Skip to main content

PAP election campaign kicks off with the National Conversation in a traditional way



自我对话 5 Self Conversation

Even the next general election is 4 or 5 years later, the PAP has already begun their election campaign through the National Conversation by emphasizing traditional value.

This is in line with the typical PAP kiasu and kiasi mentality. To start earlier is kiasu and ‘afraid of losing more votes’ in the next GE is kiasi. After all, kiasu and kiasi are the PAP politics of tradition.

Anyway, the public media is free, the public administration is free, and even the participants are free too.  In this world, it is so hard to find free goods and under the one-party ruled Singapore, it is not only possible but also a practical and effective (?) propaganda.

The tragedy of the commons
 
When there are so many free commons of media, public administration and participants, the tragedy of the commons will have to appear, especially there is only one user – the PAP. 

All these free goods are available for the PAP.  So, they tend to over used, over exploited, and over applied until these resources have no more values or add negative values to the PAP.     

But they still believe in tradition – the traditional way of misusing media, public resources and people. They can’t find an alternative way to reach out to the people.

To the PAP, it is the best way to gather public support and agreement to their policies.  They know they can no longer attract large crowd to their election rally. National Conversation is the only way for the PAP to reach out to more people, more supporters and most importantly the traditional voters.  No wonder they are only interested (and have confidence) to attract few thousands participants to the National Conversation.

Top down approach continued

In the telecasted “A Conversation with PM Lee”, from the sitting arrangement, it is still very top down, very traditional. No wonder they talk about traditional family values, they still want you to pay respect to them as it they are still high up even it is a dialogue – they are seeking views and opinions from you.  Dialogue is supposed to be equal and paying due respect to each other.  They can’t do it the ‘town hall’ way, but only the traditional way.

The emphasis of traditional values is understandable and it reminds Singaporeans the PAP contributions to Singapore. This is a reminder that changes are not always good and a vote for change is not the main stream of traditional voters.

However, who is the one who breaks away from the traditional values?  Of course, it is the PAP. You know housing is important to marriage and family planning, but you create a situation of short supply of public housing. You know the traditional value of public transport is for the public, instead you look for profit. You know education is important but you limit the places of university education. 

The traditional parliament election is single constituency.  But the PAP introduces GRC, NCMP, and NMP to devalue the one-man one-vote system.  If the PAP wants to improve the system, it should introduce proportional representation election system. Instead of going forward, it goes backward just to keep them in power.  And they call it a traditional value of election system!  

Sincere effort to get votes, not for oppositions
 
Heng Swee Keat said it is a sincere effort.  He hopes more people will join the National Conversation.  Rather than seeking feedbacks, the PAP is interesting to feel the ground.  They had misjudged the ground in GE2011 and PE2011.  They hope through sincerity and traditions, more supporters including new citizens can come out openly and influence others to support the PAP.

National Conversation may last for more than one year or two years, there is no time limit, no restriction on topics. It can even extend to 2016, just ahead of the next GE. They can also use this opportunity to look for more candidates, especially those with ‘radical views’. This can also serve as the training for the new minsters and new MPs.

This sincere effort of the PAP is, of course, for the PAP and by the PAP.  No wonder this is a national program without the oppositions.  Otherwise, the result of sincere effort will be shared and depreciated.   

When PM Lee talks about a stronger Singapore promises a better future for Singaporeans, his sincere effort is to urge Singaporeans to think about the PAP in a traditional mindset like the past 50 years – an era without oppositions.  The meaning of stronger Singapore is same as a stronger PAP likes the past.  

Does it mean the traditional voters of the PAP are moving away?  This is why some say the National Conversation is a con job and the aim is to con more traditional voters to continue support the PAP.
   

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...