PAP's New Strategy - will it work?

[eremarf]

Some cases I can think of where competition doesn't help consumers get a better product:

1. ...
2. ...

Just thought of new situations... (arguably just opaque products similar to 2.)

3. Also, when short-term and long-term results are not related, e.g. some industries (short term profits can be gained by laying off skilled workers, replacing them with low cost but poorer ones, leading to worse product and lower profits in the long run a la Saw Phaik Hwa and SMRT laying off engineers - similarly, reduction in R&D or maintenance budgets increases net profit today, but hurts net profit tomorrow), and finance products (bankers can report high short-term profits and earn big bonuses in the short-term, but collapse the bank tomorrow, which doesn't hurt them - do they get jailed? no?), or education (creative writing courses which teach children to memorise purple prose phrases and paragraphs - but don't improve their language ability in the long run? 'O' level cram schools which don't help a student perform better in later education and career?), etc.

Life is full of complex products. Competition is good. But informed consumers, strong consumer watchdog groups, sceptical consumer culture? etc are important too. Think of this as a metaphor for politics, perhaps?

 

[SgParent]

But then, if the previous party can be replaced, it should send a signal to the replacing party that they too can be replaced as well.

Signal sent, yes, but if the replacing party gets as big and as monopoly as the White Scums, then the true pink Singaporeans will need to go through the whole crappy cycle again.

 

[SgParent]

Hmmm... I think metalmickey might be referring to the fact that political parties as consumption items might not be very clear to the electorate. He's afraid that the consumers might end up being irrational..

Of course I know only metalmickey, the one who is highly intelligent but yet very busy until no time to make a stand for his earlier comment, can understand.

That's why when I'm chatting up daft, silent 60% in the kopitiam, I'll simplified that analogy.

1. When there is advertising - consumers might get a better advertised rather than a better-quality product.

Are you saying an inferior product/company may put up attractive advertisement, enticing people to buy the product?

My question is, if another company has a better product, what is stopping it from putting up its own advertisement?

2. When products and their substitutes are complex or difficult to assess - think of things you only buy with expert advice, e.g. medicine, medical treatment, legal advice, etc. arguably, political parties might fall in this category.

In the case of medicine, medical treatment, the immediate consumers are the hospitals, clinics, doctors. So I'm sure they can differentiate the good and bad products.

3. Also, when short-term and long-term results are not related, e.g. some industries (short term profits can be gained by laying off skilled workers, replacing them with low cost but poorer ones, leading to worse product and lower profits in the long run a la Saw Phaik Hwa and SMRT laying off engineers - similarly, reduction in R&D or maintenance budgets increases net profit today, but hurts net profit tomorrow), and finance products (bankers can report high short-term profits and earn big bonuses in the short-term, but collapse the bank tomorrow, which doesn't hurt them - do they get jailed? no?), or education (creative writing courses which teach children to memorise purple prose phrases and paragraphs - but don't improve their language ability in the long run? 'O' level cram schools which don't help a student perform better in later education and career?), etc.

Are you looking at this example as an investor or a consumer? You mean the common people will happily look at the increasing company profit while forgetting the long wait time, crappy bus/train/equipment?

But precisely because politics is difficult to "consume" - we talk about it on the internet and look for other people's analyses. And I think a lot of us here think that giving oppo parties the first 1/3 of seats is very safe and can only make things better. Some of us also think that bringing the proportion of oppo seats near to 50% or even more than that will also make things better (better being subjective, of course). Metalmickey is just thinking that it might not make things better.

Don't get me wrong though - in the current situation - any reduction in PAP's power is definitely a good thing, IMHO.

So why does the highly intelligent metalmickey think competition is no good? Because he is highly intelligent and embarrassingly stupid people like me cannot understand?

Life is full of complex products. Competition is good. But informed consumers, strong consumer watchdog groups, sceptical consumer culture? etc are important too. Think of this as a metaphor for politics, perhaps?

Agree. That's what I've been doing in the past many years, sharing with people in the kopitiam that competition always, always benefits the consumers, so that they would make an informed choice in the poll station.

 

[eremarf]

Are you saying an inferior product/company may put up attractive advertisement, enticing people to buy the product?

My question is, if another company has a better product, what is stopping it from putting up its own advertisement?

Think of MacDonald's vs generic hawker centre food. Some gullible people (e.g. children!!!) think MacDonald's is a better product. But that's because Mac advertises aggressively at children.

Why don't other firms advertise too? Well - small firms have no economies of scale, and low access to capital. Even if all firms were small and freely competitive, the firms who sell the most product aren't necessarily the best product - they're just the best combination of advertisement + product.

In the case of medicine, medical treatment, the immediate consumers are the hospitals, clinics, doctors. So I'm sure they can differentiate the good and bad products.

That's if you trust hospitals, clinics and doctors. What's to stop them from selling you the most profitable medicine, rather than the most effective, or most cost-efficient, one?

Trust is hard to price. Not impossible - just harder. And you're right more competition seems to help in these cases I think.

Are you looking at this example as an investor or a consumer? You mean the common people will happily look at the increasing company profit while forgetting the long wait time, crappy bus/train/equipment?

Well, we were talking about the problem with, in a freely competitive environment, it's difficult to judge which product is better. People making the judgement can be consumers, shareholders, etc. We all can make such mistakes if we tunnel vision and don't see the big picture.

From a shareholder perspective, Saw Phaik Hwa looks like a good product in the short term - she increases profits dramatically. But she loses money in the long term (leaves costly shit to fix, lawsuits, etc).

For parents looking for (consuming) tuition, "creative" writing courses look helpful in improving their children's exam performance, but foster an exam-smart approach towards language learning that probably will be detrimental to them in future.

For investors choosing whether to invest in financial products (vs say starting your own factory), you might choose financial products which look highly profitable and seem stable but are actually volatile, rather than investment in hard assets that are "real".

The issue here is some products are not easily differentiated as "better" or "worse". Some look good in the short-term but are bad in the long run. Some are just complicated and we need to trust the salesman (doctor).

In such cases, competition is still good. But it may not be the key issue. The key issue might be - how can we tell which of the competing products is a better one? If there's no way (or bad ways) to tell - then we might just settle for the wrong product.

Agree. That's what I've been doing in the past many years, sharing with people in the kopitiam that competition always, always benefits the consumers, so that they would make an informed choice in the poll station.

Yeah it's cool you're doing that. I try to discuss things with other Singaporeans so we all know more too (I learn a lot from you guys as well). Cheers! :-)

 

[metalmickey]

Dude, the political masters of the civil service are the PEOPLE. The actual process is that the elected representatives i.e. MPs form Parliament and form a Cabinet, which represents the people in telling the civil service what goals to aim for (but the civil service should still provide the how-to, the technocratic knowledge - they're the technical experts, and MPs are experts at representing people, not crafting policy).

There's a point of view that I want to defend. But I won't be defending it anymore around now since more people will be popping around here due to the Michael Palmer incident. I don't want to inadvertently dissuade them against voting against WP. And good luck reasoning with sgparent too. He's more interested in putting words into my mouth than listening.

Yes, this is what ought to happen. I'm only talking about the risk that this doesn't happen. The distinction, is actually between "will always be better" and "maybe will be better". The political masters of the civil service is the minister most of the time, and the political masters of the ministers is the people for maybe 3 months prior to the next election. This is an important distinction. PM Lee will not beg you for mercy throughout the year in any case. Disinformation, hectoring and censorship can go a long way towards pulling wool over the peoples' eyes.

BTW, some shining lights of democracy are ironically emerging from (democratic) "socialist" regimes, e.g. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Rafael Correa in Ecuador (which weathered the 2008 financial crisis very well). Both also managed to survive military coups probably supported in various ways by the USA. They might be bad for business (hard to prove), but they're improving their people's lives (also hard to prove, but poor people are getting better housing, healthcare, education, etc). In fact, they're doing things very similar to what early PAP did for Singapore, actually - nationalise key industries, invest the profits on people, who can then become more productive in the long run.

I'm not 100% sure what is happening with the Chavez government but in economic policy it basically boils down to this: You have to strike a balance between helping businesses (which means driving down wages - bad for the people, and lowering corporate taxes - also bad for the people because of less social nets) and helping people (bad for the budget). My impression is that Singapore is too balanced in terms of pro-business and Venezuela is too balanced in terms of giving direct aid to the people. The main reason why Venezuela can survive now is there's a lot of oil. What happens when the oil runs out? Then people become vulnerable.

When you are too democratic, then the balance becomes tilted too much towards the people, and you might neglect the business aspects. Or you will start to deplete the budget. Or you will focus too much on short term instead of long term. The PAP are too pro-business at the moment, and they have become pro-business to the extent that it even strips them of their own power. So people who want to reverse this face two problems - first how to change things while retaining Singapore's traditional strengths in business, and secondly, how does the government stand up to business. Businesses, or MNCs, I would say, are the most powerful force in Singapore because when one big guy pulls out, thousands of people lose their jobs. The PAP govt is really not as powerful as a lot of people think. This would have been one of my points to sgparent.

What I just outlined are some quite basic things that more people have to know otherwise Singapore cannot function as a democracy.

Well in any case I will no longer be participating in this particular discussion for now. Like I said earlier, it's time to get into fuck PAP mode.

 

[metalmickey]

Of course I know only metalmickey, the one who is highly intelligent but yet very busy until no time to make a stand for his earlier comment, can understand.

You want me to educate you so that you can abuse me in return? Fuck off.

 

[zhihau]

Like I said earlier, it's time to get into fuck PAP mode.

only Punggol East residents can do so at the polls :p:p:p

 

[metalmickey]

only Punggol East residents can do so at the polls :p:p:p

Yes, but they need to listen to what the cheerleaders say.

Gimme an F! Gimme a U! Gimme a C! Gimme a K!

F-U-C-K-P-A-P! F-U-C-K-P-A-P!

 

[SgParent]

Think of MacDonald's vs generic hawker centre food. Some gullible people (e.g. children!!!) think MacDonald's is a better product. But that's because Mac advertises aggressively at children.

Disagree. What has this got to do with "competition"? It's fast food vs regular/home-cooked-style food

In any case, to answer you, the children love nice, brightly colored products. So in this sense, the children benefited. Still

Why don't other firms advertise too? Well - small firms have no economies of scale, and low access to capital. Even if all firms were small and freely competitive, the firms who sell the most product aren't necessarily the best product - they're just the best combination of advertisement + product.

In your small-firms/big-firm scenario, what is the competition that you are talking about?

If it's a all small-firms scenario, you'd said it yourself, the best companies are those that have the best combination of advertisement + product (+ a lot of other factors).

How will the consumers benefit from buying bestest product from companies that dun believe in advertizing and therefore will likely be here-today-gone-tomorrow?

That's if you trust hospitals, clinics and doctors. What's to stop them from selling you the most profitable medicine, rather than the most effective, or most cost-efficient, one?

Trust is hard to price. Not impossible - just harder. And you're right more competition seems to help in these cases I think.

Ok let's focus on the product called "hospitals, clinics and doctors".

Sure, hospitals, clinics and doctors may offer you substandard medicine. But in the first place, why do you choose certain hospitals, clinics, doctors?
- Because they are good? (so substandard medicine or not is irrelevant here)
- Because that's the only one near your house? (then it's a monopoly, nothing to do with competition)

For parents looking for (consuming) tuition, "creative" writing courses look helpful in improving their children's exam performance, but foster an exam-smart approach towards language learning that probably will be detrimental to them in future.

So the consumers here (parents and the kids) got the good grades they wanted?

For investors choosing whether to invest in financial products (vs say starting your own factory), you might choose financial products which look highly profitable and seem stable but are actually volatile, rather than investment in hard assets that are "real".

Good example. In this case the investors can decide between hard asset or financial products based on their risk appetite, preference and short/long term return. Investors benefited.

The issue here is some products are not easily differentiated as "better" or "worse". Some look good in the short-term but are bad in the long run. Some are just complicated and we need to trust the salesman (doctor).

In such cases, competition is still good. But it may not be the key issue. The key issue might be - how can we tell which of the competing products is a better one? If there's no way (or bad ways) to tell - then we might just settle for the wrong product.

Yeah it's cool you're doing that. I try to discuss things with other Singaporeans so we all know more too (I learn a lot from you guys as well). Cheers! :-)

That is the whole point of wanting competition that always, always benefits the consumers. This is the baby first step. Only when there are competition/options, you would have the chance to differentiate "better" or "worse".

Of course I then agree with you that "how" to differentiate is key next. That will be the baby second step.

===EDIT===
And even with reference to the baby first step, we already have a highly intelligent metalmickey who questions the benefits of having competition. So let's not worry too much about the baby second step yet.

 

[MtFable]

Yes, but they need to listen to what the cheerleaders say.

Gimme an F! Gimme a U! Gimme a C! Gimme a K!

F-U-C-K-P-A-P! F-U-C-K-P-A-P!

pls cool down eh... you give me the impression that PAP killed ur parents...

Most ppl here jus 1 2 c WP win da BE

 

[SgParent]

You want me to educate you so that you can abuse me in return? Fuck off.

Let's worry about you being capable of educating me first.

Still waiting for your killer blow.

 

[MtFable]

For competition and free market to work its best, half the work has to come from the consumers, to be very well-informed, and do thorough research etc. The rest will come from the suppliers ability to meet expectations?

I think we have to do our part too as citizens. To learn and understand how policies affect us, not just believe what we are told that the policies can bring or has brought etc.

I agree competition will help us.

 

[metalmickey]

Let's worry about you being capable of educating me first.

Still waiting for your killer blow.

I give you the killer blow for fuck? eremarf has already ripped your "always always" to shreds. I don't have to do anything. Bye bye!!!

 

[liongsum]

To come up with in depth alternative policies and examine the ramifications of their implementation is no easy task. It takes a great deal of resources which the opposition doesn't have now, but which they will certainly have if they derobe the PAP of its 2/3 majority.
First things first.

Nobody is asking for in depth policies right now. Just give us some ideas of their prowess. What makes it so certain. Why only after the PAP's 2/3 majority is stripped? My take is so long as they keep mum about how they intend to govern, to solve problems, they will not convince the middle ground.

 

[liongsum]

You keep pushing folks here for a plan B when you won't even understand that we have not achieved the basic goal which has been clearly stated. When LKY became prime minister in 1959 had he governed a single ministry yet? Had he worked a single day in the british admin service.

There is too much to lose for the middle ground.
They will not be convinced without a plan B.
So without a plan B, nothing will change.
LKY might not have worked a single day in the British Admin, but at that time, what he has done and intended to do was for all to see and hear.

 

[eremarf]

The political masters of the civil service is the minister most of the time, and the political masters of the ministers is the people for maybe 3 months prior to the next election. This is an important distinction. PM Lee will not beg you for mercy throughout the year in any case. Disinformation, hectoring and censorship can go a long way towards pulling wool over the peoples' eyes.

I agree with you this is the status quo now. But it shouldn't be the case. We should overcome this with institutions like freedom of speech, a free press, a free (or at least balancedly diverse) academy (i.e. universities and thinktanks), strong civil and grassroots activity. Some of these institutions take a long time to foster (e.g. encouraging young people to question the status quo, be active in politics, to de-stigmatise or even valourise activism, laws to protect various human rights, and to restrict/reduce the influence of minority elites/moneyed interests etc etc), but we should try to foster them. And maintain them after we build them. They are like cultural infrastructure.

(And these need money - so we need to obtain revenue, and seriously only those with wealth can fund these things - for the common good, the commonwealth, of society. But that's a dilemma right - as you pointed out - because businesses and rich individuals can relocate... but as I'll address below - it seems that even pro-people societies can have good growth - for a number of reasons...)

I'm not 100% sure what is happening with the Chavez government but in economic policy it basically boils down to this: You have to strike a balance between helping businesses (which means driving down wages - bad for the people, and lowering corporate taxes - also bad for the people because of less social nets) and helping people (bad for the budget). My impression is that Singapore is too balanced in terms of pro-business and Venezuela is too balanced in terms of giving direct aid to the people. The main reason why Venezuela can survive now is there's a lot of oil. What happens when the oil runs out? Then people become vulnerable.

When you are too democratic, then the balance becomes tilted too much towards the people, and you might neglect the business aspects. Or you will start to deplete the budget. Or you will focus too much on short term instead of long term. The PAP are too pro-business at the moment, and they have become pro-business to the extent that it even strips them of their own power. So people who want to reverse this face two problems - first how to change things while retaining Singapore's traditional strengths in business, and secondly, how does the government stand up to business. Businesses, or MNCs, I would say, are the most powerful force in Singapore because when one big guy pulls out, thousands of people lose their jobs. The PAP govt is really not as powerful as a lot of people think. This would have been one of my points to sgparent.

What I just outlined are some quite basic things that more people have to know otherwise Singapore cannot function as a democracy.

Good outline of pro-business and pro-people governments.

I think pro-business regimes have a very poor track record in the world so far, however, whereas pro-people ones aren't too bad. I think development economists have tried to document this but their voice is rather small compared to neoliberal economists. (E.g. Scandinavia has similar growth rates to the USA post WW2 - in spite of being significantly more pro-people. Mandela's ANC took over S. Africa on a pro-people platform - but look at their policies now - very pro-business. And look at their failure as a state. Lots more examples - but no space...)

I won't describe all the cases but here are a few sources:

These discuss the positives of pro-people policies (and costs of the alternatives of course):
1. Joseph Stiglitz (speeches from his tenure as Chief Economist of World Bank, or search "inequality" with his name)
2. Chang Ha-Joon (development economist from Cambridge, he has some accessible books in NLB)

These discuss the crises of pro-business policies:
1. Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein)
2. Confessions of an Economic Hitman (John Perkins)
3. Any criticisms of IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Program

Maybe I don't have the full picture - if you know of when pro-people policies have led to poor outcomes, please let me know.

Back to Venezuela - yes they depend on oil money to fund social development. But funding social development is not a bad thing. It can establish the cultural technologies and institutions we talked about above (which need time and money to develop). (It's how Norway spends its oil money too - isn't it?) Compare this with the way Saudi Arabia spends oil money. Or Nigeria.

(I notice you use the word "direct aid" to people in Venezuela. I'm also not clear exactly how policies are implemented - and I do agree that different kinds of aid produce different kinds of outcomes. Which is where the civil service and the academy get to earn their keep. But lots of aid programmes really do help a lot. The marginal return on each dollar of spending is immensely high when the recipients are immensely poor. I don't see how the costs can outweigh the benefits of giving people education, piped water, electricity, basic healthcare, decent shelter, roads, etc. Especially if you agree that those steps are necessary, that it's not a question of "what (to aim for)" but a question of "how (is it done efficiently)".)

Well in any case I will no longer be participating in this particular discussion for now. Like I said earlier, it's time to get into fuck PAP mode.

Yeah okay man I'm severely off topic already anyway. Look forward to chatting more in future. Cheers!

 

[liongsum]

The opposition has solutions if you read their various press releases and manifestos. The solutions is not what will get the votes though. That's not how politics in SG works. You and I want to see solutions. The voters don't. They want to see people connecting with them in the heartlands.

The voters don't??? When did they said so. My take is they don't see any others able to provide a solution. They stick to PAP which at least has some sort of solution. They stomached the medicine despite the pain.

 

[eremarf]

There is too much to lose for the middle ground.
They will not be convinced without a plan B.
So without a plan B, nothing will change.
LKY might not have worked a single day in the British Admin, but at that time, what he has done and intended to do was for all to see and hear.

I agree that too many people have a lot invested (house, kids, etc) in the status quo and stability. If life is not too hard for them - they don't want to put what they already have (enjoy?) on the line to risk a better future. Only the marginalised and dispossessed and those who have not made the investments e.g. young people and students will take the risk.

But actually, if they think harder, giving the opposition parties 30 seats doesn't change the status quo that much or rapidly. They still can't veto legislation. But it can bring about benefits like changing the way PAP does things. It can be the beginning of a renaissance in our oppo parties (they can start attracting supporters, funds, etc).

The middle ground shouldn't demand to see a Plan B right now. It's chicken-and-egg: middle ground won't shift unless they see a Plan B - oppo parties can't create a Plan B unless the middle ground shifts some support over. Someone's got to start the ball rolling - and I'm afraid that responsibility lies with "middle ground" citizens.

 

[eremarf]

The voters don't??? When did they said so. My take is they don't see any others able to provide a solution. They stick to PAP which at least has some sort of solution. They stomached the medicine despite the pain.

I think TFBH is saying is that policy wonkism has little traction with the general electorate. That means - even if SDP produces a great Healthcare proposal, a great Housing proposal - which neutral parties like academics think are potentially viable - the voters won't be able to evaluate these policies well.

Voters stick to PAP because they have "some sort of solution"? I don't know. Everyone has "some sort of solution" (just ask any taxi driver). I think voters stick to PAP because of fuzzy factors like - impressions, vibes, etc.

Which is why I don't slam the WP for doing grassroots work (instead of policy work). They're building up these fuzzy factors which can win them votes. (IMHO, SDP does great policy work - without access to civil service resources mind you! - but they don't work the fuzzy factors - they don't connect as well as WP to the so-called "heartlander".)

 

[metalmickey]

Good outline of pro-business and pro-people governments.

I think pro-business regimes have a very poor track record in the world so far, however, whereas pro-people ones aren't too bad. I think development economists have tried to document this but their voice is rather small compared to neoliberal economists. (E.g. Scandinavia has similar growth rates to the USA post WW2 - in spite of being significantly more pro-people. Mandela's ANC took over S. Africa on a pro-people platform - but look at their policies now - very pro-business. And look at their failure as a state. Lots more examples - but no space...)

I won't describe all the cases but here are a few sources:

These discuss the positives of pro-people policies (and costs of the alternatives of course):
1. Joseph Stiglitz (speeches from his tenure as Chief Economist of World Bank, or search "inequality" with his name)
2. Chang Ha-Joon (development economist from Cambridge, he has some accessible books in NLB)

These discuss the crises of pro-business policies:
1. Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein)
2. Confessions of an Economic Hitman (John Perkins)
3. Any criticisms of IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Program

Maybe I don't have the full picture - if you know of when pro-people policies have led to poor outcomes, please let me know.

Back to Venezuela - yes they depend on oil money to fund social development. But funding social development is not a bad thing. It can establish the cultural technologies and institutions we talked about above (which need time and money to develop). (It's how Norway spends its oil money too - isn't it?) Compare this with the way Saudi Arabia spends oil money. Or Nigeria.

(I notice you use the word "direct aid" to people in Venezuela. I'm also not clear exactly how policies are implemented - and I do agree that different kinds of aid produce different kinds of outcomes. Which is where the civil service and the academy get to earn their keep. But lots of aid programmes really do help a lot. The marginal return on each dollar of spending is immensely high when the recipients are immensely poor. I don't see how the costs can outweigh the benefits of giving people education, piped water, electricity, basic healthcare, decent shelter, roads, etc. Especially if you agree that those steps are necessary, that it's not a question of "what (to aim for)" but a question of "how (is it done efficiently)".)

I'll give you 3 books to read. I've already read all your books other than Chang Ha Joon.

One reason to be really skeptical about popular participation in government is economic policy. Economic policies are the most important aspects of government policy, but you will notice that the common man does not talk about them. Most people won't understand. Even in the most democratic of the democratic countries, there is a lack of understanding of these issues to the extent that they walked into the Euro crisis blindly.

Look and listen around on sammyboy. Yes a lot of people will discuss politics. They will discuss the power structures at the top. PAP obsfucation, abuse of power, unfairness to the opposition. Those things are important. Economic policy? Tax rates? Interest rates? Building of facilities? When you start talking about the boring shit they all shut up, they got better things to do, or else you are too intellectual. How the fuck are you going to run a govt like that?

My other point is that there are many many forces in the world which naturally work against the correct functioning of democracy. For me, there are only 2 types of democracy -more fucked up democracy and less fucked up democracy. For Singapore we are naturally interested in the latter.

There are some books out there which explain how things really work in the world.

Life Inc by Douglas Rushkoff
Shadow Elite by Janine Wedel
Twilight of the Elites by Christopher Hayes, also discussed elsewhere in Sammy Boy.

Government spending is either done well or not done well. So you can't really say spending is good or bad. It all depends. Bad examples, I would have to say Cuba now, UK in the 70s, Japan's economy is stagnant because they have so much of their money locked up in non-performing loans. From what I hear about Venezuela, It's good that Chavez is lifting his people out of poverty, but his oil facilities are very badly run. Maybe it is a matter of bad execution.