Skip to main content

Cabinet Changes, A Team and Strategies for General Election


In a closer look at the recent cabinet changes and the so-called preparation for A Team, the PAP is preparing to lose at least one GRC and hopefully, the decline in popularity can be stopped by the passing and remembering of LKY.   

Since GE 2011, the PAP’s popularity has declined. The unpopular Population White Paper, the Little India Riot, the illegal strike of bus drivers, and many other social issues, e.g the SengKang West, rat problems ...etc. have pushed down the PAP’s popularity to below 60%. The passing of LKY has helped to pull up to the support to GE2011 level. Even with 60% support, the PAP can still lose a GRC or more if wrong strategies are applied or some unlucky things (for example, major breakdown of MRT or internet) happen.

What are the strategic implications for this 5th cabinet changes?

PM Lee may be honest and he is showing us the PAP’s 4th generation A Team: Chan Chun Sing, Tan Chuan-Jin, Heng Swee Keat (not affected by the change), Masagos Zulkifli, and perhaps, Liu Tuck Yew. Lim Swee Say as a toothpick minister can be re-used if voters in East Coast GRC give his team another chance. Otherwise, the PAP is preparing to lose this GRC.

The ministers, affected by the recent cabinet changes, are all sitting members of parliament in the hotly contested GRCs in GE2011. These are East Coast, Tampines, Moulmein-Kallang, Marine Parade, and Tanjong Pagar. Chan CS and Tan CJ will have to lead the teams without LKY and Goh Chok Tong respectively. Tanjong Pagar will see the first election after more than 20 years.

The lead ministers in each of the involved GRCs are and will be:

East Coast: Lim Swee Say
Tampines: Heng Swee Keat and Masagos Zulkifli
Moulmein-Kallang: Yaacob Ibrahim and Liu Tuck Yew  
Marine Parade: Tan Chuan-Jin
Tanjong Pagar: Chan Chun Sing

Besides Tanjong Pagar, all these GRCs are located in the east of Singapore and are expected to see life-death competition in the coming GE. These are the GRCs most likely to see further breakthroughs for the opposition.
Traditionally, a GRC will at least have one PAP minister. Even though Lim Swee Say is stepping (and resigning from NTUC) down from his NTUC post, PM Lee still wants to keep him rather than let him retire totally like Wong Kang Seng or Mah Bow Tan. East Coast is vulnerable and it will most likely face the B Team from Workers’ Party.  However, it still needs a lead minister. By injecting a new minister or adding another minister will not change the balance but risk losing one more minister.

Hence, it is better to leave the toothpick minister there. It will be a bonus if voters decide to re-use the toothpick another time and helps the PAP MPs retain their seats.  Otherwise, the PAP is psychologically preparing to lose East Coast. On strategy, it is losing small (toothpick, peanut) but retaining the big (4th generation A Team).

Tampines, Marine Parade and Moulmein-Kallang are all expected to see very tough competition. Perhaps, PM Lee will request Goh Chok Tong to stand again and so all three GRCs will have two ministers or one minister plus a former PM. The PAP is using these three GRCs as defence to prevent the spread of oppositions into other part of Singapore.

How strong is the defence? Will there be another ‘dangerous’ GRC for the PAP?    
 
Tanjong Pagar is an uncontested GRC.  Although a stronghold of the PAP due to LKY, no one can really assess correctly the electoral mood there. In addition, Chan Chun Sing is a controversial figure, especially in social media. In military term, this paper general may need additional support fire and heavy equipment but from where? Who can help him?

If the PAP fails to defend these 5 GRCs, the 4th generation A Team will be gone. If they only lose East Coast, the A Team will be saved. If they only retain half of the remaining four, then half of the A Team is gone.

When we look closer at this so-called A Team, do you think they deserve to remain there?  If not, which GRCs would you like to see the change?  Many will agree, even the PAP supporters, to let Lim Swee Say go. He is not in the A Team, just a toothpick. In the social media, netizens will pick Chan Chun Sing and Liu Tuck Yew.  

PM Lee presents his A Team as a defence to his continuing rule. He is preparing to lose small in East Coast. If the political mood is not in his favour, he wants the A Team to defend and contain the spread of oppositions. This is his simple calculation. If A Team is able to defend their GRCs, fine, PM Lee can continue to lead the government. If A Team fails to defend their GRCs, PM Lee can still be a PM with a reduced majority. This perhaps is a better outcome for him. Without A Team, without succession, PM Lee can extend his retirement further.

Now, do you have a better understanding of the cabinet change and A Team? And maybe a clearer picture of PM Lee’s succession strategy? The lose or win of A Team will not affect PM Lee position if the silent majority in the PAP remains silent. A Team as a political succession plan is not as simple as what you read in the mainstream media. It has a double meaning which the MSM only tells you the half truth and ignoring the voice of silent majority within the PAP.    

It is a win-win situation for PM Lee.  However, is it a win-win situation for the PAP as a sustainable political identity? To a large extent, it is also a win-win question for Singapore. People inside and outside the PAP will have to watch the strategic options of PM Lee closely.

The story of Singapore joining Malaysia and then leaving Malaysia was a win-win situation for LKY and his PAP. But was it a win-win situation for people in Malaysia and Singapore?       

Comments

  1. Thanks for the predictive analytics.
    ...op2torch/market2garden/clarinet2concerto

    ReplyDelete
  2. https://wordsofgrandeur.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/reflections-on-pap-a-team/

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is nice informative blog in which you discuss about changes in cabinet and strategies for general election. Thanks for sharing this and keep sharing.

    Ballot Boxes | Voting Booths | Ballot Boxes China

    ReplyDelete

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...