NSP to adopt “minister-specific” strategy in next elections

[jw5]

IR123
And so long as there is politics, there is dissatisfaction.

 

[jw5]

Dear IR123,

You have a point which is relevant to many Singaporeans who are voters.

However, as I have told someone, the point is about extraction of accountability and putting the context of General Elections into proper perspective.

It is a long story to explain the whole thing again. I will write about it after my interview is published by some netter.

Goh Meng Seng

Don't forgot to track the number of accidents that happen due to people riding their bicycles too quickly on pavements.
That is something to be accountable for.

 

[Perspective]

So you are saying that to regain PP and Hougang, the PAP has to give national or islandwide concession and not target specific concession to PP and Hougang.

Could you elaborate what these concession would be like.

National concession would of course be something of national policy. Either the ruling party dishes out a good policy or the opposition prevents a bad policy from taking place. The former can be done, but not the latter. The PAP can give ERS, NSS, GST credits, implement SPURS etc. However, the opposition cannot stop increasing of retirement age, increase GST or forcing people to buy annuities.

I'm not saying the message will stick, but the two-thirds principle is the principle behind Parliamentary democracy that the people needs to understand - the ideal balance to achieve both ends. If the PAP wanted to set aside more money for SPURS or reduce medical costs, I'm sure the opposition won't oppose even if they have more than a-third to block the bills.

At the end, threats like keeping PP and HG MRT closed did not take place. It can't. I long knew PP and HG MRTs would be opened, though did not expect Buangkok to happen. At the most you can give abalone porridge. Yet it made no impact islandwide or seats changed hands.

In my view it isn't going to be easy to win back PP and HG, just like it isn't easy to win a PAP ward. Like any country around the world, seats have changed hands due to 2 reasons: 1. nationwide swing in which candidates at the winning margin ride on 2. screwup of incumbent.

Policy-making is more complex than most people think. A government would do well to achieve a "comfort" level to retain its power. It is not "analysing this policy has to be good", "I am quite learned because I read alot" "I implement, I expect it would work", "the more reviews the more it should work". Policy is considered working only when it has filtered down well and digested well and the side effects are minimal or adjusted away quickly. Good governments review the impact of its policy consistently for months and years. Lazy governments don't, so they often do not know that things have gone messy behind their backyard.

I've kept away from the issue lest people align me to the PAP, but for your benefit I would share my view. Pinpointing ministerial targets would work less only because the constituency, not the entire nation, votes for the minister. The GRC in mention has one of the best housing facet in Singapore. It has all the facilities one can hope for. The demographics are middle aged parents with teenage or young-adult children with no intention to sell or buy flat. Most people who buy flats there do well or come from another "value" estate like Tiong Bahru, Queenstown. It would be hardpressed to think that Singapore voters would vote out the minister of his GRC because his policies affect people in other GRCs. If that was the case people would not have not in my backyard syndrome, depending on HG and PP people to put the opposition in. Put Mah in Pasir Ris Punggol or an aging estate with a lot of getting-married people like Toa Payoh and I assure he'll be more vulnerable - though how much more I do not know.

Ditto for Sembawang. The promised hospital that was not built was in its vicnity and the helmsman is the health minister. SDP of course did not focus on that as this has never been their traditional focus and they might not have won if they did as a hospital is considered somewhat "inauspicious" if built near one's home. It did however focus on the NKF issue (until nomination) which means it is not a new "strategy" as claimed. However if only 90% of NKF donors "ba-lunged-lunged" in Sembawang, I assure SDP would get more than the 23% it achieved. Hence it makes sense at least to me to "target" a minister for not only a weak policy but one which its weak policy affects his/her ward most, because not all wards have enjoyed the same benefits of policy.

 

[scroobal]

This is the post that I am seeking clarification. Are you saying that PAP is no longer targeting PP and Hougang with specific concession and they will rely on National concessions instead.

That is what you have stated below or have I got it wrong.

People will point to the LUP priority as evidence that this is untrue. The PAP has also since changed the strategy. Hougang and PP no longer get much "concessions".

The "concessions" are at the national level. Malaysians slowly understood the magic behind the definition of "denying two-thirds majority". They tried and the magic worked. No stupid bills passed for privatize state entities (indirectly enriching the elite) have since taken place after '08.

Not sure what below relates to. You might be addressing to the wrong person or post accidently.

National concession would of course be something of national policy.

 

[Perspective]

Are you saying that PAP is no longer targeting PP and Hougang with specific concession and they will rely on National concessions instead.

One word. Yes.

 

[scroobal]

Thanks.

It then then does not make sense as 86 constituencies can be reduced to one as there is no need to provide individual political representation. Typically the democratic model provides for broad national policies encumbering everyone and then there are the local or constituency political issues.

Typically, candidates and parties intending to take back a ward, will move local interest items such as footpaths, lift at every landing, more community facilities just as Goh and his $ pork barrel bribes to PP. Note the Abalone soup, free meals, by the 2 PAP wannabe MPs in Hougang and PP including looking for a lost child.

Frankly I have never heard of a situation where politics is purely run on a national level.

One word. Yes.

 

[Perspective]

It then then does not make sense as 86 constituencies can be reduced to one as there is no need to provide individual political representation. Typically the democratic model provides for broad national policies encumbering everyone and then there are the local or constituency political issues.

Typically, candidates and parties intending to take back a ward, will move local interest items such as footpaths, lift at every landing, more community facilities just as Goh and his $ pork barrel bribes to PP. Note the Abalone soup, free meals, by the 2 PAP wannabe MPs in Hougang and PP including looking for a lost child.

Firstly, there is a difference between offering and actually implementing these "local interest items". But that aside. Unfortunately almost all constituencies are under PAP control and what applies to their constituencies already apply to almost the whole Singapore.

The PAP tried that since 1991 but has not worked. I guess it saw that Singapore voters are somewhat different - for example it is the only country in the world where the ruling party scores better in a recession. So it reversed its strategy and since 2006 the grassroots advisors in opposition wards have not gotten involved in municipal issues (such as Sitoh building some walkway to PP MRT) or held meet the people sessions. PAP hopes to leave the ward to the opposition and the strapped resources of the oppo will be more glaring.

With no competition in many wards, there would of course be no requirement to offer carrots to walkover-ed wards, so the PAP gives all these NSS and ERS and tries to make good national policies.

Our "unique" situation is borne out of "unique" circumstances I guess.

Frankly I have never heard of a situation where politics is purely run on a national level.

China comes close. However as it is a big country the governors, all affiliated to the Communist Party of course, fights each other to get the local level priority at national level.

 

[Perspective]

As long as you are not an ex-cadre PAP, you would not have to worry. Look at Tang. The tax dept raided him. The house in his wife's name was seized. His name did not appear on the deed. And what exactly did Tang do. They said he was a chinese chauvinist but his good friend when he took flight to JB was a Malay. And he was trained in the Indian arts.

You are right in the sense. According to PAP grapevine what the PAP dislikes most are former "comrades" running against them on the other side.

But there are also 2 factors - the stature of the person's profession and winning chances. If some ex-PAP cadre serving as a long time grassroots leader somewhere is a N Level and works as a taxi driver, and one day decides to run under an ordinary opposition team under a ordinary party banner like UPF or DPP, the PAP would not care less.

Seow and Tang were both lawyers, both ran under a WP ticket with the respective stalwarts Lee SC and JBJ. Without that, they would be left alone.

 

[Perspective]

The WP will by virtue unless CST raises a storm in a GRC be the fattest juiciest PAP target out there. Its like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west etc,

CST surely WILL raise a storm just by the virtue of being an incumbent who "sacrificed" and stepped out of his ward. Better if he combines with KJ. Even better if TKL joins in. WP on the other hand looks to have a team led by Sylvia Lim but with mostly inexperienced low-profile first-time candidates since its previous team is more or less gone - but its party brand remains there. It's one strong party brand and one strong personalities brand.

Overall it's good because it makes PAP watch 2 GRCs. Perhaps both will get in, perhaps one, perhaps not.

 

[scroobal]

Thats common sense. That chap is not a threat. Even I would not be bothered and neither would the voters. Not that he is N level but that he has not progressed in life. He will be hard pressed to articulate how he is going to represent his ward.

But there are also 2 factors - the stature of the person's profession and winning chances. If some ex-PAP cadre serving as a long time grassroots leader somewhere is a N Level and works as a taxi driver, and one day decides to run under an ordinary opposition team under a ordinary party banner like UPF or DPP, the PAP would not care less.

 

[Perspective]

Thats common sense. That chap is not a threat. Even I would not be bothered and neither would the voters. Not that he is N level but that he has not progressed in life. He will be hard pressed to articulate how he is going to represent his ward.

Yes but in private conversations the PAP chaps who worked with him are probably going to hate him more than the obnoxious neighbour. Not just cadre, even the non-cadre. That's the culture.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

China comes close. However as it is a big country the governors, all affiliated to the Communist Party of course, fights each other to get the local level priority at national level.

I am afraid I must correct you here. China does not run policies at national level only. Unlike Singapore, China has local governments in both provinces as well as municipal township with great autonomy. Policies also vary widely in different counties, provinces and towns.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[IR123]

IR123
And so long as there is politics, there is dissatisfaction.

For me the reverse is true especially in Singapore's politics where opposition plays on dissatisfaction to get votes.

So long as there is dissatisfaction, there is politics.



There are two sources of dissatisfaction. One is where you point out the errors of the other party. This is the intention of the minister-specific strategy by NSP.

In the process, your own competence is not called into question.




But I do see your point JW5 that in politics you can never please everyone.

However if you can give NSP this leeway, then you should also give PAP the same leeway. In which case the comparison is whether NSP can do a better job with Tampines than the PAP.

Argued in this manner, the answer is 'NO' for a variety of reasons which there is no point in elaborating.

 

[scroobal]

Yep, agree.

Yes but in private conversations the PAP chaps who worked with him are probably going to hate him more than the obnoxious neighbour. Not just cadre, even the non-cadre. That's the culture.

 

[scroobal]

Let me offer another view point.

Never put all your eggs in one basket ie PAP. If you give PAP more than 90% of the seats, then there is no checks and balances. Don't worry about the quality of the opposition. The trick is to deny the PAP more than 2/3rds the seats so that they do not become complacent, bossy and less responsive to citizens.

If you are a business towkay and your eldest son keeps telling you that all your other children are useless, and if you gullible, you might pass all the business to him alone. Most towkays will spread the responsibility amongst his children and over time will have a clearer picture to make a decision.

Why don't you give the opposition a chance. They cannot run the government because they don't have the numbers but they can do much better than some of the PAP MPs.

However if you can give NSP this leeway, then you should also give PAP the same leeway. In which case the comparison is whether NSP can do a better job with Tampines than the PAP.

Argued in this manner, the answer is 'NO' for a variety of reasons which there is no point in elaborating.

 

[Perspective]

I am afraid I must correct you here. China does not run policies at national level only. Unlike Singapore, China has local governments in both provinces as well as municipal township with great autonomy. Policies also vary widely in different counties, provinces and towns.

Goh Meng Seng

I said "comes close" and I wasn't talking about local governments. Compared to neighbouring Taiwan, China doesn't have the issue of local governments taking its path because some local governments belong to the DPP while the national government is KMT. And all these are election issues for Taiwan.

 

[Perspective]

However if you can give NSP this leeway, then you should also give PAP the same leeway. In which case the comparison is whether NSP can do a better job with Tampines than the PAP.

Correction. PAP is not doing a "better" job and neither is NSP doing a "worse" job. PAP is doing a job that NSP has no chance to do. You can be "better" than a person only if there is a basis for comparison.

If I get 60 marks and I am the only student in the class, I can't say that 60 marks is good or bad. I also cannot point at any random person on the street and say he will surely fair worse than me if he had been the other student in my class.

However you can point at SPP's and WP's PP and HG town councils and compare to PAP town councils.

 

[scroobal]

China actually has multiple levels of government. In fact its structure is rather rigid. Old man found that out the hardway when he went to Beijing to complain about the Suzhou authorities. He was told that deal was done by Spore and the Suzhou authorities and they have their respective development plans and Beijing is no position to intervene.

This is despite the fact that the country is ruled by the same party.

I said "comes close" and I wasn't talking about local governments. Compared to neighbouring Taiwan, China doesn't have the issue of local governments taking its path because some local governments belong to the DPP while the national government is KMT. And all these are election issues for Taiwan.

 

[IR123]

Let me offer another view point.

Never put all your eggs in one basket ie PAP. If you give PAP more than 90% of the seats, then there is no checks and balances. Don't worry about the quality of the opposition. The trick is to deny the PAP more than 2/3rds the seats so that they do not become complacent, bossy and less responsive to citizens.

If you are a business towkay and your eldest son keeps telling you that all your other children are useless, and if you gullible, you might pass all the business to him alone. Most towkays will spread the responsibility amongst his children and over time will have a clearer picture to make a decision.

Why don't you give the opposition a chance. They cannot run the government because they don't have the numbers but they can do much better than some of the PAP MPs.

I agree with your points because i hold to the belief that the present PAP can do a lot better when it does not hold absolute power.

Absolute power is a double-edged sword - excellent in certain circumstances only.

As for whether the opposition can do a better job than some of the PAP MPs, sometimes I wonder if some of the PAP MPs really bother about their constituency other than their KPIs which once performed is considered performance met. In that sense, a bit of competition will help them to consider just how much their constituency really means to them - enough to see beyond their KPIs or chalk it to an ungrateful electorate.

 

[IR123]

Correction. PAP is not doing a "better" job and neither is NSP doing a "worse" job. PAP is doing a job that NSP has no chance to do. You can be "better" than a person only if there is a basis for comparison.

If I get 60 marks and I am the only student in the class, I can't say that 60 marks is good or bad. I also cannot point at any random person on the street and say he will surely fair worse than me if he had been the other student in my class.

However you can point at SPP's and WP's PP and HG town councils and compare to PAP town councils.

You do have a point in that context.