On voting for opposition

[Perspective]

This is a question primarily for Scroobal, although others are welcome to contribute.

I pretty much agree with Scroobal's idea of voting for any opposition candidate to reduce the PAP's dominance.

But a thought came to my mind:

As we know, the PAP is one party and the opposition consists of several parties.

Therefore, the standards of the opposition would vary more than the PAP's. We have parties with an edge for winning as well as unseen, unheard ones. We have opposition candidates who may fair better than PAP ones or those who may not show a single ounce of quality compared to the worst PAP candidates.

Now, if a bicycle thief got the same votes as the good opposition candidates because everyone voted the same way, would that encourage the quality to improve? Would good opposition not stop improving themselves, since the CEO of an MNC who joins the opposition knows that even he become a bicycle thief or bank robber, his votes will not drop?

After all, we wish to see improved quality of opposition because voting opposition for opposition sake can't go on forever, but keeping good people away from the opposition doesn't seem to help either.

 

[cleareyes]

This is a question primarily for Scroobal, although others are welcome to contribute.

I pretty much agree with Scroobal's idea of voting for any opposition candidate to reduce the PAP's dominance.

But a thought came to my mind:

As we know, the PAP is one party and the opposition consists of several parties.

Therefore, the standards of the opposition would vary more than the PAP's. We have parties with an edge for winning as well as unseen, unheard ones. We have opposition candidates who may fair better than PAP ones or those who may not show a single ounce of quality compared to the worst PAP candidates.

Now, if a bicycle thief got the same votes as the good opposition candidates because everyone voted the same way, would that encourage the quality to improve? Would good opposition not stop improving themselves, since the CEO of an MNC who joins the opposition knows that even he become a bicycle thief or bank robber, his votes will not drop?

After all, we wish to see improved quality of opposition because voting opposition for opposition sake can't go on forever, but keeping good people away from the opposition doesn't seem to help either.

This is a rather a "chicken and egg" question. Should we push more oppositions into parliment no matter how crappy they could be or must we wait for good quality ones to come by then we could do so?

At this stage, which is getting nowhere, i would say, quality sould be overlooked over quantity. Get in the numbers and then improve on them. If not, we might never be able to get things going

 

[zhihau]

After all, we wish to see improved quality of opposition because voting opposition for opposition sake can't go on forever, but keeping good people away from the opposition doesn't seem to help either.

just my humble 2 cents:

the notion of voting opposition for the sake of opposing the incumbent shouldn't be pegged as the central dogma. the idea of voting for the right kind of governance should stay and be promoted.

i advocate the distribution of power and no single political party should possess absolute power, it corrupts. no doubts we should always plan with the end in mind, we need to understand the dynamics of human nature, and do our utmost to prevent the consolidation of power into any single individual or political party.

oligarchy has been functioning well to a large extend, but the elite group runs into risks of becoming power hungry and eventually forgetting that it still belongs to the community as a whole. thus the checks and balances have to come about, not from within, but from the external environment.

a bicycle thief and a monster, which is the greater evil? :p:p:p

 

[myfoot123]

Many oppositions with good candidates vs one pap party with lousy candidates? who will you choose?

 

[Perspective]

This is a rather a "chicken and egg" question. Should we push more oppositions into parliment no matter how crappy they could be or must we wait for good quality ones to come by then we could do so?

At this stage, which is getting nowhere, i would say, quality sould be overlooked over quantity. Get in the numbers and then improve on them. If not, we might never be able to get things going

Theoretically very ideal and appealing to me.

But if a good opposition candidate did his best, worked very hard, got 45%. He sees a very good chance in the next election. Then he looks at the bicycle thief who came out as an opposition candidate only during the election. He was shock to see he also got 45% or maybe 46%. The good candidate then ask himself, why work so hard, so he became a bicycle thief himself. Both bicycle thieves continue to be the quality the opposition has and keeps better people away.

What to do in this?

 

[Perspective]

a bicycle thief and a monster, which is the greater evil? :p:p:p

Of course the monster is worse, but if there are also opposition saviours and if they look over the shoulder to see the bicycle thief doing as well as them, what happens?

Many oppositions with good candidates vs one pap party with lousy candidates? who will you choose?

Many oppositions with good candidates and some bad opposition with bad candidates and it may well be left with bad opposition with bad candidates soon enough after good candidates get the same score as bad candidates?

Now, all these are theories and questions. I am not saying that I am correct.

 

[Sideswipe]

Many oppositions with good candidates and some bad opposition with bad candidates and it may well be left with bad opposition with bad candidates soon enough after good candidates get the same score as bad candidates?

The "top" and "weak" candidate aren't likely to be competing in the same constituency. So they shouldn't compare their votes against each others.

Many factors can arise in the elections that will swing the votes either way. For example, the top candidate or A list GRC team could be facing a very strong PAP team where the voters are very happy with PAP.The weak candidate or C list GRC team might be facing a weak PAP team who are also very unpopular on the local ground.

so there's really nothing to compare.

 

[NissanViP]

I wonder if inmates (prisoners) allow to vote as well?

 

[depeche]

It's not easy to be a opposition...so I believed just vote them in and give it a go for them to grow!!!

 

[S.gal83]

In order for the opposition party to grow and develop, they must have some kinds of power first. Therefore, at this stage, I will advocate voting for the opposition party and giving them power. Then, after they have some power, more qualified people will want to join the opposition party, and this will increase the quality of the opposition party.

 

[Dan Now]

The Opposition is ONLY as good as your vote.

Why are we always brainwash to quickly make judgements about what a good opposition is or how bad an opposition is ?

WHOSE STANDARDS are we benchmarking to ? PAP standards ? Isn't that pathetic ?

Don't forget, the PAP was once an OPPOSITION PARTY THEMSELVES.

It is laughable that we must now define what a good opposition is according to the PAPist standards. LKY, makes some of the most shit stirring speeches in his campaigning days when he was up against Lim Yew Hock.

Moral of the STORY.

NEVER TRUST ANY POLITICIANS WITH YOUR LIFE. Politics is ever dirty since the day hell was created.

The jobs of the citizens is simple. DIVIDE the politicians up BEFORE THEY DIVIDE YOU UP.

A One Party Rule is no different from a Fascist Regime.
You have all experience first hand of what that brings you.

Your fate now rest in a nursing home in JB.
Billions are lost from our coffers and our CHILDREN will no doubt be carrying our debts.

So stop chasing our own shadows and face the truth.

If you want changes to be made, DON'T DEPEND JUST ON POLITICIANS TO DO THEIR DIRTY JOB. They will smoulder you one way or another if they get too powerful.

Think clearly. Vote wisely.

Time is running out.

Dan

 

[zhihau]

Of course the monster is worse, but if there are also opposition saviours and if they look over the shoulder to see the bicycle thief doing as well as them, what happens?

Many oppositions with good candidates and some bad opposition with bad candidates and it may well be left with bad opposition with bad candidates soon enough after good candidates get the same score as bad candidates?

Now, all these are theories and questions. I am not saying that I am correct.

another humble 2 cents...

the opposition saviours who looks over their shoulder to see the bicycle thief, doing as well as them, should take this as a sign that they haven't been doing enough or haven't been working hard enough. i'm not saying that they haven't been working hard, but ain't hard enough.

if poor oppositions candidates can even garner enough support to retain their deposits, then credible opposition candidates should be sweeping the constituency with overwhelming support. either that or they haven't been doing well enough for themselves.

one reaps the fruits from the seeds one had sown when the conditions are right, no doubts the credible opposition candidates cannot serve to please every single individual in the constituency, but the candidates ought to at least prove their worth. it is very telling in the polls. solid ground work needs to be done.

 

[Perspective]

The "top" and "weak" candidate aren't likely to be competing in the same constituency. So they shouldn't compare their votes against each others.

Many factors can arise in the elections that will swing the votes either way. For example, the top candidate or A list GRC team could be facing a very strong PAP team where the voters are very happy with PAP.The weak candidate or C list GRC team might be facing a weak PAP team who are also very unpopular on the local ground.

so there's really nothing to compare.

I think the only GRC with a difference are the ones led by LKY, GCT and LHL. For the rest, the factors are the same. This is why an opposition party always scores the same in every GRC and SMC except those led by leaders.

 

[Perspective]

another humble 2 cents...

the opposition saviours who looks over their shoulder to see the bicycle thief, doing as well as them, should take this as a sign that they haven't been doing enough or haven't been working hard enough. i'm not saying that they haven't been working hard, but ain't hard enough.

if poor oppositions candidates can even garner enough support to retain their deposits, then credible opposition candidates should be sweeping the constituency with overwhelming support. either that or they haven't been doing well enough for themselves.

one reaps the fruits from the seeds one had sown when the conditions are right, no doubts the credible opposition candidates cannot serve to please every single individual in the constituency, but the candidates ought to at least prove their worth. it is very telling in the polls. solid ground work needs to be done.

Good point.

 

[miosux]

Theoretically very ideal and appealing to me.

But if a good opposition candidate did his best, worked very hard, got 45%. He sees a very good chance in the next election. Then he looks at the bicycle thief who came out as an opposition candidate only during the election. He was shock to see he also got 45% or maybe 46%. The good candidate then ask himself, why work so hard, so he became a bicycle thief himself. Both bicycle thieves continue to be the quality the opposition has and keeps better people away.

What to do in this?

why are you 'fearful' of voting for opposition? politics, like life, is not always about "effort" or "ability". So the good candidate should know this when he stands for elections.

the bicycle thief won't last more than a term in office and would be voted out at the next election. don't believe me? vote for the bicycle thief and find out yourself =) hehehe

 

[locky2ky]

This is a question primarily for Scroobal, although others are welcome to contribute.

I pretty much agree with Scroobal's idea of voting for any opposition candidate to reduce the PAP's dominance.

But a thought came to my mind:

As we know, the PAP is one party and the opposition consists of several parties.

Therefore, the standards of the opposition would vary more than the PAP's. We have parties with an edge for winning as well as unseen, unheard ones. We have opposition candidates who may fair better than PAP ones or those who may not show a single ounce of quality compared to the worst PAP candidates.

Now, if a bicycle thief got the same votes as the good opposition candidates because everyone voted the same way, would that encourage the quality to improve? Would good opposition not stop improving themselves, since the CEO of an MNC who joins the opposition knows that even he become a bicycle thief or bank robber, his votes will not drop?

After all, we wish to see improved quality of opposition because voting opposition for opposition sake can't go on forever, but keeping good people away from the opposition doesn't seem to help either.

you know of the 'bicycle thief' because it was made known to you. but there could be a madoff but you don't know because info is being controlled. with a controlled media we are all kept in the dark!

 

[cleareyes]

Theoretically very ideal and appealing to me.

But if a good opposition candidate did his best, worked very hard, got 45%. He sees a very good chance in the next election. Then he looks at the bicycle thief who came out as an opposition candidate only during the election. He was shock to see he also got 45% or maybe 46%. The good candidate then ask himself, why work so hard, so he became a bicycle thief himself. Both bicycle thieves continue to be the quality the opposition has and keeps better people away.

What to do in this?

its all abt attitude, if a gd attitude is there, the person wnt just change like that

what we need now are numbers, quality is something unfortunalty we cant demand to have

 

[scroobal]

Now, if a bicycle thief got the same votes as the good opposition candidates because everyone voted the same way, would that encourage the quality to improve? Would good opposition not stop improving themselves, since the CEO of an MNC who joins the opposition knows that even he become a bicycle thief or bank robber, his votes will not drop?

In fact, I think the opposite will occur. It will begin to attract better qualified opposition candidates. They will be heartened by the fact that a constituency is so desperate for an alternative voice that they are prepared to make such a choice.

People should take heart that the Residents of Potong Pasir who saw pork barrel politics in full flight turned down the basket of goodies from no less a person that the Sr Minister and ex-prime minister. Short of PAP holding the voters's left ball and Chap Ji Kar holding the right ball, everything including the kitchen sink was thrown at the residents. They did not bite.


Its truly an encouraging sign. In fact the outcome baffled me as I thought they might fold in order to see the value of their flats rise considerably.

The other thing is that those keen to participate in opposition politics can form a party that they think are more suitable gto their position in life or towards a particular ideology. They need join the proverbial bicycle thief.

Personally I don't think PAP's monopoly will drag on for much longer. The young are better educated, well travelled, have access to information other than what the brothel at Toa Payoh publishes.

 

[scroobal]

what we need now are numbers, quality is something unfortunalty we cant demand to have

Good point, choice is not an option at this stage. Reducing the PAP monopoly is the first and only priority.

 

[scroobal]

you know of the 'bicycle thief' because it was made known to you. but there could be a madoff but you don't know because info is being controlled. with a controlled media we are all kept in the dark!

The PAP knows that in any population that will be a good component of simpletons - hardworking, honest, civil and law abiding individuals whose ability to think is limited.

They know that this lot will pick candidates on academic merit and corporate success. No different to a beauty contest. All they have to do is make sure that press shows the good side of the PAP and keeps the opposition below the radar.

These are the people who will be asking the opposition to cooperate. Go to any 1st world developed country and you will never hear that call - educated people will know how simplistic that call is as political ideology is mixed and starting from the extreme left to the fascist right. Take out the 2 extremes and you got a vibrant political culture and I will show you a developed country. At the last Australian Federal Elections, over 90 political parties contested the elections and not once, did an idiot suggest cooperation amongst opposition parties. People were talking about alliances, coalition opportunities etc.

I always find it amusing wyhen idiots state that they will not vote for opposition until they show unity.

The other thing that riles me is the habit of looking for gold among opposition candidates when the PAP has got it all locked up when it comes to academic and corporate success. Those who thought otherwiese paid a heavy penalty. Many are not aware that JBJ ran a very lucrative law practice and was good at his voucation. He owned a number of properties and it all went up in smoke. Look at Tang LIang Hong.

Is it fair to ask for sterling qualities in opposition candidates or is it fair to give a chance to those who are prepared to offer alternative views and make a difference.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.