Skip to main content

Sampan Politics Sampan Economics


[PM Lee calls for a new Sampan Project 2.0 to remind Singaporeans of our venerability. It is just a continuation of his Right Politics Right Economics.  Unfortunately, his sampan technology fails to see the reality of social media. As a result, it is difficult for the PAP to get the field study right. ]  
Another sampan is another summer insect to the winter ice. An insect will never have the chance to experience the winter cold in his short summer life.

Project Sampan is just another failed field study that will cost the PAP dearly, on top the workable but less value generated machine of lab study.

Lab study vs. Field Study
Debating whether lab study is more effective than field study in predicting behaviour, most people will point to field study because it gives the realism of actual feedbacks.   However, despite heavy investment on field study, the People’s Action Party still can’t figure out the real problems and it now looks more like a sampan heading to nowhere.

Lab study is like using sampan technology and it worked very well in the past. For field study, you will have to apply internet and social media skills.

Less effective lab study comparing to the past
What is a lab study? The PAP controls almost all the information and data in Singapore. From where you stay, how much you earn, how you travel, how you spend your money, even up to a cluster of voting pattern in your neighbour, the PAP has all these raw data.  They can easily process the data and create values for their own use.  This is why they are so good in re-drawing electoral boundary, grouping of constituencies and sometimes creating new and deleting ‘risky’ constituencies.

In the past 50 years, the PAP has managed their lab study very well. And the study does not disappoint them. 

However, with more and more sophisticated voters, lab study has reached its maximum use. It now faces the fate of diminishing return.  The more the PAP carries out the lab studies, less or even negative values will be created.  The percentage of votes gained in past elections indicates such a trend.

So, the PAP has to invest heavily in field study to get more feedbacks, more accurate returns.

Using sampan technology to conduct field study
What is a field study? In fact, we see them every day. Do you know Feedback Unit? The very first field study initiative to get the ‘real’ feedbacks from the people. You may also hear of the many “Cs”, be it CCC, CC, grassroots organisations, etc. Of course, you cannot miss the NTUC where they get feedbacks from the unions. 

So far, the biggest investment is the SG Conversation and perhaps to a less extent, for the benefit of overseas Singaporeans, the feedbacks expand to overseas – the yearly Singapore Day.

However, field study is less successful than the lab study for the PAP. Information and data collect from different field study channels do not represent the real population.  The samples are bias so do the results.  One thing you have to respect the PAP is that the more failures they receive the more and larger field studies with even bigger budgets they will commit.  So, they are spending tax money for their own good – for the mission (and in the name of inconclusiveness) of getting real feedbacks.

Why? Why is it so difficult to get the real feedbacks despite spending millions of dollars?

First, the samples are wrong. They have bias samples for not randomly selected participants.   So, they are forced to do within groups study and analysis. Sometimes, they also blame the various “Cs” for providing wrong or imperfect information.  They also blame the unions never give the ‘real’ situation – how come no real wages increases for more than 10 years, unions never give the feedbacks.  They also blame the Feedback Unit never reach out to the ‘right’ people.

So, they want to reach out. You see ministers taking public transport, you see MPs looking for high flying objects, you see minister spot check the living spaces of foreign workers, you hear tuition is not necessary, you hear poverty classification is not necessary, you hear flood comes only every 50 years, and after all the achievements, Singapore is still a ‘sampan’. 

In one word, the PAP is using sampan technology to reach out, to get ‘real’ feedbacks.

Therefore, the result of the field study is a one-side Singapore story that the PAP has collected from the people, either intentionally or unintentionally.      

This ineffective filed study will cost the PAP dearly. Despite having all the information from both lab and field studies, they still cannot direct the sampan to the right direction.  

So, a PAP sampan remains a sampan. The PAP remains a PAP with no possibility of gaining back the high percentage votes obtained in the early ‘sampan’ days.

Perhaps, by now you know why PM Lee still considers Singapore a ‘sampan’.  He is in fact referring to his own ‘PAP sampan’ – failing to get the real feedbacks from people.  He is using the same old ‘sampan’ technology to get Singaporean feedbacks.    

Sampan technology for feedbakc in an internet era?   www.demo.com.hk

Advice from Zhuangzi on sampan technology
A ‘sampan’ has no imagination of the world of social media and internet.  Of course, the ‘PAP sampan’ will also not approach social media for feedbacks. Zhuangzi has this advice to the PAP: Never discuss (winter) ice with a summer insect. (夏虫不可以语冰)A sampan technology and a social media technology is really a different world in different era.

So, we cannot talk to PM Lee and the PAP about the feedbacks in the internet era. Like the summer insects, we are in different worlds so do different feedbacks for different purposes.


For PM Lee, his ‘Right Politics Right Economics’ remains a ‘Sampan Politics Sampan Economics’.  For Project Sampan 2.0, it is an equivalent of summer insects to winter ice.  Good luck to the summer insects and the PAP sampan!    

Comments

Post a Comment

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...