The meaning of stability

You know, countries that is "dictatory" in nature always warn its people about the damages they might cause if they choose the opposition. " it will create an unstable system" or "it will lead to stagnation". Singapore is one of such country, Malaysia is another one.

So it is true that once the country turn from single party to a 2 party system will lead to unstable system, economy break down, people into hardship? Our wives will end up being the maid for other countries?

To start with it is not the wives but the husbands, my wife's brother for instance need to find greener pasture in China with almost no opportunity of returning to Singapore. Can you imagine the family separation? How will their child be affected?

The best proof of the performance for a 2-party system is to observe one which just done exactly that. Closest we have is Malaysia, the country's ruling party has lost its 2/3 majority since 2008 and continued to remain so during the 2013 election. Did we see the creation of an unstable system? Well, to say the truth, the ruling party is the one creating havoke and try to destabilise the country, it is the opposition that create the stability by confronting the ruling party on their behavior, in effect, keep them in check.

The few states that land under the governance of the opposition in fact performed much better with revenues and reserves, that is after many years of deficits under the rule of the ruling party. If the ruling party of Singapore is so pro to inducing competition for Singaporeans, they should experience some true competition themselves.

.

The chart is in fact Malaysia's KLSE, don't you like it? Its election happened in 2008, and the fall of KLSE was due to an international event. However, it has not tuerned back since with one high after another. In fact it is at a new high right now and the election result which end up representation remain status quo has not even dented the market performance but pushes it to a higher high.

The Singapore STI (yes, I know I said it is no longer reliable barometer for Singapore economy) on the other hand not only failed to reach higher high, it was stagnant since 2009. Even with its recent overwhelming win in the election, it brought no joy to the market. So can I say that the market does not support the political status of Singapore? I think time is the most reliable justification here.

To be honest, if you look at the result of the latest election, PAP has already lost the 2/3 majority, it is the system that it put in place which protect it from a much larger majority of opposition. I am amazed that the ruling party has not changed its spots and continue to act as if they rule Singapore. The members within are still tell people what to do and not doing the right thing themselves.

Chan Chun Seng for instance has recently justifying for not setting poverty line, a good example of some one not only not listening, but expect others to listen to him, how naccissistic can that be? He even hint that he is the next Prime Minister. I think he needs to look at the mirror first as ask himself if he has the leadership quality, that is to listen?

In my opinion, Singapore is not a stable system at the moment, it is afterall a single party system. When this party fail and it is in the process, there is no alternative. The governing party is not doing Singapore a favour by continue to implement strategy to ensure it in power. They are failing Singapore.