Chitchat WP Convergent Theory - a critique

scroobal said:

I agree that the Macro events were a factor for WP in 2011 and PAP in 2015. But it also shows that WP had nothing else in the tank if they relied solely on Macro factors. The article drives home the point that both WP and PAP are now more or less feeding in the same pond - centre left. PAP swung back to feed in the same pond. WP has to re-strategise if not people will have choose between one party with resources and ability to deliver and one without and both with the same ideology. (Note I am simplifying this for argument sake).

There are many ways to differentiate even with similar ideology that citizens want. Take on more prominently ( prominently is the operative word here which means in local context to some extent confrontational) the lapses, the abuses, the double standards and be bolder with policy differentiation.

Gone are the days of press statements and listing of questions raised.

Click to expand...

We can disagree on the details but where should WP stands in the political spectrum to put them in better position to appeal to the masses. This will ultimately determine the general direction the party is heading. Going too far left will lose appeal to the middleground, leaning to the centre will offend the opposition hardcore. So this is a delicate balancing act.

As for those issues you raised, it the small details on how a party should attack the issues. The style, presentation and even tone of voice all affect public perceptions. You attack pap policies hard but at the end of the day come out with an alternative proposal that is nothing more than a scale down version of the original one. Nothing wrong with it as I often see this playing out in other parts of the world. The yardstick I measure politicians are whether they give themselves sufficient space to manevour when they propose something or say something. This is something I find lacking in sdp and I am sure many swing voters also notice it.

As far as WP is concern, I don't see why should they get too confrontational just to satisfy the desire of a certain segment of the opposition base. Most opposition voters will still vote WP simply because they are the only party with a realistic chance of beating pap. WP will only get confrontational when they sense their opposition supporters are fast losing patience and abandoning them.

I won't worry about moving to the center and potentially offending the hard core opposition. WP will have most of its votes regardless. No one in his right mind except for, say, Jeremy Chen of the SDP, votes PAP just because dissatisfied with WP.

Sometimes in politics you have to be calculative to serve the greater good. That also means not shunning away from 3 cornered fight if you know you have done you're groundwork well and are miles ahead of the 3rd party.

One thing that WP cannot do is maintain status quo and continue using the same strategy.

They have slightly over 4 years to test, trial and experiment not across the board but in a controlled manner to work out what the best could be. The appeal is still left of centre and that is quite universal across the Western democracies except for US. So no shift within the political spectrum. As the official opposition, they have to start picking apart faulty policies and its execution, ranking of priorities and distribution of state resources in more robust and heightened manner than what is currently done. Its no longer the co-driver, they must step up to be the bus inspector. Unless they raise their profile as an Opposition and behave very clearly as an opposition, that role will be taken away.

It might even be worth assessing tapping their natural band of supporters in non-traditional WP constituencies. A satellite base in the West or North can be setup. My understanding is that the membership is growing and the desire to stand as candidates has been expressed by those not selected. The danger is that PAP will in the meantime strengthen its containment strategy in the East and one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that adjacency model is the core of the WP's strategy.

Raising profile is not being confrontational in the manner that Chee and SDP do things. Sadly the word "confrontational" carries a different meaning even to the extent that even academics like Derek da Cunha has become overly attached to it. It is calling out the issues, the shortcoming and failures etc. And these must carry a higher profile. It is something that the party has to ponder over and work out how best to do this. Blaming the state controlled press is totally valid but an answer must still be found to overcome this obstacle.

One things is definitely in WP's favour - the latest slate of candidates and their impressive credentials. We need to complement this with a strategy that has more bite and a clear future.

3_M said:

We can disagree on the details but where should WP stands in the political spectrum to put them in better position to appeal to the masses. This will ultimately determine the general direction the party is heading. Going too far left will lose appeal to the middleground, leaning to the centre will offend the opposition hardcore. So this is a delicate balancing act.

As for those issues you raised, it the small details on how a party should attack the issues. The style, presentation and even tone of voice all affect public perceptions. You attack pap policies hard but at the end of the day come out with an alternative proposal that is nothing more than a scale down version of the original one. Nothing wrong with it as I often see this playing out in other parts of the world. The yardstick I measure politicians are whether they give themselves sufficient space to manevour when they propose something or say something. This is something I find lacking in sdp and I am sure many swing voters also notice it.

As far as WP is concern, I don't see why should they get too confrontational just to satisfy the desire of a certain segment of the opposition base. Most opposition voters will still vote WP simply because they are the only party with a realistic chance of beating pap. WP will only get confrontational when they sense their opposition supporters are fast losing patience and abandoning them.

Click to expand...

I agree and the electorate do favour left of centre and I put it down to our Asian roots. The bicycle thief theory does not work and I suspect that Singaporeans need even the bicycle thief to cross a hurdle of some sort and I suspect it is the Party's reputation. Chiam delivered in 1991 because they trusted the party over the candidate. Its the same with WP in its early years. Thats why we need a second strong party to add ballast to the opposition.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

I won't worry about moving to the center and potentially offending the hard core opposition. WP will have most of its votes regardless. No one in his right mind except for, say, Jeremy Chen of the SDP, votes PAP just because dissatisfied with WP.

Sometimes in politics you have to be calculative to serve the greater good. That also means not shunning away from 3 cornered fight if you know you have done you're groundwork well and are miles ahead of the 3rd party.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

One thing that WP cannot do is maintain status quo and continue using the same strategy.

They have slightly over 4 years to test, trial and experiment not across the board but in a controlled manner to work out what the best could be. The appeal is still left of centre and that is quite universal across the Western democracies except for US. So no shift within the political spectrum. As the official opposition, they have to start picking apart faulty policies and its execution, ranking of priorities and distribution of state resources in more robust and heightened manner than what is currently done. Its no longer the co-driver, they must step up to be the bus inspector. Unless they raise their profile as an Opposition and behave very clearly as an opposition, that role will be taken away.

It might even be worth assessing tapping their natural band of supporters in non-traditional WP constituencies. A satellite base in the West or North can be setup. My understanding is that the membership is growing and the desire to stand as candidates has been expressed by those not selected. The danger is that PAP will in the meantime strengthen its containment strategy in the East and one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that adjacency model is the core of the WP's strategy.

Raising profile is not being confrontational in the manner that Chee and SDP do things. Sadly the word "confrontational" carries a different meaning even to the extent that even academics like Derek da Cunha has become overly attached to it. It is calling out the issues, the shortcoming and failures etc. And these must carry a higher profile. It is something that the party has to ponder over and work out how best to do this. Blaming the state controlled press is totally valid but an answer must still be found to overcome this obstacle.

One things is definitely in WP's favour - the latest slate of candidates and their impressive credentials. We need to complement this with a strategy that has more bite and a clear future.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of constraints as raising profile needs media exposures and I mean positive one. Msm will unlikely report on anything positive about oppositions. The only time they will report on WP was when there are controversies. internet is not a viable platform as it not far reaching enough.

The second type of raising profile is not through the media but at grassroots level which relies largely on retail politics. Activities like door to door visits, townhall, durian trips etc are all ways to enable candidates to interact with voters and raise their profiles. Voters don't votes just solely on issues but on their familiarity with the party and/or candidates. From what I see, WP is focusing most of their resources in this area. I think if not for the numerous durian trips, it quite likely WP will lose aj grc.

Back in 2001, WP is in shambles as JBJ was the target of a series of lawsuits by the MIWs after the 1997 GE (he was teaming with Tang Liang Hong back then and got sued by Dirty Harry & Woody Goh as well as some other cabinet ministers). LTK had to make a decision as to sacrifice JBJ at the point of time as the latter had become a liability of WP, plus the fact that Dirty Harry initially was not just targeting at gunning down JBJ with a series of lawsuits, he also wanted to annihilate the WP as a whole as well.

At this critical point of WP's history of political survival, one man came to LTK's rescue and he managed to persuade Dirty Harry to focus on JBJ alone, thus allow WP to have a breather for future development.