Skip to main content

Work harder is the only strategy! ?


Smart strategy needs the support of soft and hard power. Ironically, the opposition has nothing of them. This is the fact and the reality of Singapore politics. All state institutions are giving hardware support to the PAP. The PAP also receive software support from the media, boundary redrawing, use of supercomputer and consultants (including social media consultants).  


Sadly, the opposition has to work harder than the PAP to gain support and spread their messages across. This is the hard, unfair way but voters will only appreciate your efforts through your hard work. This is like the poor non-elite students facing more difficulties than a rich elite student. If you look at the struggle of Bernard Chen (Workers’ Party), you will know what I mean.


Singapore is a strange country. When we say we want to level the playing field, we should give opportunity to neighbour school students. If they perform well, their effort should be recognised.  However, the society is doing the opposite. We will give opportunity to the elite rather than a non-elite. We don’t trust the neighbour school students can outperform the elite students and run an effective government.   


Hence, for the opposition, besides working hard, there is no other alternatives.   


Just imagine how much tax money has been spent on People’s Association and grassroots activities. Before election kicks start, the People’s Action Party has already invested millions of dollars on their candidates.  All state machinery plus free media coverage, every PAP candidate has already received at least S$1 million political investment. For the opposition, it is almost zero investment. Candidates have to come out with their own money to fund their elections.


As a result, PAP is not only awarding their candidates million-dollar reward through directorship or political positions, long before that PAP has already invested million-dollar on their candidates.  


To unseat the PAP, without the support of hardware and software, the only way is to work all the way up - a stupid but slightly effective way. One can only win them in spirit.
 
Expectation of supporters and candidates


Many analyses focus on the voters - supporters and non-supporters. There is a swing of opposition supporters or middle ground voters to the PAP. Do the opposition candidates also feel the same? Many of the opposition candidates are first timers. Do they expect to be elected in the first time?


Perhaps, they are more psychologically prepared to be defeated rather than to be elected.  Just like a football team, supporters always want to see their team win. But players know too well about their chances. Whether we like it or not, opposition team is challenging one of the best run (partial free, undemocratic) governments in the world. It is like you are up against Brazil or Germany in the World Cup.


It is important young and first time candidates from WP and Singapore Democratic Party will stand again in the next election. Supporters must continue to give supports, perhaps even more supports, to the opposition.


Sorting, Peer Effect and the Asian thinking
 



Many analyses also use the western models to explain the election result. It can be a ‘sorting effect’ where pioneer citizens, SG50, CPF, boundary redrawing, creation of GRCs and SMCs take place. It can also be a ‘peer effect’ like LKY as celebrity, fear of change of government, small opposition in parliament, etc. Both models exist in GE2015.


Modern western political thinking take place after Enlightenment where we see different political models appear. Singapore voters are defined as ‘rational, pragmatic and fair’. It then brings Singapore to the period of early Enlightenment - utilitarianism. Morally speaking, the PAP believes they are practising


it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" #2   


No matter 60% or 70% mandate, the PAP thinks they are doing this "fundamental axiom".  In GE2011, the greatest number decreased. And so, they adjusted their policies. As a consequence, the greatest number improved to 70% in GE2015.


However, utilitarianism is not the only model. There are different moral measures of right and wrong. Unfortunately, the PAP’s education and training are still following this old tradition. And Singaporeans, including the elites and middle class, believe so.  


Further to the western models, we have to realise that Singapore is an Asian society. This is why we say we are exception.  Western models cannot fully apply here. We may not have enlightenment at all. Or, we can just jump start to a new model where pragmatism is more important than democracy. We still prefer to remain at the lower end of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.


As explained in my previous post, 长期一党专政,新加坡无法摆脱行动党的奴性#3, if given freedom to leave Jia family (The Dream of Red Chamber), slave servants still want to remain as slaves in the elite family. They believe life outside the Jia family is substandard and their status as a free person is even lower than a slave in the elite family. They prefer to die rather than force to leave the family as a free person.  


This dilemma may help to explain the result of GE2015.

#1


#2


#3

http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/09/blog-post_15.html

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...