Skip to main content

The efficient but ineffective PAP



                                          Memory of Deyi 4

The efficient but ineffective PAP

At the Deyi Nomination Centre, you could see the organization efficiency of the PAP and the inefficiency of the oppositions. However, when came to effectiveness, it seemed to be the reverse.

Peter F. Drucker, a 20th century Austrian social scientist and author of many books on organizational management said that businesses should strive for effectiveness in contrast to mere efficiency. A quote from Drucker's book, The Effective Executive, says that "Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right things."

Doing things right

Efficient supporters doing things right
Efficient supporters doing things right

The PAP has an excellent grassroots support and is able to send many people to the nomination centres on the nomination day. They did it in an efficient way, dividing into different GRC, SMC teams and arranging different time for them to march into the nomination  centres.  Days   before the nomination day, the PAP already did the planning asking supports from the PAP branches, NTUC and even RCs or CCCs. 
LKY even said that PA was also part of the PAP.
                                                                       
These people (I don’t like to use the word ‘supporters’ as I believe some may not vote for the PAP eventually) were given some incentives to attend the nomination day event. Transport and food were provided as the PAP could get sponsors easily.

Due to efficient management, these people were disciplined and obedience.  Some could not take the heat and ambulance had to be called. And most of them are not working like housewives, retired persons. Of course, there were some die-hard supporters who took leave.

Doing right things

Effective supporters doing right things
Effective supporters doing right things

On the other side, you could see supporters of the oppositions coming in alone, 2 or 3 or in a group 5 or 6. Although some supporters came in blue, however, most of them wore different colours.  

They could only form part of the school field at Deyi Secondary School. However, when came to shouting for supports. The opposition supporters were united and cheered for RP, SPP and WP candidates.  If you look at the YouTube video, you will know what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsJtBeQLvgE

Almost all the PAP candidates only looked at their own supporters when they made their speeches.  That included PM Lee. Sometimes, the shouting was so loud that you could not hear the speeches of the PAP candidates. 

While there were many PAP people there, but they were ‘speechless’, “soundless’; there were no cheer leaders; and they did not even look like a united force even though all wore white.  

2 examples of efficiency and effectiveness

You can find many descriptions and examples in modern management books and publications about efficiency and effectiveness. Here are 2 examples:

<<For example 1, think of a company that was successfully making buggy whips as automobiles became the mode of transportation. Assume that the processes used to make buggy whips were perfect. The relationships of internal and external suppliers and customers were perfect. The suppliers and customers teamed together to make perfect buggy whips. The buggy whips were delivered on or ahead of schedule at the lowest possible cost. This company was very efficient. However, the company and its strategists were not very effective. The company was doing the wrong things efficiently. If they had been effective, they would have anticipated the impending changes and gotten into a different market.

Let's consider a surgery example 2. A surgeon is very skilled, perhaps the best in the country. The impending job is to operate on the patient's left knee. However, the surgeon doesn't perform all the steps of the process leading up to the surgery. Someone else marks the right knee for surgery. However skilled this surgeon is, however fast he performs the surgery (i.e., however efficient he is), this process will not be effective. When the patient awakens from the surgery, he will not be a happy camper. And what about the HMO? Who will pay for a surgery performed on the wrong knee? >>



If you link the 2 examples to the PAP

Example 1:

The buggy whips (like the PAP people) were delivered on or ahead of schedule at the lowest possible cost. (It might be no cost at all as they are many willing sponsors). This company (like the PAP) was very efficient.

However, the company (like the PAP) and its strategists were not very effective. The company (like the PAP) was doing the wrong things efficiently. If they (the PAP) had been effective, they would have anticipated the impending changes (expectation, desires of Singapore voters) and gotten into a different market.

Example 2

Someone else (like the PAP CEC) marks the right knee (wrong strategies) for surgery. However skilled this surgeon is (the powerful PAP), however fast he performs (getting people to nomination centres) the surgery (i.e., however efficient he is), this process will not be effective. When the patient awakens from the surgery, he will not be a happy camper. (When the Singapore voters awake, they are very angry)

Why rally turnouts were so different?

The first example is about manufacturing - hardware and the second is talking about care – software (hearts).

There is a limit to the PAP’s efficiency.  When you need a participation of 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 people, you need effectiveness.  There are common values or meanings for people to participate in a mass rally.  Just like a football match, you could see the difference between Singapore lion vs. Malaysia tiger and the S-league matches.  Why the former could get a big turnout?

There was no problem for the PAP to get 1,000, 2,000 or even 5,000 to their rallies.  But there is a limit on hardware (sponsored logistics) and software (willingness to come).  

If you consider Jasmine revolution, people who stood against the authority were equipped with poor weapons or no weapons at all.  But how come an inefficient group of people could become an effective force to overthrow the establishments? 

Any implication for PE2011

Singapore voters expect a contest for the coming PE.  If we do have the opportunity to vote, candidate(s) who stand against the powerful Tony Tan may have to take lessons from the GE2011 and turns the inefficient disadvantage to an effective emotional campaign
 
Among the potential candidates, Tony Tan has the best support and most efficient campaign machinery, but whether he also has the effective software to attract voters and win their hearts or not, we will have to wait and see.  He has already begun in his soft approach by caring for a child, giving speeches, lunching with bloggers and even attending religion event.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...