Skip to main content

Will Cheng Bock withdraw from the race for the good of Tony?



Will Cheng Bock withdraw from the race for the good of Tony?


Do you really believe there will be a 4-corner contest?  And no one will withdraw from the race at the last minute?   Let wait and see how the drama will be ended.  May be there are more surprises to come.

It is very difficult to define an election, especially for the top post of a country to be non-political. Even a debate on academic topics, an argument on philosophical ideas, or the competition of the post of CEO, all involve politics and strategies.

Example of election strategies

If you look at our neighbour, Malaysia, there are always multi-corners contests in their elections. Some times, there are even up to 5 or 6 contestants.
And just before polling day, you will see 1, 2 or 3 even 4 contestants announce their withdrawal from the race.

Why do they do that?  This is ensure the preferred choice of ruling party (or even the oppositions) having a better chance to win the race.  Deposits and other expenses are not important issues.  But winning the election needs skilled strategies. Some sacrifices, either personal image or money, are less important and end result of a win is crucial.

Another example is Aljunied GRC.

Indications of below par performance  

Cheng Bock’s performance at the ST Roundtable is quite disappointed, especially the first question on the President’s salary. He seems to suggest there are ‘quite” a lot of works for the Elected President as suggested by President Nathan.

Even his nomination day speech is not impressive. He wants to promote multi-racialism and be the unifying figure to achieve this goal.   Doesn’t he forget in the Singapore National Pledge, we clearly pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion?

Anyway, when Cheng Bock first announced his interest to run for the President, his main purpose is to prevent a walkover. He has no intention to win the race.  A little bit like Chua Kim Yew when he stood in the EP contest. Later on, he moved his position to unifying people. But his determination of a win is not as strong as Tony or Jee Say.

Cheng Bock has in fact completed his mission as on August 27, there is a contest on the Elected President in Singapore. We should thank him for a mission completed.

His below bar performance may be an intention to let Tony to score points. If the PAP supporters are disappointed with him, most of the disappointed votes will go to Tony rather than Kin Lian or Jee Say.  Even half of it goes to Tony will be enough for a win.

Survey and feedback

Besides openly supporting Tony, the PAP machinery is not idling.  They are monitoring the feedback, the reaction and conducting survey likes the one, days before GE2011 by an Australian company. 

Due the size of the whole population and the involvement of all voters, the samples collected and the margin of errors in this survey can be further improved. The Australian company can even better their job this time as the survey result will be more accurate than the GE2011 one statistically saying.    

Cheng Bock is making his move intentionally or unintentionally that we don’t know. But this will help the PAP to observe the feedback and reactions from the voters.  Everyday, the PAP will need to make a strategic move, that include the last minute withdrawal of Cheng Bock. Cheng Bock’s votes although is small but a win of one vote is a win.

Next to Tony, Cheng Bock is the one closely associated to the PAP.  We can not rule out the emotion factor.  If the PAP elders request his sacrifice and he believes his sacrifice is good for Singapore, good for unifying Singaporeans, then why not?

In returns, the PAP can promise him to promote football and multi-racism and others (he can name them).  This is a win-win for him and Tony.    
  

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...