• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

A flood of donations might ease the hardship of not having an army

PoliticalDialogue

Alfrescian
Loyal
A flood of donations might ease the hardship of not having an army
October 28, 2014 at 7:56am

In a FB Note on 15 October 2014, Mr Roy Ngerng bemoaned the fact that he has been “fighting on the front but without an army behind” him. As has become his custom, Mr Ngerng’s note is loosely written, thus he does not make explicit as to why the army, which he seemed to expect, did not materialise. However, elsewhere in his note he refers to the “fear so ingrained” in Singaporeans.

Given the fact that Mr Ngerng tends to flip-flop on his statements – the most egregious example of which was his complete change, within a mere two-hour-period, in his attitude towards his sacking by his previous employer – he might well flip-flop on his earlier remarks and now say that he does have an “army behind” him. Be that as it may.

Focusing on Mr Ngerng’s remarks that he leads an offline army which is non-existent, it is sufficient to say that this is something that is not unusual and has plagued many civil society activists around the globe. All such activists start off with any number of assumptions. They cannot conceive that most people do not share their view of the world. Soon, however, they realise that their assumptions had been misplaced and, if they had been spending most of their time in the online world, they had also believed their own press.

The incident at Hong Lim Park on September 27 -- which has been extensively written on -- spawned a significant public backlash against Mr Ngerng (including from some opposition party personalities). And it appears to be the reason for his series of lamentations in his October 15 FB Note.

To cut to the heart of the matter, Mr Ngerng should have paused to consolidate his gains when he was ahead and then return to his activism closer to the next general election. He was well ahead in early June this year. Back then, up to 6,000 people attended the first #ReturnMyCPF protest rally at Hong Lim Park where Mr Ngerng was a keynote speaker. Also, this rally more-or-less coincided with him collecting around $110,000 in donations from hundreds of well-wishers who wanted to help him in legal costs associated with a defamation suit brought against him by the prime minister.

Here, I draw a parallel with the Republican U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson -- a member of the right wing congressional Tea Party caucus. During President Barack Obama’s 2009 State of the Union address, Wilson caused quite a stir when he heckled, “You lie!”
[See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro ]

For his boorish conduct, the South Carolina congressman was roundly condemned by many people, including from those within his own party. In fact leading the criticism of Wilson was none other than Republican Senator John McCain who had been Obama’s rival during the 2008 presidential election race.

Yet, shortly after his outburst, Wilson raised more than US$1 million from over 18,000 “conservative donors” because they perceived that “he was ‘under attack’ for his willingness to take on Obama.”

The left and the right might be at diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they do share one thing in common. They adopt methods that are often seen to be in poor taste by most ordinary folk who, by inclination, are moderate and mild-mannered. But those methods appeal to a narrow segment of people who are not short in providing both the cheers and the cash to those who are spoiling for a fight or figuratively attempting to take a swing at The Establishment.

Presumably, Mr Ngerng’s hardship in “fighting on the front but without an army behind” him will be eased as long as the cash continues to roll in with his calls being answered for donations – to cover legal fees etc. That should keep him quite chipper... at least for the time being.

Dr Derek da Cunha is author of the books: Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future (Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 2012), 288pp; Singapore Places its Bets: Casinos, Foreign Talent and Remaking a City-state (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010), 192pp; and, The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1997), 150pp.

© Derek da Cunha


https://www.facebook.com/notes/dere...dship-of-not-having-an-army/10153359285343797
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
So is Cunha a pap stooge?

If Ordinary Roy caves in, there will be others that will come forward. Sinkees are totally fed up with the PAP. The policies of the PAP have hit the lives of sinkees and it is growing. Every sinkee knows that foreigners have a negative impact on their lives and on sinkapore. That's the message that the Opposition needs to drill in. The PAP is going to harp that we should not be xenophobic. Tune the PAP out and tell sinkees what they already know - 2.9 million foreigner vs 2.5 million sinkees is not a nation-building strategy but a sellout of our beloved country for the benefits of the PAP. The PAP are traitors and deserve to be tried for treason when they lose power. That's the promise that the Opposition party should make to sinkees to win the vote.
The Opposition should set the battleground, instead of letting the PAP dictate how the election should be fought.
 

PoliticalDialogue

Alfrescian
Loyal
This 10 November blog post seems a further reinforcement of the 15 October FB Note.
http://thehearttruths.com/2014/11/1...can-still-carry-on-the-flight-if-its-just-me/

The opining (or whining) the fact that: "The foot soldiers were never going to come."

The provision of passive, instead of active, support seems very much a Singaporean thing. The Raffles Place stabbing incident on Friday is a metaphor or further illustration of this phenomenon. In today's Sunday Times, one of the few heroes of the incident, the KPMG auditor, Mr Nazir (who pinned down the suspect) bemoaned the fact that few bystanders stepped forward to help. The ST wrote: "However, he said he was disappointed that there were many others who stood by to record the incident instead of helping." This pretty much mirrors online political commentary: hundreds, if not thousands, of Netizens (largely operating under the cloak of anonymity) will goad on one person to assail the government, but they will restrict themselves to passive support -- encouragement online, provision of donations, and vowing to vote against the PAP.

Other than the PAP, the only party that truly has an army of foot soldiers is the WP.
 

3_M

Alfrescian
Loyal
Many of our opposition politicians actually behave like activist instead of strategist. Either they lack the courage to venture out of their comfort zone or they are living in their own imaginable world. Instead of reaching out to the undecided, they often found themselves preaching to the converted.
 

Belgarath

Alfrescian
Loyal
Many of our opposition politicians actually behave like activist instead of strategist. Either they lack the courage to venture out of their comfort zone or they are living in their own imaginable world. Instead of reaching out to the undecided, they often found themselves preaching to the converted.

The same applies to the majority of opposition supporters on the internet. Forever preaching to the converted and having an echo-chamber conversation.

WP has the right formula. Do down to the ground and work it hard every day. That's where the meat of politics is.
 

Belgarath

Alfrescian
Loyal
The provision of passive, instead of active, support seems very much a Singaporean thing. The Raffles Place stabbing incident on Friday is a metaphor or further illustration of this phenomenon. In today's Sunday Times, one of the few heroes of the incident, the KPMG auditor, Mr Nazir (who pinned down the suspect) bemoaned the fact that few bystanders stepped forward to help. The ST wrote: "However, he said he was disappointed that there were many others who stood by to record the incident instead of helping." This pretty much mirrors online political commentary: hundreds, if not thousands, of Netizens (largely operating under the cloak of anonymity) will goad on one person to assail the government, but they will restrict themselves to passive support -- encouragement online, provision of donations, and vowing to vote against the PAP.

Other than the PAP, the only party that truly has an army of foot soldiers is the WP.



Agree with you.
 

PoliticalDialogue

Alfrescian
Loyal
In HK, a protest movement has many thousands of adherents who are prepared to step forward and be counted as can be seen even from this Hong Kong Baptist University commencement (graduation) ceremony last Friday. They are the "foot soldiers" of a movement. In Singapore, on the other hand, you have thousands of shadowy figures online urging a few others offline to take a tough stance against the government; hardly surprising therefore that they are not taken seriously.

[video=youtube;Umr8VY8LMoI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umr8VY8LMoI[/video]

umbrella_graduation3.jpg


http://therealsingapore.com/content...ng-yellow-umbrella-during-graduation-ceremony
 

Attachments

  • umbrella_graduation3.jpg
    umbrella_graduation3.jpg
    116.4 KB · Views: 118
Top