Comments on: Politics 101: Political Parties and Government

By: discounted mens ugg boots

discounted mens ugg boots — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:52:07 +0000

strongzz Valuable info. Lucky me I found your web site by accident, and I am shocked why this accident didn’t happened earlier! I bookmarked it.

By: Ming Padovani

Ming Padovani — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:57:43 +0000

Hi there! This is kind of off topic but I need some guidance from an established blog. Is it difficult to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty fast. I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where to start. Do you have any tips or suggestions? Many thanks

By: Why I swear never to join Young PAP

Why I swear never to join Young PAP — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:48:48 +0000

[...] By Joel Leong’s argument, a taxpayer who did not vote PAP gets no benefits from the government. He clearly does not understand the difference between a political party and the government. He should either go pick up an elementary political science textbook or read an entry I wrote a few months back called “Politics 101: Political Parties and Government“. [...]

By: Hear ye! Hear ye! » Blog Archive » The universal law of karma

Hear ye! Hear ye! » Blog Archive » The universal law of karma — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:22:45 +0000

[...] Next, the government is also very good at making examples out of people who step out of the line that’s set by the government. Catharine Lim got a rebuke, Mr Brown got his Today newspaper column removed after a rebuke, FEER gets sued for publishing stories about an opposition figure, opposition figures get sued for defamation and young bloggers get charged for sedition. Not all of my examples are the result of direct action of the government but because of the conflation between a political party and the government, there is an association with the government even when action is taken by political figures in their personal capacity. Since the line is not clearly demarcated, who dares to stand up? Those that stood up became poster boys illustrating what happens when the line is crossed. So what can the Singaporean do? Complain lor. [...]

By: Charissa

Charissa — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:05:17 +0000

Yar lor…. it’s pretty freaky man. -_-”

By: Aaron Ng

Aaron Ng — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:23:14 +0000

Thank you for bringing this up. It’s just uncanny how I just discussed it and something happens to prove my point. -_-”

By: Charissa

Charissa — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:01:47 +0000

Hi, I just came across this from

http://udhr19.blogspot.com/2006/11/police-sergeant-says-theres-no.html

It’s related to the topic at hand now as apparently, Sergeant Kenny Quek told the Judge that there was no difference between the PAP and the Government in today’s Chee trial.

-_-

By: YCK

YCK — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:22:50 +0000

Hi Gerald and Aaron, while you are on the definitions, I would like to weigh in with this one for theOxford English Dictionary: 7. The governing power in a state; the body of persons charged with the duty of governing. This may be viewed in two aspects, giving rise to two distinct senses of the word, which however often coincide in use. a. As a permanent entity (cf. â€˜the Crownâ€™, â€˜Parliamentâ€™, etc.), irrespective of the changes in the persons who hold office. Hence often practically equivalent to STATE, esp. when used attrib. b. As constituted afresh by the appointment of a number of persons to certain official positions; in England, synonymous with ministry or administration. Often used without article. to form a government: said of the action of the prime minister in filling up those offices, the holders of which are jointly with himself responsible for the administration of the country. BTW Gerald, is your sense of "Government" found defined in our Constitution? I have always thought Legalese a facinating way of muddying otherwise simpler matters.

By: Aaron Ng

Aaron Ng — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 06:09:10 +0000

Hi Gerald,

I’m afraid that’s probably the PAP’s definition. What I understand from journalism is that such are matters of convention. I follow the Associated Press style in writing and according to the the AP stylebook, one does not capitalise the word government under any use. This is the AP style, and I think ST has its own style that it deems to be better in the Singapore context.

What you are talking about regarding the PM and the Cabinet would more be appropriately referred to as the administration, which deals with executive matters. When ST talks about Government, I don’t think they refer to just the executive arm, but the entire system of governance.

By: Aaron Ng

Aaron Ng — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 06:03:05 +0000

Hi Rowen,

Indeed, politics is never a one way street. Even if another party is voted into power, there is no gurantee that the new party in power can push its agenda because of the civil servants. If the civil servants put up obstacles, policy implementation will slow, and who gets the blame? The political party, of course, since they are the ones who are the most visible.

Of course, the more important matter at hand here is the conflation between government and political parties. It would be good for everyone to know the difference. Knowing the difference may disadvantage a party that has a firm control for many years, like the KMT in Taiwan, where they got booted out of power in 2000.

However, the knowledge that a political party is not the government came back to be the ally. The KMT can potentially take back control of the government now because people know that they have a choice on which party they want to run the government. It’s something that cuts both ways.