Can PAP hold Potong Pasir, or will it fall the next election?
It is still a weak constituency for the PAP. Assuming the PAP do not absorb the constituency into a GRC, the PAP will still have several advantages. Firstly, Sitoh can work more openly and reflect the wishes of the electorate more effectively. Public works can be enhanced. He can do more to win the voters over. And hard-core Chiam supporters may move out (say to Aljunied?) or move on (i.e. shake off this mortal coil).
On the other hand, the next election, Chiam may try to retake Potong Pasir himself. It may be hard to defend against his personal attention, but again if the old supporters have moved on...
Nicole Seah's Party
The NSP has turned out to be arguably, the biggest loser in this election for fielding the most candidates and having nothing to show for it. Perhaps their A-Team should have Nicole, Hazel, and Tony. I have not heard Nicole in person, but Hazel and Tony have not impressed me.
The other biggest loser...
Would be the Singapore Democratic Alliance. They failed to file their nominations on time, and the only candidate to lose his deposit was from the SDA. This loose alliance isn't likely to get any tighter and I think its time has passed.
The so-glad we're no longer the lose-iest party...
title goes to the Singapore Democratic Party, for most improved party with the likes of Vincent Wijeysingha, Tan Jee Say, and Ang Yong Guan. Of course, this party was so far down, they could only come up. This is a party of principles. But if they want to win enough votes, they will need to translate those principles into concrete promises the voters can get behind. I don't see them taking any seats from this perspective. But 3 - 5 years is a long time.
The party formerly known as the Reform Party...
needs to work out a better battle plan. The enemy is the PAP, not your members. But I fear this party suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. The moment there is more than one Personality in the party... Disorder!
But really, everyone should just join WP. If not everyone, then SDA and Reform by the next election.
SPP and SDP maybe in the election after next. And NSP after 2021.
All this assumes that WP don't collapse.
Workers Party
By focusing on branding, WP has the right idea. In the next election, they can split their A-team and leverage on the GRC system. Some can anchor Aljunied, while 2 of them, say Low and Sylvia, can boost the appeal of their East Coast team and try to take one more GRC.
[April 2014 update: Over the last few years, Tan Jee Say had resigned from SDP to stand as a Presidential Candidate. This of course means nothing. He can re-join SDP (or any other party for that matter) to stand for the next GE (to be held by 2016). Meanwhile Vincent Wijeysingha has also "retired" from politics. I think he wants to have a more direct effect on things. Focus on his area of interests instead of trying to propel a political agenda. Hazel Poa has resigned from the post of Sec-Gen of NSP apparently from stress. But she remains a member. Meanwhile the star and poster girl for opposition politics have left SG to Bangkok for her career. Well, this is nothing, or could mean nothing. She is still Asst Sec-Gen and still active in NSP. And still returns to SG for NSP meetings. But being away from SG will mean some loss of ground contacts. Enough to matter for an election? Who knows.?]
[May 2014 update. Tan Jee Say is announcing the launch of his political party. OMG.]
Monday, 16 May 2011
The Best of Times
I believe that the election results was the best possible results for Singapore. Sure, we could have done with the talents and ability of George Yeo. But this election needed to roll out this way and it did, and it was the best possible outcome for Singapore.
Singaporeans became more politically aware and wanted the government to understand that they had issues with the way the PAP was doing things and they expressed that opinion, that anger, that fear, by fearlessly voting for the opposition.
If they had all that anger and did not express it, or if they had all that anger and it had not resulted in a concrete result at the polls, then democracy would have failed them, and they would have lost faith in democracy, in the Singapore model of democracy.
So yes, the election result was the best possible result because no other result would have expressed the will of the people as they expressed it between 8 am and 8 pm of 7 May 2011.
It had to be that way, and no other way.
Singaporeans became more politically aware and wanted the government to understand that they had issues with the way the PAP was doing things and they expressed that opinion, that anger, that fear, by fearlessly voting for the opposition.
If they had all that anger and did not express it, or if they had all that anger and it had not resulted in a concrete result at the polls, then democracy would have failed them, and they would have lost faith in democracy, in the Singapore model of democracy.
So yes, the election result was the best possible result because no other result would have expressed the will of the people as they expressed it between 8 am and 8 pm of 7 May 2011.
It had to be that way, and no other way.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
From Fear to Anger
From the fear of voting against the PAP, to the fear that the PAP may be taking the people's support for granted, to the fear that the PAP may dominate and be permanently entrenched in the local political scene.
As Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
And so the Singapore voter has found the voice for their fear. And their screams of fear has become yells of anger. And the anger has been directed at the PAP.
The PAP has tried to blunt the anger, but the apology may simply be too late.
So anger leads to hate, and a vote against the PAP.
All that is left is to see if suffering follows.
As Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
And so the Singapore voter has found the voice for their fear. And their screams of fear has become yells of anger. And the anger has been directed at the PAP.
The PAP has tried to blunt the anger, but the apology may simply be too late.
So anger leads to hate, and a vote against the PAP.
All that is left is to see if suffering follows.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Living the Unthinkable.
From "Thinking the Unthinkable",
by Eleanor Wong
by Eleanor Wong
[Note: The link to the original blog is broken, so I have deleted it.]
I agree that it was probably to "minimise their losses" that the PAP reduced the size of GRCs, and also opened up more SMCs to pull the opposition heavy-weights to the SMCs. The more conspiracy-minded might even theorise that the PAP has an informant in the opposition, specifically the WP or even the SPP and got wind of Low's intent to abandon Hougang for a GRC contest, and Chiam's similar intent.
Is it a coincidence that Aljunied and Bishan-Toa Payoh both have 2 ministers? The only other GRC with 2 full ministers is East Coast GRC. Maybe there was a WP fall-back plan to challenge East Coast. In short, the PAP basically raised the stakes at these GRCs where sitting opposition MPs may launch their assault on a GRC.
As for thinking the unthinkable, I have a different perspective.
I think that I, that we Singaporeans have lived the unthinkable.
Any country with an unbroken dominance by a single political party for half a century should have poor human development, poor economy, high crime, corruption, inefficiencies, high unemployment, oppressed people, a failed govt or state or any combination thereof, or even all of those features.
It is unthinkable (by conventional political scientists acculturated to western democratic ideals) that any country with politics dominated by a single political party for 50 years could engender a society that has a vibrant economy, full employment, steady growth, low crime, an efficient civil service, little or no corruption, good health AND good healthcare.
Think the unthinkable? We LIVE it.
It's unthinkable that the PAP could lose a GRC and thus multiple seats 'overnight'.
This is eminently thinkable, of course. It is the natural outcome of the GRC system and, on the way up, it's been a potent plus for the PAP, helping them to snag a handful of seats with just one or two strong leaders in a GRC team. On the way down, so to speak, it could have the opposite effect. It's called leverage. It works both ways.
Actually, it's not inconceivable that this was exactly what the government was thinking about when it decided to reduce the size of some GRCs. And if the government can think about it, that's surely our licence to do so too.
I agree that it was probably to "minimise their losses" that the PAP reduced the size of GRCs, and also opened up more SMCs to pull the opposition heavy-weights to the SMCs. The more conspiracy-minded might even theorise that the PAP has an informant in the opposition, specifically the WP or even the SPP and got wind of Low's intent to abandon Hougang for a GRC contest, and Chiam's similar intent.
Is it a coincidence that Aljunied and Bishan-Toa Payoh both have 2 ministers? The only other GRC with 2 full ministers is East Coast GRC. Maybe there was a WP fall-back plan to challenge East Coast. In short, the PAP basically raised the stakes at these GRCs where sitting opposition MPs may launch their assault on a GRC.
As for thinking the unthinkable, I have a different perspective.
I think that I, that we Singaporeans have lived the unthinkable.
Any country with an unbroken dominance by a single political party for half a century should have poor human development, poor economy, high crime, corruption, inefficiencies, high unemployment, oppressed people, a failed govt or state or any combination thereof, or even all of those features.
It is unthinkable (by conventional political scientists acculturated to western democratic ideals) that any country with politics dominated by a single political party for 50 years could engender a society that has a vibrant economy, full employment, steady growth, low crime, an efficient civil service, little or no corruption, good health AND good healthcare.
Think the unthinkable? We LIVE it.
The nature of Rallies
The WP Hougang Rally (Thurs night) reminded me of the crowd at Yio Chu Kang Stadium in 1997. That was another huge turnout for the opposition. The crowd overflowed to the MRT station that night. The PAP rally at the same location that GE - dismal. You had space to picnic, kick a ball, etc.
The rumour was the PAP had to bus supporters in to make up the numbers. Frankly I think the PAP should save their money and just do away with their rallies. Or maybe just have funfairs. And they should be self-deprecating about it. Call it the "PAP supporters rally funfair cum possible farewell party". PAP candidate should just dialogue with the fair-goers and incumbents should just say things like "I really enjoyed working with you these last few years. I hope I will be able to work with you again, but if not I thank you for your support." And maybe have Q&A with small groups of people.
The reason people don't go to PAP rallies is because 1) they are boring, and 2) they have nothing new to say. We've been listening to them for 5 years. We know their explanations and reasoning and rationale, and we either accept and agree, or we don't.
The reason why we go to opposition rallies is because 1) they are exciting, 2) they scold the PAP (on our behalf), and and 3) they come up with new ideas (sometimes). They express what we feel, and they validate our selfish concerns at worst, or our residual idealism at best.
Rallies preach to the converted.
The rousing speeches are more flash than substance. They tap upon the zeitgeist of shared experience, shared values, and shared beliefs. They neither attempt to justify their conclusions, nor do they make a case for their accusations, because the people already know the truth. The speakers just build upon this shared "truth" and seek endorsement of their candidacy, just as the audience seek endorsement and validation of their frustrations.
Those who would vote opposition were decided before they went for the rallies, and those who would not, would not have been swayed by the rallies.
As for those who would vote PAP, they would have decided a long time ago, and they would be busy getting on with their lives. Why would they waste time at a PAP rally? The whole point of voting PAP is so that the PAP can take care of the problems and people can get on with their lives.
So the 1997 election results, despite the huge turnouts at opposition rallies, was a loss of 2 opposition seats. Opposition MPs voted into parliament fell from 4 to just two. Hope of a better showing as a follow through from the 1991 election where an unprecedented 4 opposition MPs were elected were dashed. Early predictions of 5, 6 or even more opposition, were proven overly optimistic. The opposition movement had a setback.
I do hope that there is not another setback for the opposition, but I fear Low's double-down bet is highly risky. He has acknowledged as much.
That said, having heard Yaw Shin Leong, he seems to have a fair chance of holding Hougang for WP.
But don't be surprised after the dust has settled that PAP is back in power and there are no more than a handful of opposition voted in. If at all.
The rumour was the PAP had to bus supporters in to make up the numbers. Frankly I think the PAP should save their money and just do away with their rallies. Or maybe just have funfairs. And they should be self-deprecating about it. Call it the "PAP supporters rally funfair cum possible farewell party". PAP candidate should just dialogue with the fair-goers and incumbents should just say things like "I really enjoyed working with you these last few years. I hope I will be able to work with you again, but if not I thank you for your support." And maybe have Q&A with small groups of people.
The reason people don't go to PAP rallies is because 1) they are boring, and 2) they have nothing new to say. We've been listening to them for 5 years. We know their explanations and reasoning and rationale, and we either accept and agree, or we don't.
The reason why we go to opposition rallies is because 1) they are exciting, 2) they scold the PAP (on our behalf), and and 3) they come up with new ideas (sometimes). They express what we feel, and they validate our selfish concerns at worst, or our residual idealism at best.
Rallies preach to the converted.
The rousing speeches are more flash than substance. They tap upon the zeitgeist of shared experience, shared values, and shared beliefs. They neither attempt to justify their conclusions, nor do they make a case for their accusations, because the people already know the truth. The speakers just build upon this shared "truth" and seek endorsement of their candidacy, just as the audience seek endorsement and validation of their frustrations.
Those who would vote opposition were decided before they went for the rallies, and those who would not, would not have been swayed by the rallies.
As for those who would vote PAP, they would have decided a long time ago, and they would be busy getting on with their lives. Why would they waste time at a PAP rally? The whole point of voting PAP is so that the PAP can take care of the problems and people can get on with their lives.
So the 1997 election results, despite the huge turnouts at opposition rallies, was a loss of 2 opposition seats. Opposition MPs voted into parliament fell from 4 to just two. Hope of a better showing as a follow through from the 1991 election where an unprecedented 4 opposition MPs were elected were dashed. Early predictions of 5, 6 or even more opposition, were proven overly optimistic. The opposition movement had a setback.
I do hope that there is not another setback for the opposition, but I fear Low's double-down bet is highly risky. He has acknowledged as much.
That said, having heard Yaw Shin Leong, he seems to have a fair chance of holding Hougang for WP.
But don't be surprised after the dust has settled that PAP is back in power and there are no more than a handful of opposition voted in. If at all.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Hougang Workers Party Rally - observations
28 April.
At 7.30, there were already perhaps 2000 people on the field. The crowd continued to stream in until I estimate that there were perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 people. This was my ground estimate as I was not able to get to high ground to get a bird's eye view. So I could be off.
I couldn't see the stage because of the crowd, the stage was not very high, and the damn lights were on the crowd. Perhaps the candidates wanted to see the crowd's reaction.
Perhaps ISD wanted nice pictures for their photo album.
I missed the First speaker's introduction. He spoke in English. I think he's Indian. Some words on First World Parliament. He spoke in Chinese (I think) at the end just asking the people to vote Worker's Party.
The next speaker was a veteran (didn't catch his name either), and he spoke in Hokkien and was well-received by the middle-aged and older men in the crowd.
Next was Lim Li Lian, she spoke in English and she sounded like she was selling insurance, comparing the opposition to an insurance policy. I think if the PAP could use this imagery of insurance, they might turn a few people off the opposition.
Gerald Giam spouted standard platitudes, cliches, and had nothing really original to say. Dull.
Yaw Shin Leong spoke in Teochew, Mandarin and English. I think his Teochew sounded less than fluent, and his "I am Teochew" in Teochew and later in Mandarin was just so contrived. But the crowd cheered. That said, his speech in English was much better.
Low then spoke in English and cleverly responded to the PAP's charge that the WP wanted to be co-drivers and attempt to wrest control of the car from the PAP. Low cleverly pointed out that they were all in the same car and causing the car to careen out of control was in no one's interest, then he pointed out that co-driver's job could be as simple as talking to the driver to keep him awake, or if necessary giving him a slap if he was falling asleep. That got huge laughs from the crowd. And finally he pointed out that the WP did not have a driver's licence.
He was masterful.
Chen Show Mao then arrived and Low handed over the stage to him. Chen surprised by first speaking in Malay - just a bit as he said his Malay was not very good. Then he spoke in Mandarin, and somehow, I don't know why but Mandarin seems so well suited to the language of revolution. Perhaps it's because of shows like "Lust, Caution". Anyway, he connected well with the crowd in Mandarin and they responded to him.
Then he surprised the crowd by speaking in Tamil (I think). He got a few laughs.
For his English speech, he started to lose the audience. Or the audience was less responsive. But I thought the speech was not inspired.
I left when he ended.
Rally speeches work best by latching onto shared values and shared beliefs. There is very little room for long complicated explanations, or for changing minds. It takes a very skilled orator and a very finely crafted speech to explain a problem, build a case, propose a solution, sell the idea and win the audience over, especially if the audience is skeptical in the first place.
But rallies are for preaching to the converted. So you just need to know what are the key hooks, and shared values and beliefs, and latch onto them.
So if the audience believe Ministers are overpaid, that is a launch point for a talking point. If the audience feels left behind by rising flat prices, use that shared knowledge.
I doubt if rallies really changes anybody's minds.
At 7.30, there were already perhaps 2000 people on the field. The crowd continued to stream in until I estimate that there were perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 people. This was my ground estimate as I was not able to get to high ground to get a bird's eye view. So I could be off.
I couldn't see the stage because of the crowd, the stage was not very high, and the damn lights were on the crowd. Perhaps the candidates wanted to see the crowd's reaction.
Perhaps ISD wanted nice pictures for their photo album.
I missed the First speaker's introduction. He spoke in English. I think he's Indian. Some words on First World Parliament. He spoke in Chinese (I think) at the end just asking the people to vote Worker's Party.
The next speaker was a veteran (didn't catch his name either), and he spoke in Hokkien and was well-received by the middle-aged and older men in the crowd.
Next was Lim Li Lian, she spoke in English and she sounded like she was selling insurance, comparing the opposition to an insurance policy. I think if the PAP could use this imagery of insurance, they might turn a few people off the opposition.
Gerald Giam spouted standard platitudes, cliches, and had nothing really original to say. Dull.
Yaw Shin Leong spoke in Teochew, Mandarin and English. I think his Teochew sounded less than fluent, and his "I am Teochew" in Teochew and later in Mandarin was just so contrived. But the crowd cheered. That said, his speech in English was much better.
Low then spoke in English and cleverly responded to the PAP's charge that the WP wanted to be co-drivers and attempt to wrest control of the car from the PAP. Low cleverly pointed out that they were all in the same car and causing the car to careen out of control was in no one's interest, then he pointed out that co-driver's job could be as simple as talking to the driver to keep him awake, or if necessary giving him a slap if he was falling asleep. That got huge laughs from the crowd. And finally he pointed out that the WP did not have a driver's licence.
He was masterful.
Chen Show Mao then arrived and Low handed over the stage to him. Chen surprised by first speaking in Malay - just a bit as he said his Malay was not very good. Then he spoke in Mandarin, and somehow, I don't know why but Mandarin seems so well suited to the language of revolution. Perhaps it's because of shows like "Lust, Caution". Anyway, he connected well with the crowd in Mandarin and they responded to him.
Then he surprised the crowd by speaking in Tamil (I think). He got a few laughs.
For his English speech, he started to lose the audience. Or the audience was less responsive. But I thought the speech was not inspired.
I left when he ended.
Rally speeches work best by latching onto shared values and shared beliefs. There is very little room for long complicated explanations, or for changing minds. It takes a very skilled orator and a very finely crafted speech to explain a problem, build a case, propose a solution, sell the idea and win the audience over, especially if the audience is skeptical in the first place.
But rallies are for preaching to the converted. So you just need to know what are the key hooks, and shared values and beliefs, and latch onto them.
So if the audience believe Ministers are overpaid, that is a launch point for a talking point. If the audience feels left behind by rising flat prices, use that shared knowledge.
I doubt if rallies really changes anybody's minds.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
The worst case scenario
Biggest news on Nomination Day, Low Thia Khiang pursues dream of a GRC victory, leaves Hougang to Yaw Shin Leong (WP) to defend. Now there is no anchor for the Opposition, no sure thing. Even Low admits as much in the article:
The worst case scenario might come true, with no wins for the opposition!
Aljunied will be a hard fight and a hard choice. The Opposition has a chance, but they have telegraphed their punch and the PAP would not have been sleeping for the last 5 years. I am sure they have worked the ground to win the voters' hearts.
Potong Pasir is also highly at risk of returning to the PAP. For both Hougang and Potong Pasir, the voters may feel that their MP had abandoned them and that would allow them to abandon the opposition without guilt.
If Yaw can hold Hougang, it would mean that WP has established their brand. If he can't, then there is still a lot of work to do on the brand.
Bishan-Toa Payoh may be a close fight, but Chiam is the liability. Yes he has experience, but does he have the emotional engagement and history in B-TP? Mas Selamat is a non-issue for most Singaporeans.
If so, then the last two elected opposition MP may be gone by May 7.
Apr 27, 2011With Low out of Hougang, there are no sure Opposition wins; no opposition stronghold.
Stakes and risk very high for opposition: WP chief
By Chong Zi Liang , Kor Kian Beng
WORKERS' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has said that the stakes and risk for the opposition in the May 7 election are 'very high' and Singapore may end up with no elected opposition MP.
Striking a stark warning, he told a packed press conference on Wednesday afternoon: 'This is a a watershed election. We may end up with no elected opposition MP.
'It was 30 years ago that JBJ became the first elected opposition in 1981. I hope we don't go back to those days without any opposition MP.'
Mr Low, 54, has moved out of Hougang single seat ward, where he was the incumbent MP for four terms since 1991, to contest the five-member Aljunied GRC, where the fiercest battle is expected to play out over the next eight days.
'I have contemplated this for a very long time. For the last 20 years since I was the MP, the opposition has not been progressing but has been regressing instead. Is this desirable for Singapore?' asked Mr Low.
The WP team will be squaring off the PAP's team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo.
Explaining why he has gone to the Aljunied GRC, he said: 'They (the voters) gave us strong support in 2006. I was more determined after the boundary report was out.
'Of course, the logical step is not to move out (of Hougang) because the stakes are high and the risk is very high.'
He said the party had been planning this move for the past three years but he became more determined to move out of Hougang for a GRC after the latest electoral boundary changes, which saw a part of the Aljunied GRC, where he said the WP enjoyed good support, being moved to the Ang Mo Kio GRC and the Pasir-Punggol GRC.
A part of the Marine Parade GRC - the Kaki Bukit area - is also now part of Aljunied GRC.
Said Mr Low: 'We could have waited for others to win a GRC but that is wishful thinking, based on how the PAP gerrymander at every election. We need to make a breakthrough in a GRC and teach them a lesson.'
The worst case scenario might come true, with no wins for the opposition!
Aljunied will be a hard fight and a hard choice. The Opposition has a chance, but they have telegraphed their punch and the PAP would not have been sleeping for the last 5 years. I am sure they have worked the ground to win the voters' hearts.
Potong Pasir is also highly at risk of returning to the PAP. For both Hougang and Potong Pasir, the voters may feel that their MP had abandoned them and that would allow them to abandon the opposition without guilt.
If Yaw can hold Hougang, it would mean that WP has established their brand. If he can't, then there is still a lot of work to do on the brand.
Bishan-Toa Payoh may be a close fight, but Chiam is the liability. Yes he has experience, but does he have the emotional engagement and history in B-TP? Mas Selamat is a non-issue for most Singaporeans.
If so, then the last two elected opposition MP may be gone by May 7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)