Talk:People's Action Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People's Action Party is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for People's Action Party: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • 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

now here is a candidate for POV...

However it is fair to say that much of the more negative comments people tend to put up on wikipedia about Singaporean politics stem from the fact that there is no public forum on the policies of the PAP. Singapore is in effect a rich Cuba, and Lee Kuan Yew a successful Castro.

And as no legitimate opposition is allowed in Singapore, then wikipedia and the like are hijacked as forums for people to be able to discuss these issues. Perhaps time for wikipolitics... or simply freedom of speech in Singapore.

Perhaps the issue that Singapore is facing now is that now the country hs a self-sustaining economy and established niche in SE Asia, the population no longer needs to be dragged up by the scruff of its neck. And people who are not in the PAP club might wish to see things differently. Currently Singaporean citizens are given sham avenues of self expression through the "Singapore that I Want" campaign, and even the Project Superstar (Idol-like competition) which are engineered to make the locals feel that they have a say on some issues. However, it is quite clear that the PAP, like any political entity which has remained in power, unchallenged, unchallengeable, does not wish to share power. Not a single PAP politician would survive in a western democratic society, as they are used to getting everything on a plate.

==

What do you mean by POV? Point of View?

Are you a Singaporean? I don't know, but honestly I don't feel very much stifled here. But if you compared to other cities like Taiwan or HK, Singapore is very much liveable. And, remember, with are a very multi-cultural society so some measures have to be taken to curtail potential cultural clashes.

It's quite clear that efforts are underway, though very slowly, to give the power back to the people. It has to be a slow and delibrate process, and it's understabley so. What do you think?

k-q@gmx.net

==

It's not really that clear. I must object to the idea that this article has POV issues, because it merely reports the criticisms of it by others, and it's defense (of which it has made little of). However, I must also say that efforts aren't really clear, and that to be slow isn't understandable. Tolerance cannot be forced - it must be learned, nor is it an excuse to suppress political criticism...there's no civil war or anything either, so I don't see why we need key democratic institutions to be suspended? -- Natalinasmpf 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

==

It does seem to have POV or neutrality issues - true, it merely reports the criticisms of it by others, but it hardly covers anything else, and that's the thing that's disturbing. One would expect it to mention its economic successes in governing Singapore, i guess. Right now this article is kind of one-sided in its coverage. --Maycontainpeanuts 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] PAP under "social democratic party" category?

PAP's economy policies is probably social, but how can its political stand consider as democratic? It should goes under the category of Authoritarian Political Parties.202.84.173.100 10:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I was unable to find any reference to it being an authoritarian party. It really comes down to a POV, yours or mine. And as I'm not interested in an edit war I'll let it stand. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with you - please refer to the use of Internal Security Act, which introduced by the British colonial authority, by the ruling PAP party on oppposition parties.
An well-known example is the Operation Coldstore in 1963, where some opposition parties activists being interned for more than 17 years.
Also please kindly notice the following excerpt from the original article, which support this view:
The use of the judicial system in sueing opposition members for libel, the imprisonment of opposition political leaders without trial, its widely-perceived control of the press and media, and the need for police permits to hold any kind of public talk, exhibition, or demonstration are commonly-cited examples to support this view
If classification of PAP as an authoritarian party is POV, then I'd suggest you to delete this particular part of the article as well.--202.84.173.78 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said I'm not going to change it again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind defining "authoritarian" then?--Huaiwei 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Please put in what ever you think is best. I'm not going to change it either way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
My comment was directed at 202.84.173.100 lah. :D--Huaiwei 05:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I afraid I can't explain in my own words 'm not a political scientlist. Perhaps the artcile Authoritarianism would provide a useful insight on the ideology.
If we consider the degree of social control of PAP to Singaporean daily life, and the lack of a loyal opposition, one can consider the ideology of PAP more align with authoritarism rather than social democratic.
==
P.S: Authortarism can exist under a democratic system. Actually the Westminster System is notable creating 'elected dictatorship', especially when the ruling party have a huge majority in the parliament. This is due lack of separation of powers in parliamentary system.
An interesting comparision here is the difference of Hong Kong and Singapore's politcal climate: Hong Kong SAR government is not democratically formed, but it does not impose such strict social control - opposition parties operating actively and still a predominant force within the territory's political landscape; while Singapore's government is being formed democratically (by virtue of the system itself), the degree of social control is actually unimaginable by Hong Kong's standard (in 2003 a demostration of 500,000 people halted SAR government's plan to introduce the national security bill, while in Singapore even a small demostration can be crushed by police in the name of public order), and effective opposition parties which could enjoy same level of 'operational freedom' as the ruling party.--202.84.173.78 06:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not easy to tell whether it's a cause or an outcome. Although governance is authoritarian in nature, and the PAP impose authoritarian policities, we cannot jump to any credible and neutral conclusion that the PAP itself is an authoritarian party. Nevertheless I wouldn't agree it's belonging to the social democrat category, except that the party considers itself as such. — Instantnood 06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
So again I ask..just what is authoritarianism to you? A party which does not outlaw opposition parties is theoratically not authoritarian. Its usage of various means to retain power is considered authoritarian. Yet it does so fully within the rule of law and via the very system that democracy creates. Authoritatian?
And I do wonder....is "social control" seen as the main criterion between "democracy" and "authoritarianism"? Tell me which democracy today does not attempt to sway public opinions via various communication mediums. Show me which democracy does not attempt to garner votes by dangling all kinds of political carrots at the electoriate. Tell me which democracy does not try to enforce law and order, or better their society with social measures. Just what diffrentiates Singapore's situation with that of others?--Huaiwei 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
=====
Rule of Law does not impose any justification on law, it simply tell how the legal system uphold the law; as a result an Authoritarian state can also be a state which uphold Rule of Law. Singapore (SG) under PAP would be an excellent example of an authoritarian state which uphold Rule of Law.
The issue Law and order (politics) there is no direct link between the governing style and public safety issue - an Authoritarian state can also suffer from high crime rate.
Tell me which democracy today does not attempt to sway public opinions via various communication mediums. You've failed to notice that no democratic country has same degree of control to media as SG under PAP. Government hold majority stakes in all media (under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974), PAP doesn't need to sway public opinion, it only needs to impose it through through its propaganda machine in a systematic way. It is worth notice Reporters Without Borders has ranked Singapore 147th out of 166 countries in its second annual World Press Freedom Ranking in 2004.
Show me which democracy does not attempt to garner votes by dangling all kinds of political carrots at the electorates. Frankly to speak, I can't see any carrots, but only sticks in SG.
To the outside world, Singaporean looks all being tamed by the economic achievements. :-(
=====--202.84.173.100 02:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would you worry about what the outside world thinks of us anyway? And do we honestly give two hoots over Reporters Without Borders? The rankings is an obvious joke, so tell me if the uncle next door cares enough to do something about it! :D--Huaiwei 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
=====
A friendly reminder here - please don't use us here as I'm not Singaporean. Anyway it seems the debate has gone a little bit personal.
You can decide not to take a shit what RWB's ranking whatever, but when trying to benchmark the degree of freedom enjoyed by a particular state/region, rather than purely based on one's feeling, the use of these indexs make the evaluation process and results more scientific and subjective. Of course, the data has to be gathered by a fair and unbiased manner, in wiki language, that's NPOV.
=====--202.84.173.100 07:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
(response to earlier comments) There is no lack of opposition, see Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang who have been around for quite a while and both are still active. --Vsion 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If you carefully go over the history of the Workers' Party of Singapore (the party which the MP you've mentioned belongs to), you should notice that it has been a target of numerous clampdown times in the past until it was 'tamed'. Several members has been forced into de-facto exile afterwards.
Also, a simple mathematics here - is an opposition camp which hold only 2 out of 84 consider to be an effective opposition?--202.84.173.78 10:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Simple maths does not always work, and can of coz be manipulated depending on what outcome you want. Does the 82 seats tell you about actual popular votes amongst the electoriate? Does it tell you how much of the electoriate actually voted? And does the number of seats neccesarily reflect the existance or non-existance of an "effective opposition", for sometimes all it takes is one gem of an opposition member to keep the entire parliament in check?--Huaiwei 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
(response to 202.84.173.78) There weren't just two opposition: in the last election Singapore general election, 2001, there were about 30 opposition candidates but the electorate choose to elect only two. Also note that the "by-election" strategy is a construct by the opposition to intentionally contest less than half the number of seats in recent elections, not because of the PAP. The Singaporean electorate is strongly conservative, and that, I believe, was the main reason for the 75% popular support for the PAP in 2001. Is this unexpected? No it is not, the politics of the entire South East Asia is dominated by conservatism. That is also why Low Thia Khiang was elected, because he is sometimes more conservative than the PAP. Opposition can win, but they need to be of the right type; it follows then that PAP is not an authoritarian political party. --Vsion 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Opposition can win, but they need to be of the right type Isn't it already ridiculous enough? What is an opposition in correct type? Align themselve to Asian Values advocated by Singapore? Accept the absolute governing power by PAP? I really couldn't understand...probably I need to be re-educated through internment in Changi Prison :-D --202.84.173.100 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
A candidate more acceptable to the voters than his or her opponents will win an election. That's how Chiam and Low did it. What's so difficult to understand? --Vsion 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"What is an opposition in correct type?" The electoriate decides, not you. You have an issue with a conservative electoriate who simply dont give a damn about western liberal rights and still strongly believes in Asian values? You cannot accept the results of an electoriate who places bread and butter issues above their personal liberties, who chooses which ever party could deliver economically over all else? Your apparant dismissal of the people's voice appears to be just as undemocratic, if not more so?--Huaiwei 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
=====
Because it is not a free election. See the fate of outspoken SG dissidents. With the fate of these dissidents, plus bunches of legal sanctions (e.g. the Internal Security Act) prepared, I guess Singaporean clearly understand the consequence of opposing the governing PAP.
=====--202.84.173.100 03:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a free election? Why dont you proof this to us by contesting in the next elections, which is coming in a jiffy anyway? So what if there are political dissidents? Where they persecuted for being opposition party members? Where they penalised for attempting to win elections?--Huaiwei 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
=====
I agree there is nobody in SG is being persecuted for standing up against the ruling party during elections because those who willing to do so will be bankupted by libel cases (raised by ruling party leaders) after the election, OR being interned (of course, without reason as the Internal Security Act allowed)
It is the constituents who are being threathened to be penalised by the ruling party during general election. And more astonishing is, it is you who give an insight to this process in a so detailed way.
=====--202.84.173.100 07:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Although Singaporeans, especially supporters of the PAP may deny, it's nothing secret that there's a connection between priority of public service and level of support to PAP candidates. All these asides, what we should discuss here is not whether the PAP is authoritative, but whether it is truly a social democratic party. — Instantnood 16:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Pork barrel politics is rampant almost everywhere including western democracies. In the US, it is so institutionised that there is a committee of senators (U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations) to do that. We certainly oppose these practises, but the parliamentary elections, while not perfect, are generally fair and transparent by international standards. Don't be misled by some dissidents, who had their fair chances, but are now giving excuses for losing their election bids. Good opposition candidates can win, and some new faces like Sylvia Lim are expected to perform well in the next election. --Vsion 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to basic here - shouldn't we back to the talk of whether PAP is an Authoritarian party? The following is a summary of points (non-exhaustive) here which support the view of PAP is Authoritarian:

  • The use of Internal Security Act against the opposition
  • The use of libel lawsuit again the opposition
  • The direct/indirect control of press by government

While the counter-evidence provided by (supposely!) Singporeans are (but not limited to):

  • PAP won in "free" elections
  • PAP (as what propaganda machines in Singapore described) is "widely supported by electorates

--202.84.173.100 08:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, i think that you are baised against PAP. The usage of ISA is not limited to Singapore only and other countries have been doing this under other names. The United States government have been known to detain suspects without going through trials, does it make USA a authoritarian state?

[edit] POV Propaganda Article

This article is nothing more than hypocritical propaganda on the part of western liberalists who despite their professed belief in tolerence and pluralism can't seem to stand a successful political system that doesn't square with their own narrow precepts.

The matierial under "Social Political Control" is nothing more than a laundry list of perceived grievances, most of them exclusive to outsiders looking into Singapore. Far from an oppressed island nation groaning under the weight of a tyrranical government, most Singaporeans accept the political situation because the government, despite the absence of opposition oversight, is able to successfully ensure a wide range of freedoms and services. Furthermore, it is important to note that there is not an absence of vigorous debate, it just happens to occur within the PAP, in other words, this is an example of democratic centralism, in which most of the debate takes place within the ruling apparatus. This is not so dissimilar to the politics of Japan, in which the really important decisions are debated within the LDP, not in an interparty debate.

    • As much diatribe and bias as there is in the above comment, the fact is that this article is ridiculously negative and biased against the People's Action Party. The entire article is unnecessarily opinionated and politicised, and seems to simply be a culmination of criticisms of, and perceived grievances by, the Singaporean Government. A serious overhaul is required by people with NPOV experience in Wikipedia and hopefully we can all work together to improve this article so it approaches the PAP with neutrality, stating claims and counter-claims in particular with regard to things like corruption over housing estate upgrading, gerrymandering and calling the Straits Times a 'propaganda' paper. This article could be a hell of a lot more informative in terms of looking at the policy framework of the PAP, ideological influences (Communitarianism, Neo-Confucianism, approaches to delivery of medical services) and such. Cheers, Hauser 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A note on debate: What about the internal debate in the recent NKF scandal? It showed that interal debate does not really work, otherwise it would not have gone to court. Ghormax 11:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for PAP's election success

Regarding the statement in the article:

Because of the economic success of the party's policies, the plurality system of voting, various limits on political expression and rule changes (see for example Mauzy and Milne, 2002, Ch.2 or Mutalib, 2004, Ch. 8) and because almost all professional politicians in Singapore are members of the People's Action Party, PAP has held the overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament since 1966, ....

The above is attempting, in a single paragraph, to explain PAP's success in 10 consecutive general elections. I feel that it is too generalising and simplistic. In addition, except for economic success, I disagree that the other election "tactics" are the main reasons for PAP's success, hence POV from the cited authors. There are stronger reasons such as concerns for internal stability and external security, multi-racial party profile, good grassroot organisation, the lack of good opposition candidates, and many others; but these are of course my POV. Let's stick to the facts and not try to explain the success unless there is clear consensus. Those election "tactics" and other human right issues are discussed in later sections, so let's readers make their own connection. --Vsion 08:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, Mauzy and Milne essentially break it down to those reasons within their book (and I think they are correct broadly speaking). I think the main problem is that, as there isn't a (content-rich) history of party written within the article, there is no explanation of the reasons why Barisan Sosialis were able to be defeated nor a non-partisan description of the ways that candidates were disqualified from participating in elections (Gomez and Jeyaretnam are two cases that stand out off the top of my head). Additionally, the fact that it is socially frowned upon to vote for opposition parties etc. I'll be adding more to the article with regard to their continuing of elections sourced from Mauzy and Milne, just with more depth. Cheers, Hauser 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the main reason of the PAP's victory is because of the CCs, Grassroots, Community Centers and of course PCF(PAP Community Foundation) a kindergarten. This is because that in these places there are lots of pictures and stuff associated with the PAP. It seems quite clear sometimes to me that CC, Grassroots, Community Centre members seem to be afriad of the PAP and therefore place all their flags all over the place. Well as for the kids studying there, they probably will remember the PAP flags which are all around and therefore think that it is the PAP who taught them so this so that and so when it is their turn to 'repay their benefactors', they would go supporting them, and when others see the massive crowd in rally photos, they probably will swing their vote over to the PAP. Another think to mention is the media, Singapore is well-known for its 'refined' media, but when the elctions start, there will be more PAP stuff than opposition, but the only exceptions are the Chee and Gomez matter, this shows that the media is in a way aiding the PAP by helping then to the smooth-talking, this is not right as this will make them a one-sided media too. These places are responsible for the one-sided election which in the cabinet members do not seem to give up their seats. Take for example Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor who is in his 80s, he knows that he cannot do as much brainwork as he did, but yet he doesn't want to give up his place why, is it because he wants to break the world record for the longest serving cabinet member on Earth, is it because he wants to take the spot and then make people think again before they ballot for opposition in fear that the PAP will check the slips or because he wants to wait for the day when Malaysia will be ruled by Singapore so he can win all the land with his party, answer probably all of the above.

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

[edit] Party Symbol

Even though the comment from the previous user was reverted, I believe it is still worthy to mention that the PAP symbol was based / or is very similar to the British Union of Fascists. What do others think? --Ghormax 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a ky difference in being based on, or being a case of pure coincidence. Unless we can show that the PAP actually adopted the logo based on that of the British Union of Fascists, it is of little value, and is potentially misleading to make this equation based purely on visual similarity.--Huaiwei 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed some of the content related to this symbol story. The main issue here is that Oswald Mosley influence on Corporatism and Organic Statism is not established, and not mentioned in any of these related articles, including the Oswald Mosley article. Source requested. --Vsion 04:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of seats

Some just changed the line "Today the PAP, holds 92 of the 94 seats in parliament." to "82 of the 84" but this shows 94 members in parliament. Some confirm. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

See Members of the Singapore Parliament and do some counting. ;) 82 is the correct figure.--Huaiwei 11:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The site that you list also shows Nominated Members of Parliament. They do not qualifiy because they have not been elected (It is indeed confusing but you should not forget that Singapore does have nondemocratic features) --Ghormax 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that the 94 members of parliament includes non-elected members of parliament, including the nominated members and NMCPs. Unless you are claiming all of these non-elected members are PAP party politicians, the statement "the PAP, holds 92 of the 94 seats in parliament" is entirely false and inaccurate. Is Chia Kiah Hong Steve a PAP politician now? This is not confusing at all, and is perhaps only so to those who do not bother to do some basic research. I told you to do your own counting in that list, and you will soon realise just what constitutes 84 seats, and who the remaining 10 seats holders are. How is this related to the "nondemocratic features" of the Singapore political system? I have earlier changed the offending text to "Today the PAP, holds 82 of the 84 elected seats in parliament" just to be doubly clear. If you still have an issue with this statement, please spell them out here.--Huaiwei 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion nominated members in parliament is a nondemocratic feature as democracy is a system of selection by the people. --Ghormax 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, nomination is undemocratic. Ironically, it is a feature added in an attempt to dissuade nay-sayers of the PAP from calling it undemocratic. The 84 elected seats of parliament continue to represent the 84 wards in Singapore. Non of the nominated seats hold any jurisdiction over a political division, and they do not have equal voting rights on core national issues. Both were added due to the PAP's continued dominance of Parliament, with the NCMP allowing opposition members to enter parliament, and NMPs for non-politicians/party members to do so, all with the PAP's intention to "check" the government. They are not there at the expense of elected MPs, nor are they a pre-existing feature of an undemocratic system.--Huaiwei 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


As much as we all have opinions on it (and I definitely am in agreement with you both Ghormax and Huaiwei), we need to remember to make the article as neutral as possible. Defenders of the NMP system do have some very valid points in the first place, but of course as Wikipedians it's our duty to make it nice and balanced. I don't want to see the article turning into some silly, totally biased attack on the PAP and it's policies again. -- Hauser 10:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Two of the most important matters that the PAP say they uphold is democracy and the ban on political podcasting. Democracy, do they upholod? I say no. They always gerrymander during the election and sue opposition party members before elections, is it fair, this are one of their many ways they use to punch a hole in opposition parties,thoughout the years the PAP has been enjoying their rule but seem to forget about the citizens day by day, and yet the innocent citizens of Singapore want to vote them why Kaisu(do something for something). During the elections Goh Chok Tong, former prime minister of Singapore, discuss the idea of giving 'free lift upgrading' for all wards that vote for Singapore, but how free is it? What if they increase the maintainiance fees. I live in Hougang SMC, a opposition ward dispite my young age I am still aware of what PAP are during behind the scenes, I remember the fact that for all the years that Low Thia Kiang, our MP has been elected, the PAP has NOT given him the permission to give lift-upgrading to the residents here in Hougang SMC. You know why, it is because that they know that Hougang SMC has a lot of senior citizens and thereby they used this method to threathen those senior citizens. It is also like the baby bonus package, they give the parents the baby bonus but in the end the money will eventually get back to them. But I am happy that the loyal supporters in this particular opposition ward, HAVE NOT BEEN DUMB AND VOTED FOR THEM! Secondly is the ban of political podcasting, Mr Brown, a blogger who posted a recording about bad things on James Gomez WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO ANY TROUBLE DISPITE GIVING A POLITICAL PODCAST!

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

[edit] Accusation of gerrymandering

Cut from article:

The PAP is alleged to commit gerrymandering with the redrawing of electoral districts just before the general elections, thus often erasing politician's efforts in building rapport and community ties in the previously existing political divisions. It is also notable that constituencies and GRCs which the PAP did relatively badly in were systematically removed from the electoral map by the next election.

We need to tell our readers WHO says the party engaged in gerrymandering and who objected to this.

What does it mean, "removed from the electoral map"? Does this mean disenfranchised?

Is there something unfair about this process? Someone who condemns this? If so, please identify the person or group which maintains this point of view. --Uncle Ed 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The opposition parties. In particular, the HDB often allegedly plays the role (this is a significant minority view) of tearing down certain estates which support the opposition with the excuse of "en bloc upgrading", scattering voters. I will improve the paragraph. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact in particular the clarification was made in the sentence right after the paragraph removed, although not very well. It looked funny with the paragraph removed, so I'm restoring it then working on it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the PAP are gerrymandering as they always cut out those supporting opposition areas and place them in their strong wards, thereby it seems that there is a slight increase in certain wards but a slight decrease in certain wards too. I believe this is because of their gerrymandering.

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/o/Talk%7EPeople%27s_Action_Party_6435.html"