Sammyboy RSS Feed
05-07-2014, 11:00 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Why does threshold make the difference?
First, we have to give credit to those people who voice out against the PAP policies – past and present. They keep on reminding us there is a threshold of public trust on the government. However, the same reminder in the past and present receives different level of threshold and peer effects.
Without the oppositions we will never see the change in threshold level and hence, the result of peer effects. Just imagine the case of JBJ, with the current threshold level of social injustice and the alternative media, if there is any social crowdfunding for his defamation case against the PAP leaders, it will certainly draw a large crowd and supports than before.
In 1990s, Singaporeans generally had different threshold of tolerance against the PAP government as compared to today. People are more demanding now. MRT, bus services, child care, primary one registration, public hospitals, National Service, CPF, you name them, you will see a lower threshold, a lower acceptance level, a lower passing mark.
A lower threshold also means the PAP receives less respect from the people. Less respect can also mean Singaporeans are trusting the PAP less. Hence, it is a lower public trust.
In the past, when the PAP made mistakes, like the case of Mas Selamat, the mainstream media would give them a good cover and projecting another picture and image. Artificially, the media helped to maintain a higher level of tolerance threshold for the PAP. Hence, public peer effects wouldn't take place. Same for many ISA and defamation cases, the one-side story prevented peer effects to take place. It may also due to what the PAP always stresses that the economy and prosperity are keys for Singaporeans, other things are secondary. So, we have stagnant threshold and stagnant peer effects for many years.
This also reflects in the general elections. In 1991, there was a small breakthrough and the oppositions got 4 MP seats. It went down to two later. The key point here is http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2014/0...s-of-peer.html (http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2014/07/pap-faces-huge-challenges-of-peer.html)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?185252-PAP-Faces-Huge-Challenges-of-Peer-Effects-and-Threshold-Changes&goto=newpost).
Why does threshold make the difference?
First, we have to give credit to those people who voice out against the PAP policies – past and present. They keep on reminding us there is a threshold of public trust on the government. However, the same reminder in the past and present receives different level of threshold and peer effects.
Without the oppositions we will never see the change in threshold level and hence, the result of peer effects. Just imagine the case of JBJ, with the current threshold level of social injustice and the alternative media, if there is any social crowdfunding for his defamation case against the PAP leaders, it will certainly draw a large crowd and supports than before.
In 1990s, Singaporeans generally had different threshold of tolerance against the PAP government as compared to today. People are more demanding now. MRT, bus services, child care, primary one registration, public hospitals, National Service, CPF, you name them, you will see a lower threshold, a lower acceptance level, a lower passing mark.
A lower threshold also means the PAP receives less respect from the people. Less respect can also mean Singaporeans are trusting the PAP less. Hence, it is a lower public trust.
In the past, when the PAP made mistakes, like the case of Mas Selamat, the mainstream media would give them a good cover and projecting another picture and image. Artificially, the media helped to maintain a higher level of tolerance threshold for the PAP. Hence, public peer effects wouldn't take place. Same for many ISA and defamation cases, the one-side story prevented peer effects to take place. It may also due to what the PAP always stresses that the economy and prosperity are keys for Singaporeans, other things are secondary. So, we have stagnant threshold and stagnant peer effects for many years.
This also reflects in the general elections. In 1991, there was a small breakthrough and the oppositions got 4 MP seats. It went down to two later. The key point here is http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2014/0...s-of-peer.html (http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2014/07/pap-faces-huge-challenges-of-peer.html)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?185252-PAP-Faces-Huge-Challenges-of-Peer-Effects-and-Threshold-Changes&goto=newpost).