Infighting does not win elections
Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 11:33PM Sounds like an obvious thing to say, but here in PAP-dominated Singapore, some politicians just don't seem to understand that very simple truth about politics. Take for example the recently-revived Chee Soon Juan-Chiam See Tong dispute, a piece of political history that should have been consigned to a landfill. Instead of leaving it alone, Chee had to "defend" himself about claims that Chiam was forced out of the Singapore Democratic Party.
Or when former Reform Party chairman Ng Teck Siong jumped out to counter current RP chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam's points in a Today interview. Both Chee and Ng seemed more interested in defending their own record, and in so doing fails to understand what politics is.
The aim of any and every political party is to win power; only after winning elections can they govern and push through their agenda. This is an immutable fact. There can be no progress, no shaping of legislation, when you're in a small minority that is incapable of posing a serious challenge to the ruling party, which is the exact state of the opposition now, with only two seats in the 84-seat Parliament.
All the talk about not addressing the flawed political landscape, or "disrespect" for other opposition MPs, or a re-run of an old in-house political feud not only does not help the opposition win power, but also damages their prospect of doing so, while practically doing the PAP's job of retaining power for them. In Rahm Emanuel's words, this is fucking retarded.
Politically, it makes sense to have a loose alliance of opposition parties, pooling together resources that would be hard to accrue by any single opposition party, in order to win elections. It makes sense to focus on alternative policy and working the ground, rather than doing nothing but to scream about the broken political system, because it obviously did not help the opposition win any more seats than the previous record of four.
When the old tactics and talking points have not worked for so long, it only makes sense to shift the focus. Recycling the same old arguments that didn't work is just obstinacy and egregious failure to look beyond the tip of one's nose.
Don't play the game if you don't understand how to win it, or if you're not there to win it. And washing dirty linen, or attacking fellow opposition politicians in public, might win you some applause but it will not win you elections. And to that end, politicians like Ng and Chee ought to do us all a favour and fade into the sunset. And bring their baggage with them.
Update: I have been informed that Mrs Lina Chiam is a Singapore People's Party CEC member, which makes her a politician. And after reading this letter, I would issue the same (no doubt unheeded) advice that she should stop her meaningless public argument with Dr Chee. There is no point in continuing this, and any attempts to should be viewed as what it is: politically ham-fisted. That's putting it mildly.
Reader Comments (55)
Seems abit unfair though, isn't it? We expect Chee and Teck Siong to give it a rest instead of engaging in these petty squabbles, although they were only defending themselves against allegations lobbied by Mrs Chiam and Kenneth J respectively. Let's be fair - if you want to say this entire farce is fucking retarded, do include Mrs Chiam for perpetrating the Chiam-was-usurped-by-Chee line and KJ for aggrandizing himself as the messiah of RP.
@Khairul: What is interesting to me is Ng admitted "that he had not been successful in attracting enough capable leaders and members into the party as he would have liked", he lost the CEC's confidence, and he chose to highlight KJ's “In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.” statement but not account for the fact that this is true in any developed democracy; which makes his statement that KJ failed "to address Singapore’s flawed political system" all the more hollow.
Especially since Ng did not address his own failure of offering alternative policy: this is what a large chunk of educated, young Singaporean voters are looking for. All that "democracy now" talk did not break the PAP hegemony. If it never worked, would it work now? It wouldn't in my opinion. Ask the man on the street about what he cares, and he'll say "jobs".
You can call it self-aggrandisement, but that would be not recognising the facts in his interview.
As for Mrs Chiam, I make an exception because she is not a politician; having never played this game, I'd hesitate to blame her. But Ng and Chee are old hands, and they know this will be lapped up by the propaganda machine, but still chose to do what they did.
My point still stands.
Mrs Chiam is not a politician? Sorry, but the last time i heard, she is going to be the opposition candidate in my dear old Potong Pasir, and a CEC member of the Singapore People's Party. Flawed exception you've chosen to make there.
@Dexter: If that is the case, then Mrs Chiam is just as culpable. But my point still stands: this helps the PAP and damages the opposition parties, and up until now no one has even recognised that point I have made in this post.
And I think my point would be that what KJ and Mrs Chiam did was hurting the opposition's cause as well. I can agree that Teck Siong and Chee did not have to feed the media frenzy with their clarifications, but KJ and Mrs Chiam did not have to take potshots at them as well.
Yes, this hurts the opposition - but all in all, it seems self-inflicted. You don't really make statements disparaging your fellow oppositionists and not expect them to reply?
@Khairul: After reading Mrs Chiam's latest, I would have to say she needs to stop what she's doing as well. As for KJ taking potshots, that depends on perspective. I read the interview and thought he was calling a spade a spade.
People need to recognise that whatever they have done before failed to challenge the PAP, let alone unseat them. The old tactics didn't work. It's time to let it go and use a different angle. This is something that Ng and Chee both fail to exhibit, to the detriment of the state of the opposition.
Is this a personal attack? No. Both Chee and Ng I'm sure are reasonable men. But they still miss the point of politics. Taking it personally is something that does not help, as these episodes have shown.
I'm reminded of the old definition of insanity as "doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results." I once wondered if PAP loyalists were perhaps acting as agents provocateurs within opposition ranks. Then I realised it isn't necessary; they can just sit back, watch the carnage, and say with a straight face that they had nothing to do with it.
Self-inflicted damage is often the hardest to recover from. We really need to do something I've heard called un-Singaporean: maintaining enough self-discipline to stay on message. Our energies would be much better spent opposing PAP than each other.
@Jeff: "Our energies would be much better spent opposing PAP than each other" is spot on. The faster people realise, and act on that, the better.
I note your use of the phrase "Infighting" in your title.
Based on your analysis, maybe you could say that the pot-shots between Reform Party's ex and new leadership could be construed as in-fighting but even that is a stretch of the term as it one party has already left. In the case of Chee and Chiam it is more a case of differences across parties so one could be hard pressed to describe as in-fighting. In fighting could best be describe as members within a party flaring up in public.
So question why should that effect the performance of individual parties per se? I mean if people don't like SDP don't vote for SDP or if they don't like Chiam's party, which frankly I can't be bothered to remember the name, don't vote for Chiam's party. As for the reform Party, the ex-leader has left so, basically there is no difference to really talk about. After all, it has not stop Chiam from being re-elected or WP wining a seat. So individual parties are not hurt when they hurl "abuse" at other party, such as Chiam versus Chee, or WP sometime slight of hand criticism of SDP style.
The situation would be hard in the context of one member of a party fighting within the party, for example, Chee vs his lieutenant. Then clearly electorate would be confused as to what that party, for example SDP, stood for. That I grant makes individual party electoral chances slim.
In any case, in mature democracies, you get that. In the UK, for example, there are three parties, Labour (the governing), Conservatives, liberal, etc (makes up the rest). Each other, using your own word, hurl "abused" at each other. This is natural for political parties in democracies. It is also healthy for the electorate because they have choice between policies. It would be thoroughly unhealthy if the parties all speak with the same voice.
By your description, I supposed you mean PAP versus the rest (i.e. the Opposition). The rest being a single entity speaking with one voice and one unified platform. In the current Singapore context, I suppose by the tone of your comment unseating the PAP being the be-all-and-end-all thing to be considered electorally successful. But still, why should that only occur under a single unified Opposition party?
All the electorate need to do is to vote for opposition parties where they stand and if sufficient number get it they PAP will face tougher time. Simple.
Let's the real political fact in Singapore. The problem really lies with the electorate rather than the "Opposition" party per se. I don't know if you have actually analysed the modus operandi of the opposition parties in Singapore but you should be aware that actually the opposition already has defecto alliance since the unvailing of the so-called by-election strategy many moons ago. Since then the opposition has avoided three cornered fight. And to top it all, they have avoided contesting more than 50% of the seat ensuring that the electorate have the best of both worlds -- a PAP government but not an absolute majority. So all the electorate has to do is to vote for the opposition. The rest as they say is history.
So please don't blame the lack of success on so-called in fighting or lack of unity of the opposition party. You want to blame, blame the electorate! I suppose that includes me and you.
It is also worth remembering that the Opposition parties are made up of people that are drawn from the electorate. So if the electorate don't support in the smallest possible way by voting or in a more substantial way, join the opposition, there is no point blaming the lack of success of the opposition when the electorate themselves could not be asked to participate!
@Tan: I disagree on several levels. Your points assume Singapore is a matured democracy, when we are not. Unlike the likes of the UK, Canada, France, etc, we have one party dominating the political landscape and controlling the mainstream press, crafting an uninformed citizenry through fear and holding on to power since the country's independence. Power structures like that do not fall on their own.
Which brings me to my second point: this may not be infighting because the spats involved politicians who are not affiliated with each other. But is this what the man on the street thinks? Singaporeans are getting more and more educated, but there is still a significant number of us who rely on the mainstream media for news, and therefore easily swayed to believe that the opposition is one movement, and the PAP another. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant; this is the reality that people subscribe to. Their votes matter as much as ours.
It's either we preach to the choir, or take that step to win elections first, then initiate the cultural changes that has to come from the top. Blaming the electorate, conditioned by years of propaganda, is just defeatist. Sometimes, even when people want to vote, they don't get the chance to. There is a 42-year-old Singaporean who has never voted in his life. How will that improve if opposition parties don't band together?
The PAP has all the advantages. Funds, grassroots organisations, control of the mainstream press. The system heavily favours the incumbent. Why give them more advantages?
@Callan, I think you miss the point completely.
I merely point out that different parties arguing amongst themselves is a natural thing. I stated that fact that in mature democracy that happens. And in a way I am implying that it would not be unnatural in a not mature democracies in Singapore. Ok you may not have caught on that implication. So hope this clarify my point that.
The other point I have pointed out clearly is that your assumption is predicated on PAP versus Other, and that the other must be speaking in a single voice or else shut up. This is in itself a ridiculous goal.
The reason you get different political parties in Singapore is because, you cannot assumed that everyone in Singapore thinks alike, even those in opposition to the PAP. For example, some electorate will feel they like the SDP style, some the WP style, some the Chiam style, etc. Me personally, I am more aligned to the SDP approach in most point but completely not in line with Chiam style. So the emergence of different political parties is itself a reflection of differences in the electorate, which is a natural thing whether in a mature or in an immature democracy. Differences is a fact of life -- THAT IS THE REALITY.
Also you seemed to forget that I have pointed out that argument across political parties may hurt individual party but it should not hurt the Opposition cause as a whole -- i.e. to nib the power of the PAP. The point is the power rest in the hands of the electorate not in the opposition political parties. If the electorate find no parties serve them well then form another one. In other less mature democracies, even repressive ones, people organised themselves and not wait for things to occur.
Yes, the opposition are constantly starved of funding and the PAP is constantly. As I have said before, the Opposition parties to their credit has done a very clever thing, which is to avoid three-corned fight and allow the PAP to rule but still give the electorate the option to make it hard for the PAP to pass bad laws and policies. So in a stroke, the opposition parties was able to keep their individual style and policies in tact, address the lack of resource issue and give the electorate some ability to control the PAP. So the question is did the electorate take advantage of this fact? No
Who to blame? You tell me.
Look frankly speaking if the opposition were to merged into one party, it would not change the fact that the electorate themselves are divided. Ask the electorates what they want in policy terms you will get contradictory ones anyway. So in this context, how can you expect one Single opposition party to cater to the wide variation?
@Tan: And I think you missed my point. You say my "assumption is predicated on PAP versus Other, and that the other must be speaking in a single voice or else shut up" is not what I said. I said by the biting each other, it diminishes the strength of the opposition. Perhaps you don't see it, but to say that my assumption is wrong without proof is unconvincing. It is a natural thing to argue, and to present your differences, but doing so publicly is, like it or not, bad politics.
Avoiding three-cornered fights is not "clever", it is a common tactic when the underdog is facing overwhelming odds. We can blame the electorate all we want, but that does not achieve anything. Either we start changing people's minds, and present a united front so the electorate starts perceiving the opposition as a force to balance the PAP, or there really is no point doing politics.
Also, I did not say "merge the opposition into one party". I said "it makes sense to have a loose alliance of opposition parties". This is not about ideology or ideals of different political parties, this is about politics. The opposition need to do more than just provide checks and balance. They need to be prepared to govern, and show the people they are ready.
But I have a feeling we are talking past each other at this point.
@ Callen, so what are you saying?
Your title says: "Infighting does not win elections"
What do you mean by that?
Like I said, despite "in-fight", Chiam and Low still managed to get re-elected. So did JBJ when in-fighting was even more pronounced. So does that not invalidate what your title is saying or at least what I understand from it?
You say avoiding three-cornered fight is not "clever" but at the same time you are saying you "it makes sense to have a loose alliance of opposition parties". I mean when the parties agreed on a strategy not to contest in each other pad, is that not a case of a "loose alliance" and in my opinion an effective one given the reality of the situation.
What do you mean by "loose alliance"?
Oh here is another example, of back-biting in a not-so-mature democracy. Back in the days of Aparthied South Africa, not every agreed with Nelson Mendala's ANC approach. There was Zulu parties and even white moderates opposition parties that often argued against one another but the ruling party still collapsed.
@ Callen says: "We can blame the electorate all we want, but that does not achieve anything. Either we start changing people's minds, and present a united front so the electorate starts perceiving the opposition as a force to balance the PAP, or there really is no point doing politics"
Maybe I am blaming the electorate but that does not change the fact that the power for change rest with the electorate not the opposition party. After all opposition parties draw strength from the electorate. If the electorate don't give consent they can't do anything about it.
You say "Either we ...", who are the we? The leader of the opposition parties, or do you mean those who are educated convenience the non-educated ones? Who are the we that you are talking about?
@ Callam says: "I said by the biting each other, it diminishes the strength of the opposition. Perhaps you don't see it, but to say that my assumption is wrong without proof is unconvincing. It is a natural thing to argue, and to present your differences, but doing so publicly is, like it or not, bad politics."
You use the phrase, "diminishes the strength of the opposition". What do you mean by that phrase?
Do you mean diminishing the opposition as a whole or do you mean diminishing the standing of a Single party (SDP, RP or Chiam)?
Like I say the opposition cause as a whole will not be diminished if individual parties fail. Equally, if one party emerge strongest than so much the better. If no party is good than form another. More importantly is what do the electorate want? Is it just to get rid of the PAP? Is it to keep the PAP but get them to change policy?
Ok like I say in real-life we can't say the electorate is one uniform body with one single mind or goal. So all the opposition can best do is play to the strength of their believer and avoid overlapping with others. The only practical -- may be not the most ideal -- way is to avoid three-corned fight!
@Tan: Where did I say a three-cornered fight is good or practical? I take issue with your use of the word "clever" because it really isn't. Yes, it does not change the fact that it's up to the electorate, but the political reality is that all the opposition parties would find it easier to pool resources than to go it alone. This would allow them to reach the electorate more effectively, or at least efficiently. We cannot blame the electorate if the opposition, regardless of party affiliations or as a blanket "opposition", cannot present that readiness to govern. Do these incidents present that ideal to you?
It sounds like you do not believe that, and therefore we are talking past each other. We ascribe to different political realities from the looks of it. I think the electorate view the opposition as a whole (Chiam and Low being exceptions because of their good work managing the town councils), while you think the opposition is not viewed as such. I view a loose alliance as more than just an agreement to avoid three-cornered fights. And I don't think waiting for the ruling party to collapse is a viable alternative.
"We" is an unfortunate error on my part: I meant to say if I am part of the opposition parties, this course of action is what I would advocate.
My stand is simple, as long as the opposition parties show such disunity in front of the electorate, it hurts their electoral chances as a WHOLE.
@Callan, I think you should read my reply. Carefully. You should also read your all your comments directed at me before you reply.
Firstly, I DID NOT SAY YOU SAY "a three-cornered fight is good or practical". All I said and I quote you: "Avoiding three-cornered fights is not "clever". Your words not mine. All I said was IN MY OPINION -- I SAY AGAIN IN MY OPINION -- what the opposition can practically to given the reality of the situation is the strategy they have employed -- which is to avoid three-cornered fight. And as far as I AM concerned that is just about as loose an alliance as one can get. The point I was making was that is MY DEFINITION OF 'loose alliance'.
I wanted to know what is yours? If I can understand what you mean in definite term than we have a basis for debate.
Secondly, the use of the word "clever" is by you not me. Read your comment to me again.
Thirdly, here is what you say in your latest comments:
"Yes, it does not change the fact that it's up to the electorate, but the political reality is that all the opposition parties would find it easier to pool resources than to go it alone. This would allow them to reach the electorate more effectively, or at least efficiently. We cannot blame the electorate if the opposition, regardless of party affiliations or as a blanket "opposition", cannot present that readiness to govern. Do these incidents present that ideal to you?" -- Callan
Let me debate you on the basis of what I can discern. You use phrase like "pool resources". Question what does that mean?
Look by avoiding three-cornered fight they are in effect pooling resources don't you agree?
By avoiding three-corned fight, isn't it the case that they (i.e. Opposition as a whole) can stand in more places thus pooling resources? Don't you agree.
By avoiding three-cornered fight it allows for a wide spectrum of different views to be represented, is that not good, whilst reducing PAP majority. Isn't that a way of pooling resources? After all, the reality is that the electorate are themselves likely to be split about how to opposed the PAP.
To avoid putting words in your mouth, explain to me in simple term what you mean by "pooling resources"?
On your point about readiness to govern. If that is you litmus test for electorial success, than frankly even whilst I am in aligned with the approach of SDP and believe strongly that they can meet the challenge if called upon to run the country, it is still a long way to go. A bit of brick-bat here and not airing things in public ain't going to change readiness. Besides, brick bats are part and parcel of politics. If you look at Singapore context, as you indicated with such a heavily bias media, some indiscretion on the part of the Opposition is gained to be raked up. Unless the opposition, my word not yours, keep extremely quiet and don't do anything the media will dig up dirt one way or another. If not they will exaggerate really minor issue (James Gomez election application case in point). If the opposition keep quiet and don't do anything then what are they for?
The key issue is when a brick is throw at them, the real test of an opposition is how they respond.
In my, and my only, opinion there are really fundamental issues that needs resolving before we can expect any political parties, including PAP, to make any change. Principally that starts from the electorate. Basic fact is that the electorate, including the media and civil services, must have the mindset that having multi-party politics is not a scary thing, and be prepared to come out and join political parties or advocate their support for their pet party agenda.
On your point and I quote:
"And I don't think waiting for the ruling party to collapse is a viable alternative". -- @Callan
I accept that is your view. My view is that the chances of PAP collapsing are much higher than say opposition parties gaining power within current electoral rules. So to me a PAP collapse is viable, if not eventual, event.
If you use the word viable to mean it an unacceptable and less than desired scenario, yeah than I agree with you.
@Tan: I said it is a common tactic to avoid a three-cornered fight, and while it is effectively a "pooling of resources" by not splitting the vote, it is hardly a stroke of genius. That is what I meant.
What I meant by a loose alliance is more than just avoiding a split of the vote/three-cornered fights, but also to share resources such as candidates, policies and even fund-raising efforts.
In the current system where the media and civil service heavily favours the incumbent, changing the minds of the electorate through that is unrealistic. It is precisely because of the biased mainstream media that I believe such disputes be sorted out behind closed doors. Whether any opposition party is ready for governing is not up to me to say, but the electorate's perception of any party's readiness to govern is just as essential.
And we have agreement on a PAP collapse. Though I'm not sure why you attribute the use of the word "clever" to me, when this is what you said: "As I have said before, the Opposition parties to their credit has done a very clever thing, which is to avoid three-corned fight and allow the PAP to rule but still give the electorate the option to make it hard for the PAP to pass bad laws and policies."
I have never voted in my life, and I'm already 32. I'm not alone in saying I want a chance to vote, and making it count. Blaming the electorate when a significant number of us never got the chance to vote just does not jive with me.
The ground right now is full of unhappiness over high housing prices, unemployment and indiscreet increases in foreign workers depressing wages. People are calling for major changes in policy, or possibly a change in the ruling party come election time.
While it is good that there is debating going on, it is never good to dredge up the past.
What the voters need is a credible alternative voice that even the ruling party has no choice but to accept as a worthy opponent, not attention seekers indulging in petty sniping.
The chinese saying: Yu Bang Xiang Zheng Yu Weng De Li '鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利'. When a clam and a sniper are locked in combat and neither gives way, the third party benefits.
Or in this case, the ruling party.
@Callan
Ok my apologies, I did say this:
"Yes, the opposition are constantly starved of funding and the PAP is constantly. As I have said before, the Opposition parties to their credit has done a very clever thing, which is to avoid three-corned fight and allow the PAP to rule but still give the electorate the option to make it hard for the PAP to pass bad laws and policies. So in a stroke, the opposition parties was able to keep their individual style and policies in tact, address the lack of resource issue and give the electorate some ability to control the PAP".
If you objected to the one word clever, I'll let the point rest. And it's my mistake. It is indeed my word.
Ok now let's discuss your point based on your definition of "loose alliance". Why is but also to "share resources such as candidates, policies and even fund-raising efforts" any more clever than avoiding a three-cornered fight?
I don't see that, I am using this word any more "clever" -- in this context -- than say avoiding a three-cornered fight?
If you are going to have shared resources are you not going to have a central authority to allocate these share resources? Does it not come back to my point that when you say the "Opposition" you mean a single entity?
How loose can such an alliance be when they so-call share resources? Isn't that going to be a receipt for more in-fighting as to who has the right to this resource and who has less?
Would it not be better for individual parties to raised their own funds and if they are good they get more. If not they have less -- i.e. an additional test for each party to pass the ability test?
Now for me as an electorate who don't believe that Chiam approach is right but more align with the SDP approach does it mean I have to put up with a Single entity that exclude the SDP approach?
@Callan."In the current system where the media and civil service heavily favours the incumbent, changing the minds of the electorate through that is unrealistic. It is precisely because of the biased mainstream media that I believe such disputes be sorted out behind closed doors. Whether any opposition party is ready for governing is not up to me to say, but the electorate's perception of any party's readiness to govern is just as essential."
I am not sure I understand the connection in your statement there.
Let start "In the current system where the media and civil service heavily favours the incumbent, changing the minds of the electorate through that is unrealistic".
I won't dispute the leaning the the media of the civil service. So to me that is a realistic factor in the whole scenario that has to be addressed. That is a given. No matter what the opposition do or not do, the media is unlikely to be painted in a favourable light.
The question here is in that statement someone or something has to do the changing of the electorate mindset. Question is who are you referring to?
Now are you saying that because of brick-bat between opposition parties the electorate mindset about the quality of the opposition will be tarnished?
I mean like you say given the predominance of the pro-PAP media, do you seriously think that having an alliance in the way you described is going to make any different?
If the opposition had an alliance in the manner you describe do you honestly think the pro-PAP media is not going to dig dirt even if the quarrel was done behind door. The media could easily point out that disagreement in such a alliance by simply attributing to "source said"?
What would changed by your definition of a loose alliance?
@Tan: I think we should just avoid the use of "clever" because it seems to distract us. When I suggested my idea of a loose alliance, I wanted it to achieve three things:
- A common electoral and governance strategy, while not sacrificing the individual goals of the parties;
- A common human resource pool to tap candidates for election, reaching farther and wider than the nets of individual parties.
- Raising the size and prestige of the opposition as a whole, forcing the PAP to recognise their competition.
This goes beyond avoiding three-cornered fights in my opinion, and requires a lot of ground work and negotiations, most of it ongoing. And would address your concern that any one party's approach will be ignored. It would also force the PAP to fight a large bloc of organised opposition, as opposed to a few loose parties with smaller power bases.
Fundraising can be done jointly; for example, a carnival can be held where different booths are manned by different parties, and the proceeds go to their own coffers. Details can always be discussed, but let's not dismiss it out of hand.
I agree that the media, since it is pro-PAP, will dig up the dirt. My point here is why help them by slinging mud at each other?
If a loose alliance, as I have stated, is formed, the biggest impact is towards the perception of the electorate. It sends a message, "we are ready to put aside our differences, and are ready to govern" to the voters. Closing this perception gap is important, and an opposition alliance will force the PAP and the press to take them more seriously.
Also, here's an article for your consideration: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/04/opposition-alliance-will-force-openness-and-democracy/
@Callam: "I have never voted in my life, and I'm already 32. I'm not alone in saying I want a chance to vote, and making it count. Blaming the electorate when a significant number of us never got the chance to vote just does not jive with me."
I supposed I was fortunate and I had one opportunity to vote. I voted for Chee Soon Juan when he stood. However, I never had any opportunity then, Unlike you and many others, I now come to believe that I am as much guilty of the not actively making the change.
I have come to the realisation that unless I am prepared to be countered and join the opposition, frankly it would be disingenuous of me to expect other people make the sacrifice and not do something about it. I must admit I still don't have the courage to take the leap and actively participate.
Having said that, I am not saying that everyone must join the opposition. What I would say is that unless there are more people to actively, lets not be too overboard, and do the tiny thing like be prepared to vote for opposition candidate or take the active trouble to see past the media propaganda, nothing is going to change.
In case I am accused of being a hypocrite, since I have declared my agreement with the policies of the SDP and not too fond of Chiam approach, I would still vote for Chiam in the grand scheme, if he was not pitted against the SDP.
The point about mindset change is at the end of the day it has to come from the electorate (i.e. those who feel strongly about the PAP) themselves to see past the propaganda. Remember the saying, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
@Tan: I don't think you're a hypocrite. The SDP and Chiam's approaches have been different since the split, and I don't see why you should not vote the way you do. You have voted for the opposition, and that is more than what others have done. Active participation can take many forms, and voting is just one of them.
I believe that we all have a part to play when it comes to changing minds. The propaganda machine is strong, but we owe it to each other to dispel the fancy stories and help each other see what is happening. That's why there are so many blogs out there, just begging to be read. If you are so inclined, this is one way you can help: find an article you think should be read but not reported in the mainstream media, and hand it to ten of your friends. Tell them to pass it to ten of their friends.
Tweak the number to be something you're comfortable with. That is active participation, and it works more often than you think.
@Callen on your point:
- A common electoral and governance strategy, while not sacrificing the individual goals of the parties;
- A common human resource pool to tap candidates for election, reaching farther and wider than the nets of individual parties.
- Raising the size and prestige of the opposition as a whole, forcing the PAP to recognise their competition.
Respectfully, to me these are wonderful points but at the end of the day, the job of hammering out a "common" electorate pact maybe more pain than it is worth. As I said before, which you may totally disagree, this notion of common presumed -- as I see it I am not saying that it is your presumption -- that the electorate themselves are necessarily agreed on one single agenda. Consider even a notional common goal of having PAP voted out (which is safe to say is what all opposition parties want), is that what all electorate really wants?
Chances are you are going to get a range of respond to that goal. Some of the electorate will find that goal appealing some will not. If the electorate are force into a one-size fit all scenario don't you think it will be even more confusing?
For example, I won't mind seeing SDP members get voted in, others would take issue with that. How do you formulate a common goal.
On you point about a common human resource pool. Yes, question who is going to do the picking? Is it going to be done a single authority or done by inter-party election?
Raising the size and prestige, as I goal, it is a no brainer. Question is HOW can that be done?