Got a feeling it's the former :o:o:o
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Netizens should focus on the 1990s, not the 1960s
- Thread starter PoliticalDialogue
- Start date
Got a feeling it's the former :o:o:o
A possible split in the PAP, which has been mentioned a few times by other people, seems quite unlikely to me. Because Tan Cheng Bock said some PAP grassroot people indicated that they had supported him during the presidential election, others think that a split in the PAP is a real possibility. In the power dynamics, PAP grassroot activists are unimportant and irrelevant. The attitude of the grassroots is not central to what happens within the PAP. The structure within the party that either shows unity or fissures is the CEC and the mass of cadres. Members who have been inducted as cadres have been done so for their political loyalty more than anything else. Thus far, no-one has been able to point to any ordinary cadres, let alone CEC members, who have said or written anything that is a divergence from the party line. If, however, a significant number of seats are won by WP at the next GE, then it is likely a major debate will occur within the PAP and this could include the possibility of alternative leadership.
Actually, most one-party regimes do not transit to multi-party culture by splits.
In Japan, LDP's dominance was reduced by DPJ which was not a split from LDP.
In India, Congress's dominance was reduced by BJP which was not a split from Congress.
In Malaysia, BN's dominance was reduced by Pakatan which was not a split from BN except maybe a small part. PKR took in many members from UMNO and MCA.
In Cambodia, Funcinpec's dominance was reduced by CPP which became dominant and was reduced by CNRP, all which were not splits.
In fact, most splits of the major party did not succeed.
In Singapore, Barisan split from PAP but did not manage to unseat it.
In Malaysia, S46 split from UMNO but did not manage to unseat it.
In Japan, Japan Renewal Party split from LDP but did not manage to unseat it.
It is very difficult to see any split within the PAP or even the emergence of a splinter group (which really is the same thing). It is unfortunate that Dr Tan Cheng Bock (whom I respect) made the mistake of mentioning just after the Aug 2011 PE that some PAP grassroots had supported him and not Tony Tan. People automatically saw that as somehow suggesting that there is a split within the PAP. As I mentioned already, grassroots people are really not relevant in the PAP's power dynamics. Only the PAP's CEC and its mass of cadre members count. So far, there isn't even a whisper within those ranks of disagreement with the leadership. This is really telling given that today we have multiple channels -- including social media -- for such whispers to get around.
Also, I think many people missed a very important development since GE2011: loyalists have taken the helm of many Establishment organisations/institutions since GE2011. It is a bit surprising that this development has gone pretty much unnoticed.
Yes but there is no point launching a 50-50 split when you can't unseat the incumbent. Many split factions split for this purpose and tends to become demoralized when they can't do so. Like S46, which started strong but watered down like crazy after 2 elections.
Splits are not possible but you can have splinters. In fact, splinters have occurred. Tan Cheng Bock and his loyalists are one. The Singaporeans First is also one. Although they are very small splinters, no one defines splinters by a certain size.
Say, a split to deny the core group a 2/3 majority?
If you are saying splinter in terms of a couple of Establishment personalities stepping forward and standing as opposition candidates, then, yes, I can see that happening. However, that is unlikely to trouble the PAP; they would view it as simply a pin-prick. It would not constitute a serious threat. On the other hand, if a dozen weighty Establishment personalities stood forward as opposition candidates then that would be an entirely different matter. Although that is possible, I would not rate highly the likelihood of it happening.
Similar threads
