I gravely fear that some of those opposition wannabes will read your post and actually take it seriously.
God Meng Seng
-
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.
An Election STRATEGY that could TOPPLE this government.
- Thread starter Nice-Gook
- Start date
I gravely fear that some of those opposition wannabes will read your post and actually take it seriously.
God Meng Seng
I think you made your position very clear. Sorry, I had the impression that you were not sure which side to vote for. I respect your choice. It was purely meant for those who are not sure.
Speaking for myself, i have never expected the oppositions to come up with complete or even marginal plans for the governance of singapore.
There are limits and it is always important to know your limits.
..
So what is the value of an opposition?
Again my feeling of what the opposition can really do:
(1) demonstrate and verbalize a sense of compassion for our fellow singaporeans.
They are representatives of the people and they want to represent singaporeans in a far more compassionate manner than the PAP has ever done today.
The PAP thinks in terms of macro-variables for those who are making policies. For those who do not, the PAP thinks in terms of writing letters and giving ang-pows. These are good things but it has become mechanical and just a set of goals to be met and reported back to HQ. Thus, for them, the soul is lost.
What tangible method can the oppositions do for the constituents of their target constituency? Things that demonstrate involvement and compassion. Things that make them visible.
This is the primary value they must demonstrate because it is the constituents who are voting them in.
For example, the SDP gave a resume writing service free of charge to all who had been badly affected by the recession.
Whilst we may not have the money, but we have certain skills to give.
What the PAP has forgotten is that politics is about human relationships. It is not about the favour of your masters so that you can stand and win the elections and get for yourself a fat pay packet.
It is about the people you serve or want to serve - and even if your hands are tied due to constraints, if you can do a small bit for them to alleviate their sufferings, you will do it.
Leave the political schemes to those who want to become Prime Ministers. What we look for are people who focus on us instead of their political ambitions for attaining power.
(2) Carry forth this sense of compassion to the Parliament, as representative of the people.
Can you tell the PAP in Parliament in front of all the cameras that their policies benefit only themselves. That though they give all sorts of reasons, the objective result is still their own self-benefit and a burden to the citizens.
How many opposition MPs do you need to have in Parliament to make a simple statement like that?
Only one.
And what if they indeed made such a statement.
Then tell it to the electorate - that they are here to be a check and balance to the PAP.
Tell the electorate what will really happen if there are one-third of them in Parliament - how their lives will improve.
(3) There is room for at most 3 messages to the electorate.
One of them must be this - they are here to check on the PAP.
Such checks make the PAP better.
Such checks make life for ALL singaporeans better.
How many of those in your target constituency who voted against you understand this?
(4) there will always be the fear that you will replace the PAP. And this is where a united front will rationalize away the fears.
My fellow colleagues in here and here, we decided that we will only focus on being a check to the PAP for this election.
Together, collectively, we decide on this strategy because we believe what we need right now is our presence to help the PAP refocus back onto you.
Such an impression cannot be done overnight or over 7 days.
It must be done consistently because it takes time for the message to sink in, and through your visible actions, become a viable reality to them.
And because it is a united approach, there is no need to say this opposition good or better but all of them wants to be there to provide this check on the PAP on your behalf.
(5) The good news is that you only need to convince 6% of the electorate of the value of this checking mechanism in bettering their lives.
So scroobal the fraudster think he is the more experienced and better informed lot.
Forumers here should be aware of this two-headed PAP snake who sprouts rubbish to entrap forumers.
He claimed he had "insider info" last year that Gecko had passed on, it turned out to be a complete LIE"
All those forumers who replied to him are still missing from the new SBF.
Forumers here should be aware of this two-headed PAP snake who sprouts rubbish to entrap forumers.
He claimed he had "insider info" last year that Gecko had passed on, it turned out to be a complete LIE"
All those forumers who replied to him are still missing from the new SBF.
originally posted by srcitizen:
<The crisis is real and yes, it started from the US, but having all the resources the PAP has, it was evident that they were caught unaware when the writing was already on the wall. Was this another indication of their arrogance when they went head in first to further pump more of our money into failing institutions?>
don't forget they pay themselves extraordinary salaries so their performance should be extraordinary too. they should be able to see what others can't see and not make the same mistakes others make!
posted by srcitizen:
<They just decide on a policy and then it might/not get a parliamentary debate which we have all seen for ourselves is merely academic. So why are we asking the opposition to reveal their plans and no one is asking the PAP this same question?>
well said! why must we be so demanding on the opposition and not on the incumbent that is paid so much?
<The crisis is real and yes, it started from the US, but having all the resources the PAP has, it was evident that they were caught unaware when the writing was already on the wall. Was this another indication of their arrogance when they went head in first to further pump more of our money into failing institutions?>
don't forget they pay themselves extraordinary salaries so their performance should be extraordinary too. they should be able to see what others can't see and not make the same mistakes others make!
posted by srcitizen:
<They just decide on a policy and then it might/not get a parliamentary debate which we have all seen for ourselves is merely academic. So why are we asking the opposition to reveal their plans and no one is asking the PAP this same question?>
well said! why must we be so demanding on the opposition and not on the incumbent that is paid so much?
Yes, we have to be realistic. The PAP only revealed their plans AFTER they came into power. Before that, no one had a clue. Moreover, information needed by the opposition to make any sort of plans are out of bounds to them but easily available to the PAP. So yes, there are limits, the limits imposed by the PAP.
In one of the constituencies which voted one of opposition candidates into parliament, how did the vote swing towards the opposition candidate? The incumbent PAP candidate had shown in no uncertain terms his disdain for the people in his ward, much like some of the current PAP MP's are doing right now. This was obviously a major put off to the residents.
Along came this opposition candidate. He immediately showed his humility and passion to hear the people out. He sat down with them and listened to them. No grassroots leaders would touch him with a ten foot pole. Nevertheless, he doggedly did his rounds, listening and talking with the people even into late hours of the night.
Come elections, he was given the mandate. The PAP candidate did his SOP rounds the following morning and the people were hurling ice cubes at him to show their disgust for him. Contrast this with a warm welcome to their newly elected MP, an opposition candidate.
Immediately, all infrastructure set up for the defeated PAP MP were removed and the PAP put all sorts of road blocks to make this new opposition MP as difficult as possible to serve the people. Getting funds (tax payers' money) for limited upgrading works was denied to him. Even planting of trees in his constituency with the residents to improve the environment there is not even allowed. This is just to name a few instances.
This opposition MP did his best in parliament but against all odds against the PAP bully boys he had not a sliver of a chance. Outside of parliament, he showed his complete compassion in relating to the people in his ward and was a constant face around throughout his tenure as their representative even till this day and he deserved every bit the continued support from his constituents. Have the other constituencies learnt anything from this?
The PAP candidates on the other hand expect respect and commitment of support from the voting public. New PAP candidates are introduced during elections only to hide within a GRC to facilitate their entry into parliament. Nothing was known of them of what were their objectives in their wanting to be elected into office. Serving the people is the last thing in their minds. They all look forward to a rosy future with their path all paved in gold. Yet the people whom they grudgingly serve would vote these unknowns in. So are we giving the same fair chance to the opposition who had to work for themselves to garner support without the PAP and civil service machinery backing them?
Just look at the parliament sittings and see how many of the PAP members are missing or sleeping. They are too busy looking for their handsome rewards for being a member of an exclusive and elite class. You heard the mention of us lesser mortals; you heard of MPs having multiple directorships and one even voiced dissatisfaction for being paid ONLY $10,000 dollars in one of his many directorships he holds. So how would such people ever want to serve the people? They are there to serve themselves and only themselves.
Giving out angpows, scholarships and cutting ribbons are all prearranged for them and they just make an appearance as a wayang to show the people they still care. Do they really actually care for their constituents? You are right, these shows are very mechanical or even plastic.
You need to understand the meaning of state controlled media. Anything that happens in parliament that show the opposition candidates in good light is guaranteed to be edited out. This is why telecast of parliament sittings are delayed broadcasts. Any minor incident that shows the opposition MPs in not so good standing is highlighted in the telecast, but if a PAP member screws up, then it is edited away. So what does the general public see on television of the opposition MP's against the PAP members? The answer is obvious. As you mentioned before, only half truths biased towards the PAP.
Having only one opposition member (or even 6) in parliament will be cannon fodder for the PAP bully boys and the state controlled media. This has been proven out before and the situation will never change.
The opposition is not obligated to make the PAP better as much as the PAP has never made the opposition any better. The PAP has said this so many times. In fact, the PAP has used a lot of unethical methods to try to do the opposition in.
Yes, the opposition candidates do go around selling themselves as a check and balance on the PAP. However, among voters, you and I know that with all that bitching and complaining about the PAP, come elections they will still still vote for the PAP. Promises of upgrading of estate, goodies thrown at them will easily buy them out.
There was someone who posted in the old forum that his aunty votes for the PAP because she gets to participate in free lunches thrown by the PAP MP and no amount of persuasion or logical discussion will change her mind.
A post by another said that he overheard a group of taxi drivers in a coffee shop practically screaming curses at the PAP but it turned out later when he opened his door to his MP visit, tagging along with the PAP MP were these same taxi drivers whom he found out were the grassroots leaders. So what rewards were keeping their loyalty to the PAP even if they had so many gripes against this party?
How do you think of an opposition candidate who goes around telling the electorate that if he is elected he is going to help the PAP?
So many arguments have taken place in parliament by the limited opposition members to tell the PAP what they are doing is not in the interest of the lesser mortals and how many times have the PAP ever listened?
For so many times the PAP has claimed credit for the good times to reward themselves with obscene remunerations and bonuses but then to excuse themselves away during bad times. Do we keep on living in the same climate of constantly being threatened by the higher mortals? Is the PAP ever going to listen and understand that Singapore does not just belong to them? They have never done so under this leadership so what makes anyone think that they will ever do so in the future?
Are we better off now economically and socially than the last election, never mind the props being built to satisfy the PAP's ego?
I wish I am as optimistic as you. Percentage counts in a limited sense. With 33% voting against the PAP we see only two opposition MPs. Ridiculous as it sounds, does it take 90% voting against the PAP to get 6 opposition MPs given that each opposition MP needed 33/2 = 16.5% of the votes? Hope you see where I am getting at.
Hopefully you get better response from this.
I have come across people (and its not a few) that have a lot of difficulty understanding that the playing field is not level. They genuinely feel that opposition is not up to the mark and its their fault.
Yet these are the same people that feel that the PAP does not have passion and tends to run roughshod overs its people.
In the 1st world, the electrorate makes sure that no single party dominates and allows for minor parties to mature. If the main govt is party A, the municipal / state or provincial govt will likely be from Party B. Its to avoid putting all their eggs in one basket.
thanks for sharing
the 6% i meant was because aljunid was short of 6%
incidentally that was the impetus for my belief that a united front will benefit all oppositions...if a concerted effort is made to educate the public, then a general swing in sentiments towards oppositions as a whole, will benefit any one of them that needs that extra 6%
Last edited:
Let me explain my position further.
If they engage on a common platform, the message is easier for the voters to digest.
I can only think of two platforms: (1) checks on the PAP - and such checks will automatically make the PAP more accountable to the public (which benefits the public) and (2) be an alternative to the PAP - here your proving ground is more rigorous.
If you move on a checks and balances approach, a common platform can emerge with the parties retaining their respective ideologies.
If you move on an alternative government approach, the respective ideologies become important.
For example if you say an alternative government of PAP or WP, then immediately you bring WP into confrontation with the other parties, because they will want to be alternate governments too.
And if you say checks and balances, then it is only PAP or Opposition, because all oppositions are united in a common purpose of providing this check which is on a higher ground than their ideologies.
If they engage on a common platform, the message is easier for the voters to digest.
I can only think of two platforms: (1) checks on the PAP - and such checks will automatically make the PAP more accountable to the public (which benefits the public) and (2) be an alternative to the PAP - here your proving ground is more rigorous.
If you move on a checks and balances approach, a common platform can emerge with the parties retaining their respective ideologies.
If you move on an alternative government approach, the respective ideologies become important.
For example if you say an alternative government of PAP or WP, then immediately you bring WP into confrontation with the other parties, because they will want to be alternate governments too.
And if you say checks and balances, then it is only PAP or Opposition, because all oppositions are united in a common purpose of providing this check which is on a higher ground than their ideologies.
Finally whichever platform they take, will determine their communication strategy to the public.
The public needs to understand.
Therefore to avoid misunderstanding, the communication must be clear, concise and simple.
And this is where a clear platform may benefit the oppositions in terms of a hopeful 6% swing in favour of them.
The public needs to understand.
Therefore to avoid misunderstanding, the communication must be clear, concise and simple.
And this is where a clear platform may benefit the oppositions in terms of a hopeful 6% swing in favour of them.
Just putting forward my opinion of the situation and what needs to be done to change the iron grip of the current PAP government on the citizens. If left unchanged it will not augur well for the future of Singapore and Singaporeans.
There are already ominous signs that we are hurtling towards national self destruction brought on by the PAP. The higher mortals will of course not be affected because they will be accepted in any other country as long as they bring their handsome loot with them should Singapore as a nation ceases to exist. By that time we will have nothing to pick up the pieces with and the situation will be far worse than when the British left us.
Your point about people who do not recognise the reality has similarity to many who believe this economic crisis is just a cyclic recession. They live in a world of their own to their own detriment. However, in the case of our dire political situation the cancer grows and grows and if not treated it becomes terminal for the whole nation. Every man, woman and child will have a price to pay.
The opposition candidates are taking almost life threatening risks to themselves and their family by standing against the PAP. Yet they are treated with skeptism, and often with contempt.
The PAP candidates stroll into parliament without even a half question asked of them and what do they do after being successful at the polls? They have nothing but scorn for the very people who voted for them. Then come next election they get the votes again.
I cannot comprehend how foolish the Singaporean electorate has become. For this, I am not particularly proud of ourselves.
I believe we are both looking at ways in which the opposition will find its place in parliament except that we may have differing methods of looking at how this is to be achieved.
Thanks for clarifying on the 6% you were referring to is actually meant for Aljunied GRC.
However, you must remember one thing. The PAP is battle hardened and is not stupid. They do an analysis of the previous election results and then they realign the electoral boundaries for the next elections to dilute the opposition's gain and pull in the guaranteed PAP voter areas.
So the boundaries set for Aljunied in the last elections will definitely be a completely different picture in the next. Perhaps, it might not even be called Aljunied. Do you know some areas within that GRC were formerly under Eunos? Just look at the public rubbish bins in that area and you will see multiple TC name changes.
Why do you think that the PAP put the elections committee under the PM's office? I am sure you have seen many elections where boundaries are changed at every election and they will only let the opposition know about the new boundaries very near election day. The PAP does all the prep work in the background with the opposition none the wiser. In the words of socceroos, the PAP always make the opposition contest in PAP's "home ground". This is another instance of tweaking the rules of the game so that it is never a level playing field.
I see where you are getting at. Of course unity among the opposition parties is extremely important. Going back to my previous little anecdote on the opposition MP, he did work on a platform of voting for a credible opposition and to act as a check and balance to the PAP.
Well, if the ultimate intention is to get the large enough numbers of opposition into parliament then I agree with what you have suggested. As they say, many ways to skin a cat.
That's why the oppositions best chances to gain seats in parliament is through mixed member proportional representation election system
I think the oppositions should all unite together, demand for MMP from PAP. PAP will reject any system that will make them lose more seats but anyway even if we use MMP system, PAP will still get 80% of parliament with 60% nationwide votes.
MMP is the way forward. I don't know how but the oppositions have to do something on this.
Whatever it takes to get the opposition in numbers into parliament is going to be for the good of the nation.
As for the public to understand, I am not too optimistic about this as there are a significant amount of people who would always vote the PAP because of mindsets. They may say they understand the opposition's stand and agree with them, but goodies from the PAP are more important for their short term gain to remain under the shackles of the PAP.
Contrast this with the ward under the opposition MP. GCT threw all the incentives (using tax payers' money, of course) he could muster to bribe them to vote PAP. Everyone knew that they stood firm supporting their incumbent MP who has been with them thick and thin. Bravery? Loyalty? Or is it something more which the rest of the electorate fail to see beyond their own noses.
If you are referring to the MMP system used in NZ, then the % Party votes given by the voters would be reflected in Parliament as well.
66.6% PAP votes would directly translate into only 2/3 of the seats in parliament going to the PAP and 1/3 going to the opposition parties.
The GRC scheme is a poor excuse to get the minority race candidate into parliament. If one is going into race politics with minority candidates etc then adopt the NZ method whereby there is a Maori electoral roll for Maori voters to vote in a pre-determined number of seats alloted for Maori candidates to contest.
In S'pore's case, have a Malay electoral roll or Indian electoral Roll for those really hung up on minority race issues to vote their Malay or Indian candidates into Parliament.
most MMP system has something like 60% constituencies and 40% party list to form parliament. By past elections, PAP could get 95% of constituencies and 60% of party list. That figures will enable PAP to dominate parliament but the whole idea is a fairer and more democratic election system for all.
I totally agree with the minorities electoral roll. We need a high profile opposition minority figure ( don't think there's any ) to demand for this from PAP. I really can't believe that PAP gave us such a cock reason for GRC as ensuring minority MPs when many countries have been using minorities electoral roll for decades.
Similar threads
