Skip to main content

Right Politics, Clean Politics and Is this a Right and Clean Political Strategy?


Fixing and discrediting the oppositions are always the strategies of the PAP. Is the recent PAP right and clean political strategy any difference from the past?  Will it work this time?

Microsoft is more creative but less fortunate than the PAP. Its Window OS for smartphones is fighting for  thrd position. www.docstoc.com 

The Prime Minister had issued statement on right and clean politics and we can claim that it is now the official PAP political strategy on the matter of ceiling cleaning at hawker’s center.  This is not a new strategy.  However, it did work in the past and had successfully discredited politicians like JBJ and CSJ. Will it work this time, especially the aim of the strategy is to discredit the whole party, WP and not individuals.   

Perhaps, we have to ask why the whole party. For this, we have to think of several ‘no sure wins’ of the PAP:
  • In any future elections, there is no sure win for PAP against WP.  It is an even fight, especially in the eastern part of Singapore and those seats that WP had contested before.  
  • There is no sure win voters will believe the PAP is an honest and clean party.  It has failed to explain many issues (in a clean and right way) like the AIM, management of reserve, population, and haze etc.    
  • No sure win, of course, also touches on the economic front. This mighty power of the PAP is not able to solve many of the social and economic problems, like housing, medical, education, and jobs etc.  

The three just named ‘no sure wins’ will certainly cost more votes lost to the PAP in 2016.  And the number one enemy is of course the WP. The more seats WP contests in 2016, there will be more seats lost to the PAP.  

Under this circumstance, the PAP should come out with new and creative strategies, be it be more transparent or creating more quality jobs for Singaporeans.  Unfortunately, it is using old (and outdated) strategy to fight a new war.

PAP is less creative than Microsoft

Microsoft just announced they are restructuring their business to face the changes and challenges.  Microsoft knows they cannot forever Window OS for value creation.  The Window OS will not bring in value and profit as before.

What are the changes and challenges? People are buying more I pads, IPhones, smartphones, and less PCs. Window OS is not suitable for the new change and challenge. Microsoft is fighting very hard for the third position after Android and Apple’s iOS.  It is competing with Blackberry OS and other competitors for third position in the smartphones market.

What a mighty Microsoft has to be contained in a new profitable market (smartphones and iPads) for a less favorable position?  Can it beat others and be No.3? We don’t know.

Now look at the situation in Singapore, especially in social media. Is the PAP a favorable brand in the social media? Like Microsoft, it is fighting for third position after WP and SDP.

PAP is more fortunate than Microsoft?

Instead of facing competition and restructure itself, the PAP chooses the opposite. They go back to the old way – fixing and discrediting the oppositions. Microsoft is less fortunate.  They don’t have the privilege to use government resources to fight their enemies. Microsoft has to face the real challenge.  

But the PAP chooses not to face the real challenge. They choose the easier way.  They choose to restrict and control the social media. The new ruling on social media in Singapore is certainly using authority’s power to restrict competition.  This is why international internet giants have to show concerns about this development in Singapore.

As a proof, this is why the PAP is less creative than Microsoft but more fortunate than Microsoft (temporarily) in controlling a new profitable market (social media and smartphones).  How long can the old strategy and government control work for the PAP? Microsoft knows the future of Window OS for PCs, how come our million-dollar ministers and talented all over the placed PAP does not recognize the market change?

The PAP is so comfortable with the old strategy and it refuses to change. It knows it is losing in the new market of social media.  But the traditional market is still big enough to make a profit and pay million-dollar salary to ministers. So, it has to strengthen its position in the traditional market (mainstream media MSM).

Using MSM to maintain 60% votes

Regardless of whether the new ruling will affect the PAP’s position in the new media, there is one thing for sure: MSM is controlled by the PAP.  And people who read MSM are the majority of the 60% voted for the PAP in 2011.

The PAP has to discredit WP and other oppositions in the MSM so that this 60% will continue to vote for the PAP in 2016.  The PAP knows they will lose some or more votes even in the MSM but it is important to restrict and arrest the sudden drop of votes.

The current (old and repeated) PAP strategy is still working with voters, especially those die-hard PAP supporters; those never read social media, and new citizens.

It is a political strategy to maintain the 60% votes or at least when facing WP candidates to obtain 51% votes.   

The ceiling cleaning dispute after all is not that clean and right from the strategic point of view. However, the fact is Microsoft is facing an open market and subject to open competition. However, the PAP is still able to operate under a monopoly competition environment.

So, the right politics and clean politics that the PM is talking is not an open competition.  It is interesting to see how and what strategy will the PAP apply in an open and transparent environment.

Do they have the creativity and innovation to face the real challenge?  


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...