Skip to main content

A Reluctant Candidate vs. A Committed Candidate


Judging from the quick announcement of the PAP candidate, the by-election in Bukit Batok single member constituency will be called sooner than expected.

This will be a contest between a reluctant candidate from the PAP, Mr. Murali Pillai and a committed candidate, Dr Chee Soon Juan of SDP.  

Being a Paya Lebar voter, I see Mr. Pillai as a reluctant candidate and certainly not a committed candidate. In politics, I have great doubt he is as committed as his father, former ISA detained unionist, P.K. Pillai.

pillai 1.png
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/


Cynthia Phua, his predecessor in Paya Lebar, was really a committed and hardworking person. And I also believe what she said below is true:

[If she were still an MP, Madam Cynthia Phua would have been absent from her father's side when he died. 
"So I'm glad I was able to take care of him in his last days, after doctors diagnosed him with stomach cancer in late December. 
"If I had been working as an MP, I would not be able to care for him," she said.]http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120510-345111.html

Why I say Mr. Pillai is a reluctant candidate?

The PAP claims he is a ‘very strong’ candidate and yet he is not the team leader of the Aljunied PAP team. He came to Paya Lebar just because the PAP wanted to form a GRC team. He did not show his leadership quality in GE2015.

As a professional lawyer, commanding more than 100 lawyers as claimed by Lim Boon Heng, he knew in advance his chance of winning in GE2015.  If he were standing in Bukit Batok in 2015, like in this by-election, his winning chance was definitely higher.  His winning percentage will also be higher than David Ong as he is more credible and qualified than Ong.

I wonder why he came to Paya Lebar as a candidate in 2015. Mr Pillai must be a reluctant candidate. He came here just because the party needed him to put up a show in Aljunied GRC. Now, the party needs him to put up another show in Bukit Batok.

Bukit Batok voters need to think twice before supporting such a reluctant candidate - not because of his race, but his political commitment.

You are now given a chance to vote in a committed Dr. Chee who will certainly give alternative views in Parliament. While a reluctant candidate, like Mr.Paillai, will be the usual PAP yes-man in the Chambers.

It may be hard to accept Dr. Chee for most of BB voters as he is not a perfect man, so do all of us. However, his commitment to democracy, checks and balances, transparency and accountability is beyond doubt. Mr. Pillai will listen to his party instruction if he is elected.  

SDP contested in Paya Lebar and Bukit Batok in 1988 and obtained 47.64% and 44.06% of the votes respectively.  In 1991, SDP even obtained 48.18% of votes in Bukit Batok. If not because of the GRC system, boundary re-drawing and internal problems, ...

Voters in Bukit Batok can make a change, just like the voters in Aljunied.

Mr. Paillai seems to be more comfortable in Bukit Batok than in Paya Lebar as he has started his grassroots activities long ago in BB.  He must feel very reluctant to be sent to Paya Lebar.  No wonder I never met him during his house visit.  I only saw him at Kovan MRT station and the hawker centre.

Oh! He also organised $1 tea and coffee sessions.  To be fair to him, he did visit funeral wakes.

But as a Paya Lebar voter, I will never give my vote to a reluctant candidate whose heart is at Bukit Batok. With due respect, Cynthia had her roots in Paya Lebar.

Despite commitment, Dr Chee has a very high mountain to climb. The active PAP grassroots activities, the state machinery and the friendly (and very important) Chinese media will prevent Dr Chee to have a successful inroad in the 95% HDB flats.

Singaporeans have to be realistic and pragmatic about this by-election. Mr Pillai is not the only reluctant PAP politician, certainly not the last one. But, for sure, his chance of winning is higher unless he makes a big mistake during the campaign.

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...