Singaporeans are a repressed people, tense and afraid to speak our minds. They can see what we cannot see because we are surrounded by it every day and for us it is "normal".
So as the election draws to a close, keep the fear tactic in mind and see how subtly and how often it is used, not just in the election but every day of the year.
The fear factor is one reason. Another reason is also greed. Remember in the movie 'Braveheart', the English king Longshank resorted to bribing the Scottish nobles, giving them land titles in return of annual tax duty. He reasoned that greed will distract the nobles from their cause of opposition. If you look at the HDB upgrading-for-vote agenda, PAP seemed to be doing the 'Longshank': promising upgrading to the voters (in return of possibly higher conservancy fees) as 'greedy' voters will be too busy happily counting how much their flat will be valued rather than thinking about anything else.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAh. That's a strange comment. It's an irony to tell someone to bugger off and leave the country when someone don't like the PAP but won't do the same (leave the blog) when they don't like seeing what is being posted here.
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to get personal. The post merely provokes thinking, connecting two and two over something that is already obvious, things which the governing party is already trumpeting. If one cannot be engaged at an intellectual level over this simple comment, how can one be able to making any judgement which affect our future? Let's not be myopic.
>>All democracies in the developed world have strong opposition parties and political and financial instability are no more likely to occur in those countries than they are in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteYour post lends an interesting perspective, and I agree with you on most bits. However, I feel that the opposition currently is not capable enough to form the government. Using Britain as an example, both leading parties have their share of bright sparks. This is certainly not so for the opposition, despite the increase in the number of graduates they are fielding. To be fair, one does not need to be a graduate to be a good MP, but the same does not apply for a minister-level post
After watching the rally at AMK GRC by Worker's Party, it was obvious where the balance in favour is currently tipped. Let's not forget part of AMK GRC belongs to the former (and now defunct) Cheng San GRC, which caused a stirr in 2001.
ReplyDeleteAfter the end of the rally speech by the various candidates, there was only one obvious winner.
tis is a very discriminated blog discussion. If u say tat PAP uses censorship to rule e country then y the hell did u del tat previous entry~ i wanna read the comments .
ReplyDeleteWhat do u have to fear frm tat comment? Still crap abt e FEAR factor...
First of all, we do not enjoy reading derragotory comments attacking us just on the basis of our political views. We're all Singaporeans, and we should treat and be treated with dignity and respect (something the PAP disregards)!
ReplyDeleteSecond, that comment urged Singaporeans who don't support PAP to move to Malaysia. It is true: Malaysians enjoy more freedom than us, but this is not a point to be making in defence of PAP! This is a disgrace. Moreover, Singaporeans are tenacious and passionate; the opposition parties are fighting for the betterment of Singapore. Running away to a foreign land will only let PAP know that they can/will get away with the bullshit they throw at us.
Finally, let me assure you that if you're a PAP supporter notifying us of your intentions of voting more than once, you're a testament to the PAP mindset. You're merely reaffirming our justifications to mantain blogs such as these, and to oppose PAP!
However, I feel that the opposition currently is not capable enough to form the government. Using Britain as an example, both leading parties have their share of bright sparks.
ReplyDeleteHow can you compare the UK with Singapore? The English have been around for a far longer period of time than we have, and once, they were even a bunch of imperialists. Furthermore, while it's true the opposition realm continues to be more vibrant than ours, the current political environment continues to be stagant. The only reason why Tony Blair won in three consequitive elections was because the opposition Conservatives were weak. The neo-cons had their sparks in the Thatcher years, yes, but that's only because they have a long history of political activities to account for.
Singapore is a young country, and the democratic movement is a rather long process. We ought to be supportive of the opposition parties because despite the advarsaries, they continue to exist.
[I refer the the second type of fear in what follows]
ReplyDeleteYes you theory is not inconsistent with observed behaviour/facts. Yet another theory may also fit the same behaviour/facts. That is more than one theory may fit the observed behaviour/facts.
For example, an alternative theory would be:
"The secret to the PAP's sucess is its grasp of reality and the electorates belief in this vision of reality." Furthermore fear is but an incidental component is this particular vision of reality that is the happenstance of Singapore.
Let me elaborate. Years ago a news report described the fall of a perhaps 10-12 year old boy whilst climbing without ropes in an abandoned quarry above some water. I think he had some injury, a broken arm perhaps, nothing permanent hopefully. Apparently this group of young boys had been engaging in this activity for some time. It struck me as I read the article that these boys had no fear -- and they had no fear because they were young and their vision of reality did not encompass (strongly enough) the possibility of falling and sustaining injury; after all the young really do seem to consider themselves invulnearable and I remember similar feelings. Furthermore inexperienced climbers may simply not have accumulated enough experience to realise their own limitations. Hope is a faith that thrives in ignorance. If we had before hand tried to instill the fear in these young boys, would it have succeeded? Or would the curiousity and thrill of soloing have overcome whatever understanding of reality or seedling of fear that might have existed in their immature minds. In this particular case, fear if we were to value safety is a good thing. On the other hand if we were to put a premium on experiences , then one could arguably say that fear would be an impediment to this acquisition. But the question is at what potential cost? For situations which are less lethally binding, and for which consequences are less foreseable one might be willing to entertain the possibility of having to deal with at some future time, the potential cost. In this case one is well aware of one's fear and what it may entail but nonetheless proceeds to risk the consequences in hope for some gain Then there are those in whom fear is not struck -- some of these would not believe in the vision and hence no fear is struck; for example if I were to say that if you don't brush your teeth tonight, the sky will fall down tomorrow; would you be fearful? Then there would be others in whom there is little or no fear because of immaturity or inability to envision such as the case of the young boys above.
Next, let me elaborate on the second aspect, i.e. that fear is but incidental to our particular circumstances. Well, imagine that the PAP inhabited an ideal corner of the world with plentiful resources and land. In this case as everywhere we can expect competing parties to refute alternative visions. But by definition the stakes would probably not be too serious or even existential; the country would still continue more or less as it was, secure in its resources and land. It is hard to imagine that the contemplation of alternatives would generate much if any fear. Even if the party wanted to generate fear, none would be generated.
Perhaps it is not too much of a stretch to equate Singapore's situation to that of a ropeless soloist up high on a wall. The stakes would be high. For some willing to contemplately vividly the alternate path, the possibly resultant fear reaction is a revealing insight into their grasp of the stakes involved unless they are not of independent mind. For others not willing to vividly imagine the alternate path, fear is somewhat abstract, a boundary that since they are not willing to trespass even in vivid contemplation instead transforms into something of a comfort. The boundary becomes a reference from which one draws stability, familiarity and comfort, and so is grounded in solidity. They have no need (at least repeatedly) to contemplate ropeless climbing, no need to so vividly imagine it that perspiration lines one's palms -- they know what they want, there is no nightmare. Fear keeps us safe, and fear need not generate a stress reaction. Let me put it to you that the opposition is in fact the one who is the fear generater but without the benefit of what compelling gain may await us if we venture into fear territory. On the other hand the PAP makes us 'aware' of what hardships may await us, but comfort and hence the abolishment of fear lies in our current system and territory -- ask yourself, is your present life one of fear? Or perhaps rather ask yourself with the opposition in power do you expect your life to be more fearful?
Let me generalise the original statement:
"The secret to the X-party's success is its grasp of reality and the electorates belief in this vision of reality." i.e. this is a hypothesis that also fits the facts/behaviours, but is more fundamental in that fear is a secondary phenomena, i.e. it is incidental, i.e. that it just so happens to arise because we happen to be dealing with Singapore and its inherent limitations.
Fear is a belief. If the PAP is able to make people fear, then there must be some basis to that fear, unless it is that people are not of independent mind and are sheep willing to follow the loudest voice. If there are those amongst us who are known to be independent thinkers and yet can be made to fear, then surely that fear has some basis? Of course in as complex a situation as an entire nation and economy, cause and effect may not necessarily be clearly linked. There is thus room for disbelief. But if the majority of people can be made to believe in the undesirability of the alternative (which as I explained above due to our high stakes would therefore entail (some) fear) and hence vote accordingly then surely that is what democracy is? (the prerequisites for democracy is another entire discussion in itself, which I won't think about here.) So, assuming a rational electorate, i.e. that the outcome of a democratic process being the sum of all individuals wisdoms represents 'truth' then the PAP is not exagerrating scenarios, assuming it wins.
With all the CNN style media coverage, the explosion of Internet access to blogs and information in the last few years, this election is the first one set squarely in an internet enabled but not necessarily knowledge wise or critically evaluative electorate. It is an exciting time no doubt, but I fear general intoxication amongst voters.
So, to anyone reading this, please do vote carefully (and not necessarily PAP, though that would be a good idea. ) We all share this country. Let our collective wisdoms, hopefully find the right path. Every vote counts. Thank you! :)
And have a good life and thxs for reading this.
My regards
Mr. Fearful
"we do not enjoy reading derragotory comments attacking us just on the basis of our political views"
ReplyDeleteAll i wan is to read wat some other people comments are.. is tat so difficult? If a comment seems to come from a PRO PAP supporter regardless of the content of the comment.. does tat mean tat u r going to censor off e comment??Might as well put a link to your comments and request tat "ALL COMMENTS TO BE PRO OPPOSITION~"
R u going to be a liberal blog admin or just some super biased opposition supporter( i presumed frm the posts ).IF U R then might as well change the name to www.WATEVER-PARTY-U-SUPPORT.blogspot.com instead of singaporeelection MISLEADING ALL OF THE ppl who come to read this blog.
U have made good posts on the pictures of the rallies of the opposition not shown on tv and papers...giving us coverage into wats really is going on with e opposition.But you r totally biased against the PAP with yr posts.So y Singaporeelection instead of some oppositionname.blogspot.com??
Thanks for e post Mr fearful for giving us an alternative view from an individual .Deep thoughts u have but very meaningful.Last words to all = Vote wisely.
ReplyDelete>>All democracies in the developed world have strong opposition parties and political and financial instability are no more likely to occur in those countries than they are in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteIf we call ourselves 'first world', then we should not be afraid accommodate the opposition, even the few glitches here and there by a 'yound child'.
We just need to give ourselves a chance. It is absolutely nothing wrong with making mistakes, realise your mistakes and learn from it. We are a a nation to fearful to make mistakes too. We are not entrepreneurial afterall...
Give them a chance to prove to us. They need time to be nurtured and exposed too. They are new, small, with limited resources, and of course, so vulnerable. Despite these, they are willing to take up the daunting task of being 'fixed'. If you as a voter too write them off, no one will dare speak up anymore.
Give this little ray light shine through and in time to come prove to be able brighten our lives too! Let the seedling grow so that we may have shady trees many years down the road.
I believe, in order for the real government to stand up, we need competition.
ReplyDeleteIt has been many years since there was political competition. Monopolisation does not do good for the people.
Competition does...
One final word for all.
ReplyDeleteWe have been assured that the votes are secret by both political parties. The opposition has courageously led by example at great personal risk. The least we can do for them is to cast our vote for the best man or woman.
Even if the ballots are tracked, analyze this. How are the PAP going to track down thousands of votes? It will be a logistics nightmare! Not withstanding, the elections department already has enough problems simply with the administration of a single nominee's minority certificate!
To be entirely facetious, assuming in the incredulous situation where they can track the votes, what are they going to do? Sue half the country? The business generated should bring GDP up a couple of basis points at least! A truly win win situation for all indeed. Sic!
In all seriousness, vote with fortitude, wisdom and discernment. Good luck!
Singaporean need mental revolution!!
ReplyDeletePolitical reformation
Social and culture innovation.
Regret, sadly to say, singaporean is considered as sleeping lion.
Waku up !!
To the whoever who advised us to leave the country in the deleted comment:
ReplyDeleteI teach you a song ok.
"This is my country, my land, my future , my life....."
You think we will leave this place just because you give such silly suggestion. This is our country man. We love our country.
But don't get me wrong. I love my country doesn't necessarily mean I must accept everything thrown at me and my family.
Learn to think intellectually. Boy.
Observations from my wife, who is a teacher, after conversing with some colleagues. Civil servants fear that their votes will be tracked. Some are inclined to APs, but fear will not allow them to vote otherwise. PAP does not own the civil service. The civil service is not created to serve the wishes of their political masters. First world government, like UK, knows that the purpose of the civil service. If not, the Brits would have called them civil masters. The Brits left us a first world system. We reduced it to a third world crap.
ReplyDeleteHigher political risk with APs? Where did Denise Phua come from? Transparency is a hallmark of lower political risk. Self censorship is a political risk. Remember Enron? Read about Kenya's official corruption?
Interestingly last week or the week before, PAP reminds us what keeps their key ministers awake at night? They are the ministers. It is their responsibilities to worry. No need to ask for such credit. But I am curious if PAP is interested what keeps ordinary citizens like me awake at night? THAT THE TRUTH WILL NOT PREVAIL.
It is really time that Singaporeans learn that PAP does NOT equate to the Government. I have spoken with so many friends and they all have this fear and disillusion that the PAP IS the Government and if they don't vote for the PAP then there will be NO government.
ReplyDeleteThese people need to know that the they have the POWER to vote for who's in the Government, the government is there to serve us, the taxpayers! The ministers' salaries are from us, we PAY them to do their job of leading us to a better future. We have rights and we are human so why are we even denied the freedom to choose? Are we paying them to instill fear in us? Why issit that so many civil servants I speak to feel that they HAVE to vote for the PAP? The PAP does NOT supply them jobs. Their jobs are also meant to serve the citizens of Singapore, thus CIVIL Servants and their pay is also drawn from taxpayers' money.
It is the People's choice, and with change/competition definitely comes with improvement.
We vote for who leads us because it is our money and our choice, the PAP should be the ones to serve us, not the other way round. It's time majority of the Singaporeans wake up. Seriously, there shouldn't even be any so called Walkover victory, it's all BS.
this type of fear tatic reminds me of what certain people in singapore are doing to c*****t people to certain beliefs. look at denise phua, isnt she the one whom the new paper interviewed and say she is anti-gay bcos of certain beliefs?
ReplyDeleteThe ruling party is NOT the government. It runs the government. But our dear father of Singapore has concluded that the party is the government, and the government is the party.
ReplyDeleteThus the government need not aid the opposition. It should actively seek to deny the opposition.
Oddly, was he speaking as a card carrying member of the party, or as a card carrying representative of the Singapore people?
aserialnumberonmyvote.blogspot.com
E.o.M.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletequote: And the young pap forum was shutdown since yesterday.... lamer... their forum also full of hatred of pap... how to win....
----------
In view of the YP PAP forum shutdown, a new forum is set up to keep up the momentum in support of An ALTERNATIVE VOICE IN SINGAPORE other than from the PAP controlled media.
It is located at:
http://deluxecoffeeclub.com
kindly support our efforts. Thank you.