LTK on the impossibility of unity

[Fook Seng]

CSJ still has a lot to offer to SDP – his clear-headed analyses, writing, organizational skills, etc. He just shouldn't front the party; let the young guns take over.

Recently his analyses seem to be quite milky or at least based on some unknown premises or goals.

 

[Fook Seng]

why take him so many days to come with this
explanation.

In fact, I am so surprised he took the trouble to explain. It is so obvious. Only dreamers would want to talk about unity when they cannot even agree on common criteria for territorial ownership. This should come before any talk of unity.

 

[metalmickey]

I'm looking at a bunch of parties that have historically proven that they cannot work with each other. There is no way they can suddenly come back and work together again without some big unifying figure that all of them respect. And no, the son of JBJ doesn't qualify.

It used to be that parties couldn't avoid three corner fights, but in the last 3 general elections (let's not count by-elections), there were only 2 three corner fights. Let's not talk about alliances, unifying figures or such grandoise things. They aren't doing a terrible job at avoiding three corner fights. Some parties are doing joint walkabouts. They don't squabble in the open like they used to.

The way I'd think about it is like Silicon Valley. Nobody is really anybody's enemy, nobody is really anybody's friend. Even if they're not always on the same side, they are at least co-operating more than competing against each other. The big companies didn't come up with everything themselves, they grew big by acquiring each other, or acquiring each other's people. Things are still very fluid at this point. Even if all the small parties end up becoming feeders for the big parties, so what? They're still serving their purpose.

Sometimes people will scream at each other but after that they get along and make up. Unless they are Goh Meng Seng.

In a sense I don't like this talk about "opposition unity". It makes it sound like all or nothing. Either everybody gets together in one voice and agrees on everything like a bunch of robots or they're "fractious and divided". There is only "working well together" or "not working well together". It's one whole grey area from good to bad.

 

[TuaGow]

sinkies has already rejected the other opposition parties and prefer wp. what's the point of uniting with them that will drag wp down the drain?

 

[kongsimi]

The opposition parties are actually very complex, with different personalities, different leaders, different approaches.

Moral of the story!! It is easier to unite a group of YES men than NO men! LOL!

 

[metalmickey]

The opposition parties are actually very complex, with different personalities, different leaders, different approaches.

Moral of the story!! It is easier to unite a group of YES men than NO men! LOL!

Since this guy has put a very succinct and convincing explanation of why the PAP always wins, I will up him.

 

[yellowarse]

Opposition unity must have both components. If parties are not internally united, and all the opposition chiefs agree to have “opposition unity”, do you think it is possible?

... Well the PAP thinks that the family is a building block of society, and a part of national unity.

Let me put it clearly:

National unity implies family unity
But family unity does not imply national unity

Interparty opposition unity implies intraparty unity
But intraparty does not imply interparty unity

Clearer example:

A country has 3 major racial groups - Chinese, Malays, Indians. Each group has strong internal unity - Malays are united, Chinese are united, Indians are united.

Does that lead to national unity? Not necessarily! You could have civil racial war instead - like what we saw in the old Yugoslavia.

Likewise, having strong united opposition parties is not a guarantee of opposition co-operation and unity if each party chooses to go its own way.

 

[metalmickey]

Let me put it clearly:

I heard you the first time around. But you didn't get my point.

Unity is unity. Discord is discord. It is not very important whether we are talking about unity within the party or between parties. All these boundaries are artificial. Forget about whether the guy is from your party or not. The real question is can you work and co-operate with other people.

If you're a friendly Malay you can get along with other people of whatever race. If you're not friendly you won't get along with your own family. Intra-party unity and inter-party unity are more similar to each other than dissimilar. There is no real need to draw a distinction.

Which party you're from is not important. If you're good enough, you can switch to any opposition party you like. If you're Goh Meng Seng and you can't get along with people in Worker's Party, you won't get along with people in NSP either. If you're Chiam See Tong and you can't get along with people from SDP, it's going to be the same whether in SDA or SPP. If you are Michelle Lee and SDP welcomes you, WP would also welcome you.

This is politics not set theory. The principles that apply here are what people are like, not mathematical logic.

 

[ray_of_hope]

In 2010 RP wanted a pact with SDA largely because of CST. However, DL in SDA was not keen on having anything to do with RP and there was the infamous leak of terms of negotiations. This scuppered any pact between RP and SDA and subsequently was one reason why CST took out SPP from SDA. Till today you can see that DL is not keen on having anything to do with RP as he turned down Jeya's invite to speak at tomorrow's rally. Now, ironically, DL is talking about "opposition unity" whereas Jeya is talking the reverse. Each of these guys are jokes in their own right and might well be headed for securing 200-300 votes each.

 

[Nobody888]

The opposition parties are actually very complex, with different personalities, different leaders, different approaches.

Moral of the story!! It is easier to unite a group of YES men than NO men! LOL!

Different views should not be a issue, but if those "No men" demand too much from him then will be one big headche. Btw, is there a need to explain?

 

[BMWag]

it basically means opposition parties are fucked in sg, and that includes wp. if it takes 30 years to get where he and the party is today

Alright, we have the same frequency here. No, it was really hard for oppos back then. Many people 'bochuped' about politics and they worked their butts off to put food on the table. Everyone was very cooperative with the govt. But time has changed. PAP has changed and so are we.

 

[eatshitndie]

yup truly fucked. 30 yrs and still co-driver. But barely a co-driver also.. But the rest are worst la.

wait till ah tiong reach critical mass, spread their legs and seeds everywhere in sg, adopt sg citizenship en mass, become political, and you'll get a formidable new party to be named "singapore unification (with) china kompatriots" or "suck" for short.