Why PAP can't do coups or violence

Sumetime back I flippantly blogged on a ”Klingon election”.

Seriously this or military intervention is unlikely because it will shake confidence in the rationality of the PAP internationally, especially its willingness observe the letter of internationally accepted rules.

S’pore is trying to attract foreigners to set up oil  and chemical plants, and R&D facilities here. These projects are expensive and have long lead times. So if there is military intervention or ”Klingon election”, they will fear that somewhere down the line, their expensive investments may be at risk.

Then there is plan to get more MNCs to base their regional HQs here. Overturning a “freak” result will scare them away because they want a quiet place.

And then there is the attempt to build a wealth mgt centre to rival Switzerland. Would people want to keep their money in a country where there is a military intervention or ”Klingon election”? Next time, their assets could be seized.

David Cameron’s speech at Davos on why invest in places like the UK sums up why the PAP can’t do coups etc:  “If you’re looking to set up a headquarters abroad, are you going to invest where your premises can be taken away from you? Where contracts are routinely dishonoured? Where there’s the threat of political upheaval”

“Or are you going to invest where there are property rights, the rule of law, democratic accountability?”

Call me complacent but the PAP’s love of foreign money (it’s for the gd of S’pore, you know)  means that if there is a” freak” election result, there will be no military intervention or ”Klingon election”.

About these ads