Skip to main content

A Divided PAP under Democratic Socialism

Still remember in 1961, there was a split in the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the breakaway group founded Barisan Sosialis (Socialist Front) #1, a party carrying the name of Socialist.  Since then, the socialist ideology and movements have already left the PAP.  This was also the reason that the PAP was forced to leave Socialist International in 1976. #1

[In 1976, however, the PAP resigned from the Socialist International after the Dutch Labour Party had proposed to expel the party,[17] accusing it of suppressing freedom of speech.]#1 
To be fair to the PAP, no political party in Singapore is a member of Socialist International, after a check in their webpage.  Historically, ‘socialist’ is a negative word in Singapore politics.  It is so close to the word ‘communist’.  Perhaps, this tells us why no Singapore political party wants to join Socialist International and carries the ‘socialism liability’.

However, in the Wikipedia, the PAP and WP are in the list of democratic socialist parties and organisations. But in term of political position, the PAP is centre-right and WP is centre-left.

If the PAP’s new resolution does not mention ‘democratic socialist’, many Singaporeans will not think of the link between socialism and the PAP. In particular, the PAP has always rejected the European-style of democratic socialism or social democracy – the so-called welfare state. 

Will socialism win votes for the PAP?

The word ‘socialist’ was a heavy name to the PAP. Two years after the split, in the 1963 election, its share of votes dropped to 46.9% from 54.1% in 1959.  Will history repeat itself? Will there be a split in the PAP after the re-focus of democratic socialism?

Considering 1961, the split costs the PAP votes to go down. So, in simple mathematics, the PAP will win more votes by re-introduction the term ‘socialist’.  This means they want to take back the breakaway votes. Is this so simple? Or, will it result to the opposite effect?  PAP members confuse and so they reject the ideology of democratic socialist.  They then leave the party to form a new conservative right wing party.

I wonder how many PAP members can associate themselves to the democratic socialist movements. After so many years of PAP education (see below), democratic socialism is really out of sight, ‘no free lunch’ is the only capitalist word we know.

[…most analysts of Singapore have discerned four major "ideologies" of the PAP: pragmatism, meritocracy, multiracialism, and Asian values or communitarianism.]#1 
[It has since considered itself a social democratic party, though in recent decades it has moved towards neoliberal and free-market economy reforms.] #1

A confused Democratic Socialism

PAP members are not the only ones confuse about the meaning of democratic socialism. Even among political scientists, there is no consensus. Wikipedia provides a brief explanation:   
[Democratic socialism is a name given to trends of socialism that emphasizes democratic principles as inalienable from their political project. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while other forms reject social democratic reformism in its entirety.]
But it also adds the following: 
[Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of political scientists have radically different definitions for the term.]

Will a confused definition of democratic socialism work for the PAP? As a consequence, the PAP can claim that they are everything, from left to right. They can be the Democratic as well as the Republican in the USA. They can also be the Conservative, Liberal as well as Labour Party in the UK. They can also be a combination of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat in Malaysia.

In fact, this is what the PAP has been doing since 1959.  They can shift side as they like.  

Confused democratic socialism = discounted lunch?

A confused definition can also benefit the PAP as it can sometimes claim to be in the left side of politics when facing new popular demand and want to gain votes. However, when talking to investors, promoting business, creating jobs, they want to stand at the right side of the politics.

It is just like PAP MP Baey Yam Keng and his $3 lunch.  Some lunches have discounts, some have discounted drinks, some without. Only the PAP is capable to provide so many different pricing for a lunch.   

In the past 50 years, the PAP has shown its capability in shifting side from left to right, right to left, and now with the new resolution, it is offering a lunch package with some discounts to Singaporeans, but some of them, like Baey Yam Keng, may not even notice the special discount.  

It is now moving away from ‘expensive lunch’ to ‘discounted’ lunch as stated and claimed in the PAP resolution.  But still there is no ‘free lunch’.   

#1

Comments

  1. Could it be that Singapore is the most successful or only successful "socialist" model?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...