• 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.

Putting Spurs deeper into PAP's thick Hides

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Role of Opposition: Putting Spurs deeper into PAP's thick Hides

Firstly, I would like to wish all my readers and Singaporeans at large a very Happy and Prosperous Lunar New Year ahead.

Recently I have given an exclusive interview as the Secretary General of NSP to TOC. I have talked about the vision of Singapore's Political development for the next decade or so, especially during the Post-LKY era.

Recently someone asked me about what have I done for the voters of Tampines and what is my game plan for winning the Tampines battle in time to come. I have responded about the need to take a bigger role than just Tampines itself.

In both instances, I have touched on the uncharted waters that I am sailing through; a path that has never been taken before by any opposition parties.

I have put forward a totally REVAMPED strategy which was loosely used in opposition parties in the past. A Minister-Policy-Specific strategy. There are a few dimensions to this strategy and motivations of using such strategy. We have long heard about how PAP is not held accountable to their policy or management failures. Applying such policy will address the need of extracting accountability from the ruling party.

Secondly, it will make the PAP and its ministers work harder to review some of the absurdity in their policies and do it right. Last but not least, it will raise the standards of political engagement from personality attacks to one that is geared towards open, matured and rational policy debates to work for the betterment of Singaporeans.

All in all, I would say that the whole idea of being opposition members, to lend MM Lee's famous words, is to PUT THE SPURS DEEPER into PAP's HIDES, to make them worker harder and faster for the people's interests.

Many people are anxious about having opposition parties to win more seats but have little idea about what that actually means. Winning seats is just a means to an end. The fundamental basis of power, is the people, for the people, by the people.

Many people always demand opposition parties to come up with "solutions". But one should know that policy solutions need rigorously examination. While we could give a generation direction, policy specifics need to be examined very closely with data analysis. Opposition parties do not possess the necessary data sets to do such work, neither do they have a whole army of civil servants and think tank employed by the government to do the necessary policy research. Policy ideas could be mentioned but whether these ideas are feasible or not would need much in depth research by civil servants and think tank who are equipped with the necessary tools and data sets.

The role of the opposition, thus, should not be entrenched in providing all nitty gritty specific solutions but rather, to act as an agent that keep the government in checks with good articulation of the flaws and ills of the policies put up by the ruling party. Opposition's fundamental role is to use the competitive mechanism provided by the electoral system as a leverage to extract a better deal for the citizens.

My vision for Singapore's political sphere for the next decade is for it to develop into a multi-party proportional representative system. The citizens will be provided with the opportunity to make INFORMED CHOICES by open, matured public political discourses and debates. The political system is more about policy specific debates rather than personalities. A healthy and fair competitive environment for all political players to express their ideas and ideals.

Opposition parties should not conduct themselves in such a "quiet" way. The media should make sure that it provides a balanced treatment and exposures for opposition parties.

Many people asked about "what have you done for the voters". Most people think that only the incumbents could "do something" for the voters by writing letters for them, meet them to talk about their woes, run their town councils and such. But we must always remember that the FIRST PRIMARY ROLE of a MP is to debate policies in parliament, making sure that such policies are in the best interests of the people.

I believe that opposition members who are yet to be voted into parliament have a role to play in "doing things for the voters". I have experimented it with the announcement of my intended contest in Tampines and providing my views on what went wrong with our HDB policies. Campaigning it on the grounds to explain the problems that Mah Bow Tan's HDB policies will bring to our younger and future generations.

All such actions have put SPURS into PAP's thick hides. Within a short span of a few months, HDB has done a few somersault U Turns on its policies. One of the most dramatic U turns come from the fact that they are planning to build more rental flats after drastically reducing the numbers for last few years, even when MM Lee has openly expressed objection to have rental flats for Singaporeans.

This is just a little "out-of-the-box" experimental political engagement that I have embarked on. It has proven its effectiveness in making the ruling party to do it right for Singaporeans.

This is the kind of leverage that the competitive elements provided by the electoral mechanism could give us. Opposition members should walk out of their old conservative ways of conducting political engagement and start to utilize such leverage to try and get the better deals for our people.

Walking or working the ground is no longer about knocking the doors and saying Hi and Bye. It could and should be more than that. We should be talking about politics and policies to our citizens, making comments on complex issues in the simplest terms as possible. Issues that are close to the hearts and minds of the citizens.

To win the seats, you have to win the confidence of the voters that you can and will be an <span style="font-weight:bold;">EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION MP</span> in parliament who will always safe guard the interests of the people.

Running a Town Council is important but just a distraction that PAP wants to put into opposition and voters' minds. To run a Town Council properly, we will need to employ professional Building and Estate managers. You simply cannot expect a doctor or a lawyer to run the Town Council all by themselves. Their more important primary role is to voice the concerns of the people in parliament to keep the ruling party in check.

Utilizing the Minister-Policy-Specific strategy will be a good way in trying to refocus the voters' minds to the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of voting for their MPs. When they are considering whether to vote for opposition candidates, their primarily concern should be whether these candidates could help to safe guard their overall interests in parliament. Whether they have the ability and capacity to put up good policy debates in parliament.

Of course, fundamentally, whether they could really "PUT THE SPURS DEEPER INTO THE RULING PARTY'S HIDES" to make them work harder and better safe guard their interests.

Goh Meng Seng
 

po2wq

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Role of Opposition: Putting Spurs deeper into PAP's thick Hides ...
new yr ... new resolution! ... goot! ...
icon14.gif
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
GMS, a very good account of what you can and shld do. hope other opp can use it as a blueprint too. I believe you will succeed.
 

Queen Seok Duk

Alfrescian
Loyal
I agree. So if NSP sends a team to Marine Parade, please remember to ask Lau Goh why Singapore soccer team failed to make it to South Africa.

Okay, one GRC for NSP in the pocket liao.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Good, cogent and inspiring. Strategically sound. It takes away the focus of voters from assessing candidates" personal attributes in their respective consitutuency and places the focus on Government and on to the fountainhead where these policies emerge from. It is also easier to manage as it frames the issues and concern of the voters in clear light. It is also a good reading of the times and relevant in these times.

Previous attempts to target ministers were purely driven by personality issues ie Lee Yock Suan and George Yeo. Both were considered nice guys and somehow perceived erroneously to be weak. Their portfolio however were not the issue. Many still have no clue what portfolios they held at that time and something that voters could not identify with.

In the Tampines case, the portfolio is the issue and the minister holding thus becomes the target.Something the voters can identify. The fact the Tommy Koh raised it as an issue and Old Man came out with his threat is indicative that the strategy has legs.
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I hate to say it but I considered NSP a write-off until recently. Very masak masak and china centric and their history of campaigning and the electroral results were reflective of it.

Clearly they are now a serious player and contender.

Okay, one GRC for NSP in the pocket liao.
 

bhoven

Alfrescian
Loyal
Role of Opposition: Putting Spurs deeper into PAP's thick Hides

Running a Town Council is important but just a distraction that PAP wants to put into opposition and voters' minds. To run a Town Council properly, we will need to employ professional Building and Estate managers. You simply cannot expect a doctor or a lawyer to run the Town Council all by themselves. Their more important primary role is to voice the concerns of the people in parliament to keep the ruling party in check.

Of course, fundamentally, whether they could really "PUT THE SPURS DEEPER INTO THE RULING PARTY'S HIDES" to make them work harder and better safe guard their interests.

Goh Meng Seng

Ability to distill strategic and more long term economic policies and translating them into bread and butter effects and issues is key....it assumes also a populace that is more cerebral than is present but we are getting there...ganbatte NSP!
 

bhoven

Alfrescian
Loyal
What the opposition parties must dispell is the myth that the pap knows best what is good for Singapore ( and more importantly, SINGAPOREANS )...the fact that the best and brightest are no longer falling for their golden handcuff scholarship schemes is a clear sign that their monopoly on talent is eroding....regret is that years of drilling into Singaporeans that they must fend for themselves ( first ) and not rely on the state has weakened altruism, social consciousness, civic graciousness and generosity ( except those of the convenient $ donation to vague charitable foundations kind ). In its place it has engendered insensitiveness ( particulary to our neighbouring countries ), me- firstness, kiasuism, arrogance and boastfulness ( Singapore is once again lumbar one in this and that ) and given rise to the ugly Singaporean you see often abroad ( in Singapore we nevah do this, in Singapore we...you get the drift )....we need many many years to undo the non economic and social mistakes of the PAP government.
 

sinren67

Alfrescian
Loyal
I hate to say it but I considered NSP a write-off until recently. Very masak masak and china centric and their history of campaigning and the electroral results were reflective of it.

Clearly they are now a serious player and contender.

NSP & RP are the parties to watch in the coming GE, no doubt about that.
 

3_M

Alfrescian
Loyal
It like playing chess,you got to keep your opponents guessing what your next move. I don't think it wise for any politician to show their trump card and overdo their honesty. Even to the extend of conceding defeat before the first shot is fire. Which politician in this world will do that?

GMS you got to show PAP and the voters you are gunning for the win (even you may think otherwise) rather as a catalyst to push PAP to work harder.

I have my reservation with your approach.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
It like playing chess,you got to keep your opponents guessing what your next move. I don't think it wise for any politician to show their trump card and overdo their honesty. Even to the extend of conceding defeat before the first shot is fire. Which politician in this world will do that?

GMS you got to show PAP and the voters you are gunning for the win (even you may think otherwise) rather as a catalyst to push PAP to work harder.

I have my reservation with your approach.

It is NOT PAP that matters, it is the PEOPLE that matters.

Put this simply, we are not "winning PAP" but rather, "winning the PEOPLE" over. In simple Chinese, 得民心者得天下.

Goh Meng Seng
 

3_M

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is NOT PAP that matters, it is the PEOPLE that matters.

Put this simply, we are not "winning PAP" but rather, "winning the PEOPLE" over. In simple Chinese, 得民心者得天下.

Goh Meng Seng

You are a politician and not a lobbyist. the rule of the game is about managing perception through propaganda. You can't be too honest with your intention that won't win you much vote and people won't appreciate that.

People will always want to associate themselves with a winning team rather than an underdog, that human nature. Even if you know you got 30% chance of winning, you have to pretend to fight as if you have a 50-50 chances. You can't say to don't bother about winning so long as you can extract a better deal for the people. Thinking and saying it out are 2 different things. You wouldn't want to risk demoralising your campaign team and supporters.

Only when you win and that will really make PAP sit up and listen to the people.
 

aurvandil

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are a politician and not a lobbyist. the rule of the game is about managing perception through propaganda. You can't be too honest with your intention that won't win you much vote and people won't appreciate that.

People will always want to associate themselves with a winning team rather than an underdog, that human nature. Even if you know you got 30% chance of winning, you have to pretend to fight as if you have a 50-50 chances. You can't say to don't bother about winning so long as you can extract a better deal for the people. Thinking and saying it out are 2 different things. You wouldn't want to risk demoralising your campaign team and supporters.

Only when you win and that will really make PAP sit up and listen to the people.

I think many of the people who have lined up behind Goh Meng Seng would not be doing so if he was not humble and honest. Manging perception through propaganda is what the PAP does.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
People will always want to associate themselves with a winning team rather than an underdog, that human nature. Even if you know you got 30% chance of winning, you have to pretend to fight as if you have a 50-50 chances. You can't say to don't bother about winning so long as you can extract a better deal for the people. Thinking and saying it out are 2 different things. You wouldn't want to risk demoralising your campaign team and supporters.

Only when you win and that will really make PAP sit up and listen to the people.

I believe the opposition has to strike a balance between being confident and being realistic. If they are asked about the chances of winning governance and apply your 50-50 rule, they won't sound sincere because they won't believe it themselves, the people will also not believe it. Yet saying they want to win a few seats and not form the government is already considered the very "defeatist" in your definition.
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
GMS,

A very good writeup on the correct philosophy & approach opposition should take. And also a good rebuttal on some of the traditional PAP methods of distracting voters which include:

1. Focussing on personality flaws of opposition members rather than on their own policy issues

2. Saying opposition is not credible because they can't come up with concrete alternative policies or can only criticize without offering solutions

3. Telling voters that more opposition in parliament means a more unstable political system and more time spent gerrymandering rather than implementing sound policies

4. Telling residents that only PAP MPs can write letters for them, or run town councils effectively, or similar things to that effect.

Thanks for rebutting all the above in a single article. I have extracted the important paragraphs which provide the neat rebuttals.


I have put forward a totally REVAMPED strategy which was loosely used in opposition parties in the past. A Minister-Policy-Specific strategy. There are a few dimensions to this strategy and motivations of using such strategy. We have long heard about how PAP is not held accountable to their policy or management failures. Applying such policy will address the need of extracting accountability from the ruling party.

Secondly, it will make the PAP and its ministers work harder to review some of the absurdity in their policies and do it right. Last but not least, it will raise the standards of political engagement from personality attacks to one that is geared towards open, matured and rational policy debates to work for the betterment of Singaporeans.

Many people are anxious about having opposition parties to win more seats but have little idea about what that actually means. Winning seats is just a means to an end. The fundamental basis of power, is the people, for the people, by the people.

Many people always demand opposition parties to come up with "solutions". But one should know that policy solutions need rigorously examination. While we could give a generation direction, policy specifics need to be examined very closely with data analysis. Opposition parties do not possess the necessary data sets to do such work, neither do they have a whole army of civil servants and think tank employed by the government to do the necessary policy research. Policy ideas could be mentioned but whether these ideas are feasible or not would need much in depth research by civil servants and think tank who are equipped with the necessary tools and data sets.

The role of the opposition, thus, should not be entrenched in providing all nitty gritty specific solutions but rather, to act as an agent that keep the government in checks with good articulation of the flaws and ills of the policies put up by the ruling party. Opposition's fundamental role is to use the competitive mechanism provided by the electoral system as a leverage to extract a better deal for the citizens.

Many people asked about "what have you done for the voters". Most people think that only the incumbents could "do something" for the voters by writing letters for them, meet them to talk about their woes, run their town councils and such. But we must always remember that the FIRST PRIMARY ROLE of a MP is to debate policies in parliament, making sure that such policies are in the best interests of the people.

Running a Town Council is important but just a distraction that PAP wants to put into opposition and voters' minds. To run a Town Council properly, we will need to employ professional Building and Estate managers. You simply cannot expect a doctor or a lawyer to run the Town Council all by themselves. Their more important primary role is to voice the concerns of the people in parliament to keep the ruling party in check.
 

MFTao

Alfrescian
Loyal
Meng Seng

All the best and good luck. Your fellow brudders' here though sometimes can be a pain in the a@#$, they do actually mean well...
 

3_M

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think many of the people who have lined up behind Goh Meng Seng would not be doing so if he was not humble and honest. Manging perception through propaganda is what the PAP does.


Politics everywhere is about perception. In some countries, getting more than 50% of the vote is already a great victory. Whereas here getting 51% of votes is consider a setback for PAP. It really about perception.
 

sampierre

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are a politician and not a lobbyist. the rule of the game is about managing perception through propaganda. You can't be too honest with your intention that won't win you much vote and people won't appreciate that.

People will always want to associate themselves with a winning team rather than an underdog, that human nature. Even if you know you got 30% chance of winning, you have to pretend to fight as if you have a 50-50 chances. You can't say to don't bother about winning so long as you can extract a better deal for the people. Thinking and saying it out are 2 different things. You wouldn't want to risk demoralising your campaign team and supporters.

Only when you win and that will really make PAP sit up and listen to the people.

SINCE GOH MENG SENG HAS SAID THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE NON CONSTITUENCY MP SCHEME, MY GUESS IS THAT HE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO GARNER 35% OF THE TAMPINES GRC VOTES SO THAT HE CAN QUALIFY AS ONE OF THE 9 BEST LOSERS TO ENTER PASRLIAMENT THRU THE BACK DOOR. DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT MARBORO TAN IS GOING TO BE WORRIED ABOUT SUCH OPPOSITION CANDIDATES??

I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR OPPOSITION POLITICIANS WHO ARE HAPPY JUST TO BE NCMPs !!
 

yellow_people

Alfrescian
Loyal
My vision for Singapore's political sphere for the next decade is for it to develop into a multi-party proportional representative system.

Alarm bells are ringing! Every time I hear proportional representation in election-speak i get goosebumps. Tell me, would the proportional representative system look similar to Jim Crow's racial segregation laws in any way or form?
 
Last edited:

sampierre

Alfrescian
Loyal
Role of Opposition: Putting Spurs deeper into PAP's thick Hides


My vision for Singapore's political sphere for the next decade is for it to develop into a multi-party proportional representative system. The citizens will be provided with the opportunity to make INFORMED CHOICES by open, matured public political discourses and debates. The political system is more about policy specific debates rather than personalities. A healthy and fair competitive environment for all political players to express their ideas and ideals.


Goh Meng Seng

GMS,

You seems to have contradicted yourself on this issue.

WHY ON EARTH SHOULD THE PAP GOVT CHANGE THE CURRENT FIRST-PASS-THE- POST PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM TO A PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM WHEN OPPOSITION CANDIDATES LIKE YOU ARE HAPPY TO EMBRACE THE NON-CONSTITUENCY MP SCHEME THAT THE PAP HAS DEVISED SO THAT THE PAPAYAS CAN STAY IN POWER FOREVER???

PLEASE WAKE UP!!
 
Top