On 1) I would argue that the government in power adopting good policies from the opposition is what they should be doing anyway, provided it fits within the framework of their ideas (and larger class sizes appears to be an implementation, not ideological issue). Whether they claim credit or not is not something I care much about, since the wellbeing of political careers is not my problem.

On 2), having read quite a bit by LKY, I consider policies like minimum wage to be ideologically against what PAP stands for (or what Singapore has become). Minimum wage is a rights infringement, in that it impedes consenting individuals from forming contracts at terms deemed "illegal". It's been catastrophic in most countries it has been tried, although it's now so well accepted in the West that nobody thinks of criticizing it anymore.

For example, I remember Milton Friedman commenting on how minimum wage had artificially restricted the number of fast food jobs available to unskilled teenagers, causing whites to be disproportionately hired over blacks, causing higher black unemployment amongst the working class.

Minimum wage policy is being continuously introduced and voted down with over 70% of the popular vote in Switzerland, where a waitress at a cafe can easily make 6k CHF/month thanks to market forces.

The issue of course is that PAP can't outright say that its policy is often inspired by the Founding Fathers (although I saw at least one LKY speech quoting the US Constitution) but part of why I moved, was that it was pretty clear what ideological lines the country followed.

I find it hard to reconcile the criticism of the government as being corrupt, with the utter lack of actual evidence of, say, government contracts landing in the Lee family's pockets (if anything, Temasek seems to acquire companies AFTER they become successful, which is what you'd want them to do as a "shareholder"), or libel cases being judged immediately against a valid case for political reasons. It seems to me, considering the number of exiled Marxist lawyers, that if such evidence was around it would be well publicized and easy to find. (and reading the Wikipedia article, again on my home connection, completely unimpeded by government censorship, I see that he did raise $110,000 in legal fund aid to carry the case to completion).

The blogger case for example:
* Narrative 1: blogger discovers great financial impropriety, attempts to bring it to light, gets sued to bankrupcy and fired as a result of government pressure.
* Narrative 2: hospital employee uses company time and assets to blog during work hours (which is against his contract), gets fired as a result, independently of what he has discovered. Court digs, finds allegations to be untrue (and everything I've read seems to point at Roy Ngerng faking his data to make a point), finds against the chap, who continues to fight a PR battle against PAP nevertheless, playing on people's tendency to side with the underdog, particularly one fighting the billionaire son of Goliath.

How do you pick a side?

Where is the evidence? Where are the hard facts? That's all I ask for. Until then, I subscribe to the very American concept of innocent until proven guilty.