Reform Party KJ b(p)oos again

[Perspective]

I will put up the link to help direct some traffic to the chap who wants attention more than anything else.

http://sonofadud.com/2011/12/12/312/

I have never seen an opposition leader try to do worse than PAP when it is so much easier to score points as an opposition. Apparently, KJ (and RP) is losing points instead when it's easy not to.

If your party has less than 10 members, it is irrelevant whether you have or don't have a cadre system. You either appoint all of them, who aren't even enough to meet the minimum number of CEC members, or appoint only yourself, then you can be a one-man party for all you want.

This man, once taken over the small party headed by Ng Teck Siong, forcefully grabbed everything. When the new chaps came in, they had no single bit of info as to how to go about in the party. It was easy for KJ to run a party this way and of course he would not need a cadre system, but not for long. The chaps still get to meet at events, got to know each other and slowly found out the person he is. It came to a pass where the gang wanted to oust him and few know of this. But they decided not to take the heat of a bad names and resigned en masse to join the NSP instead.

If KJ himself was indeed ousted from the party by the newbies back then, I don't think we will hear him saying that cadre system is undemocratic today.

In short, KJ is like a boasting prime minister who says his country does not have prisons, but in reality the death penalty is given to everyone even for littering and jaywalking. Something that is embarassing, he is proud of, therefore people zoomed in on RP's failures to retain and recruit.

 

[Forvendet]

I have never seen an opposition leader try to do worse than PAP when it is so much easier to score points as an opposition. Apparently, KJ (and RP) is losing points instead when it's easy not to.

I've seen one before. CSJ and SDP.

 

[The Philistine]

The RP was at Hong Lim Park last Saturday. They had a good topic (Sinkies being displaced by foreigners) but their delivery was pathetic. Their sound systems were horrible - they were apparently the same faulty speakers used during the GE - and their speech was continually disrupted by the amplifiers going off. People were more interested in having picnics, examining the wares displayed on the mats, and looking at the displays the anti-death penalty group put up. Kenneth was walking around and talking to people. It didn't seem to bother him that his party members were struggling with the sound system and that there was no audience. It was the most pathetic display by an Opposition group I have ever witnessed. At least our madcap Doctor Chee and his activists got attention. Nobody bothered with RP.

 

[Perspective]

They had a good topic (Sinkies being displaced by foreigners) but their delivery was pathetic.

I have to smash the only gem that you gave them. Who doesn't know that this is a good topic. Whether I am RP, or WP or SDP or even PAP, I wouldn't go up to Speakers' Corner with the topic "Let's import more cigarettes and encourage more to smoke".

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

I have never seen an opposition leader try to do worse than PAP when it is so much easier to score points as an opposition. Apparently, KJ (and RP) is losing points instead when it's easy not to.

If your party has less than 10 members, it is irrelevant whether you have or don't have a cadre system. You either appoint all of them, who aren't even enough to meet the minimum number of CEC members, or appoint only yourself, then you can be a one-man party for all you want.

I don't know who is more out of touch, KJ or the PAP henchmen. Here we are facing multitude of problems, and his focus is on the cadre system. Worse still he tries to tarnish the rest of opposition for having party cadres. Does he know what are the relevant topics in the world today?

The problem with PAP is not cadre system but poor leadership, unsound policies, cronyism, self-serving politics, etc, so many issues he could have attacked. The article reads more like self-glorification rather than a mature attempt at critique. Long winded, self-serving, no substance.

 

[scroobal]

I actually he does have a point. Except for communist regimes, it is not the structure in 1st world societies. The caucus is usually made up of people elected ie MPs rather than a cabal.

KJ however is trying to associate it with where it falls flat. RP and him are not going anywhere.

I will put up the link to help direct some traffic to the chap who wants attention more than anything else.

http://sonofadud.com/2011/12/12/312/

.

 

[scroobal]

KJ is a lost cause. Very disappointing how he treats his people. Quite a tyrant but preaching democracy - sounds odd.

I don't know who is more out of touch, KJ or the PAP henchmen. Here we are facing multitude of problems, and his focus is on the cadre system. Worse still he tries to tarnish the rest of opposition for having party cadres. Does he know what are the relevant topics in the world today?

The problem with PAP is not cadre system but poor leadership, unsound policies, cronyism, self-serving politics, etc, so many issues he could have attacked. The article reads more like self-glorification rather than a mature attempt at critique. Long winded, self-serving, no substance.

 

[Perspective]

I actually he does have a point. Except for communist regimes, it is not the structure in 1st world societies. The caucus is usually made up of people elected ie MPs rather than a cabal.

KJ however is trying to associate it with where it falls flat. RP and him are not going anywhere.

Although I agree that the cadre practice is unique to Singapore, there are several issues also unique to Singapore and affects the opposition especially.

1) First, KJ did not state any alternative. In reality, leaders are elected via branch nominations in many countries. Or a caucus of some sort, as you mentioned. These are the checks. In reality, Singapore opposition to have branches are expensive and difficult system-wise. So is maintaining a caucus.

2) No cadreship would mean the opposition may be infiltrated by the dominant party, given the lopsided balance.

3) The opposition has very few MPs.