Young PAP calls for an authoritarian state

Posted On // 13 comments

Just take a look at this and you will be so appalled you might even start doubting our education system.

This is the argument presented by Nicholas Lazarus.
1) Singaporean citizens have the means to voice their displeasure at government policies. (as evidenced from two very minor examples)
2) The government will respond swiftly and has proven to be able to do so.
3) Therefore we do not need an opposition

Given that the term opposition can refer to quite a number of things, let me establish a fair definition. I assume that opposition in this article refers to the formal opposition parties such as the Workers party, and even NMPs such as Siew Kum Hong and Sylvia Lim.

1) That the government listens

Indeed, the government will listen when we tell them that we don't really like Lee Bee Wah's decisions. But what about touchy issues like the right to protest anywhere? Or things like being able to post political videos? I am quite sure that Singaporeans are displeased, and have been voicing their displeasure for quite some time already. Yet there's still been a lack of change. Why? It's simply because there is a conflict of interest. The government's own hold on power is directly dependent on things like having no protests against their rule, protests that would certainly incite discontent against their rule.

It is for this reason that an opposition is needed to represent us, and this is the same reason why a democracy is favourable to a one-party state. The dictator, regardless of how enlightened he may be, is ultimately susceptible to serving his own self-interests at the expense of society. This conflict of interest makes it necessary to have an opposition.

2) That displeasure in the media is enough

With the new media, it is true that Singaporeans can voice their displeasure and make it heard. Yet how far is this reach really? Given that most people still get their news from print sources that continue to be censored, surely displeasure cannot be effectively voiced especially if this displeasure is aimed at the government's hold on power.

On top of this, it is odd that Nicholas fails to recognise the fundamental principle of a democracy. The fundamental principle is, one person - one vote, and this vote gives him the power to decide legislation in Parliament. The media is by no means able to give each person equal opportunity to voice his displeasure. Even if it could, this displeasure is only heard not felt. Talk is cheap afterall. What the opposition has that mere ranting on the internet doesn't is a vote in Parliament, and this is key for any displeasure to truly be felt.

Nicholas' failure to recognise this is probably the result of us having so few Opposition MPs in Parliament that putting bills to a vote becomes a waste of time to him and he sees no value in Parliament's functions.

3) That the opposition must always work alone

Opposition parties consist of people just like you and I, with the sole difference being that they have chosen to take their opposition to the government to a higher level, one where they commit more of their time and effort to. If Nicholas agrees that opposition is good, why then would it be a bad thing for people to organize themselves into a party and be more efficient and united that way? It makes no sense to deny people the right to form parties in opposition to the government. This is afterall what a democracy should be about.

4) That the opposition sucks at auditing the government

I can't agree more. They've failed time and time again to effectively audit the government in the sense that real change is effected. But can we really say that the opposition is redundant because of that? If anything, the opposition's failure to make effective changes is only because their hands are tied. Just look at the makeup of Parliament and you'll know how little power they have. Yet, just because they are unable to effect real change doesn't mean that they have been unable to voice displeasure. On that count, there are so many examples of the opposition making their displeasure heard, go look at the WPs website for instance or at Siew Kum Hong's blog.

Ultimately, the failure of an opposition party is no reason to give up supporting it if it is able to truly represent the people's interests for it only means that more needs to be done to support it.

Should this Young PAP blogger truly mean what he says, I urge him to rethink the political philosophy of a democracy and maybe take a look at how democratic systems are supposed to work before making such naive calls that will only attract harsh criticism.







13 comments:

cull running dogs said...

Let me go one further on Nicholas Lazarus. He has been visiting The On line Citizen website and readers can access all his comments. The wonderful thing is that all his postings are kept on record and cannot be conveniently deleted like the MSM. Many netizens have rebutted his comments and when cornered , this Nicholas will conveniently play dump. He has shown himself to be grossly lacking in integrity and intelligence. The most important thing readers must take note is the fact that Nicholas is the product of the PAP and there are thousands more. Heaven have mercy on the people of Singapore !

Anonymous said...

An authoritarian state is always under the control of a despot and his running dogs. Nicholas is one such running dog and we should not be surprised by his views and behaviour. Running dogs afterall are bred from the same farm and trained to follow the master.

Anonymous said...

PAP was an opposition once upon a time.

cy said...

Yeah it does seem like the PAP is losing touch. Now they're openly inviting criticism with such easily refutable claims.

But just look at the disclaimer they make on the Young PAP blog.

Disclaimer
Articles represent the personal opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their organisation or employer.


As if the name Young PAP is there just for fun.

jonkwok said...

"Singapore is fast becoming a modern Athean democracy" he said.

I laughed and laughed.

I hope he is not a history student!

Ancient Athens had no Internal Security Act (Detention without Trial). It had no Sedition Act. And it had no OB markers that could end me up in jail. The Greeks could hold protests, real protests, not protests at some god-forsaken corner. It had no press, but it was probably superior to a government-controlled "Forth Estate"

And most importantly, democracy lived in the hearts of the Greeks. By years of conditioning, using both the politics of fear and the politics of contentment, democracy has been killed in the hearts of Singaporeans other than for minor economic issues.

The fact that I am thinking twice before posting this (could i be sued? jailed?) shows how powerful this conditioning of fear is.

Anonymous said...

The last we heard of Nicholas Lazarus...he was licking all the boots and shoes of our ministers with his tougue...he is working real hard, guys, give him a break!

Anonymous said...

The last we heard of Nicholas Lazarus...he was licking all the balls of our ministers until pubic hair got caught inbetween his teeth, give him a break!

Anonymous said...

The conditioning of fear in Singapore is real. There is always the question of what the Government can do with your job, your CPF, your HDB flat etc, because everything you ultimately own is in the hands of the Government.

The result of such conditioning of fear is producing citizens like Nicholas Lazarus who is typical of such PAP bootlickers who will go to no ends even to promote the idea of an authoritarian state.

Oh my God! Gasp!

jonkwok said...

Plus the government always does public cruxifications of people who "step across the line", so people can look at them and... fear. Public examples that help promote the climate of fear.

Chee Soon Juan and Tang Liang Hong and JB Jeya, together with the people who get arrested arbitarily under the ISA (1980s Marxist Conspiracy) and under the Sedition Act (Bloggers with "Racist Comments")

Nobody wants to be like them.

So be quiet and get back in line.

jonkwok said...

anyway, calling Nicholas Lazarus a "bootlicker" is unhelpful, because all you are doing is defaming him. It's a personal attack. It's more helpful to point out the logical and factual inconsistencies in his argument. People will think that YOU are as irrational as he is if all you can do is attack his character.

It's like the way the media and people in power attack Chee Soon Juan.

Except many people often believe that Chee is mad. The vilifying works.

Anonymous said...

I applaud your good intentions.
Nicholas is somehow aware of his own twisted logic. It is similar to the PAP using despicable means and they are aware of it.
Sometimes harsh words put the message across better to people from the PAP. I have no patience for them.

Anonymous said...

reminder: PAP was once an opposition

Anonymous said...

Send this N Lazarus the running dog to Korea to be culled n eaten this winter time.