PAP struggling with WP's multi-prong attack.

[Perspective]

Good laugh? I must imagine it's very funny to win.

 

[@rmadill0]

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You don't go all out to use analogy to suggest that you are a subject of your opponent. If this happen in Taiwan or even Hong Kong, that will be big taboo and hell on the media front. You will be mocked mercilessly... etc.

You criticise PAP policies but SELL YOUR POLICIES to YOUR RIGHT CUSTOMERS....i.e. VOTERS. You don't just tell PAP what to do! That is the basics of modern politics. I guess you will have to get this right first.

As for the Talking Point issue, haha, I guess people who watched, will only remember on how Michael Palmer being pawned.

Goh Meng Seng

Yup, agree to disagree but still, cannot hold back from replying to this.

CSM did not suggest that let WP be the Wei Zheng to the PAP's empire. You did mention that this is not a Emperor-Subject relationship. CSM merely cited Wei Zheng as an example to the PAP that a good government must be able to accept alternative views. Li Shimin was able to do it and hence, Tang Dynasty prospered. If people want to look at it superficially that CSM is suggesting that WP is a subject to PAP, I have nothing to say. Singapore are by nature daft isn't it?

By criticising PAP policies and be able to propose something better, would already be selling the WP brand to the voters. WP knows clearly that no matter how good their proposal might be, it will still voice down to whether PAP is willing to consider an alternative view. Just like Li Shimin, whether he want to hear Wen Zheng's view and adopt it.

I don't know much about the modern politics and their theory. However, if WP is to go inline with your basic of modern politics, I will be very disappointed.

 

[CakeLengKia]

You should ask Pritam. He has said something about coalition government with PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

seriously i doubt he will say something like this as it is a political suicide to pritam singh himself, LTK and the whole Workers' Party.

The WP mps should understand that it is a political suicidal statements I strongly believe.

 

[SneeringTree]

You should ask Pritam. He has said something about coalition government with PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

What a cheap shot. Pritam said this in the context of a situation where no political party has the majority in parliament. Of course, in that scenario, any responsible political party would work with a party that will keep the country running. This is not unlike the "grand coalition" of Germany recently.

I am glad you are not in parliament and can only take your cheap potshots here where nobody cares about you much.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Rmadillo,

Have you read his Chinese speech? If not, I guess you better read it.

He did suggest that WP be the Wei Zheng to PAP and that is why I am writing about it. Not merely suggest, but even literally said that let PAP be Emperor Tang Tai Zhong and "we" (meaning WP MPs) be Wei Zheng. Yeah, it is unbelievable but he said that and he actually posted his speech on his FB. I thought the newspaper Zaobao must have misreported it at first but after checking it out, yes, its from the horse's mouth.

I don't want to be there to depend on whether PAP will listen to me. Nope. But you are representative of the typical Singaporeans and no puns intended. Singaporeans are not ready to see active parliamentary contest, least about whether there are any other parties which could become ruling parties or not.

Basically, they are quite contended with PAP's rule, even if they do complain about its policies from time to time. Even when they want to vote in any opposition party's candidates into parliament, they are looking for someone who are similar to PAP or even best, could "help" PAP to rule better. It is a kind of ironic although there is a group of hardcore anti-PAP voters who want to kick PAP out of power.


Goh Meng Seng

Yup, agree to disagree but still, cannot hold back from replying to this.

CSM did not suggest that let WP be the Wei Zheng to the PAP's empire. You did mention that this is not a Emperor-Subject relationship. CSM merely cited Wei Zheng as an example to the PAP that a good government must be able to accept alternative views. Li Shimin was able to do it and hence, Tang Dynasty prospered. If people want to look at it superficially that CSM is suggesting that WP is a subject to PAP, I have nothing to say. Singapore are by nature daft isn't it?

By criticising PAP policies and be able to propose something better, would already be selling the WP brand to the voters. WP knows clearly that no matter how good their proposal might be, it will still voice down to whether PAP is willing to consider an alternative view. Just like Li Shimin, whether he want to hear Wen Zheng's view and adopt it.

I don't know much about the modern politics and their theory. However, if WP is to go inline with your basic of modern politics, I will be very disappointed.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear SneeringTree,

Well somebody ask if there would be a coalition government (between NSP & WP?) and if there is any such possibility, isn't it going to be the case that there is no single party going to have majority seats?

Well, Pritam has already had the answer as I have pointed out and in fact, you have agreed. In such a situation, Pritam would be agreeable to a PAP-WP coalition government. There is nothing wrong with my understanding and it is definitely not my cheap shot. It's from the horse's mouth.

I don't really understand why you would take it as "cheap shot". He has made his stand clear and I respect him for having that courage, though it is an "academic question" of "what if". You mean he should feel ashame of saying that? I really don't quite understand.

Goh Meng Seng

What a cheap shot. Pritam said this in the context of a situation where no political party has the majority in parliament. Of course, in that scenario, any responsible political party would work with a party that will keep the country running. This is not unlike the "grand coalition" of Germany recently.

I am glad you are not in parliament and can only take your cheap potshots here where nobody cares about you much.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

At first, I don't believe it as well and thought it was a "misreporting" by MSM again. But I was proven wrong again and he did say that during the post-GE forum. He did clarify later that it doesn't represent WP's stand but his personal "academic stand", whatever that means.

LTK did come up to clarify that this is not WP's political stand, just Pritam's personal stand. But make no mistake about it, he said it in an open forum. Thus, to some extend, I am not that surprised that he was actually trying to "help" or tell the PAP to use New Media to engage citizens more effectively, though such comments would normally come from PAP MPs.

Goh Meng Seng

seriously i doubt he will say something like this as it is a political suicide to pritam singh himself, LTK and the whole Workers' Party.

The WP mps should understand that it is a political suicidal statements I strongly believe.

 

[Charlie99]

Although I am not of [scroobal's] calibre, please consider my comments or suggestions in green font. Thank you.

Dear Scroobal,

To a certain extend (extent - noun not a verb like to extend), I would agree with you that the multi-prongs approach is taking toll on PAP. After decades of absence of real challenge in parliament, PAP isn't that used to handle 9 opposition MPs at one shot.

However, for every strategy taken, there bound to have "trade off". With limited MPs, spreading out in multi-prong approach, you will find that actually WP has spread themselves too thin. In fact, they were not able to lend support power to each other ( one another since there are more than 2 MP's from the Workers' Party, whereas each other is for 2 persons ) during the parliamentary debate. Only LTK managed to do a last minute support for two of his party colleagues at the later part of parliamentary debate but not during the onslaught. This is the shortcoming that they will need to overcome: they will have to be on the look out on how to help other party colleagues to fight off PAP attacks, especially so when the attacks are full of holes.

There is one underlying tone which I find disturbing though. I think, in spite of our disgust of ( for ) PM Lee's fumble on "fix the opposition", he got it right politically that opposition parties are not there to help PAP to be better. Technically, they are political opponents and thus, it is understandable that they would view each criticism by opposition as "threats". However, it seems to me that WP MPs were trying very hard to tell PAP that we are here to provide feedback to you and give you some ideas so that you can make better policies.

The CSM's "inappropriate" (yes, in my view that is totally inappropriate) analogy about Tang Emperor and Wei Zheng has such underlying tone. Pritam's attempt to "help" PAP in "engaging" Singaporeans is another case in view. I find that quite amusing but disturbing as well.

It is the job of PAP MPs to help their ministers to do their job better. The ruling party's role is to rule, make policies etc. The role of opposition party is to oppose or criticise policies which they think is against public interests. Their role is to contest against policy ideas but not to help the ruling party to refine policies, least, suggest better policy options for the ruling party. This is the modern "Political Ethics" based on democratic principles.

There are rooms for improvement ( I am not sure, but preferably room for improvements ) but one note, LTK is definitely not Lim Chin Song. LCS failed politically but LTK has, though in my view a very conservative way, edged on politically.

Although you may have some misgiving about Indranee, but she did make the best speech among the PAP MPs. A respectable opponent I should say. My first engagement with Indranee in Talking point left me a strong impression of this Senior Counsel. She is worth her salt as SC.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[kingrant]

Singaporeans have to wake up to the idea that some things are just so fundamental that only with a change in majority govt will there be any changes or improvements. An increasingly well educated and widely exposed electorate will begin to see this over time. The PAP cannot expect Opp parties, and vice versa, to dance around the periphery and make only incremental modifications to implementation practices, so as to assuage voters' resentment. Opp parties like WP have to grow into their role as an alternative govt.

Then it remains to be decided what the extent of this fundamental difference Singaporeans can, should and are willing to live with, be it in policies concerning defence, social net and CPF, healthcare, housing costs, Ministerial pay, civil liberties, tho not in that order etc.

Thus are the platforms where future elections will be fought. No use Opp MOs trying to be magnanimous or PAP wayanging to be more "inclusive" altho I am still waiting for the govt to first define what it means.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

This is exactly what he said:“在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。”

Source: http://www.facebook.com/ChenShowMao/posts/215120328553235

Goh Meng Seng

Yup, agree to disagree but still, cannot hold back from replying to this.

CSM did not suggest that let WP be the Wei Zheng to the PAP's empire. You did mention that this is not a Emperor-Subject relationship. CSM merely cited Wei Zheng as an example to the PAP that a good government must be able to accept alternative views. Li Shimin was able to do it and hence, Tang Dynasty prospered. If people want to look at it superficially that CSM is suggesting that WP is a subject to PAP, I have nothing to say. Singapore are by nature daft isn't it?

 

[HedgeTrader]

This is exactly what he said:“在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。”

Source: http://www.facebook.com/ChenShowMao/posts/215120328553235

Goh Meng Seng

You're out of depth with someone deeper than you. See bold underline above. Thats in context of dynastic politics. Nows in context of democratic politics.

 

[Fook Seng]

Although I am not of [scroobal's] calibre, please consider my comments or suggestions in green font. Thank you.

Charlie, I hope you should stop this English grammar lesson. It is very irritating for those who only want to follow the arguments in the thread. Would I suggest you start a separate thread on English grammar. I am sure you will find many participants who are genuinely intersein your thread there. I am not sure whether you are aware that many people are contributing to this through mobile devices which are very difficult to type, read articles in total and make corrections. Just my two cents.

 

[Fook Seng]

This is exactly what he said:“在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵
Goh Meng Seng

GMS, you should read carefully his exact words "在这国会的任期里". In this parliamentary period of five years, can any analogy of ruler and advisers have any other players than the ruling party and opposition MPs. If the opposition MPs are not there to offer alternative opinions to national issues, what are they there for. CSM said he was a patriot, meaning that whatever he would contribute in parliament will be for the common good of the nation. What you are saying that is of secondary importance. He should be promoting his own party's interest. I think you asked the right question: if it is possible to form a majority govt, will WP and NSP form a coalition? I believe their answer will be NO if GMS is still around. A coalition can be formed not because the numbers fit but because there is a common objective. How can "to serve the common good for the people" and "to serve party's interest" be similar?

 

[3_M]

Basically, they are quite contended with PAP's rule, even if they do complain about its policies from time to time. Even when they want to vote in any opposition party's candidates into parliament, they are looking for someone who are similar to PAP or even best, could "help" PAP to rule better. It is a kind of ironic although there is a group of hardcore anti-PAP voters who want to kick PAP out of power.


Goh Meng Seng

I don't see anything wrong with this. U want to be totally different from PAP and that would only means you are going to end up speaking to people who will vote for any dog over PAP and no one else.

I am anti pap but I am also practical. U can't win election without winning the middle ground voters. like it or not we are just a small minority and depending on the hardcore 30% opposition voters will means u are going to end up like SDP or RP. U need to fight for the centrist voters and consolidate as many opposition support base as possible. This isn't politicking but simple maths. Surely you know this reality but mischievously try to stir shit against fellow opposition for some unknown reasons.

 

[scroobal]

Right you are again Charlie.

Although I am not of [scroobal's] calibre, please consider my comments or suggestions in green font. Thank you.

 

[scroobal]

Let be delighted that we have this many number of good people in opposition. A scenario that many did not contemplate anytime soon. Though virgins, they have conducted themselves very well. Ignore the little errors if any and to focus on how to get this govt to start listening to its own people.

The fall of another GLC and SMC is on the cards. Other opposition parties need to work on their own game to keep eroding the PAP's voter base. The PE is a clear signal that time is here. I am sure many did not imagine a majority of 35% for a PAP candidate. Not only that, he nearly did not make it, despite being DPM, a long standing member of the cabinet and a blue blood.

We need to take a leaf out of Nicole Seah's little book of gung ho adventurism. This is a young lady who left her opponent traumatised and a former PM pleading his case on a poor performance. She was the talk of the GE. She was no scholar, clearly wet behind the years but carried the ground. She did not get a PAP MP to get his wife to employ her neither did she have a huge machinary behind her.

The PAP is clearly lost at sea. Its new intake of MPs are more in the frame of charlatans. An adultress, with a hubby that was taken to the bankruptcy court by her own company, a leach whose aspiration is to visit Universal studio, a FT that thinks that NS is not as important as his vocation etc. Let also not forget the sexual predator that nearly became an PAP MP.

 

[kingrant]

From now on, whether the PAP govt starts toning down, listening or continues talking down, it is going down a slippery slope. Just like the opening up of China, it is irreversible. Over these 5 years, the Opp (WP) will have consolidated their positions, their image, their standing, their credibility, in the eyes of the people. Come 2016, they will be a stronger Party, and, as Scroobal has said, likely to make more gains and inroads into at least 1 more GRC and SMC. The people will see that there is no need to panic with more Opposition in parliament, no economic disaster, investors wont run or stay away, and there is no flight of capital to safer places.

This trend has less to do going forward (actually, I hate this phrase) with whether PAP becomes kinder, gentler or sexier. It will only move the tipping point further up against the status quo to reach a new equilibrium because the people basically wants to see a contest of ideas, of choices, of alternatives.

Voters will in future GEs probably revulse against any form of gerrymandering, coat-tail entries for half past six candidates. That will render the GRC mechanism increasingly useless against a strong Opp pool. With a good solid team of Opp candidates, the GRC is no longer a handicapping block.

All eyes are on the Opp. Let's not squander away the opportunities to establish the next bridgehead. The PAP has finally started to dig its own grave. It will await their eventual RIP.

 

[ssrrvv11]

goh meng seng has absolutely nothing else to offer except more sour grapes. he certainly has a damn big ego to match his big LOSER status.

 

[sleaguepunter]

imho, i think national wide hardcore opposition votes no more than 15-20% period. the reason why hougang opposition votes % is higher is due many of the residents there were forceful resettled by the govt from jalan kayu and punggol in the late 70s and early 80s. LTK first foray in hougang only bring him low 50% majority votes and his votes were always maintain at that level until 2006GE where his winning majority become higher.

what i think of current wp strategy was to muddy the water, to show the central voter (40-45%) that there no different between pap and wp, in a way try to shift the central aka fence sitter to vote for wp instead. do csm really want to be wei zheng, hell no, it just a bloody wayang. think of the number of zaobao ah pek readers being sway by csm knowledge.

As for coalition govt, if pap dumb enough to ask wp to join them to form a coalition govt, i personally felt wp shd grab the opportunity as it allow wp to have an inside knowledge of the working of a govt. but pap shd be smarter than that, why teach a party that is the most threatening to pap? pap more likely to jio gms's party as it a party form by different interest group so more easy for pap to control.

u r giving gms to much credit that he understand the reality. gms still believe sounding the bulger and clash against pap in open ground with inferior numbers and arms. luckily for us, gms kenna hentakaki as a captain in saf just like what he is doing with his political career. there no AP politician that i dont like until gms come along. instead of interracting with the masses (where the votes are), he came here instead to spread his political nonsense where not many will take him seriously. why he need to proof a point to us (mostly hardcore anti pap) that he is the best opposition politician when he should be convincing the masses that he is a credilble politician.

 

[zhihau]

The fall of another GLC and SMC is on the cards.

me thought they would start on a witchhunt in their own backyard first :p:p:p

oh wait... civil servants are supposed to be non-partisan, right?