The cost of own "fiefdoms"

We are counting down 20 months before the next GE and the Singaporeans First hasn't been registered. With that little time to do whatever they can do, they will be on the same starting point like Reform Party no matter how much credentials they can flash among their members. Even RP had a good 3 years before the 2011 GE.

SFP took a couple of new founders from the old DPP, which is another sad story of a bright scholar-led revival that ended up nowhere. This is the cost of own "fiefdoms". The constituencies they contest will be easy meat for PAP, even if PAP has failed the people.

tanwahp said:

We are counting down 20 months before the next GE and the Singaporeans First hasn't been registered. With that little time to do whatever they can do, they will be on the same starting point like Reform Party no matter how much credentials they can flash among their members. Even RP had a good 3 years before the 2011 GE.

SFP took a couple of new founders from the old DPP, which is another sad story of a bright scholar-led revival that ended up nowhere. This is the cost of own "fiefdoms". The constituencies they contest will be easy meat for PAP, even if PAP has failed the people.

Click to expand...

They can still make up for lost time by moving fast on groundwork and positioning themselves correctly. Use the internet to build up an image and back up it by groundwork. The media will have less opportunity to tar you.

I am suspicious of SFP's intentions but at this stage, a vote for any opposition is needed as a slap on the PAP. What is needed is to send out the message that if people keep voting PAP on the basis that opposition is not prepared, they will simply be getting more of the same, ie, status quo, but at least with an opposition vote there is a chance that things can advance and policies relooked.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

They can still make up for lost time by moving fast on groundwork and positioning themselves correctly. Use the internet to build up an image and back up it by groundwork. The media will have less opportunity to tar you.

I am suspicious of SFP's intentions but at this stage, a vote for any opposition is needed as a slap on the PAP. What is needed is to send out the message that if people keep voting PAP on the basis that opposition is not prepared, they will simply be getting more of the same, ie, status quo, but at least with an opposition vote there is a chance that things can advance and policies relooked.

Click to expand...

No doubt about voting anything that is not PAP. The point is that instead of 87 strong fights we have 30 to 40 strong fights when opposition is made to give face to the small fries like RP, SDA, SF and DPP or be accused of non-democracy. Which denies what I think should be to have PAP voted out in all seats.

tanwahp said:

No doubt about voting anything that is not PAP. The point is that instead of 87 strong fights we have 30 to 40 strong fights when opposition is made to give face to the small fries like RP, SDA, SF and DPP or be accused of non-democracy. Which denies what I think should be to have PAP voted out in all seats.

Click to expand...

No single oppo party can field 87 strong candidates, or as a matter of fact, 87 candidates no matter weak or strong.

I think what you are concerned about is whether the top 87 candidates in say, the first tier parties like WP, NSP, etc, get edged out by the weaker candidates in the second tier parties like RP and SDA at the horse-trading table for the sake of some token "democracy". This is the kind of situation where I believe LTK has the correct approach. And I think democracy will be best served by each party simply playing to their strengths and adopting LTK's approach even if that results in a multi-cornered fight.

Don't give way if you know (or think) you're good.

The very notion that no constituency will be left untouched is good for Singapore's democratic progress - even if many of the constituencies are eventually contested by weak candidates or candidates who are just keen on running interference.

Given the relatively conservative nature of the electorate, it is not an advantage to the opposition to have all constituencies contested. In fact it is a big disadvantage to the opposition, for several reasons, but I will mention just one here. The PAP still consigns significance to the popular vote. The popular vote for the opposition would most assuredly be pulled down by relatively weak parties like RP, SDA, DPP and SDP. If some of them do not contest at all then that would be best as then the true extent of the PAP's popular vote can be measured more accurately.

No doubt about WP not giving way. These parties will KPKB about WP wanting to edge out other parties from the elections. Such arguments are a distraction for voters and supporters. They will then have the MSM darling "independence" voices to amplify that as an issue, people like Goh Meng Seng.

In the end WP might give up one GRC and that's a lot as it means one PAP GRC stands a lesser chance of falling to the opposition.

Some people say WP is the only paid party and therefore should be the only one to be criticized, so why am I criticizing SF or DPP?

True, but most WP members are not paid. Only the 7 MPs are paid. Moreover a WP member has a harder time getting a candidate ticket than a DPP member. So if you want to form a group with pathetic number like 5 members, you have to be confident enough and jolly well put up half the standards we expect. Not another sleeping party like DPP to benefit the PAP.