My 'essay' on why SG opposition should unite

[Perspective]

Sincere essay, but let me try to explain why:

1) The "opposition" can't "unite"

2) Why Malaysia's case wasn't really different from Singapore's (except for the number of seats won)

The "opposition" is in reality made up of very different parties with different leaders and styles. As Goh Meng Seng said in Facebook, they would unite if their only role is to oppose the PAP - but that isn't a good thing, is it?

RP - Jeyaretnams-based, carrying JBJ's unfinished work.

SDA - Chiam-based, carrying his work, and an alliance that can absorb other parties.

SDP - Chee-based and proud of their difference with the rest - dynamic, international relations, doing the right thing as an opposition.

WP - seen to be the most prospective party by the mainstream and fence-sitters who know a bit politics, who make up largest group, in terms of Parl representation (hence experience) hence higher votes and chance of elected (though if anyone joins his climb tends to be slower and chances of being fielded are lower).

NSP - within the party there is no prominent leader in the scale of the other 4 that can engulf and control other members, hence there is a lot of internal liberalism/democracy - each candidate can find and decide his own team, own constituency, own strategy.

Basically they all cover what prospective opp politicians think are winning chances - party branding, personality branding or individual-diverse-strategy branding. Rarely will you find a party where all 3 exist. For eg if a party is too personality based, the name of the party will become more difficult to grow. Eg being SPP, often remembered as Chiam's party rather than SPP. And if it is both party and personality, it tends to have central control and hence candidates will find themselves "stifled".

That explains why new ones like USD and SF or race-based PKMS cannot find much more market since all 3 markets exist in the 5 parties.

If they could unite, they would slowly evolve into one party in the first place. In 1980, Chiam could have joined WP instead of forming SDP. Same for those who left SDP to form NSP instead of joining WP. Chiam when ousted from SDP could also have joined WP. JBJ could have found mutually agreeable space with the rest of WP and RP would not have been formed. KJ would have joined WP and left RP to die a natural death. All these didn't happen - for reasons. The people involved hold different ideas on not only to oppose the PAP but how to oppose SUCCESSFULLY. Who said they can't?

(Now, I mentioned WP several times not because I am pro-it, but because it is the oldest in which genuine one-opposition concept would have seen later players fall into it.)

Next on why Malaysia's case wasn't different. Before that, the differences with Singapore opposition.

Firstly, Malaysia is a lot bigger and less homogenious. That itself puts the entire equation differently.

Secondly, the BN had in 1970 absorbed most of the opposition parties when it tried to form a unity government, so BN took most of the bad which spelt the beginning of its end, which manifested in 2008. You really needed to be altruistic to avoid the temptation of joining the BN, hence the good ones like DAP and PAS are left. With that BN took more bad, expelled more good which led to bringing in more bad and expelling more good and so on - a vicious cycle. In my view, the opposition in Msia is presently already more capable of governance than BN. Only that the narrow margin of voters still trust BN.

Now on why Malaysia's case wasn't different.

In 2008, the number of opposition contesting in Malaysia was actually 7 and not 3. This number 7 is more than what we will get from Singapore's opposition in the next GE which is 5 or 6.

In reality, Pakatan was another name for the opposition (other than the opp that didn't join PR). There wasn't really coordinated strategy. The parties ran their own campaigns in their own states.

You might wonder why only the 3 Pakatan parties won seats. It's the same reason why in Singapore 2 parties won seats and 1 didn't even score 25%. It's the branding of each party (esp DAP and PAS) in their states (not the Pakatan's) + the screwups of BN. The former exists in WP, to a certain extent SDA and maybe RP now etc. while the latter (PAP's screwup) did not happen in 2006 - at least not to the extent of BN.

Anwar, of course, was a factor, but he was a national factor and figure in favour of the opposition, not a unifying factor. In fact many DAP and PAS contests against the BN didn't even see the presence of Anwar - not in name, in person at rallies or in their posters.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

It's just insecurity and inferiority complex. Get over it and all is fine. Don't accuse others eat potato or drink western ink. It's not helping your cause. Take it in stride be master over potato and western ink.

Don't put words in my mouth. In which post did I accuse others of "eating potato or drink western ink" ? You want to project yourself as a magnanimous person, it's fine with me. But don't step on me and use me as your rostrum. It's another subtle self-advertising masquerading as advice, which, in any case, was unsolicited.

 

[Ramseth]

Should be physique.

Look up your dictionary for the meaning of stature.

 

[Sideswipe]

one qn.
does our SDA operate the same way as Pakatan?

 

[Perspective]

one qn.
does our SDA operate the same way as Pakatan?

That I don't really know. And it's hard to compare, given the scale of the election and no. of candidates.

But Pakatan is not registered, like BN or SDA. The ballot papers in Malaysia were BN vs DAP, BN vs PKR and BN vs PAS.

 

[Velma]

To Perspective:

I appluad you for putting in the effort to create a response that is longer than my first post. It shows your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of opposition. So the coalition of various opposition parties have different styles and ways of opposing PAP. To only form a coalition solely to oppose PAP will be disastrous. So it will be in the best intersts of the opposition to "do waht tehy like" and avoid three-cornered fights.

I do agree that the Opposition win in Malaysia was partly due to the inadequacy of BN. But, although PAP has absorbed some crap ministers as aurvandil has mentioned, cracks will not appear soon as Old Man still pulls the string and I assume Old Man will still be around for the incoming GE. So how is the opposition parties have to deal with this?

Pardon my ignorance cause I am still noob in certain areas.

EDIT: If I do not respond to your post, means I have turned in, will reply back by tmr =:P

 

[Ramseth]

To Perspective:

I appluad you for putting in the effort to create a response that is longer than my first post. It shows your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of opposition.

You're really newb here. Perspective is at the heart of opposition. If he doesn't know, who the hell else knows? If I tell you who he contested, you either worried or impressed.

 

[Perspective]

To Perspective:

I appluad you for putting in the effort to create a response that is longer than my first post. It shows your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of opposition. So the coalition of various opposition parties have different styles and ways of opposing PAP. To only form a coalition solely to oppose PAP will be disastrous. So it will be in the best intersts of the opposition to "do waht tehy like" and avoid three-cornered fights.

I do agree that the Opposition win in Malaysia was partly due to the inadequacy of BN. But, although PAP has absorbed some crap ministers as aurvandil has mentioned, cracks will not appear soon as Old Man still pulls the string and I assume Old Man will still be around for the incoming GE. So how is the opposition parties have to deal with this?

Pardon my ignorance cause I am still noob in certain areas.

No worries.

If the old man was any factor at all, I believe the opposition will win more seats when he leaves the scene. That being said, he might not be a factor at all, as this might happen in the next GE when he's still around, or much later when the PAP really runs the economy like any other 3rd-world govt.

The opposition will start by winning more seats. With the GRC system, the PAP will still win the narrow majority and if it falls below, a coalition with an opposition party. The other side will have 1 - 3 opposition in GRCs.

If we only had single wards, the political evolvement will be slightly different - more like Japan's (since it is also homogenous). The opposition will capture a few single wards, by the time any opp party is a good chance of winning, they will merge under a new name and slowly win more single wards until they form the govt.

In single ward system, one opp will stand out, formed by merger of a few. In a GRC system, parties will form blocs but with the PAP in narrow power. That is why the GRC is shown to be very well calculated.

 

[Perspective]

You're really newb here. Perspective is at the heart of opposition. If he doesn't know, who the hell else knows? If I tell you who he contested, you either worried or impressed.

You mean one of the Perspectives

Actually I don't know what you mean by "heart of opposition". I can assure you there's no opposition here.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Why is a loose coalition such as Parkatan to oppose the PAP a bad idea? To defeat or oppose UMNO was what created Parkatan. The result was a coalition that made the people believe that a change was possible.

If the parties didn't have this loose coalition, they would not have garnered as many votes.

I suggest that simply by forming a loose coalition here in SG, the APs will increase their votes by at least 5%. That alone, for each constituency could be the difference between winning or losing.

If you want people to vote for a change then that change must be credible and viable. To be credible you need a mass and we can only have that mass if we have a coalition of the APs. To be viable they have agree on some policies or at least agree to look into coming up with new policies.

Nothing has to be written in stone until they head into parliament and the data and debate and then vote is taken. The APs here are probably still concerned about redundant matters instead of looking at the bigger picture.

I predict a 10% vote swing against the PAP based on their performance since the last GE. That 10% can be augmented with another 5% if enough APs can band together such that voters see a united front against the PAP.

A total 15% vote swing against the PAP can be achieved. This is the difference that can kick out the PAP from power in SG. Let's show the old man that we have had enough of his daft politics!

 

[aurvandil]

I predict a 10% vote swing against the PAP based on their performance since the last GE. That 10% can be augmented with another 5% if enough APs can band together such that voters see a united front against the PAP.

A total 15% vote swing against the PAP can be achieved. This is the difference that can kick out the PAP from power in SG. Let's show the old man that we have had enough of his daft politics!

Pre-YOG, those that know the "prophecy" were expecting the popular vote to just dip below 60%.

Post YOG .... not so sure ....

I think good chance to go to the 55% mark although I don't think it will cross.

 

[manokie]

A total 15% vote swing against the PAP can be achieved. This is the difference that can kick out the PAP from power in SG. Let's show the old man that we have had enough of his daft politics!

Doubt they are sitting there doing nothing now..

They will be planning how to win the elections beautifully...
Some HDB policy can easily sway a lot of voters.. sadly
Who knows, some american election experts are helping to draw up the plans..

 

[Velma]

No worries.

If the old man was any factor at all, I believe the opposition will win more seats when he leaves the scene. That being said, he might not be a factor at all, as this might happen in the next GE when he's still around, or much later when the PAP really runs the economy like any other 3rd-world govt.

The opposition will start by winning more seats. With the GRC system, the PAP will still win the narrow majority and if it falls below, a coalition with an opposition party. The other side will have 1 - 3 opposition in GRCs.

If we only had single wards, the political evolvement will be slightly different - more like Japan's (since it is also homogenous). The opposition will capture a few single wards, by the time any opp party is a good chance of winning, they will merge under a new name and slowly win more single wards until they form the govt.

In single ward system, one opp will stand out, formed by merger of a few. In a GRC system, parties will form blocs but with the PAP in narrow power. That is why the GRC is shown to be very well calculated.

So I assume, the biggest stumbling block for an opposition win is the GRC system and the relatively few SMCs. It will be easier for the Opposition to group the SMCs together but with GRCs, PAP can retain a slim majority and also partly, because it will be hard for Opposition to recruit politician-wannabes from the minority races, hence contest for the GRCs will be tough and challenging.

 

[aurvandil]

Giant? I don't think that's an applicable adjective to the stature of Mah Bow Tan.

How about

1) Titan
2) Goliath
3) OLYMPIAN !!!

 

[Equalisation]

Pre-YOG, those that know the "prophecy" were expecting the popular vote to just dip below 60%.

Post YOG .... not so sure ....

I think good chance to go to the 55% mark although I don't think it will cross.

Further cock-ups at YOG , 49 to 51 %

 

[Ramseth]

How about

1) Titan
2) Goliath
3) OLYMPIAN !!!

Katik lah!

 

[Velma]

You're really newb here. Perspective is at the heart of opposition. If he doesn't know, who the hell else knows? If I tell you who he contested, you either worried or impressed.

I am a newb here to this forum truely.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Doubt they are sitting there doing nothing now..

They will be planning how to win the elections beautifully...
Some HDB policy can easily sway a lot of voters.. sadly
Who knows, some american election experts are helping to draw up the plans..

There was a time when voters could be swayed by the PAPies on bread and butter issues which includes housing and upgrading. Today, things are very different.

I can't think of anything the PAP can do which is 'legal' and morally right to sway the voters. Whatever they do, the people already know something else will be done instead.

The only problem that may come up is if the APs score an own goal.

 

[Perspective]

I am a newb here to this forum truely.

Nah, don't listen to Ram's "crap" Most opposition politicians, let alone opposition members, cannot produce an accurate study/analysis of why Singapore opposition is in the state it is, coupled with layman and down-to-earth food for thought.

Take James Gomez. He's probably the most scientific political scientist the opposition camp has produced but his ideas and papers are cheem to read and if you finally understood it, it says very little :p

 

[Perspective]

So I assume, the biggest stumbling block for an opposition win is the GRC system and the relatively few SMCs. It will be easier for the Opposition to group the SMCs together but with GRCs, PAP can retain a slim majority and also partly, because it will be hard for Opposition to recruit politician-wannabes from the minority races, hence contest for the GRCs will be tough and challenging.

It (PAP) will be out, but a matter of time.

What people, including the opposition supporters, need to understand is the problem is not opposition unity or one opposition party (for one opposition party combining many weak opposition is also still weak) but the PAP is high above the rest.

It's not opposition is weak but PAP is strong (and there's a difference).

And it needs to be knocked down into the size of the other parties with whatever voters and people can get their hands on.