All opposition leaders turn up to support SDP event except WP

[Monkey Loh]

Andrew Loh is a F**KING HYPOCRITE TWO-faced SNAKE.

He writes one thing, but do another. Go and read the posts by Darkcloud - he is none other than Andrew Loh.

Darkcloud claimed he was at the SDP event and he saw nobody talking to Ng E Jay which is a COMPLETE LIE because I was there with other SDP members and we were chatting the entire night with E Jay.

Andrew Loh has been trying to smear discord within SDP by bad-mouthing E Jay, Ti Lik and Jaslyn Go.

Never trust a single word written by this despicable CAD !

First of all, opposition unity will give a lot of credence to the opposition cause. As to what constitutes unity. Well, that SDP event is a good example of unity.

Second, even if it is a LKY concept, it does not mean that it is without substance. LKY always have substance to his reasonings. To suppose that LKY should restrict the formation of political parties so that the opposition can be united is the epitome of self-delusion.

Third, if opposition unity is only during the GE - who will believe it?

Fourth, the possibility that the SDP did not invite WP. I discounted that possibility after Ramseth clarified to UncleYap that Andrew Loh had resigned from the WP and that he, Ramseth, was there only on a personal capacity. Why should he take pains to clarify these, unless it was WP's official stance not to support that event. This is a reasonable hypothesis until the parties themselves clarify.

Fifth, the supposition that the WP intends to run on its own steam, believing that the political world belongs to itself and the PAP. That is reasonably true for now.

The post above by Andrew Loh is a good one, in my opinion.

 

[Perspective]

First of all, opposition unity will give a lot of credence to the opposition cause. As to what constitutes unity. Well, that SDP event is a good example of unity.

Naturally, if there is only one other party other than the PAP, it will be good. However, I do not think that is possible because it hasn't been possible anywhere else.

There is also the Reform Party dinner where all opposition, including WP and Chiam attended. That may be a sign of unity too. However, some may not take that as a unity. Like I wrote, it depends on one's definition.

Second, even if it is a LKY concept, it does not mean that it is without substance. LKY always have substance to his reasonings. To suppose that LKY should restrict the formation of political parties so that the opposition can be united is the epitome of self-delusion.

I disagree and do not think LKY says things with substance all the time. He has a whole lot of agendas and political games and he does better than many others in terms of misleading statements, especially with regards to the opposition, because he has mastered the art and has the media behind him.

Third, if opposition unity is only during the GE - who will believe it?

Bro, sorry but it kinds of contradict what you wrote above. The SDP event or the Reform Party dinner doesn't even guarantee opposition unity at the polls, much less outside election time.

Fourth, the possibility that the SDP did not invite WP. I discounted that possibility after Ramseth clarified to UncleYap that Andrew Loh had resigned from the WP and that he, Ramseth, was there only on a personal capacity. Why should he take pains to clarify these, unless it was WP's official stance not to support that event. This is a reasonable hypothesis until the parties themselves clarify.

Yes, I do see Ramseth's clarification that he was there in his personal capacity a tad odd but only because he is not a WP leader and there is no need for such clarifications. I do not think any party sends one non-leadership member as a representative. If the WP was invited and attended, I would expect at least a member of the WP CEC to attend. Hence, in my view, the question of whether the WP was invited stands.

Fifth, the supposition that the WP intends to run on its own steam, believing that the political world belongs to itself and the PAP. That is reasonably true for now.

Perhaps so but unless all the parties come into a coalition, the same applies to all parties for now, except those in the SDA.

At the bottom line, I haven't really understood what your own meaning of "opposition unity" is, bro.

 

[kakowi]

(1) What matters is not the person who said it. Rather if the statements make sense. Thus if opposition unity is the greatest threat to the PAP, then it makes sense to find ways to be united rather than to say that the PAP should not allow opposition parties to be formed so easily.

(2) No contraction to my third point above. It was in context to jw5's response.

(3) WP and SDP...sigh

What i desire from the Opposition - a viable platform that gives an alternative to the PAP. This will make the PAP a better government and in time to come - choices for the electorate.

But you do not ask a baby to run.

So, whatever the Opposition comes up with in terms of their own ideas of unity - is okay with me. Especially when it is clear they are making some effort.

Thus, if SDP did this to build a sense of friendship and unity, then i am all for it.

 

[Perspective]

What i desire from the Opposition - a viable platform that gives an alternative to the PAP. This will make the PAP a better government and in time to come - choices for the electorate.

But you do not ask a baby to run.

So, whatever the Opposition comes up with in terms of their own ideas of unity - is okay with me. Especially when it is clear they are making some effort.

Thus, if SDP did this to build a sense of friendship and unity, then i am all for it.

To me, friendship may not mean or lead to electoral unity, although it may be a start and I laud the SDP's efforts in organising such "hip" activities (as I wrote in my earlier post that this may be their new direction in 2009).

As also written, there may be some disagreements between the WP and the SDP, given that the WP was even willing to attend the dinner of its breakaway faction (RP) and former leader who sued them (JBJ).

There has also been no history of cooperation between LTK and CSJ which could have accumulated into a dispute, therefore there may be other reasons not known to the public.

I also recall that the SDP was the only party (other than the PAP) that did not attend the WP's 50th anniversary dinner. Moreover, "mysterious flyers" that appeared at the dinner venue were attributed to the former, a theory which I disagree.

Therefore, I would rather take this as a natural development and hope each party does their best against the PAP, rather than have illusions about some "unity" that doesn't even exist in more democratically developed countries.

 

[Perspective]

(1) What matters is not the person who said it. Rather if the statements make sense. Thus if opposition unity is the greatest threat to the PAP, then it makes sense to find ways to be united rather than to say that the PAP should not allow opposition parties to be formed so easily.

It doesn't make sense to me though.

But again, it depends on what constitutes "unity". Getting all opposition parties to merge into one (despite the fact that there are several ways to oppose the PAP) is against the concept of democracy itself, given that you bind its opposition members from any other ways of opposing the PAP.

 

[kakowi]

It all depends on what you meant by illusion - that of a single party with a single platform emerging against the PAP; or a deep sense of unity and mission amongst different parties to provide an alternative platform against the PAP.

The second is a possibility, if only they want it.

The fact that other world's parties are not able to do so does not mean that there are no success stories whereby parties go beyond their parochial concerns to unify for a common objective.

 

[Perspective]

or a deep sense of unity and mission amongst different parties to provide an alternative platform against the PAP.
The second is a possibility, if only they want it.

Bro, I think we won't be able to tell if there is indeed really a "deep sense of unity and mission". We can only guess, as none of us are "insiders".

Perhaps, for all we don't know, the SDP was coincidentally busy on the day of the WP's dinner, or the WP had their own countdown open to only their members on the same day as the SDP's, and that they have exchanged e-mails to apologise to each other.

We have heard nothing of the disagreements except a few handles in various online forums. Nothing in their websites state that the things expressed by these handles are the stances of the SDP or the WP.

As long as the fewer 3-corner fights, the better. That's my position.

The fact that other world's parties are not able to do so does not mean that there are no success stories whereby parties go beyond their parochial concerns to unify for a common objective.

I did not mean to say that we should not try things that hasn't been tried. Rather, what I am expressing here is that we shouldn't expect more than beyond them on the stake of supporting them or not.

If the WP, SDP, SDA, NSP, RP merges tomorrow, fine. If not, I will continue to support them. To me, that kind of forced merger goes against the grain of democracy itself - and I am not changing my mind about it.

Bottom line is, even if it happens, I doubt their share of votes will go up just like that.

 

[Ramseth]

Perspective,

I hope that you understand what I mean now, when I say that opposition unity is an anti-PAP concept.

 

[Perspective]

Perspective,

I hope that you understand what I mean now, when I say that opposition unity is an anti-PAP concept.

I see. I would put it as both a "anti-PAP" concept as well as a "PAP-invented" theory.

 

[Ramseth]

I don't see any relevance in what the PAP says. Whether opposition unity or approved opposition. If you see it that way, so be it. I simply ignore the PAP.

 

[Perspective]

I don't see any relevance in what the PAP says. Whether opposition unity or approved opposition. If you see it that way, so be it. I simply ignore the PAP.

Yes, I ignore the PAP, which is why I ignore the PAP's "opposition unity".

"Approved opposition"? I do not think that came from the PAP. :p

 

[Ramseth]

Yes, I ignore the PAP, which is why I ignore the PAP's "opposition unity".

"Approved opposition"? I do not think that came from the PAP. :p

The term "approved opposition" was coined by people who failed to ignore the PAP when the PAP mentioned certain opposition as acceptable. Herein lies the contradiction, they vehemently oppose the PAP but they believe the PAP too. Instead of fighting the PAP, they fight against whoever the PAP arrows. Then, whoever the PAP arrows have to defend themselves on multi-fronts and the gap widens, drifting more and more apart from unity.

 

[Perspective]

The term "approved opposition" was coined by people who failed to ignore the PAP when the PAP mentioned certain opposition as acceptable. Herein lies the contradiction, they vehemently oppose the PAP but they believe the PAP too. Instead of fighting the PAP, they fight against whoever the PAP arrows. Then, whoever the PAP arrows have to defend themselves on multi-fronts and the gap widens, drifting more and more apart from unity.

I would say that rings the chords in my heart and mind, bro.

 

[kakowi]

Bro, I think we won't be able to tell if there is indeed really a "deep sense of unity and mission". We can only guess, as none of us are "insiders".

...

If the WP, SDP, SDA, NSP, RP merges tomorrow, fine. If not, I will continue to support them. To me, that kind of forced merger goes against the grain of democracy itself - and I am not changing my mind about it.

Bottom line is, even if it happens, I doubt their share of votes will go up just like that.

This coming GE will be an interesting one for me personally. It will give me an opportunity to examine the degree of unity, arguments and nature of the election process and strategies as defined by the political parties themselves.

...

I think there should not be a rigidity that unity presupposed merger. I had long given up on that concept.

What i had not given up on is the common platform concept - that their distinctive individuality will be downplayed and their common platform made more visible.

For that, they need a common objective.

If they do have that common platform, consistently show by examples to the public, my belief is that it will make a difference to their election results.

Until they can do that and expressed it empirically, all opinions on the effectiveness of a united opposition remained as conjectures.

 

[Perspective]

What i had not given up on is the common platform concept - that their distinctive individuality will be downplayed and their common platform made more visible.

For that, they need a common objective.

If they do have that common platform, consistently show by examples to the public, my belief is that it will make a difference to their election results.

Until they can do that and expressed it empirically, all opinions on the effectiveness of a united opposition remained as conjectures.

Bro, it is easy for us to offer ideas but in terms detailed technicalities, the abstract areas of our ideas will show that even we ourselves will be unable to resolve.

In the first place, even our ideas can be quite abstract. For example, what does it exactly mean by "common platform"?

I am merely venturing a guess but one way is common manifesto. That itself doesn't consider the fact that each party's manifesto are not merely established by each party's leaders but by likely its members as well.

Should CSJ, LTK and CST sit down to come up with a common objective, they would run the risk of consulting their members less than each other. After all, members consider which party to join based on their leader's merits, not likely the entire opposition's.

Common campaigns? The issue would go down to the details on how to set up the rally stages, the posters etc. Attending each other's rallies might sound an attractive idea but each party is already preoccupied with its own modus operandi during the nine days.

Outside the GE, each party has their own beliefs as to how best to build and earn a people-presence. The WP and SDA does "boring" but essential grassroots and outreach nearly every day in the week and bit by bit meet more and more people, who tend to vote for who or what they see or see more often. With their Parliamentary presence, they ask questions to make the PAP look stupid. The SDP goes for "civil disobedience" campaigns, once-in-a-while "big kill and big reap" activities and challenges unfair laws to prove a point and educate the people on the PAP's shortcomings. The NSP appears to take the same direction as the WP and the SDA but without a seat, they focus on press releases and charity blitzes.

None of what they are doing are "right" or "wrong". But it would be hard to reconcile them.

One thing I am sure is, there is a lot ordinary observers are not able to see, even in the PAP.

 

[kakowi]

I see your point.

I deliberately kept the concepts like 'unity' / 'common' etc to a general sense without too much specifics. If specifics are needed, i try to give it as examples so that the logic is clarified.

The reason is that there must first be buy-in to the concept.

And the buy-in for this case is "will it be helpful for them to present a united front?" - to the voters, to themselves and to their brethren in the camp.

If they do, then they are the best people to work out the details - details which, in view of their experience and their understanding of each other's strengths, they know as workable.

Now, in relation to your point: "Outside the GE, each party has their own beliefs as to how best to build and earn a people-presence".

That is equivalent to saying they know best how to approach their own business based on their understanding of the situation. And that is correct. And is not something i want to touch or advise or correct.

What i want to do is to ask this question: "where has your best practices got you, so far - in 40 years of opposition and in 17 years in Parliament?"

And that is why i offer this suggestion: "Unity / Common platform may get you further - why not try it?"

The SDP had made a good start.

Chinese New Year is coming - how about another?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Kawoki

"Opposition Unity" to me as at least sounds like another half baked idea dreamed up by a civil service scholar with no bearing on ground realities. The lowest common denominator between all parties is so low that it is in my view practically meaningless. For example the RP WP SPP NSP SDA SPP etc all believe in the parliamentary route or in getting in, the SDP does not and sees elections only as a means of political education. That is as fundamental gulf as north is to south and whilst many of us will drink coffee, and support the SDP in some form, the fundamental gap between them and all the rest who still believe in parliament is a "bridge to far" for substantive unity.





Locke

 

[techiedick]

1. 
   where is our respected Chiam See Tong, was he there?

so much to say for a traitor party

 

[cass888]

1. 
   where is our respected Chiam See Tong, was he there?

so much to say for a traitor party

The traitor is the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan. Chiam must be mad to attend anything organised by the one who tried to bump him off.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

You have a point there Bro.

However I think perhaps the parliamentary route and extra parliamentary route oppo gangs can meet half way to leverage on each other based on current and future ground realities.

It is perhaps noteworthy that Dr Chee and SDP chose Hong Lim ("PAPs tokenism") to see in the new year

Dear Kawoki

"Opposition Unity" to me as at least sounds like another half baked idea dreamed up by a civil service scholar with no bearing on ground realities. The lowest common denominator between all parties is so low that it is in my view practically meaningless. For example the RP WP SPP NSP SDA SPP etc all believe in the parliamentary route or in getting in, the SDP does not and sees elections only as a means of political education. That is as fundamental gulf as north is to south and whilst many of us will drink coffee, and support the SDP in some form, the fundamental gap between them and all the rest who still believe in parliament is a "bridge to far" for substantive unity.





Locke