PAP Government Abuses its Monopoly Power to Suck the People Dry

In Economics, a Monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sole control over the supply of a particular product or service, and hence is able to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. The concept of Monopoly is typically applied to corporations and businesses, and one example of corporate monopoly in Singapore is SMRT, which has the sole operating rights to the North-South and East-West lines in Singapore. Lucky Tan has recently written a good piece on how SMRT is abusing its monopoly, I will not elaborate on this here.

The concept of Monopoly can also be applied to groups other than corporations. It can be applied to Governments, which have a de facto monopoly over the provision of public services. This monopoly of government is not good or bad in and of itself, and in fact can be a very good thing when public services are provided cheaply, efficiently, and to the public benefit. This is because governments are not ordinarly profit seeking operations, but instead are institutions created to serve the public interest, unlike businesses and corporations.

In Singapore, however, there is little acknowledgement of the concept of 'public interest' when it comes to how the government is run. Indeed, the PAP has been explicit in years past about how Singapore should be run like a corporation: Singapore Inc. This profit-seeking mentality means that the PAP has not been shy about abusing the monopoly power inherent in Government, to suck as much 'profit' out of Singaporeans as possible. Here are some examples in which it does so.

A Small Victory for Bloggers: Why the Counter Insurgency is an Admission of the Power of New Media

Recently, there has been a big hooha over a recent article in the Straits Times that said that the government was going to launch a "counter-insurgency" by sending anonymous pro-PAP cyber commandos into the internet to counter critics of the government.

Since many have said their piece, I will not give my opinion on whether I think their plan will work. Rather, I wish to declare this a small victory for bloggers, and explain why I think the balance of media power is shifting, slowly but surely, from the hands of a dominant PAP towards a landscape where there is freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all.

1. The PAP now has to play on the internet on fair and equal terms. They no longer exert the monopoly of publishing on the web that they do in print media. On the internet, the PAP, WP, SDP and any other tom, dick or harry who wants to make a political comment has an equal opportunity to be heard.

2. In fact, the PAP is now at a distinct disadvantage. Because they cannot depend on their control of the medium, they now have to depend on the quality of the message. In the press, the lack of a competitive voice means that the PAP can skew and manipulate their messages in any way they like, without fear of reprisal and behing criticised on the spot. The internet, however is different:

• Any blog post that is put up by a PAP member can be instantly replied to on another blog by another blogger.
• Any comment left on a blog by a PAP member can be instantly replied to by other commenters.
• The internet is dominated by independent bloggers who are far ahead in experience, skill and prominence compared to PAP 'counter-insurgents'.
• Opposition parties have already been using this medium for many years, and will at least have an equal opportunity of expression. This is a far cry from broadcast TV and newspapers where the opposition has little say, if any.
  

3. The internet is rapidly growing in influence, and has already established itself as the dominant media for the young - in the not too distant future, it will have the ability to challenge the mainstream press and broadcast media as an equally powerful, if not more powerful, voice.

And because the PAP is playing catch-up, as highlighted in point 2, it stands to lose out in the race to claim ground on the new battlefield that is the world wide web. Instead, this is a great opportunity for bloggers and 'insurgents' to race ahead and to further cement their lead.

Conclusion
For too long already, the media have been dominated by the political machine that is the PAP. It is time for media in Singapore to be a much fairer playing field where different political voices, both partisan and independent, can have their say.

Some confusion over your philosophy, PAP?

"I believe at the end of the day, it is possible to create a society which is both competitive and compassionate"
-Vivian Balakrishnan

"...a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life. ... Some people cannot take the brutal truth"
-Wee Siew Kim

How ironic that just after Wee Siew Kim and his daughter establish that they are 'elite' and 'uncaring', Balakrishnan stands up in parliament to claim that the govt is building a 'compassionate' society.

Well they better start with their own MPs. Making such statements in parliament while your own party members make insensitive, uncaring and uncompassionate comments reeks of hypocrisy and is unacceptable for ministers and MPs who are amongst the highest paid in the world.

PAP, prove yourselves with actions, not empty words.

From Hip-hop to Bland Blogging: Are our new MPs really so shallow?

Subsequent to Lee Hsien Loong's annoucement earlier this year that the PAP was trying to make itself to be more 'hip' and 'cool,' the post 65ers have so far engaged in a couple of initiatives to execute this 'hip' strategy. The first of which is the P65 group blog, where the MPs try to write short snippets about their lives, the second is the plan to participate in a group hip hop performance. And, as we can probably guess, more such PR initiatives are probably on the way. However, I can't help but feel rather concerned about the direction that the PAP is taking, and the attributes of PAP MPs that these initiatives seem to reveal.

Certainly, the thinking behind this new direction must surely be one of innovation and breaking new ground - the PAP has never engaged in such 'hip' acts in its history. And for some reason, it has felt that it has to engage in such activities to connect with the younger generation. But is this really what the younger generation want from our MPs? Me thinks otherwise. The younger generation is more politically aware, and has a greater thirst for substantive political debate on real issues, not trying to put up a blog which they "didn’t intend ... to be a discussion place on policies." Seriously, if politicians don't discuss politics, what do they discuss? Anything else is really out of the interest of the public sphere, and has little relevance to Singaporean citizens.

But perhaps these initiatives really show up the inexperience and naivete of our MPs. Michael Palmer's protests that the MPs are not 'trying too hard,' claims that

The idea behind doing the hip hop is not about connecting with the youth through hip hop. That’s missing the point. It’s about connecting by showing that we’re willing to have a good time and laugh at ourselves once in a while.

But seriously, does he really believe in this? There are ways to have a good time and laugh at yourselves, ways that genuinely reveal one's personality and character to the people, and activities that do not need to take one so far out of one's comfort space. Seriously, I doubt Singaporeans have any expectations of our MPs to be dancers - that's not what they voted the MPs into power for. The MPs could engage in a thousand and one other activities that are publicly visible and yet do not seem so ludicrous to the public. And none more so than generation Y will be quick to see through this marketing gimmick.

Speaking of marketing, this brings me to my next point. Are the MPs really simply about putting up fronts? I certainly hope not, for then our future is in a precarious position. When Lee Hsien Loong talked about being a more inclusive and open government, this was certainly not what Singaporeans expected. In fact, the behaviour seems absolutely baffling and incomprehensible. That the MPs are willing to dedicate precious time and effort into such relatively shallow activities as hip-hop dancing, at the expense of other more important activities, is really no laughing matter.

But perhaps, given the we-know-all attitude of the PAP and the Yes-men culture within the political party, perhaps the initiatives are not so surprising after all. Couple this with a tendency for top-down policy making by leaders out of touch with the common populace, and you get 12 MPs hip-hopping away. These activities that the PAP are trying to pursue are simply showing up more and more the cracks and weaknesses in the power structures behind the ruling party. And while not yet disastrous, the overall direction that the PAP is taking is cause for concern.

Perhaps Singaporeans should step back and challenge the notion that a parliament full of PAP MPs is the best for Singapore. Just like so many other policies like the 4 million smiles campaign or the attempts to create love amongst singaporeans, the hip strategy doesn't look good to me. And if Singaporeans continue to let them engage in such intitatives, Singapore may soon start to look rather unhip.