Opposition unity is a madman's notion

[tanwahp]

There may be some, as you say, who use 'unity' in an opportunistic sense, but I believe Tan Jee Say is on the same page as I

He's the worst example to quote because he helped install Tony Tan as president.

There are people in this world who don't say a lot, and there are those who say a lot but don't mean what they say. I don't know about you, but if I have to choose my preference is the first one.

 

[yellowarse]

He's the worst example to quote because he helped install Tony Tan as president.

There are people in this world who don't say a lot, and there are those who say a lot but don't mean what they say. I don't know about you, but if I have to choose my preference is the first one.

Ad hominem. What matters is his whether his ideas, his proposals for opposition unity make sense, whether such a strategy would effect a regime change in the shortest possible time

 

[tanwahp]

Ad hominem. What matters is his whether his ideas, his proposals for opposition unity make sense, whether such a strategy would effect a regime change in the shortest possible time

My remark that he helped TT might have been harsh. But the whole thing goes to show how hard opposition unity is when even one of the two biggest advocates I know (the other being CSJ) has difficulty adhering to it. Putting up a statement that slaps you back in the face shows that Tan Jee Say is merely the scholar type with no EQ.

You are right that ideas matter. But if the person doesn't live up to it and does what is opposite, I will have doubts about whether putting him in power means he may later go against the grain of what I believe in and he himself supposedly claims to believe in.

 

[yellowarse]

My remark that he helped TT might have been harsh.

Not just harsh, but grossly unfair. In the 4-cornered PE fight, if you have to blame someone, blame the weakest candidate, TKL, for cannibalizing anti-TT votes. By garnering 25% of the vote, TJS has shown that he's a worthy competitor. Not a saboteur who would lose his deposit.

That said, I do not think TCB would make a better, more independent president, his being a dyed-in-the wool Pappy and cut from the same mould as TT. He'd make a good ceremonial president though, but so would TT.

That's why I voted for TJS, who I believe is the best man for the job of testing the constitutional limits of the presidency.

 

[yellowarse]

But the whole thing goes to show how hard opposition unity is when even one of the two biggest advocates I know (the other being CSJ) has difficulty adhering to it. Putting up a statement that slaps you back in the face shows that Tan Jee Say is merely the scholar type with no EQ.

TJS is the only politician who has publicly called for an opposition coalition government (not even CSJ has mentioned it):

TJS on Non-PAP Coalition Govt

 

[tanwahp]

Not just harsh, but grossly unfair. In the 4-cornered PE fight, if you have to blame someone, blame the weakest candidate, TKL, for cannibalizing anti-TT votes. By garnering 25% of the vote, TJS has shown that he's a worthy competitor. Not a saboteur who would lose his deposit.

A third candidate scoring a reasonable percent to have the first candidate winning is even worse. If A gets 45% and B gets 47% and C gets 8%, at least B wins. But if A gets 45% and C gets 20% taking 12% away from B who gets 35%, it is A who wins.

That said, I do not think TCB would make a better, more independent president, his being a dyed-in-the wool Pappy and cut from the same mould as TT. He'd make a good ceremonial president though, but so would TT.

You are contradicting yourself. We have been talking about opposition unity all the while with no regard to what kind of opposition the PAP's challenger was. The PE was the "worst scenario" that can possibly happen in the GE, but in this case your stance seems to have shifted.

 

[yellowarse]

A third candidate scoring a reasonable percent to have the first candidate winning is even worse. If A gets 45% and B gets 47% and C gets 8%, at least B wins. But if A gets 45% and C gets 20% taking 12% away from B who gets 35%, it is A who wins.

Illogical and nonsensical.

TT = 35.19% TCB = 34.85% TJS = 25.04% TKL = 4.91%. Winning margin = 0.34%

Simplistically, staunch PAP vote = 35%. 'Anti-PAP' + moderate PAP = 65%.

1. TKL is seen as the spoiler, because the 4.91% would have come from the 65%. Therefore, if TKL had not stood, that 4.91% would have given TCB victory (which is what WP supporters like yourself wanted) with 39+%. Very few of TKL's votes would have gone to TJS because of a) the bad blood between the TJS and TKL camps; b) ideological differences between TJS's liberal and TKL's centrist views.

2. A candidate who manages to garner 1/4 of popular vote must be seen as a credible and worthy 3rd candidate. The 25% justified TJS as a serious candidate, quite respectable in a 4CF. On the other hand, a guy who comes in, scores less than 5%, loses his deposit, would naturally been seen as the spoiler because a) no one in his right mind will consider him a worthy candidate; b) his 5% made all the difference to the victory margin of only 0.34%.

You are contradicting yourself. We have been talking about opposition unity all the while with no regard to what kind of opposition the PAP's challenger was. The PE was the "worst scenario" that can possibly happen in the GE, but in this case your stance seems to have shifted.

Again, your elementary comprehension skills are found lacking. We are talking about opposition unity here, yes. But the PE was not the scenario we are talking about because BOTH TCB and TT are PAP men. I only see TJS and TKL as representative of the opposition camp.

In fact, I would say that if TCB hadn't taken part, TJS would have won, and TKL would have kept his deposit: a very good outcome for true oppo supporters like myself. In this respect TCB could be considered the spoiler for oppo hopes - but I wouldn't say that because he's proved himself worthy with 35%, just like TJS has proved himself worthy with 25%.

Truth be told, the backing for TCB from WP supporters has again set staunch oppositionists talking about where WP's loyalties really lie - with the opposition or the PAP.

 

[tanwahp]

Illogical and nonsensical.

TT = 35.19% TCB = 34.85% TJS = 25.04% TKL = 4.91%. Winning margin = 0.34%

Simplistically, staunch PAP vote = 35%. 'Anti-PAP' + moderate PAP = 65%.

1. TKL is seen as the spoiler, because the 4.91% would have come from the 65%. Therefore, if TKL had not stood, that 4.91% would have given TCB victory (which is what WP supporters like yourself wanted) with 39+%. Very few of TKL's votes would have gone to TJS because of a) the bad blood between the TJS and TKL camps; b) ideological differences between TJS's liberal and TKL's centrist views.

2. A candidate who manages to garner 1/4 of popular vote must be seen as a credible and worthy 3rd candidate. The 25% justified TJS as a serious candidate, quite respectable in a 4CF. On the other hand, a guy who comes in, scores less than 5%, loses his deposit, would naturally been seen as the spoiler because a) no one in his right mind will consider him a worthy candidate; b) his 5% made all the difference to the victory margin of only 0.34%.

You seem to have avoided the scenario of TJS not contesting. His 25% of the votes will only go to TCB and TKL, not just TKL alone and definitely not TT. Because TJS votes was 25% and as you said "respectable", and TCB needed only 1% to defeat TT, all TCB needed was just to get about 5% of TJS votes. So it cannot be said that TJS did not help pull votes away from TJS.

On the other hand if TCB did not contest, TCB's votes will mostly go to TT and some may go to TJS. But TT had 35% and TJS had 25%, a 10% difference. Even if TJS could get half of what TCB had, he will still not win.

Again, your elementary comprehension skills are found lacking. We are talking about opposition unity here, yes. But the PE was not the scenario we are talking about because BOTH TCB and TT are PAP men. I only see TJS and TKL as representative of the opposition camp.

No need for me to comprehend or rebut anything, I was pointing out that your sentence #56X and #83X don't match. You also think WP is a PAP's opposition and that doesn't stop you from thinking that opposition unity should include WP. Yet when TCB will clearly score better than TJS, you support TJS joining the fray.

In fact you proved me right by following up with the following statement.

Truth be told, the backing for TCB from WP supporters has again set staunch oppositionists talking about where WP's loyalties really lie - with the opposition or the PAP.

Then why are you interested in SDP uniting with WP. SDP should stay far from WP in that case.

 

[yellowarse]

You seem to have avoided the scenario of TJS not contesting. His 25% of the votes will only go to TCB and TKL, not just TKL alone and definitely not TT. Because TJS votes was 25% and as you said "respectable", and TCB needed only 1% to defeat TT, all TCB needed was just to get about 5% of TJS votes. So it cannot be said that TJS did not help pull votes away from TJS.

On the other hand if TCB did not contest, TCB's votes will mostly go to TT and some may go to TJS. But TT had 35% and TJS had 25%, a 10% difference. Even if TJS could get half of what TCB had, he will still not win.

Fallacious argument. No one knows what the percentages will be like BEFORE the PE. So all analyses are on hindsight POST-election.

On hindsight, we know that TCB needed 0.34% to win. Where should it come from? The weakest opponent! Show the election results to any independent observer, and ask him: who's the most unworthy candidate? who should have withdrawn?

Any neutral observer will say that the poorest performer, the one who lost his deposit, should have pulled out.

IF: the margin between TT and TCB is 30% (TT 35%, TCB 5%, TJS 25%, TKL 5%), then you may argue that TJS and TKL (combined 30%) should have made way for TCB. But in this case one could also argue that TCB and TKL (combined 10%) should have made way for TJS.

Can you see now? The blame for being a spoiler, especially in a narrowly fought battle, always falls on the weakest, least credible contestant. If you can't even grasp this simple fact, there's no point arguing anymore. I have an easier time with the village idiots in this forum.

You also think WP is a PAP's opposition and that doesn't stop you from thinking that opposition unity should include WP.

You misunderstand me. This is my stand:

1. If the WP should deign to be part of an opposition alliance, I'll fully support it because it shows WP's commitment to the oppo cause.

2. If the WP chooses to go it alone, or worse, form a coalition with the PAP in a hung election, then I'll consider WP's loyalty to the opposition cause suspect and, in the latter case, even a fake opposition.

Yet when TCB will clearly score better than TJS, you support TJS joining the fray.

I didn't know how well TCB or TJS would do prior to polling day. My analysis is POST-MORTEM. Seeing that TJS had 25% and TKL had 5%, it's obvious to even the densest fool that TKL's 5% would amply compensate for TCB's 0.34% defeat margin. Plus a guy who loses his deposit does not deserve to stand in the first place. ON HINDSIGHT.

Then why are you interested in SDP uniting with WP. SDP should stay far from WP in that case.

I'm interested in ALL oppo parties combining to overthrow the regime, not just SDP and WP. But if a particular party chooses not to cooperate with the rest, I think it's fair that people question its commitment to the opposition cause. You can't even understand this simple logic?

BTW, nobody, not even TCB's supporters, considers TCB an opposition figure. They see him as a PAP establishment figure, but the lesser of two evils in the choice between TCB and TT. On hindsight, PE2011 was a fight between a conservative and a moderate PAP candidate, not between the PAP and the opposition.

So to use the PE as an allegory for opposition coalition politics is plain wrong.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

"If you don't give way to us, that means you are forcing a 3-corner fight, that means you don't believe in opposition unity, that means you are a PAP dog"

You just took the words right out of Goh Meng Seng's mouth.

 

[wwabbit]

"Opposition Unity" the way you want it is simply not going to happen. It has been tried before and it has failed. It is really not as simple as what you think, just saying "let's unite together" and you have "opposition unity". The kind of "opposition unit" you speak of requires all the participating parties to agree on a basic framework for policy. The fact that there is so much disagreement between the opposition parties about policy should already make it obvious that this will not be possible.

TJS is naive and an idealist, and to be frank most people here have less kind things to say about him. He underestimates the animosity between the various opposition parties. There are reasons why SPP had to split off from SDP, why SDA rejected RP, why NSP and SPP broke off from SDA, and why WP did not join SDA. He believes that by running for president he can become the figurehead unifying all the opposition parties, but in reality he doesn't have the respect of the various parties - not surprising considering he's really a political newbie.

In any case, "opposition unity" does not win votes. What wins votes is a strong opposition party backing strong opposition candidates that have put in hard work working the ground long before the elections. If the opposition parties want to win more seats in the next couple of GEs, they will need to look into that instead of chasing some "unity" pipe dream.

 

[tanwahp]

Fallacious argument. No one knows what the percentages will be like BEFORE the PE. So all analyses are on hindsight POST-election.

Yes, hindsight analysis is what I am doing, not different from you. Fallacious what?

On hindsight, we know that TCB needed 0.34% to win. Where should it come from? The weakest opponent! Show the election results to any independent observer, and ask him: who's the most unworthy candidate? who should have withdrawn?

Any neutral observer will say that the poorest performer, the one who lost his deposit, should have pulled out.

IF: the margin between TT and TCB is 30% (TT 35%, TCB 5%, TJS 25%, TKL 5%), then you may argue that TJS and TKL (combined 30%) should have made way for TCB. But in this case one could also argue that TCB and TKL (combined 10%) should have made way for TJS.

Can you see now? The blame for being a spoiler, especially in a narrowly fought battle, always falls on the weakest, least credible contestant. If you can't even grasp this simple fact, there's no point arguing anymore. I have an easier time with the village idiots in this forum.

I will put in another way. Even if a small portion of TJS votes went to TCB, TCB will win. TKL only had 5% of the votes. A small portion going to TCB might still not allow TCB to win.

I already said that I am not absolving TKL. He is culpable too in that sense. But at least he wasn't hailed as a believer of opposition unity like TJS.

You misunderstand me. This is my stand:

1. If the WP should deign to be part of an opposition alliance, I'll fully support it because it shows WP's commitment to the oppo cause.

2. If the WP chooses to go it alone, or worse, form a coalition with the PAP in a hung election, then I'll consider WP's loyalty to the opposition cause suspect and, in the latter case, even a fake opposition.

I'm interested in ALL oppo parties combining to overthrow the regime, not just SDP and WP. But if a particular party chooses not to cooperate with the rest, I think it's fair that people question its commitment to the opposition cause. You can't even understand this simple logic?

So that is how SDP's supporters define opposition unity - that others have to cater to the whims of the SDP. It doesn't matter that SDP didn't want to join in when SDA was formed.

Fine, no argument with that.

BTW, nobody, not even TCB's supporters, considers TCB an opposition figure. They see him as a PAP establishment figure, but the lesser of two evils in the choice between TCB and TT. On hindsight, PE2011 was a fight between a conservative and a moderate PAP candidate, not between the PAP and the opposition.

Seriously, what talking you? I hardly heard about anyone seeing TCB as a lesser of two PAPs. He did get the more moderate PAP votes but was also helped by opposition members from NSP. People remember him as an ex-PAP man but not see him as a PAP man at that point in time. TJS and TKL past credentials to the establishment also didn't make TCB too contrasting with them.

So to use the PE as an allegory for opposition coalition politics is plain wrong.

Accepted. Then I go back to my point - a straight fight with PAP is the best, but the people selling the idea are not following it.

 

[yellowarse]

I will put in another way. Even if a small portion of TJS votes went to TCB, TCB will win. TKL only had 5% of the votes. A small portion going to TCB might still not allow TCB to win.

You gotta be kidding. TCB only needs 0.34% more. And where do you think TKL's 5% will go to - TJS? You don't know what happened between TKL and TJS?

You ask a guy with a 25% share to give up his candidacy to secure 0.34% when there's this guy with 5% who's lost his deposit. What a stupid argument!

Just ask anyone: who deserves to be booted out - the guy with 25% or the guy with 5%?

And going by your illogical argument the strongest guy - TT with 35% - should not have entered. Giving up his 35% would ensure one hundred and one percent that TCB won. Why pick on TJS with 25%?

I already said that I am not absolving TKL. He is culpable too in that sense. But at least he wasn't hailed as a believer of opposition unity like TJS.

What has opposition unity got to do with PE2011? Duh ...

So that is how SDP's supporters define opposition unity - that others have to cater to the whims of the SDP. It doesn't matter that SDP didn't want to join in when SDA was formed.

Read TJS's articles on opposition unity and opposition coalition government. Last I heard he wasn't an SDP member. And who said an opposition coalition has to 'cater to the whims of the SDP'? I'm sure SDP would be glad to cede leadership of an opposition alliance to the strongest oppo party - which is WP right now (in terms of parliamentary representation).

Seriously, what talking you? I hardly heard about anyone seeing TCB as a lesser of two PAPs. He did get the more moderate PAP votes but was also helped by opposition members from NSP. People remember him as an ex-PAP man but not see him as a PAP man at that point in time.

In addition to being logically challenged, you're dishonest too. Where did I say TCB is the lesser of the two PAP candidates? I said TT was the conservative; TCB the moderate, but both ARE PAP men. If you really think that TCB is opposition, have your head examined. He was one of the longest-serving PAP MPs in history. Of course he's PAP, through and through.

TJS and TKL past credentials to the establishment also didn't make TCB too contrasting with them.

Rubbish. TJS was a civil servant. He was never a politician, neither was he ever a PAP member.

If being a civil servant makes us PAP dogs, then most of us here would be PAP dogs. All teachers and doctors would be dogs. Even CSJ, having worked in NUS, would be a dog.

TKL was a PAP member, but never a politician.

TCB and TT were both PAP members, as well as politicians and MPs. In addition, TT was in the cabinet.

Go figure.

Accepted. Then I go back to my point - a straight fight with PAP is the best, but the people selling the idea are not following it.

I'll paraphrase: A straight fight between an opposition alliance and the PAP would be the best. A fragmented opposition quarrelling with each other while trying to fight a common enemy (the PAP) is the surest way to lose.

 

[yellowarse]

"Opposition Unity" the way you want it is simply not going to happen. It has been tried before and it has failed. It is really not as simple as what you think, just saying "let's unite together" and you have "opposition unity". The kind of "opposition unit" you speak of requires all the participating parties to agree on a basic framework for policy. The fact that there is so much disagreement between the opposition parties about policy should already make it obvious that this will not be possible.

Opposition unity is not easy. But it is possible, if there's enough political will among the opposition leaders and the willingness to put behind them animosities from the past. And it is an ideal worth aiming for, if regime change within the shortest possible time is the target. To this end, having younger leaders with no past baggage helm these parties will help accelerate the process.

TJS is naive and an idealist, and to be frank most people here have less kind things to say about him.

No doubt about it, TJS is a newbie and an idealist. But therein lies his strength in bringing disparate parties together - the absence of past baggage, his neutrality plus his infectious idealism.

In any case, "opposition unity" does not win votes.

Disagree. A strong opposition alliance with a united policy front and strong ideological thrust distinct from the PAP regime's will give the populace the assurance to vote opposition, whichever constituent party is running, because voters will have faith that should the alliance win, it will have the capability to form the government and run the country.

Right now people want more opposition in parliament as a check, but are afraid to allow the opposition to form the government. They just don't trust any party, not the WP, not SDP, not NSP, not SDA, to govern the country. Also, apart from the SDP and maybe RP, most people do not know what the other parties stand for ideologically, whether they're going to be any different from the PAP. 'Better the devil you know than the angel you don't.'

 

[tanwahp]

You gotta be kidding. TCB only needs 0.34% more. And where do you think TKL's 5% will go to - TJS? You don't know what happened between TKL and TJS?

You ask a guy with a 25% share to give up his candidacy to secure 0.34% when there's this guy with 5% who's lost his deposit. What a stupid argument!

Just ask anyone: who deserves to be booted out - the guy with 25% or the guy with 5%?

And going by your illogical argument the strongest guy - TT with 35% - should not have entered. Giving up his 35% would ensure one hundred and one percent that TCB won. Why pick on TJS with 25%?

TT, TCB or TKL - none of them - spoke about opposition unity. Only TJS did, and that's after he shot himself and not wanting to give way to TKL.

What has opposition unity got to do with PE2011? Duh ...

The principle is to create a straight fight and not split the vote against the candidate most representative of PAP. I believe that was why a significant number of opposition supporters voted TJS?

In addition to being logically challenged, you're dishonest too. Where did I say TCB is the lesser of the two PAP candidates?

Yes, continue your labelling and make SDP supporters look bad. You did outline the perception that TCB is the lesser of the two PAP evils so to speak. I was continuing the discussion from there.

I said TT was the conservative; TCB the moderate, but both ARE PAP men. If you really think that TCB is opposition, have your head examined. He was one of the longest-serving PAP MPs in history. Of course he's PAP, through and through.

That doesn't make the person PAP. Only people in PAP or who speak up for PAP are PAP. TCB joined even later than TKL, who spent 30 years in PAP trying to get a candidacy.

Rubbish. TJS was a civil servant. He was never a politician, neither was he ever a PAP member.

If being a civil servant makes us PAP dogs, then most of us here would be PAP dogs. All teachers and doctors would be dogs. Even CSJ, having worked in NUS, would be a dog.

As Goh CT's private secretary, you think he is lesser in the game than those police chaps that Chee often accuses of taking up cudgels for PAP? Civil servants under the PAP government were hardly portrayed as neutral in SDP's statements. It's odd to hear a SDP supporter say otherwise.

I am not saying that once you are with the establishment in whatever ways, you will always be. On the contrary, the discussion started because you did not feel that TCB broke away from PAP, whereas I did.

TKL was a PAP member, but never a politician. TCB and TT were both PAP members, as well as politicians and MPs. In addition, TT was in the cabinet.

What about Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair? Weren't they holding even higher posts than TCB in PAP/govt? Didn't they break away?

 

[yellowarse]

TT, TCB or TKL - none of them - spoke about opposition unity. Only TJS did, and that's after he shot himself and not wanting to give way to TKL.

Just because TJS wanted opposition unity doesn't mean PE2011 was about opposition unity. In the end it was a fight between 2 PAP candidates. IF TCB had not stood, PE2011 would have been GE2011 Round 2.

The principle is to create a straight fight and not split the vote against the candidate most representative of PAP. I believe that was why a significant number of opposition supporters voted TJS?

Straight fight between who and who? PAP 1 and PAP 2?

True opposition supporters voted TJS. That's all I can say.

You did outline the perception that TCB is the lesser of the two PAP evils so to speak. I was continuing the discussion from there.

Twisting my words again.

I said TCB is the lesser of the two PAP evils - the 'moderate' compared to the 'extremist/conservative'.

I DID NOT say TCB is the lesser of the two candidates - 'lesser' meaning 'inferior'. Get it?

That doesn't make the person PAP. Only people in PAP or who speak up for PAP are PAP. TCB joined even later than TKL, who spent 30 years in PAP trying to get a candidacy.

Sorry, twisted logic. Using length of membership as a criteria for PAP political involvement is nonsensical. In which case TKL is more PAP than the PM, Lee Hsien Loong! For all of TKL's past attempts to get a candidacy, the facts remain: he never stood on a PAP ticket, he was never a PAP politician, he was never involved in PAP policy making or in any form of government.

How PAP is that?

As Goh CT's private secretary, you think he is lesser in the game than those police chaps that Chee often accuses of taking up cudgels for PAP? Civil servants under the PAP government were hardly portrayed as neutral in SDP's statements. It's odd to hear a SDP supporter say otherwise.

Please, get your facts right. PPS is not a political appointment. TJS served a politician, but he was not a politician, neither was the job an indictment of his political affiliation (he could be PAP-leaning, oppo-leaning, or neutral). And all civil servants are NOT allowed to join a political party, for crying out loud.

Yes, STATEMENTS made by civil servants are hardly neutral in Singapore, because they are merely mouthpieces answering to and for a higher power, not because they are inherently PAP supporters. Of course within the service there are dogs as well true oppositionists, but you can't judge them by ghost-written statements.

I am not saying that once you are with the establishment in whatever ways, you will always be. On the contrary, the discussion started because you did not feel that TCB broke away from PAP, whereas I did.

YOu got me wrong. I actually emphasized that working for establishment ≠ PAP dog (TJS worked as PPS, but he wasn't a dog). Lecturers, judges, doctors, civil servants all work in the establishment without compromising their political integrity.

I'm referring to TCB's past as a career PAP politician and MP. If that doesn't qualify him as dyed-in-the-wool PAP stripe, I don't know what does.

TCB did not break away from the PAP, both in name or substance. Show me one fundamental ideological shift of his away from PAP doctrine. He merely had to resign from the party to satisfy eligibility rules for the presidential candidacy. He is PAP, and always will be PAP.

If tomorrow he joins an opposition party and stands in GE2016, I'll eat my words and announce in this forum: TCB has truly renounced his PAP roots!

Promise.

 

[tanwahp]

Just because TJS wanted opposition unity doesn't mean PE2011 was about opposition unity. In the end it was a fight between 2 PAP candidates. IF TCB had not stood, PE2011 would have been GE2011 Round 2.

Yes if it was TT 60% and TJS 40%, I think it will be a result that opposition supporters will be more unhappy with. TCB managed to split PAP votes despite it being a 3CF (excluding TKL). Maybe that's why I believe we need an opposition that can split PAP votes more than opposition unity.

Straight fight between who and who? PAP 1 and PAP 2?

If a constituency had a mock BE with 2 PAP candidates contesting, hard to say how the result would turn out.

Twisting my words again. I said TCB is the lesser of the two PAP evils - the 'moderate' compared to the 'extremist/conservative'. I DID NOT say TCB is the lesser of the two candidates - 'lesser' meaning 'inferior'. Get it?

I used other choices of words doesn't mean I twist your words or did I distort your meaning. Did I say you say TCB was somehow lesser in stature or intelligence where PAP is concerned. Despite using different words, our meaning was always the same. Don't need to fuss over all these small things.

Sorry, twisted logic. Using length of membership as a criteria for PAP political involvement is nonsensical. In which case TKL is more PAP than the PM, Lee Hsien Loong! For all of TKL's past attempts to get a candidacy, the facts remain: he never stood on a PAP ticket, he was never a PAP politician, he was never involved in PAP policy making or in any form of government. How PAP is that?

I'm referring to TCB's past as a career PAP politician and MP. If that doesn't qualify him as dyed-in-the-wool PAP stripe, I don't know what does.

As I said before, Lim Chin Siong and Devan were both PAP MPs. I don't deny their later affiliation.

TCB did not break away from the PAP, both in name or substance. Show me one fundamental ideological shift of his away from PAP doctrine. He merely had to resign from the party to satisfy eligibility rules for the presidential candidacy. He is PAP, and always will be PAP.

The presidential seat has always been important to the PAP and it is naive to think that for altruism purpose, PAP stays away. For TCB to challenge the seat, there has to be deepseated emotions. It is true that he isn't so radical, but we have always defined opposition differently. To you anyone who doesn't end up like JBJ and Chee are not opposition, to me anyone who proves to stand against the PAP through collective actions is suffice.

One fundamental ideological shift? At least I know that during his PAP time, he has always opposed NMP scheme. After he left, he also reversed his stand on the 1987 detentions although I admit he did not go past OB markers to state it strongly.

If tomorrow he joins an opposition party and stands in GE2016, I'll eat my words and announce in this forum: TCB has truly renounced his PAP roots!Promise.

It may be SDP supporters to be like their mothership and set criteria for others as if others owe them their lives or reputation. WP must work with SDP to be seen as non-PAP. TCB must enter the parliamentary fray to be seen as non-PAP. I don't need that and will make my own judgement.

 

[metalmickey]

Well well well it seems like we have a lot of interpretations for what "opposition unity" means.

Like: if we were to take what Tan Jee Say said at face value, then it means having a forum for opposition to discuss ideas. That is not a bad thing at all. But some of his behaviour is suspicious, because he was a member of the SDP for only a few months, and then suddenly thought that he was good enough to run for president. I agree that he more or less jeopardised TCB's chances of being president. I don't know what TCB would have been like as president, possibly we would have been disappointed with him, he is a great waste of tax money, but this is a great chance to see what it is like when somebody from the "other faction" of PAP looks like when given the job. I just feel that this is a wasted opportunity and we could well look back and say this was the last time somebody who is not hardcore PAP got so close to the presidency.

Then the other aspects of opposition unity are the opposition parties not bad-mouthing each other in public, and not getting involved in 3 corner fights. That is pretty much common sense. I remember one election rally where an SDP announcer said that she lived in a constituency where the WP was contesting, and she was going to vote WP. That was a nice touch.

But other than not stepping onto each other's turf constituency wise, there is also not stepping onto each other's turf when it comes to issues. If the SDP wants to focus on national development and health, then maybe the WP could want to focus on - well whatever they want to focus on. It is a lot of hard work being an opposition member of parliament because you have to do all the research yourself. You could pool together resources in order to make statements on certain issues. And on top of that, you have to do walkabouts. That is a lot of hard work: even though you have 6 people in parliament earning $15000 per month, that is not going to feed an army.

But when "opposition unity" is used as an excuse, as Scroobal mentioned, to haggle for other opposition parties to "leave my constituency alone" then we actually have to parse the words carefully, and realise that they are not really talking about opposition unity, but rather opposition disunity. There is this anxiety - quite understandable - that "if I don't emerge as the second party pretty soon, I will perish". Maybe. But sniping at your other opposition parties is not going to improve your situation. It's more likely to damage your prospects. There are people like skpunggol who like nothing better than to snipe at the WP: what the fuck for? Because people like him will enforce the notion that opposition parties only know how to quarrel with each other and not know how to get things done. He doesn't understand that at the end of the day, people are only interested in whether you can get things done, not how true blue anti-PAP you are.

It is not that 2011 was good for a certain opposition parties - it was good for many opposition parties (well not SDA, RP or SPP). For WP, SDP and NSP, I feel that their fates are interlinked. For the moment, they will either rise or fall with the general tide of the opposition parties.

I don't expect all the parties to last. I expect one or more to fold, and I expect that the post-election landscape is of the different opposition parties consolidating their gains, planning for the future, establishing their identity, articulating their points of view. I see that from the SDP. Maybe from the WP and the NSP, but not so much. Unfortunately it seems as though the party which is changing and moving the fastest is the PAP. Not everything they do succeeds, but you can clearly see that things are being done.

What every party should strive for are concrete achievements, good analysis of government policy. Good work on the ground and wooing people. Then even if you are from a defunct party, if you are a star within that party, you can always join another opposition party if the ship goes down. Movement between the parties is permissible, when people find a party which most suits their ideas: now I still don't see much beyond opposition party A / opposition party B / opposition party C.

 

[tanwahp]

Well well well it seems like we have a lot of interpretations for what "opposition unity" means.

A good post.

By the mismatch of his words and actions, TJS not only proves opposition unity is hard to achieve, he also shows his intention to haggle for place. During the Hougang BE, he was one of the 2 (along with NSP) who did not rule out contesting Hougang. Even SDP (which was his former party) was the first to rule it out. To talk about the BE later on is slap to his own face.

Chee's much better in avoiding double standards, but hasn't matched his words with his deeds enough yet.

WP chose not to touch on the subject at all. Although it is unpopular, it is not hypocritical. They probably also know they have to give way the most if they really want to go into unity.

It's quite difficult not to step on one another's issues. In fact I think opposition parties pretty much want all opposition parties to speak up when something happens.

 

[yellowarse]

Well well well it seems like we have a lot of interpretations for what "opposition unity" means.

Generally well reasoned.

The kind of opposition unity that TJS was referring to goes beyond simply holding forums and not encroaching on one another's turf. If it's horse-trading we're talking about, it's something that's been going on every election, driven not by a desire for unity but by selfish interests.

In his other articles and communications he has referred specifically to an alliance modelled after Pakatan Rakyat, and then more. Coming out with a united policy front, shared ideological platform and even a shadow cabinet would assure voters that we have an alliance that could form the govt if it won a majority. It would be a dynamic that would benefit every single constituent party within that alliance in terms of perception which would be translated into popular vote.

Policies and issues could be allocated among the member parties based on specific expertise and strengths. Resources could be pooled for research and the publication of landmark policy papers as well as statements on topical issues. Most importantly an alliance manifesto should be presented to the electorate as a serious alternative to the PAP government.

An alliance is not easy to form, even harder to maintain, but it's worth the effort if we truly want an alternative to 50 years of single party rule. The maths is clear: 44 good men, 44 seats, and the opposition takes over. It is doable.