Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Understanding your political leanings...

Here's a simple quiz to check it out:

Here's my score:

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.


I would say the output of quiz is quite accurate except for the part that says I 'support significant govt control of the economy'. I support sufficient regulation of the economy to avoid problems down the road that will be costly for our society - like regulation to avoid the crisis we are seeing right now.

After you logically eliminatie ideas and arguments that are clearly bad, you're left with things that are workable. What you choose is a judgement call that depends on your political leanings. Sometimes I find it difficult to understand something articulated by someone who is conservative. I try very hard to see something from his angle and I understand that the person probably has an equally hard time trying to see from mine. Roughly 50% of the people are on the left and the other 50% are on the right. It explains why Obama for all his popularity only garnered 51% of the votes and the US electorate oscillate between the Democrats and Republicans - the deciding votes come from the people in the center who can be swayed either way.

In Singapore, the PAP is conservative. The problem is half the population is on the left - in the past, they were helped by great apathy among the people who didn't care about politics. The problem is as more people become interested and think about politics, half the people have tendency not to support them.


Anonymous said...

When you talk about support or views, you have to qualify where it come from. Of course, the internet views are 90% against PAP. But in real life and when it come to the decisive vote, majority are with PAP, time and again. And few also wanted to be in the opposition camp. Hence statistically speaking, the next one should not be any different. In Malaysia, the internet made a difference in their last election and that is because there is no such thing as walkovers there. Here it is a given so even if most decide to vote against PAP, their chances to vote are reduced by walkovers.

If I were the PAP, the last I worry is whether it will win the election.

Anonymous said...

Unless the opposition covers every available seat with strong candidates, the walk-over PAP candidates will have time to interfere with other constituencies branding opposition candidates and digging personal records available to them.

Unless the GDP is -10% and everyone suffers like crazy, the 2 key to the national reserves opens into an empty vault, PAP is likely to retain their 95% MPs.

Onlooker said...

But the crucial thing now is a lot of uncle and auntie are becoming aware that they might not get to enjoy their CPF at 65 with the goal post getting further and further away.
And a Saditious Heath MiniStar who suggest that the younger Singaporean send their Elderly parents who had contributed to Singapore Success (more then those self proclaimed elites) as a collective whole when they are young.
And "New Citizens" who are questioning their choice to become a citizen here while their home country is experiencing growth via protectionism (: okay technically not protectionism ,But Buy provincial:)
I just wonder if they are still so confident though? GDP = -8% the Yankee thanks us for the lifeline money.More GoodYear. LOL. And Ho ching does not resign due to bad invextment leh :)

Anonymous said...

Wah i am a Librarian.

Anonymous said...

What you have in Singapore is a nepotistic dictatorship.

that ties hard to imitate the us republican.

using meritocracy as a smoke screen, to live like the Wall Str CEO's, everything paid for by company, and still grabbing obscene salary+bonus.

Anonymous said...

Hi Lucky

The dumb\narrow-minded\fearful will always outnumber the thinking liberals.

It is a survival trait!

Conservatives will always outnumber liberals.

Obama won because McPalin was sooo bad. Even then, look at the electoral map. The better educated east-west coast went to Obama. The less educated rednecks in the middle still voted for Republicans.

Unfortunately for you, PAP is more savvy than you wish. They will win.


Anonymous said...

It is not one dimensional left vs right. but a square. You should also think about statist and libertarian.

I am leaning on libertarian.

Anonymous said...

In SG elections, there is only 2 choices (if u even have one). Left (against PAP) or Right (for PAP).

Anonymous said...

Hi Liberal Investor

Off topic but some good news. sort of. From a centrist perspective.


Ghost said...

I'M A CENTRISTS. Not only that but dead in the middle of the chart.

Anonymous said...

When people are labeled as Libertarian, Conservative, Left or Right, Statist, whatever, there is a tendency for them to direct their thinking in those terms only.

However, it is neither this or that alone that will suffice for political thinking nor for the wholeness of society. This is because conservativeness is as necessary as liberalism. They are just different modes of thinking which everyone has within himself. It just happens that certain sections of society would have a larger measure of each.

For instance housewives and old folks tend to be consersatives if I am not wrong because they are more involved in keeping the family together and they create a stabilizing force for society such as you would experience upon reaching home or even to your housing estate from work/business.

Conservativeness constitutes a source of stability for society, even while liberal thinking provides the spearhead for various kinds of breakthrough in human endeavour.

Furthermore if someone who claims to be a liberal cannot tolerate different views, then can she be what she claims?

Just to provide an example : In your previous post, someone humourously talk about PAP being an one-eyed Jack becoming the king in land of the blind. It was just a metaphorical humour but he/she got put down by 2 persons for that.

So I think at the end of the day, what is needed is more thinking capability not such petty clannishness (as though only certain type of thinkers are allowed in this blog space) which the labels of liberatarian, conservativeness, left, right or statist might actually have created.

In other words, if you attempt to think only as a liberal, then non-liberal thoughts are unwittingly dismissed. This actually handicaps one's ability to think more roundedly/ comprehensively or even more flexibly. There is need to unlearn from all these qualifications and that might prove necessary for thinkers out to sharpen/excel in their thinking but certainly not an easy task.

If I remember correctly, some famous thinker, probably Alvin Toffler futurist, once said that defining political following or thinking in those terms did not make sense anymore and actually blocked progress in problem-solving for humanity.

Anonymous said...

Lets hope that the top civil servants and PAP leadership have never heard of the "conservative" label. :-)

I have never heard of Lucky making any life-changing government policies\decisions.

Hey Lucky, think conservative and cut my taxes!

lazylizard said...

i think there is strong correlation between internet usage and liberal/libertarian values???

so year after year for the last 40 and next i wonder how many years most of the people will still vote PAP and not be plugged in.

at one point in time in the future when we're mostly connected to the matrix already, then we'll mostly dislike PAP. if it still stands for the same values it stands for today.

Anonymous said...

there is also this : discussing politics online is a very elitist thing.

Anonymous said...

Actually the real problem with PAP govt is not that it is conservative. There are conservative organisations who yet manage things quite well.

I think the problem rather lies in the unbelievable extent of hubris with Lee Kuan Yew and his top men and hence their dismissal of consultation with the people.

They think they created modern Singapore when in fact the major credit lies with the people. Nevertheless, once they started out with this delusion, they feel no need to ask the opinions of others.

The PAP govt probably think it is a shame for a govt to go around asking for opinions. Thus they do not believe in freedom of the press and freedom of public speech.

But who told them they can only find opinions through such channels? There are other avenues like consulting widely with subordinates or creating a informal truthful feedback loop from the people. (Forget Feedback Unit for the time being)

Civil servants even those with some positions often lament that only the ministers have any say on policy-making. This shows the extent of untouchability, the exclusiveness with the top leadership.

If the PAP govt were to be humble enough, it only have to ask and there will be many people willing to contribute their views without any strings attached.

The very concept of asking the views of others is alien to PAP leadership otherwise they cannot be so dumb as to walk into the investment quagmire of over $40 bln in the Western banks a year back.

They were so egoistically blinded that while ordinary people clearly knew the grave danger, they thought they had the opportunity of a lifetime - a share in Western banks, wow.

Anyone who has any doubts about what I just said can verify it by reading Lucky's articles and the kind of readers' comments about this issue a year or so back.

Mis-management is largely caused by a lack of right knowledge on various things. For this reason, responsible management people are hungry for right knowledge, for market information and they would consult, research a lot before launching a project.

They know they will pay big if they fail for lack of right knowledge. And still there is no guarantee of success. What more of those, in this case PAP govt, who do not want to consult at all.

Never mind GIC and Temasek might be paying countless $millions to big international consultants. They only got scammed because those big consultants just wanted to earn their commission, as the Shin Corp saga showed.

The advice of these expensive consultancy companies are sometimes not even worth a single word from the man in the street.

But the hubris of Lee Kuan Yew in wanting to be insular and only listen and pay big to these professional firms because of prestige I think, keep them divorced from reality.

About the only thing the PAP govt is now good at is squeezing more and squandering the lifeblood of Singaporeans, made possible by its strong-arm control of the society.

Yet ironically there are no lack of people who still think the PAP govt is very efficient and smart. They still cannot see how dumb it has already become after that huge investment debacle.

Is this called dumb and dumber?