<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - 2-Party System & Talent: The Hard Truths</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Roboxxx <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Apr-7 12:03 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 6) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>47311.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD id=msgtxt_1 class=msgtxt>This is my deconstruction of Lee Hsien Loong's recent statement that Singapore does not have enough talent to afford a two-party system.
A. Is It Really About Talent Or The Lack Of It?
If it is true that there is lack of political talent in Singapore today, then it only vindicates JB Jeyaratnam in death more than it did in life: “Lee Kuan Yew is like a banyan tree under which nothing will grow”?[Emphasis added]
This then becomes a severe indictment on no one else but the PAP for deliberately inhibiting political talent in all the actions that they have taken in the past to ensure this outcome. Talent cannot be nurtured in an environment with as vast an array of strictures as there are in the PAP's Singapore. And neither can talent be nurtured when the management quality, culture, style, and practises – all accruing to the PAP since we are really talking about talent development in politics with the PAP as the management of it – is inimical to talent development.
However, I personally don't believe that Lee Hsien Loong actually believes that this is a situation that Singapore will be faced with forever, hence the justification for the permanent entrenchment of one-party rule. On the contrary, I believe that Lee Hsien Loong and the rest of the PAP are witnessing what we in the opposition are: there is political talent in Singapore and there can be more of it, but they are being drawn to the opposition parties in numbers larger than ever before.
This then leads to my other observations:
1. that the PAP continues to insist on a narrow definition of what constitutes talent; political talent as defined by the PAP excludes real political talent if their thinking is not in line with the PAP’s; and,
2. that this is only a cry of despair on the part of the PAP because we are now also witnessing the reversal of the effects of the PAP’s past and continuing actions: we are still not giving due recognition to a brand new phenomenon in Singapore politics, the internet-spawned politician, almost wholly opposition ones. Needless to say, the internet with its inherent openess has been instrumental in this development.
We need instead to see Lee Hsien Loong’s statements for what it is: yet another insidious plot by the PAP to mislead Singaporeans about where there might be any concentration of true political talent really so that as a result, Singaporeans would vote the PAP back as the ‘home’ of true political talent in Singapore.
It's yet another PAP plot to cement one party rule in perpetuity.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Roboxxx <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Apr-7 12:04 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (2 of 6) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>47311.2 in reply to 47311.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD id=msgtxt_2 class=msgtxt>(...cont)
B. So What Was The PAP's "No Two-Party" Bit About Then?
The above, which I believe to be a description of the current realities, would pose a serious problem for the PAP’s own survival: if the opposition parties become increasingly staffed by talented politicians, they would then be able to attract more voters to their side. It is this fear that I believe that could have prompted the PAP to consider splitting into two parties; it’s a desperate bid to stem the flow of votes to the opposition parties by deluding Singaporeans that the split PAP are really two seperate entities.
Why then would the PAP have abandoned such a brilliant idea if it could have turned out to be successful strategy to ensure their perpetual rule and financial enrichment?
The answer is an easy one: this is not such a brilliant idea after all.
If the PAP did split, say into PAP(1) and PAP(2), I would assume that they would then proceed to compete with each other. But that would place both PAPs in an even riskier position because of that all important voter demographic called the Hard Core Opposition Voter estimated at 30% of the population, who would be very likely to see through this PAP conjob: they would be able to see that PAP(1) and PAP(2) are really cut from the same PAP cloth and voting for one or the other is a return to PAP rule either way. (It’s similar to what I think voting for the WP would result in.)
It gets worse.
If PAP(1) and PAP(2) were to contest in a ward against each other, we can also be sure that so will the existing opposition parties who can confidently continue banking on their minimum 30% Hard Core Opposition Voters; the remaining maximum of 70% of what used to be the PAP vote will then be split between PAP(1) and PAP(2). In exceptionally difficult elections years for the PAP, whether PAP(1) or PAP(2) since they are really expected to be one and the same thing, this would turn out to be even more advantageous to the opposition party contesting in the same ward as PAP(1) and PAP(2) because of the likely vote swing towards that opposition party.
Many observers are pointing to the current elections as one such exceptionally difficult year for the PAP.
Indeed it would not be far fetched to claim that, if what is currently an opposition party contests in a ward against a PAP(1) and PAP(@) candidate in an exceptionally difficult year for the PAPs, it can very likely win the ward even with a minority 40% vote share! We would be closer to achieving a level playing field for the opposition parties than ever before, except that a level playing field is a notion that is supremely distasteful to the PAP.
I’m pretty sure that the PAP has already made all these calculations and that’s why they have abandoned the idea. However, it is important to reiterate that they did not abandon the idea because Singapore has a lack of talent but because they are witnessing only the opposite phenomenon taking place.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A. Is It Really About Talent Or The Lack Of It?
If it is true that there is lack of political talent in Singapore today, then it only vindicates JB Jeyaratnam in death more than it did in life: “Lee Kuan Yew is like a banyan tree under which nothing will grow”?[Emphasis added]
This then becomes a severe indictment on no one else but the PAP for deliberately inhibiting political talent in all the actions that they have taken in the past to ensure this outcome. Talent cannot be nurtured in an environment with as vast an array of strictures as there are in the PAP's Singapore. And neither can talent be nurtured when the management quality, culture, style, and practises – all accruing to the PAP since we are really talking about talent development in politics with the PAP as the management of it – is inimical to talent development.
However, I personally don't believe that Lee Hsien Loong actually believes that this is a situation that Singapore will be faced with forever, hence the justification for the permanent entrenchment of one-party rule. On the contrary, I believe that Lee Hsien Loong and the rest of the PAP are witnessing what we in the opposition are: there is political talent in Singapore and there can be more of it, but they are being drawn to the opposition parties in numbers larger than ever before.
This then leads to my other observations:
1. that the PAP continues to insist on a narrow definition of what constitutes talent; political talent as defined by the PAP excludes real political talent if their thinking is not in line with the PAP’s; and,
2. that this is only a cry of despair on the part of the PAP because we are now also witnessing the reversal of the effects of the PAP’s past and continuing actions: we are still not giving due recognition to a brand new phenomenon in Singapore politics, the internet-spawned politician, almost wholly opposition ones. Needless to say, the internet with its inherent openess has been instrumental in this development.
We need instead to see Lee Hsien Loong’s statements for what it is: yet another insidious plot by the PAP to mislead Singaporeans about where there might be any concentration of true political talent really so that as a result, Singaporeans would vote the PAP back as the ‘home’ of true political talent in Singapore.
It's yet another PAP plot to cement one party rule in perpetuity.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Roboxxx <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Apr-7 12:04 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (2 of 6) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>47311.2 in reply to 47311.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD id=msgtxt_2 class=msgtxt>(...cont)
B. So What Was The PAP's "No Two-Party" Bit About Then?
The above, which I believe to be a description of the current realities, would pose a serious problem for the PAP’s own survival: if the opposition parties become increasingly staffed by talented politicians, they would then be able to attract more voters to their side. It is this fear that I believe that could have prompted the PAP to consider splitting into two parties; it’s a desperate bid to stem the flow of votes to the opposition parties by deluding Singaporeans that the split PAP are really two seperate entities.
Why then would the PAP have abandoned such a brilliant idea if it could have turned out to be successful strategy to ensure their perpetual rule and financial enrichment?
The answer is an easy one: this is not such a brilliant idea after all.
If the PAP did split, say into PAP(1) and PAP(2), I would assume that they would then proceed to compete with each other. But that would place both PAPs in an even riskier position because of that all important voter demographic called the Hard Core Opposition Voter estimated at 30% of the population, who would be very likely to see through this PAP conjob: they would be able to see that PAP(1) and PAP(2) are really cut from the same PAP cloth and voting for one or the other is a return to PAP rule either way. (It’s similar to what I think voting for the WP would result in.)
It gets worse.
If PAP(1) and PAP(2) were to contest in a ward against each other, we can also be sure that so will the existing opposition parties who can confidently continue banking on their minimum 30% Hard Core Opposition Voters; the remaining maximum of 70% of what used to be the PAP vote will then be split between PAP(1) and PAP(2). In exceptionally difficult elections years for the PAP, whether PAP(1) or PAP(2) since they are really expected to be one and the same thing, this would turn out to be even more advantageous to the opposition party contesting in the same ward as PAP(1) and PAP(2) because of the likely vote swing towards that opposition party.
Many observers are pointing to the current elections as one such exceptionally difficult year for the PAP.
Indeed it would not be far fetched to claim that, if what is currently an opposition party contests in a ward against a PAP(1) and PAP(@) candidate in an exceptionally difficult year for the PAPs, it can very likely win the ward even with a minority 40% vote share! We would be closer to achieving a level playing field for the opposition parties than ever before, except that a level playing field is a notion that is supremely distasteful to the PAP.
I’m pretty sure that the PAP has already made all these calculations and that’s why they have abandoned the idea. However, it is important to reiterate that they did not abandon the idea because Singapore has a lack of talent but because they are witnessing only the opposite phenomenon taking place.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
