-
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.
Breaking: Tan Jee Say & Ang Yong Guan to join SPP
- Thread starter yellowarse
- Start date
Since the introduction of town councils in the 1980s and the role of MPs in their running, the role of backbenchers changed significantly from parliament to that of the constituency. As such, there is no comparison with the situation elsewhere.
Also, it is not what you or I want or would like to see that matters. It is what the majority of the people in the contested WP wards want that matters. WP's work on the ground is what most people in their wards are interested in. Most are not interested in robust parliamentary exchanges. Mostly the online community wants that. Indeed, when given a choice of 4 candidates, including one who carried the name of a man whose father was noted for robust parliamentary exchanges, the voters of Punggol East opted for WP by a wide margin. That other guy, whom a forummer here claimed would take all the ethnic minority votes plus some, garnered 1.2% of the vote. That guy promised robust parliamentary exchanges and much more. At the time of the campaign I said on SBF that he and DL would split 3% between them. Looking back, that was in fact optimistic. Having sterling credentials is not a shoo-in for voters. Having the common touch to relate to your constituents is a shoo-in for voters. That is why that guy, who is an abomination, together with TJS will, IMO, never get elected. Voters despise those who are too full of themselves and offer purely parliamentary grandstanding.
to stop the MIW from bulldozing unfavorable policies at their whims and fancy
Yes, but it only turns into a good thing when you capture the majority.
Until then, the only way you can stop the bulldozer is to stir up shit in parliament.
No, it is exactly the same as the situation everywhere. Everywhere it is both national issues and municipal issues, although the town council has shifted the balance towards the municipal issues. Newcomers have to bear the burden of municipal issues and that creates the barrier to entry that the PAP has set. But if you're able to handle that, it shouldn't be an issue.
The real problem of the town council, from what I can see, is this: the PAP has set a trap. It focuses the opposition towards the municipal issues and detracts them from national issues. And a WP who gets into parliament will be so distracted from the parliamentary work that the PAP can carry on life as normal, and push through their policies without getting problems from the opposition.
For there to be an opposition who has worked so hard to win over the seats, and at the end of the day they still are exclusively focused on municipal issues and grassroots activities, is probably an outcome that the PAP wants to see, and also probably an outcome that they have engineered for you and I.
The voters bear some responsibility for making their own lives better. If they aren't able to understand the larger issues then they deserve to get fucked anyway. Voters who despise those too full of themselves are themselves too full of themselves.
Last edited:
Voters get the MPs they elect. That we can agree. It is as simple as that. I have no problem with that concept. But why are you so irked by that simple concept? Surely, if you believe in democracy then you should respect the wishes of the voters. Punggol East gave ample choice -- 4 candidates -- and the majority of the voters there made their choice patently clear. More to the point, they made it crystal clear whom they despise completely. A man who offered to relocate to the constituency and promised robust parliamentary opposition to the PAP got 1.2%. The thought that he would be their neighbour was something that the vast majority there found unpalatable.
What I want is a better government. If the voters can bring about a better government, then so much the better. But if they can't - and from the way they've been unconditionally voting in PAP time after time all these years, you know about how much you can trust them.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam had a few things counting against him. First, he's a libertarian. I don't even agree with his policies. Then he's a useless public speaker. You'd expect that people who have good ideas, would be at least good at debating. What's the use of going into parliament if you can't do anything? Because this is not a case of "KJ's going to be useful in parliament even though he's not good at grassroots".
Ultimately the thing that counted against him was the prior information. The economist John Maynard Keynes, when he was trying to explain the stock market, said that it was like a beauty competition, where the judges do not vote based on how beautiful he thinks the contestants are, but rather how beautiful he thinks other people think the contestant is. So I'm sure that there are a lot of people who decided that KJ was their favourite candidate, but they read the ground sentiment and realised that LLL was going to win, or at least she was the most viable non-PAP candidate. So they voted for her instead. Which is the rational thing to do in our fucked up first past the post legacy British system.
Remember that Punggol East was two rounds. First round, everybody realised that Desmond Lim wasn't going to get voted. He still managed 5%. Second round, many of the 5% switched to LLL, and KJ + Desmond Lim was less than 5%.
And also - please note that I'm talking in the abstract about a person who would be a good parliamentarian and a good public speaker vs the "grassroots" candidate. I'm not actually saying that TJS is a great public speaker and for the record I don't think he is.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam had a few things counting against him. First, he's a libertarian. I don't even agree with his policies. Then he's a useless public speaker. You'd expect that people who have good ideas, would be at least good at debating. What's the use of going into parliament if you can't do anything? Because this is not a case of "KJ's going to be useful in parliament even though he's not good at grassroots".
Ultimately the thing that counted against him was the prior information. The economist John Maynard Keynes, when he was trying to explain the stock market, said that it was like a beauty competition, where the judges do not vote based on how beautiful he thinks the contestants are, but rather how beautiful he thinks other people think the contestant is. So I'm sure that there are a lot of people who decided that KJ was their favourite candidate, but they read the ground sentiment and realised that LLL was going to win, or at least she was the most viable non-PAP candidate. So they voted for her instead. Which is the rational thing to do in our fucked up first past the post legacy British system.
Remember that Punggol East was two rounds. First round, everybody realised that Desmond Lim wasn't going to get voted. He still managed 5%. Second round, many of the 5% switched to LLL, and KJ + Desmond Lim was less than 5%.
And also - please note that I'm talking in the abstract about a person who would be a good parliamentarian and a good public speaker vs the "grassroots" candidate. I'm not actually saying that TJS is a great public speaker and for the record I don't think he is.
Your reason -- of prior information -- is not very sound. Kindly note that many people left RP at various points in time. First it lost 2 chairmen in succession, then it lost a large group of viable candidates that ultimately joined NSP weeks before GE2011, then it lost Gilbert Goh, and then just days before nomination day Alec Tok left as well despite being the RP rep at the Channel 8 pre-GE debate. (How embarrassing can that be!) Then after the GE, RP lost more people. All this was well before Punggol East. No point speculating what is left in RP after Punggol East. That would be pure speculation, or, as someone here would say, simply "conjecture". But I put it to you that all those who left saw something that repulsed them. It is significant that none who left have had a nice thing to say about their experience. And I put it to you again that that is exactly the same thing that voters saw in Punggol East. It has got nothing to do with "prior information" in the way your describe it.
If people are in denial that they are not electable at all, even if gifted a straight fight, then that is a matter for them.
Incidentally, KJ and DL secured under 2% combined, and not "less than 5%". (The combined total was 1.77%, even below the 3% I had predicted for both at the time.)
I am not saying that opposition cannot ask probing questions but we have to be realistic. Foundation for checks and balances lies in balance of power rather than Q&A session. Sure in certain instance, asking probing question can make the gov to alter their policies but it effect is still rather limited with only a few seats. When Obama talked about 'Change', when Anwar shouted 'Ubah', it on the premises that they become the gov of the day. No opposition is going to sing this slogan without offering the voters replacement alternative which sadly is our case.
Noted well and through.
Meanwhile, the best way to propel SPP is to appoint Tan Jee Say as deputy secretary general and Ang as vice-chairman. If the future is going to be bleak, might as well make the best of it and milk whatever capacity that can be milked.
Voting for the more viable party doesn't occur only in a first-past-the-post system.
Indonesia is a proportional representation system and 50% of the votes go to only 3 out of 39 contesting parties. We can't say voters of the other 36 parties decided to vote for these 3 parties because either one of the 3 was going to win.
Last edited:
Well, there are people who always get deserted by their own party members, but still manage to get elected time after time. People like Chiam See Tong. K Jeyaretnam, at least for me, still made a lot of good points querying what happened to all the Temasek money, and feeding questions to Christopher Balding. Even though there were a whole lot of factors which made him unelectable. Like that bloody British accent.
Less than 2% is less than 5%. The 5% figure was based on what Desmond polled in GE 2011, which is my main point - the 4% of the people, the majority of the people who voted Desmond in 2011 took this information into account and voted against Desmond. And in spite of the fact that there were some people who still voted KJ, the combined total was less than 2%. This was an election that was expected to be very very tight and not the relatively comfortable margin of victory that it turned out to be. Everybody knew how three cornered fights work because of the presidential elections. Everybody knew that a vote for KJ or DL would potentially mean the difference between colorectal surgeon and LLL winning that seat. So they voted for WP. It was the tactical voting that killed KJ.
At least SDP understood tactical voting well enough to realise that they had to either win that seat or not contest at all.
SDP understood nothing. They played a fool with that "I enter parliament, you run the town council" joke. then they had the gall to compare it to the UK's coalition government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Tactical_voting
Tactical voting takes place to an even greater extent in first past the post than proportional. At least in proportional system there's an incentive to always vote for the party you want. In first past the post, there is an incentive to vote worker's party even if you like reform party more, just to make sure that the PAP doesn't win. The same way I couldn't decide between TCB and TJS, but I voted TCB because I figured he was more popular. (Unfortunately Singaporeans didn't know how to think that way yet)
Yes, "We can't say voters of the other 36 parties decided to vote for these 3 parties because either one of the 3 was going to win." But we can safely say that none of the 36 parties are going to have a lot of power in parliament, or that none of them are going to form the government, except as a minority party in a coalition. So this effect is also present in proportional representation, but the effect is much weaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
Contrast your 3 parties take 50% of the vote to the UK elections, where the top 3 parties took 88% of the votes.
Also, it's not correct to contrast a by-election result to a general election result, because in a by-election, there is only one seat contested, and the winner takes all. This would be the equivalent of the entire nation being under one GRC.
They pulled out, and it was a great decision. They made horrible mistakes but they did not make the most horrible mistake of all. They turned away from the cliff. KJ on the other hand walked off that cliff.
It was nothing--they still lost face. If you think they are a great party, please join and see if you are selected
Why don't you join the PAP? That way you can stand against the SDP wherever they're fielding a candidate. I heard that these days it's easier to join because they can't find the people.
He can write all he likes. Other than yourself and a few diehards, who else listens to him? The Establishment (which includes the media) are approaching him exactly the way anyone approaches a non-entity, and that is simply to ignore him. He is being denied the oxygen of offline publicity (which he craves for). He trots out press releases which the mainstream media will not carry. He then gets TRE to publish them.
This man went into Punggol East with an advantage no-one else had, and that was being the scion of a Singapore legend and political icon. Just by that fact he would have started with immediately 10% of the vote without even the need for campaigning. He got nothing of the sort, and he single-handedly destroyed a legacy. This he did by launching vicious attacks on the WP not just during the campaign, but also overseas, at Yale. What voters saw was a truly nasty piece of work.
Both WP and PAP simply ignored this non-entity at Punggol East, and instead they trained fire on each other.
Instead of people thinking about what they want, what they like; they should instead try thinking about what a majority of voters would find palatable. This is what I do.
You do realise that if KJ had gotten 10% of the vote, they would have come out of LLL's share, and she would have lost. That is the real reason why he would not even have gotten those 10%.
Just out of curiosity: what did he say about WP at Yale?
Just out of curiosity: what did he say about WP at Yale?
Coup-de-etat, coup-de-grace are all familiar happenings in Singapore and neighbouring countries political circles from the very onset along with character assasinations, etc...
But I certainly hope that TJS will not stoop that low, especially so against a nice and honest man like CST.
People like CST are hard to come by, especially in Singapore.
TJS should go in like General Patton and organise the SPP to mount a successful campaign in the next election.
I don't think you understood the thrust of my remarks. Let me try again: by virtue of being the scion of a Singapore legend and political icon he should have started with 10% of the vote. But that was a non-starter because he had already systematically destroyed a political legacy when many months earlier people from his party abandoned him like the plague. The scale and relentless of the abandonment was what distinguished it from other episodes elsewhere. This was described by others as a couple of implosions or a series of implosions within RP. Thus, by the time of the PEBE, I had stated on SBF that he would split 3% of the vote with DL.
WP never feared anyone contesting in PEBE. In fact WP leaders were taken aback that SDP pulled out. WP had already factored in SDP's participation and may have been disappointed it was not contesting. I too was actually hoping SDP would contest. That was my consistent refrain in SBF during the time SDP was thinking of contesting. Never did I say SDP don't contest. Quite the reverse.
Similar threads
