Talk:People's Action Party
Get Talk:People's Action Party essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:People's Action Party discussion. Add Talk:People's Action Party to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:People's Action Party
·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for People's Action Party:

  • Add references, especially for specific opposition views, and to specific leaders
  • Reduce weasel words
  • Organise to prevent undue weight (avoid degenerating into a he said, she said) while not sacrificing detail
  • History:
    • Party leadership infighting and the arrest of several party leaders in the 1957-58 under Emergency Regulation, leading to the Lee's firm control of the party ahead of the 1959 election.
    • Divide history into three leadership periods
  • Party's procedure in selecting MP candidates, and ministers
  • Women and minority in the party

Information on party co-founder Lim Chin Siong has been removed

It is very frustrating to see that my writings that I put into this article on the People's Action Party several years ago have been watered down so that information about the true history of the party and Lim Chin Siong have been removed.

All referrences to the Book 'Comet in our Sky - Lim Chin Siong in History' have been removed from this article. It is obvious that agents of the Singapore government/People's Action Party have targeted this article so as to perpetuate false history of how Lee Kuan Yew and the People's Action Party really came to power.

Wikipedia has allowed itself to become the agents of this infamous band of dictators in Singapore that go by the title of the People's Action Party.

Here is a link to the Singapore Democratic Party (the official opposition party) website featuring a review of the book Comet in our Sky written by British Scholars. http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4468-the-truth-behind-the-detentions

R Browne Feb. 2012 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartliner (talk o contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with someone pointing out the blatant omission of key information on one of the founders of the PAP. Personal political beliefs aside, won't the inclusion of said information only work towards the improvement of popflock.com resource as an encyclopaedia? It seems to me that you, save, are the one pursuing your own agenda, which seems to be just trying to enlarge your Internet ego. Sigh.119.56.125.177 (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

History about PAP ?

The history about PAP does not look like the current PAP. There are great difference between old PAP and new PAP. From the current Wiki entry, I see some parts require citation. If what the school textbook say about PAP history (old PAP) and current PAP is true, then can the textbook be used as reference? Social Studies? Kimberry352 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think an academic source completely external to Singapore would be more likely to be objective, if such could be found. Presumably the content of school textbooks is controlled by the Ministry of Education, i.e. ultimately PAP. -- Alarics (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This popflock.com resource article, in the news

Just a notice that according to a report by the Straits Times, MPs may consider legal action against a specific user due to this edit. Depending on whether things boil up or not, this page may need additional attention. --benlisquareToCoE 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Which sort of additional attention are you suggesting here? Just curious as to popflock.com resource policy on this. Thanks. Z10987 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
More admin/eyeballs on the page for now at least. The last thing we need here is edit-warring among the more impulsive activists from any faction. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It depends on popflock.com resource now. popflock.com resource can take it from here instead of the MPs in Singapore StandNThrow (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Flameshields on warning my fellow wikipedians.... if the chaos during April-May 2011 (when the last election was held) is any indication - like 2 groups of kids fighting while us regulars had to try to maintain order :P Zhanzhao (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Spectrum of PAP

Creating a discussion here since this is better than debating via the limited wordcount of edit summaries. TheRealSingapore alleges that the website of the PAP states it is a Right-Wing Party. Having went through the website, I do not see any mention of it, but if I missed it somewhere, please out the specific link to me. On the other hand, there is indeed a source for the PAP being Centric, or more specifically Third Way which is noted on the Centrism page to be used interchangably. I checked all the way back on the page's history and its been listed as Third Way since 2009, with a source given for it, so I am reinstating the source as well as updating it. I will look forward to TheRealSingapore to furnish the specific link from the PAP's website if he plans to move the discussion along. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People's Action Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. --cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) !0 49 edits

Kellytaft.144 edit of PAP

Your addition of the "Lack of Opposition" subject added useful information that was lacking in the rest of the article. Your citations and links all worked properly and were correct, the grammar and writing looked good, and it was simplified. You could consider adding more examples, but overall, I think the edit is perfect, I did not find anything wrong with it. Magrove (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I tagged the article since it is very one sided in citing the PAP's economic accomplishments, but does little to address the very dire human rights record, clampdowns on political opposition and dissent, etc. Even the lede manages to make allusions to Singapore being a democracy, when that is debatable at best and sugarcoats things by saying "longest ruling party" instead of the more appropriate "ONLY ruling party". The "Lack of meaningful opposition" section is a good start, but seems to attribute the lack of o?position to the party's amazing leadership with no mention of political repression. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC) The worker party also had brief control during the start of self-governance so labeling the pap the only ruling party in Singapore would be untrue unless one added that it was about post indepence singapore Zubin12 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please cite qualified sources and publications without violating the Defamation Act, failing which, the above claim is less than valid as the article is clearly properly qualified with legitimate and / or official sources. 124.197.78.18 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello unregistered IP originating in Singapore. popflock.com resource isn't tied to Singapore law and thus this "defamation act" you cite, but the fact that such an act exists and can be used to stifle well sourced information which the PAP does not deem palatable kind of reinforces my point here and a large reason why Singapore is ranked among the lowest in the world in the Press Freedom Index or why Freedom of the Press (report) describes the country as "not free". The issues which I cite are perfectly valid and very well documented, though since you are accessing the internet from Singapore, you may not have access to the information. If you want properly qualified and legitimate sources (official ones would most likely not qualify as a reliable source by the way) then I've just provided two. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, since popflock.com resource is not tied with Singapore law, there is nothing worth discoursing about here in the name of the PAP, therefore this article ought to be clearly marked for speedy deletion, it is your call. Secondly, your point is your point not mine, and your point is biased therefore not neutral in which case if you are editing this page, your neutrality is also questionable therefore a npov tag is necessary not because of PAP but because of your bias. Thirdly, freedom of press as a human right of the United Nations or human rights watchdogs is secondary as well as subservient to the ruling government, in the case of Singapore we legally sue and we have done this before as this article clearly indicates, in other words, while the Defamation Act may not apply to you if you are posting outside of Singapore, you can rest assured that you are liable for criminal punishment and this too is in accordance with UN as well as Human Rights i.e. I do not apologise that your self professed press freedom is less important than the need of strong institutions, justice that are capable of criminalising you. Lastly, I do not apologise, because information does not translate automatically to fact, in which case your misinformation is your calling not mine. 138.75.187.7 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Struck out comment, as it is a complete violation of WP:LEGAL. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 16:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Less thinly veiled threats this time then... Again, everything you are saying about criminalising people for not wanting to exclude information perceived as negative by a ruling party, no matter how prevalent and well sourced it is, just illustrates the point that this article is in dire need of a re-write to include such information, possibly using sources found in Human rights in Singapore and maybe ones like these [1] [2] [3]. Honestly, it isn't very hard to find such sources and many Singapore-related articles could do with better balance, not just this one. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have already reported 138.75.187.7 to WP:AIV for his/her numerous WP:LEGAL violations. I have, for the time being, stopped reverting the illegal comments out of respect for WP:3RR. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 07:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. This is quite interesting: The PAP is notorious for its practice of bringing lawsuits against opposition members to disable them from running for election, enabled by the absence of parliamentary privilege laws. Opposition figures can therefore be sued for defamation upon criticizing the PAP. Litigation is generally pursued until the person is declared bankrupt, whereupon they are disqualified from political candidacy. This practice is a particularly egregious example of the PAP's "soft" repression, with prominent targets including Worker's Party leader Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, bankrupted in 2001, and Singapore Democratic Party's leader Chee Soon Juan, bankrupted in 2011.[4] - that explains the legal threats. Seems like the kind of thing which should be added to the article as well. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll look for multiple sources. Late here in the US, so I'll take it easy tonight. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick, cursory search re the bankruptcy issue turned up the following links from reputable sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 08:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I added some information from those sources. I also added a sourcing tag, since looking at the sources, there seems to be quite a lot from PAP itself and the Singaporean government. There is also a very heavy reliance on Straits Times sources, a publication which is widely regarded as a government mouthpiece and listed on popflock.com Resource: Potentially unreliable sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that both PAP fanatics and opposition supporters have a history of edit warring. My personal observation is that PAP grassroot groups are arguable more organized at popflock.com resource editing as opposition supporters are fragmented. Straits Times and its parent group SPH repackage government press releases as articles, but the facts can usually be corroborated with official sources. I would not say it is unreliable, just frustratingly biased and not very insightful. Even academics who were part of the establishment such as Kishore Mahbubani, Donald Low and Cherian George were chided publicly by ministers, or even blacklisted for criticizing certain government policies, there just aren't many experts would go on the record with alternative, non-government sanctioned narratives. Alternative traditional news sources to consider include SCMP which has 2 noteworthy Singaporean journalists (Zuraidah Ibrahim who was part of the establishment and Bhavan Jaipragas who is more critical of the system, the two balance out each other). Reuters, Associated Press and BBC has Singaporean journalists who understand the system well. These are probably more neutral than press releases of left-leaning advocacy groups. 103.60.9.108 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Since you know so much about the issue, I invite you to edit the page and help include it meet the standards of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which it is currently failing to do as a result of the fanatics you describe. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
To make this as productive as possible, I'm providing a list of the current sections below, what I think their issues are and so we can start adding sources and comments under each in order to edit each part. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Political developments

The title here is a bit vague, it should probably be renamed to something more appropriate like "History" instead. I'm not really familiar with the history of the party, but from the sources I have seen so far, there seems to be no mention of the more messy and iron-fisted aspects of the party's history which I have repeatedly seen in sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Organisation

Ideology

This section seems to describe the party's position on its ideology well, but there is a complete absence of outside views. I'm sure there's plenty of academic work with differing opinions on this which can be found with a minimal amount of digging since I'm sure it's considered a very interesting case study in academia. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Leadership

Internet presence

I tried using some sources from State-sponsored Internet propaganda which mentions Singapore and the PAP a lot. There's probably more that can be added here. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lack of meaningful opposition

This is the main troubled area of the article in terms of WP:NPOV, though progress has been made. My main issue here is that the "political theories" part does well in describing Singapore's economic development being attributed to the party as a reason, but gives little to no actual political theory, of which I'm sure there is plenty. The position of the party is well represented here, but more could be done to represent other notable POVs.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
[10] - this source is absolutely fantastic for the "political theory" aspect, to counterbalance the official position. It cites experts in the field of democratisation, like Samuel P. Huntington and does a good job of explaining how a single party state came to be despite the existance of democratic institutions. [11] - this one also has a lot of information, but it's much weightier and I haven't had much time to go through it all. [12] - here is another very interesting one doing a comparative analysis with South Korea and Taiwan, explaining how single party rule failed in those countries but succeeded in Singapore. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Other/General

After this is done, the lede should also be edited accordingly to reflect the rest of the article. Another thing which is notable and worth mentioning in the article is the party's symbol, the Flash and Circle. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats and trolling

Please familiarise yourselves with Wikipedia's guidelines and cease using legal threats and edit warring in an attempt to remove information supported by RS. WP is not a mouthpiece for your political party or views, it exists to impart well sourced information while representing all significant viewpoints. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, please look at WP:COI since numerous edit summaries here such as amendments in compliance with orders I have received, In fulfillment of late maternal grandmother Tan Ah Thin's lifetime wish, pledging allegiance to PAP and in compliance with classified Standing Orders, G1-Army are deeply troubling. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Balance, Neutrality and Reliable sourcing, Not Overcompensation

@SegataSanshiro1:@Kiteinthewind:

Being a devil's advocate here, and just wanna point out that just like any political page with "enthusiastic" supporters from both sides, trolling and vandalism will come from both sides too. I.e. see [[13]][[14]][[15]][[16]]. Just to get a clear idea of how aggressive it can get, last time there was an admin La goutte de pluie who was blatantly against PAP, and her escalating behavior got her restricted, desyopped, and eventually banned for her aggressive stance against anything PAP, even though she received a lot of warnings from other wikipedians up to the final fallout. I can't find the exact post, but her argument was that since there were some editors who were PAP sympathizers and carrying out whitewashing on certain articles, she felt justified in going to the other extreme and painting a negative picture, popflock.com resource policies be damned. Then I was on the receiving end of accusations from Sgwatcher who was accusing me of being a PAP troll just cos I was reverting some of his questionable posting,[17] even when other editors and admins were trying to point out to him on his talkpage where he went wrong. (PS: He voluntarily outed himself as an ex-opposition politician[18]....)

As contributors, whether editor or admin, our role is to enforce neutrality based on reliable sources. Not slant in either directions. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is all getting very Kafkaesque very quickly. I'm starting to see why these Singapore-related politics articles get little to no attention. Also, considering that this has been a recurring issue for years now, I'm surprised there isn't some sort of task force to deal with this or blanket ban an all IP editors for these pages, especially considering this has driven admins to take questionable actions in the past. I take your point that this happens on "both sides," but given the state of this page and others, I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that one side has considerably more resources than the other and I find it somewhat hard to believe that edit summaries like "amendments in compliance with orders" are the result of mere "sympathizers." Let's just get this article in compliance with policy and not reading like it was written by the Ministry of Truth. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I would assume that both sides have sizeable resources, but while one is more organized, the other is more driven. Granted, this is just from personal experience of dealing with vandals, so may not be truly reflective of the general landscape. No different from edit-wars we see from GOP-Dem supporters or other pages. Forcing a discussion to the talk pages via a semi-block to restrick IPs would be a good start, as I recall an old case of an IP range being accused of being traced to some government group (is it even possible to trace that?) Zhanzhao (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Zhanzhao: It's one thing, in my opinion, to overcompensate from an "Anti-PAP" point of view, but quite another to try for neutrality and reliable sourcing, only to be met by IP users who blatantly threatened lawsuits, and have pledged allegiance to the organization in question. SegataSanshiro1, meanwhile, have been met with personal attacks by the same users, having been called a "Latin agent of foreign influence". I'd like to see a popflock.com resource editor of good standing who can excuse this kind of behavior as acceptable within the confines of OWN, NPA, NPOV, and LEGAL without using tortuous logic. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that I think you're confusing the vandalism and opinionated editors you typically get with an article on something like the US Republican Party with this, where aside from that, you have a very clearly orchestrated official government/party attempt at removing any information deemed "negative" despite sourcing. From some of the edit summaries alone, it's clear that there's not even an attempt to hide COI editing. Either way, it's clear the three of us agree on what constitutes a good article and what Wikipedia's guidelines are, so let's just focus on getting this article up to those standards instead of speculating on the nature of Singapore's 50 cent army. By the way, I quite like "Latin agent of foreign influence" - it makes it makes me feel like a double agent for the Carthaginian empire trying to secure victory in the third Punic war. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, guys. I've been on the receiving end of threats for edits too. Though I would like to point out that it would be quite presumptuous to assume that all of this come from government/official means. There ARE some pretty hardcore followers for every side. I.e. Recently I got hit with a threat to report me to the police [1] which I seriously can't tell if its from a hardcore fan, a troll, or someone from the government. Or on the flip side, if I see an edit like this [2] I would not hesitate to remove it due to BLP and lack of sourcing. Does that make me a government-backed whitewasher? Yet for context, the same editor did this as well[3]. For me at least, I just try to be neutral and AFG (unless in the extreme cases) and keep editing/correcting to make sure popflock.com resource rules are being followed, and not be too emotionally attached. There is always a threat of turning into "moral guardians" and trying to protect an article from "evil forces", because by doing that, we start taking sides, as per what happened to the ex-admin I mentioned above. Hence, focus on neutrality, rules and reliable sources will pprovide a blanket coerage against disruptive edits from both sides. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on People's Action Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Right Wing or Conservative

You cannot call the People's Action Party a right-wing or conservative because PAP Platform is very centrist or centre-left. PAP supports Universal Health Care, Free Education and Social Security so for me PAP is not a right-wing or a conservative party PAP is a third Way and social democratic party in Asia.


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Talk:People's_Action_Party
 



 



 
Music Scenes