Chee: Opposition Parties Should Cooperate

[yellowarse]

You are worse than methink. At least he owns up to the need to conduct himself well after identifying himself as a staunch SDP supporter. You on the other hand can be written off.

Sorry to disabuse you of your notion, but I've never identified myself as a 'staunch SDP supporter'.

If you've followed my posts since Delfi days, I've always been an opposition supporter first. Over the years my support for SPP and WP (opposition torchbearers in parliament) had shifted to the SDP because I felt that SDP's left-centre ideology was what was needed to correct the malaise in governance here and I was increasingly disappointed with both SPP and WP. WP in particular because they promised so much in terms of ground support and parliamentary representation..

To reiterate, the opposition cause supersedes any individual party's interests, and at this point in time SDP is the best outfit to lead that cause ... if we truly want a better Singapore for all Singaporeans.

 

[tanwahp]

Another thing is, your version of competition is flawed because it is a market dominated by one giant who also controls almost everything and many small SME fighting over one another. Remove the part about controlling almost everything then I will agree with you.

I agree with wabbit because if you were to look at it statistically, which will I favour? [Option A. PAP 70% XXP 30%] or [Option B. PAP 55% WP 40% XXP 5%]. I will definitely go for B.

If WP had avoided a 3 corner fight in Punggol last year, what will WP have to show except that it is more "democratic"? (inverted commas emphasized) It will only mean giving Michael Palmer (PAP) more votes. In a straight fight, there is no way for Desmond Lim (SDA) to score 45%. Because of the woman WP candidate, Palmer suffered the shame of scrapping through.

 

[wwabbit]

You forgot about "independent" candidate/party. The White Scums just need to plant some in those marginal constituencies, to split 5-10%.

It won't be so bad. After being burnt in PE2011, voters will get smarter in the future. The 2012 US Presidential Elections had 1.76% of votes going to third parties. The US voters are smarter than SG voters, of course, so I'd expect 3rd party votes to be about 2-5% (it won't get worse than the PE2011 numbers)

Another thing is, your version of competition is flawed because it is a market dominated by one giant who also controls almost everything and many small SME fighting over one another. Remove the part about controlling almost everything then I will agree with you.

You misunderstood the whole thing. Now the opposition parties are not fighting to win the constituencies, but fighting for the right to be the main opposition party competing against the PAP in the constituencies. See Punggol East SMC in GE2011 - We need more of that happening with the voters sending SDA a message that the SDA is no longer seen as credible opposition and should get out of the way of the WP.

 

[yellowarse]

You misunderstood the whole thing. Now the opposition parties are not fighting to win the constituencies, but fighting for the right to be the main opposition party competing against the PAP in the constituencies. See Punggol East SMC in GE2011 - We need more of that happening with the voters sending SDA a message that the SDA is no longer seen as credible opposition and should get out of the way of the WP.

Your argument is only valid if one opposition party is on the verge of becoming the major alternative party in a 2-party system.

Which is not the case. WP may be the strongest party now, but with only 6 MPs they're still a long way off from becoming the alternative party. PAP is still the reigning behemoth, with everybody else fighting for the scraps.

The only sound strategy when you have a hotch-potch of opposition parties—some stronger, some weaker, but none really big enough—is to collaborate to deny PAP a majority, and form an opposition coalition government. The example of Pakatan Rakyat is instructive.

We do not have to cling to the fixed mindset that the Anglo-Saxon 2-party model is the only way to go. In Singapore's case, it might take too long to achieve, or never at all.

 

[tanwahp]

Your argument is only valid if one opposition party is on the verge of becoming the major alternative party in a 2-party system.

You seem to be saying that WP should act like an alternative party only after it is close to becoming an alternative party. This is a paradoxical argument.

 

[yellowarse]

You seem to be saying that WP should act like an alternative party only after it is close to becoming an alternative party. This is a paradoxical argument.

I'm saying that it's WP's prerogative to act like an alternative party even if it's far from it, but it won't do the opposition cause any good.

When you have a bunch of kids fighting a big bully, you gang up. You don't fight among yourselves to see who's the biggest kid, or wait until one of you starts growing a moustache before you attack the bully.

 

[tanwahp]

I'm saying that it's WP's prerogative to act like an alternative party even if it's far from it, but it won't do the opposition cause any good.

What I understand earlier by your way you responded to wabbit is, WP will have earned the right to fight PAP alone if it is on the verge of becoming the major alternative party in a 2-party system. My question is how WP can even become an alternative party without approaching elections in a way that an alternative party should. But never mind that.

When you have a bunch of kids fighting a big bully, you gang up. You don't fight among yourselves to see who's the biggest kid, or wait until one of you starts growing a moustache before you attack the bully.

Using your example, you can also be saying that the other kids should walk away and let one kid fight the bully alone in order to avoid two or more kids accidentally punching each other.

Or when despite the kids are different in strength, they should each land the same amount of punches on the bully, even though the strongest of the kids could have landed more punches and the rest less punches, to take the bully down faster.

To sum it up, 3CF has always created a major argument within the opposition camp because it can be seen in two ways. One, that I am the best party to fight and end the PAP and therefore step in. Two, that I am harming the other opposition party and therefore should not step in. Either way isn't wrong.

 

[yellowarse]

Using your example, you can also be saying that the other kids should walk away and let one kid fight the bully alone in order to avoid two or more kids accidentally punching each other.

Wrong. I was saying the kids should gang up together to fight the adult bully.

Or when despite the kids are different in strength, they should each land the same amount of punches on the bully, even though the strongest of the kids could have landed more punches and the rest less punches, to take the bully down faster.

Your comprehension skills beggar belief. What's so difficult about the notion of a bunch of kids fighting as a GROUP against one big bully? Whoever said anything about number of punches? Have you seen a street fight where one gang beats up a lone victim? Do they apportion the number of punches—you throw 10, I throw 2? Duh ...

To sum it up, 3CF has always created a major argument within the opposition camp because it can be seen in two ways. One, that I am the best party to fight and end the PAP and therefore step in. Two, that I am harming the other opposition party and therefore should not step in. Either way isn't wrong.

When no opposition party is strong enough to win enough seats to topple the PAP on its own, the next best thing is to cooperate, make sure a majority of seats go to the opposition parties, and then form a COALITION GOVT. To maximise opposition seats, 3CF should be avoided.

 

[tanwahp]

Wrong. I was saying the kids should gang up together to fight the adult bully.



Your comprehension skills beggar belief. What's so difficult about the notion of a bunch of kids fighting as a GROUP against one big bully? Whoever said anything about number of punches? Have you seen a street fight where one gang beats up a lone victim? Do they apportion the number of punches—you throw 10, I throw 2? Duh ...

Everyone knows the concept but may be poor in implementation. We know a group of kids need to unite against the bully, but how?

Is it possible that the kids come together against the bully and all of them still lose because of poor coordination? Yes, it happens.

I don't go for simplistic solutions, I look further than that. The next step is always important.

When no opposition party is strong enough to win enough seats to topple the PAP on its own, the next best thing is to cooperate, make sure a majority of seats go to the opposition parties, and then form a COALITION GOVT. To maximise opposition seats, 3CF should be avoided.

I have already given an example to show that in a 3CF, the PAP may stand a higher chance of losing than a straight fight between PAP and a party like PKMS.

I agree 3CF should be avoided. But in a way that the party that traditionally scores the highest votes should be given priority in any disputed seats. That's because the party that stands the highest chance of toppling the PAP should be given the go. WP is the obvious choice. Will SDP, NSP or SDA be willing to do so? Not in NSP's and SDA's case.

 

[yellowarse]

I agree 3CF should be avoided. But in a way that the party that traditionally scores the highest votes should be given priority in any disputed seats. That's because the party that stands the highest chance of toppling the PAP should be given the go. WP is the obvious choice. Will SDP, NSP or SDA be willing to do so? Not in NSP's and SDA's case.

One way would be for all the oppo parties to form a loose alliance, like Pakatan Rakyat, without sacrificing their own party structures. Then sit down, map out all the constituencies to be contested in GE2016. Decide which party is to contest which constituency. WP may be the strongest party, but it doesn't have the numbers and quality to contest every seat. SDP has already got 40% in Holland-BT, so they should contest there. Ditto Tampines for NSP, Bishan-TP for SPP, and so on. Make sure every GRC and SMC is contested, if the target is 44 seats.

As for previously uncontested territory, some measure of horse-trading plus economies of scale based on contiguousness of constituencies should be factored in. E.g. Tanjong Pagar would be an extension of SDP's presence in Holland-BT.

 

[wwabbit]

"Ganging up against the big bully" is a terrible analogy since it is obvious that this is not the way elections are fought. What really happens is that the opposition parties get forced to fight each other until one winner proceeds to fight the PAP while in a weakened state.

The Worker's Party is not yet the dominant opposition party, but at the moment it is in the best position out of all the opposition parties to become the dominant opposition party. While there are several routes that can be taken for our opposition to challenge the PAP for the majority, the path of least resistance is a strengthening and growing Worker's Party moving towards a two-party system.

Now, the Worker's Party will definitely be looking to expand in PE2016 and compete in more constituencies that they have in PE2011. Should they have to yield to the other parties just for the sake of opposition unity? If the Worker's Party believe that they are the strongest party, do they have the right to compete wherever they want and all the opposition parties must back off? Of course not! The Worker's Party have far from proven that they deserve to dominate the other opposition. Only with the endorsement of the voters in a 3 corner fight can they have the legitimate claim to be the strongest opposition party.

 

[tanwahp]

One way would be for all the oppo parties to form a loose alliance, like Pakatan Rakyat, without sacrificing their own party structures. Then sit down, map out all the constituencies to be contested in GE2016. Decide which party is to contest which constituency. WP may be the strongest party, but it doesn't have the numbers and quality to contest every seat. SDP has already got 40% in Holland-BT, so they should contest there. Ditto Tampines for NSP, Bishan-TP for SPP, and so on. Make sure every GRC and SMC is contested, if the target is 44 seats.

As for previously uncontested territory, some measure of horse-trading plus economies of scale based on contiguousness of constituencies should be factored in. E.g. Tanjong Pagar would be an extension of SDP's presence in Holland-BT.

Within Pakatan Rakyat, only DAP can take on Chinese ground but they can't take on Muslim ground. PAS is the other way round. If you can name a GRC where any opposition party can do better than WP, I think WP should give way. But I don't think there is.

Contrary to what some people say about WP choosing easy places, only 3 GRCs in the whole Singapore had 2 ministers and WP took up all 3. Despite so they did as well if not better than the opposition teams with heavyweights and popular stars like Chiam and Nicole Seah.

But WP said they will only contest the same areas plus Tampines, so there are still a lot of GRCs for grabs. You don't even need a loose alliance to accomplish that.

 

[yellowarse]

"Ganging up against the big bully" is a terrible analogy since it is obvious that this is not the way elections are fought. What really happens is that the opposition parties get forced to fight each other until one winner proceeds to fight the PAP while in a weakened state.

Having oppo parties fight one another until one winner grows big enough to fight the PAP will take ages, if at all, since by then the PAP would have tilted the playing field further in their power. This is because right now all the oppo parties are just too small and ineffectual.

If you want a regime change in the next one or two elections, you need an alliance, which kills 2 birds with one stone:

1. It creates an opposition 'super party' to take on the giant incumbent ('ganging up');
2. It still allows each party within the alliance to grow and induct new talent.

While there are several routes that can be taken for our opposition to challenge the PAP for the majority, the path of least resistance is a strengthening and growing Worker's Party moving towards a two-party system.

You're fixated with a two-party system, which may not be the best thing for Singapore, nor achievable. Many smaller European countries have coalition governments—given our current situation of a small fragmented opposition, a coalition opposition government is much more easily and readily achieved than one single oppo party growing big enough to form the alternative govt.

 

[wwabbit]

You will have to be seriously deluded if you think a regime change can occur in the next two elections. If I were to be optimistic about the opposition upswing of vote percentage, I would say the opposition will gain at most 4% and 2.5% in the next two elections, which will mean a pickup of just 1 GRC and 2 SMCs, maybe 2 more GRCs with another 0.5%.

Since Worker's Party has the highest average of 46.58% of the votes in contested constituency, compared to SPP's 41.42%, NSP's 39.25% and SDP's 36.76%, I would say that a regime change in 2 election cycles would only be possible if all the top candidates from the other party allow themselves to be led by the Worker's Party, because it is obvious that the Worker's Party is much more respected by the electorates than the other parties. This is unlikely to happen because of ego issues and LTK likely to reject many of the candidates.

The "alliance" thing has been tried before and it did not work out. Who would lead the alliance? Chiam See Thong, the most respected opposition politician in Singapore, has tried and failed. Low Thia Khiang is the next best candidate but he is not willing. Chee Soon Juan? Tan Jee Say? Goh Meng Seng? Nicole Seah? It's just not going to happen.

The "smaller European countries" cannot be compared to Singapore, simply because they use a Proportionate Representation system, which drastically increases the chance of coalitions being required. Because Singapore uses a First Past the Post system, it is more likely that we will succumb to the Duverger's effect. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

 

[SgParent]

I agree with wabbit because if you were to look at it statistically, which will I favour? [Option A. PAP 70% XXP 30%] or [Option B. PAP 55% WP 40% XXP 5%]. I will definitely go for B.

The outcome of both your examples mean the same. The White Scums are still having the last laugh. So I favor neither one.

If WP had avoided a 3 corner fight in Punggol last year, what will WP have to show except that it is more "democratic"? (inverted commas emphasized) It will only mean giving Michael Palmer (PAP) more votes. In a straight fight, there is no way for Desmond Lim (SDA) to score 45%. Because of the woman WP candidate, Palmer suffered the shame of scrapping through.

I am referencing the past, where 3CF almost always benefits the White Scums. So unless you or I have a crystal ball that really works, why do you think another 3CF will turn out differently?

So for your example above in GE2011, the ideal outcome would be for WP and SDA to first agree on avoiding 3CF (easy part) and then decide who should face the White Scum (difficult part).

Having said that, we have seen in the past how the election department under Pinky White Scum redrew the electoral boundaries, merge or split SMC/GRC to confused the Oppo and cause them to fight with one another. Therefore Oppo could, should and must work beyond the known electoral boundaries to preempt. This way hopefully the Oppo would have better flexibility when they try to accommodate one another to avoid 3CF

 

[SgParent]

It won't be so bad. After being burnt in PE2011, voters will get smarter in the future. The 2012 US Presidential Elections had 1.76% of votes going to third parties. The US voters are smarter than SG voters, of course, so I'd expect 3rd party votes to be about 2-5% (it won't get worse than the PE2011 numbers)

I hope you are correct. It was just like yesterday, when me and my kopitiam friends heard about that ex-WP Zeng Guoyuan could be contesting the Hougang BE as independent, we were sufficiently worried.

You misunderstood the whole thing. Now the opposition parties are not fighting to win the constituencies, but fighting for the right to be the main opposition party competing against the PAP in the constituencies. See Punggol East SMC in GE2011 - We need more of that happening with the voters sending SDA a message that the SDA is no longer seen as credible opposition and should get out of the way of the WP.

Self awareness is a trait rarely seen in politicians. Look not further than Rabid GohMS

So how sure are you that we will not see another GE2011-SDA-PunggolEastSMC? Again, look no further than the buddy, bro, kawan of Rabid GohMS during PE2011, which happened after GE2011.

 

[SgParent]

Using your example, you can also be saying that the other kids should walk away and let one kid fight the bully alone in order to avoid two or more kids accidentally punching each other.

Or when despite the kids are different in strength, they should each land the same amount of punches on the bully, even though the strongest of the kids could have landed more punches and the rest less punches, to take the bully down faster.

To sum it up, 3CF has always created a major argument within the opposition camp because it can be seen in two ways. One, that I am the best party to fight and end the PAP and therefore step in. Two, that I am harming the other opposition party and therefore should not step in. Either way isn't wrong.

I think it should be, the kids agree to not punch one another first, then they decide who to pin down the bully's right arm, who on the left arm, who to sit on the right leg, etc, etc.

 

[tanwahp]

The outcome of both your examples mean the same. The White Scums are still having the last laugh. So I favor neither one.

Ideally it should be PAP vs WP. But because this is very unacceptable to some opposition parties, Option B rather than A should be the next way.

I am referencing the past, where 3CF almost always benefits the White Scums. So unless you or I have a crystal ball that really works, why do you think another 3CF will turn out differently?

So for your example above in GE2011, the ideal outcome would be for WP and SDA to first agree on avoiding 3CF (easy part) and then decide who should face the White Scum (difficult part).

Actually both part 1 and 2 are difficult. Even if part 2 is achieved, it's not done so willingly.

 

[wwabbit]

I never said that a 3rd party spoiler won't happen again. In fact, it will continue to happen, and each time it happens, the electorate will become wiser and only vote for the stronger parties, also it will make the next 3rd party spoiler-to-be think twice again before choosing to throw away $16k

Actually I was hoping it would happen in Hougang BE2012. There is no doubt that the 3rd party spoiler will lose deposit and Worker's Party will still win. The Punggol East SMC result probably scared all the potential 3rd party away.

 

[scroobal]

There are 2 recurring issues that seem to emerge in local political discussions which I think need to be addressed as they are either premature or the purpose wrongly understood or both.

1. Alliances loose, formal or binding can only occur if individual parties are able to secure seats in their own right in a straight fight with the PAP. If a party can't meet this first criteria any talk of cooperation or forming alliances is premature. Horse trading prior to nomination is part and parcel of democracy, practiced all over and its basic common sense. Parties in these sessions would have to show their ability to outperform other parties in a seat before support from receiving majority support.

Chee and SDP ( or whoever behind them) have not done well in this respect. This is past history but it is scar that time will have to heal. They showed great disrespect when Uncle Yap was asked to represent SDP for the horse trading session. Yap was not even a party member and was promptly shown the door. Chee and SDP have always repeated the call for cooperation in open public and this is nothing new. No other party have repeatedly done this and with the intensity of Chee and SDP. Again recently he has done this. What is the intention to do this public repeatedly? Who is the intended audience of this call? You do not see this done in other democracies by opposition parties. Interestingly when Singapore Opposition parties did form an alliance to fight a GE and contest seats under the alliance, SDP was not part of it. Why?

Note: this is not a reflection of VW and some of the new members who have done tremendously well in GE2011 and many of us hope this continues.

2. Formation of an alternative govt or WP forming one anywhere in the near future is not only premature but untenable. Votes that WP or other parties get are a mixture of party endorsement votes as well as protest votes against he PAP. The law of diminishing marginal utility for WP will kick in faster for WP as their performance has been dull after elections. This is after factors such as lack of exposure by the MSM and poor cooperation by state bodies are taken into account. They are I suppose "election specialist" but struggle to move to the next level.

So are we lost ? No. It just means that Singaporeans must continue to back the opposition parties and the latter must continue to lift their game. Some thoughts

A. WP need to re-construct its approach in parliament. Its not a "meet the people session" party. The opportunity cost of not taking advantage of the internet must also be huge. Quality candidates like Chen must move beyond philosophy and symbolism to the arena of real and engaging politics. Get a few pet controversial topics and start digging in one's heels. They have successfully moved from being a one man party to proper party and their work in recruiting talent must continue.

B. Chee and SDP cannot go back to its pre GE2011 model. Avoid playing to the foreign gallery as it clearly raises the hackles of the locals. Honestly who cares about James Minchin. When he was residing in Singapore for decades, he was with the local elites and the expat community. We are not suckers for book sales. Asking parties to coorperate publicly without quietly mending fences behind the scenes does not seem sincere. Nobody does it. More importanly they need to engage the votes. Well written counter policies and plans have little or no purchase with heartland voters. They need to work the ground. Nobody likes it but it has to be done.

C. SPP - seriously need to get their head examined. All these years and they found no one more capable than the wife. They are not going anywhere. It will be a sad end.

D. NSP - they surprised us all in GE2011 and we will be surprised again even anything material occurs. It is probably the only party whose vision is not to win but to give a show and they have not failed all these years.

E. Reform Party -

F. TJS Party - this is a given but it will interesting to see who will join him.

G. New Party - there is talk of qualified professionals coming together. Another hope.