All opposition leaders turn up to support SDP event except WP

[kakowi]

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

But the question is: is there some form of expression that will engender more public confidence that can translate into votes?

If there is no likelihood of such a possibility, then truly it should be abandoned.

But if there is, then by definition - not to pursue it is not to attain more votes.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Kawoki

From that basic difference stems all forms of political disagreements, viewpoints, arguments about whose a "true" opposition or not. The least common dennominator was created by CST when he managed to stop three cornered fights amongst differing opposition camps. Jufrie however who sits strongly within the SDP camp has publicly called for a three cornered fight in Hougang and PP so that a "true" opposition can emerge.

If going to jail could win votes above the 20% given to any opposition who stands in any constituency as long as he breathes, then the SDP would have been miles ahead and LTK SL and all those at the SDP event would be fighting to get themselves thrown into jail.

Perhaps in some form, that can be agreement about the goals but disagreement about the means to achieve those goals and support can be shown for those goals whilst distancing oneself from support for the means as advocated by some people.

However that is a very fine line to divide. Can u really attend an SDP event support the goal but not support how SDP defines as it means of achieving its goal ? Will your attendence at an SDP event be taken as a support for both ? As an example the petition and event organized by the SDP against the Burmese gov was excellent but that was also whether deliberately or not conflated with a campaign against the SG GOV.



Locke

 

[Perspective]

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.

Specifics are indeed needed, bro. I have this personally-invented saying that goes: "Any idea is always a good idea because it comes only from the mouth". Unless one is incapable of speaking, ideas are free flow.

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.

I would gladly like to see you or some "great opposition saviour" work this out. Similarly, Singaporeans have been waiting for some "Mr Charisma" for the last 40 years. I would think even a second Lee Kuan Yew would not necessarily fare better as an opposition under a PAP established by the first LKY, compared to CST or LTK.

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?"

I would rather think that after 40 years, everyone in Singapore needs to look at this issue, not just those willing to join what is called "opposition". Over 40 years there has been more than 500 opposition candidates. Are not even 10% of them talents? And the PAP, all of them have won without brick, sometimes without good strategies. Are all of them talents?

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

With due respect bro, I don't see the need for me to look through my previous posts and copy-and-paste in response to this.

The SDP had made a good start.

With no offence to the SDP, SDP's "start" wasn't really a "start". Opposition parties have invited one another to their activities for the same 40 years that you have pointed out. More recent was the RP's and the WP's dinners and even then there were pioneers before them.

 

[leetahbar]

anything thing that SDP did or going to do usually hides the motive to bring down our gov, embarrass the country and mislead about the real cause

for that, many already can see clearly. hence with the kind of image imprinted, peasants are always doubtful about their real intended action. it appears like for the peasants but then again on close examination, it hides a mischief.

like the recent ny eve celebration. chee's intention was to FIX SINGAPORE and not really to FREE SINGAPORE. he was hoping the event to be disrupted. disappointingly to him, nothing of that sort happened. if not, it would be misled and splashed all over the foreign medias to give enhanced deluded publicity.

intention: TO FIX SINGAPORE.

 

[Perspective]

Jufrie however who sits strongly within the SDP camp has publicly called for a three cornered fight in Hougang and PP so that a "true" opposition can emerge.

Is that true? Sounds like a "Harbans Singh" in the making. I expected better from a man who was in one election a "lightning rod", the same "tasted" by Francis Seow, Tang LH, Ho JT and J Gomez.

The issue is, sending another opposition candidate to opposition wards wouldn't bring about any "true opposition" but a 100% PAP Parliament. Any person with sense would know this, especially a politician who has stood for a number of elections and I suspect observed many others.

 

[kakowi]

Specifics are indeed needed, bro. I have this personally-invented saying that goes: "Any idea is always a good idea because it comes only from the mouth". Unless one is incapable of speaking, ideas are free flow.

The value of an idea is the direction it brings. If the direction is worth going for, then go for it.

Details and specifics are needed only if you feel the direction is worth going for.

But if you need a full blue-print to be placed before you, then you need an insider which i am not.



I would gladly like to see you or some "great opposition saviour" work this out. Similarly, Singaporeans have been waiting for some "Mr Charisma" for the last 40 years. I would think even a second Lee Kuan Yew would not necessarily fare better as an opposition under a PAP established by the first LKY, compared to CST or LTK.

There is no need for sarcasm here.

What is needed is an analysis of whether the direction of unity is one which is worth pursuing.

My belief is that it is.

If you are a practitioner and you feel that it is not feasible and your feelings are echoed by others in the same field, then there is nothing more to be said.

I would rather think that after 40 years, everyone in Singapore needs to look at this issue, not just those willing to join what is called "opposition". Over 40 years there has been more than 500 opposition candidates. Are not even 10% of them talents? And the PAP, all of them have won without brick, sometimes without good strategies. Are all of them talents?

This point by you still does not invalidate the question: Where has your best practices gotten you after 40 years of experience and 17 years in Parliament?

And if you feel that unity is not the answer to more effectiveness, then find a good answer unless you want to continue in the same level for the next 40 years.

With due respect bro, I don't see the need for me to look through my previous posts and copy-and-paste in response to this.

There is no need for you to repost. This question of mine still remains - will it be effective?

With no offence to the SDP, SDP's "start" wasn't really a "start". Opposition parties have invited one another to their activities for the same 40 years that you have pointed out. More recent was the RP's and the WP's dinners and even then there were pioneers before them.

Well, if SDP is a continuation of a start made by someone else, then this is a good continuation.

This is not an issue of one-upmanship - whether SDP started first or others.

Rather, this is an issue of something which i feel is a good move in a good direction and which i feel, is worthy of encouragement.

My replies in blue.

 

[kakowi]

Dear Kawoki

From that basic difference stems all forms of political disagreements, viewpoints, arguments about whose a "true" opposition or not. The least common dennominator was created by CST when he managed to stop three cornered fights amongst differing opposition camps. Jufrie however who sits strongly within the SDP camp has publicly called for a three cornered fight in Hougang and PP so that a "true" opposition can emerge.

If going to jail could win votes above the 20% given to any opposition who stands in any constituency as long as he breathes, then the SDP would have been miles ahead and LTK SL and all those at the SDP event would be fighting to get themselves thrown into jail.

Perhaps in some form, that can be agreement about the goals but disagreement about the means to achieve those goals and support can be shown for those goals whilst distancing itself from support for the means as advocated by some people.

However that is a very fine line to divide. Can u really attend an SDP event support the goal but not support how SDP defines as it means of achieving its goal ? Will your attendence at an SDP event be taken as a support for both ? As an example the petition and event organized by the SDP against the Burmese gov was excellent but that was also whether deliberately or not conflated with a campaign against the SG GOV.



Locke

Dear Locke,

The points highlighted in your post made me pause for thought.

"That ideological divide will not permit a unity in tactics and strategy."

Those are reasonable points.

 

[Perspective]

The value of an idea is the direction it brings. If the direction is worth going for, then go for it.
Details and specifics are needed only if you feel the direction is worth going for.
But if you need a full blue-print to be placed before you, then you need an insider which i am not.

I do recall there have been several such moves already. My issue is that the direction will be moot when the details are not ironed out. Chiam once said of the NSP-SPP merger that "the details are troublesome". I believe Lockeliberal wrote well. Your issue may be something else.

There is no need for sarcasm here.
What is needed is an analysis of whether the direction of unity is one which is worth pursuing.
My belief is that it is.

Bro, apologies. It was not meant to be sarcastic. Who knows if you indeed have a solution for the "fragmented" opposition and unite them when you do join the opposition some day. For me, I trust that the opposition leaders are few of the most intelligent people in Singapore and my own views is as such.

This point by you still does not invalidate the question: Where has your best practices gotten you after 40 years of experience and 17 years in Parliament?

No, I think I invalidated the question, although you are free to think otherwise. After 40 years, the problem is bigger than the opposition. That is my view. You are free to view it in other ways.

And if you feel that unity is not the answer to more effectiveness, then find a good answer unless you want to continue in the same level for the next 40 years.

No, I do not think there is evidence that the opposition's present circumstances is due to not going into "unity". That is how I see it.

Well, if SDP is a continuation of a start made by someone else, then this is a good continuation.

Exactly my point. If it is merely a continuation from 40 years ago, why is it that the opposition is still at the present stage? To me, 40 years is not needed to unite, or it would have succeeded. The issue is whether the type of unity is realistic.

 

[kakowi]

I stand corrected.

I had been thinking through Locke's post for a very long while and the different permutations i came up with are not able to:

(1) cross the ideological divide

(2) or it can, but in my opinion, not effective enough to garner the extra 6% of votes from the neutral voters OR the benefits are uncertain in relation to the effort needed to make it work.

​

 

[PAPsupporter]

I think the WP do not buy the ideas of the SDP.

 

[guavatree]

anything thing that SDP did or going to do usually hides the motive to bring down our gov, embarrass the country and mislead about the real cause: TO FIX SINGAPORE.

pondan Bob Sim PAP dog who would buy your fucking twisted logic?

PAP dogs have been and are still FIXING SINGAPORE!

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Insightful pov Bro.

To me the answer is "grey", nothing is fixed in stone because at the end of the day all opposition are 'fighting' a single common 'enemy' which is PAP.

I have come to the conclusion that thus far Dr Chee and SDP serve a purpose just like the other opposition parties and ngos. As to what effect remains to be seen.

Everyone should just keep their eye on the 'prize'.

Perhaps in some form, that can be agreement about the goals but disagreement about the means to achieve those goals and support can be shown for those goals whilst distancing oneself from support for the means as advocated by some people.

However that is a very fine line to divide. Can u really attend an SDP event support the goal but not support how SDP defines as it means of achieving its goal ? Will your attendence at an SDP event be taken as a support for both ? As an example the petition and event organized by the SDP against the Burmese gov was excellent but that was also whether deliberately or not conflated with a campaign against the SG GOV.



Locke

 

[Avantas]

Dear Kakowi,

Have you ever wondered that this "ideological divide" may be a ruse employed by the PAP to weaken and divide the opposition between the PAP-approved opposition those which are "radical" and deserves to be fixed ?

This "moderate opposition" crap is the biggest stumbling block to the progress of democracy in Singapore.

Many Singaporeans are misled by the state media to view PAP moles like Low Thia Kiang in a favorable light when all he does is to make a few wayang statements in Parliament.

BTW, please take Lockeliberal's words with a pinch of salt. He is well-known for sprouting outright LIES to sow discord within the opposition. For example, he once spread rumors in the old SBF that SDP members thought Chia Ti Lik was a PAP mole planted in their party. Obviously it turns out to be false. In another instance, he alleged another forumer to be a Mohd Firdaus of WP, openly spilling out his personal details in a public forum. Lockeliberal has also spilled the contents of private emails sent to him by two forumers which led to them being flamed.

Be careful when you talk to him and Darkcloud aka Andrew Loh. Never exchange any emails with them and never never reveal your identity in real life.

Dear Locke,

The points highlighted in your post made me pause for thought.

"That ideological divide will not permit a unity in tactics and strategy."

Those are reasonable points.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

That is not really true. ST's latest commentary suggests that WP have gone all silent of late which does not appear to be a glowing endorsement.

Btw are you also Monkey Loh?

Many Singaporeans are misled by the state media to view PAP moles like Low Thia Kiang in a favorable light when all he does is to make a few wayang statements in Parliament.

Be careful when you talk to him and Darkcloud aka Andrew Loh. Never exchange any emails with them and never never reveal your identity in real life.

 

[Perspective]

I stand corrected.

I had been thinking through Locke's post for a very long while and the different permutations i came up with are not able to:

(1) cross the ideological divide

(2) or it can, but in my opinion, not effective enough to garner the extra 6% of votes from the neutral voters OR the benefits are uncertain in relation to the effort needed to make it work.

​

No worries, bro, we agree to disagree and thanks for the discussion.

 

[zhihau]

No worries, bro, we agree to disagree and thanks for the discussion.

good grief... i thought things would be simple. avoid 3 cornered fights and make sure the incumbent doesn't get the 2/3 majority!

 

[DannyBoyBoy]

SDP under the wayang chee party = Sure Die Party

 

[mustpaycashhhh]

Dear Kakowi,

Chia Ti Lik was a PAP mole planted in their party. Obviously it turns out to be false.

.

Ahhhaha, you no say Chia Ti Lik name I no remember him, now I remember. You got know right? Chia Ti Lik is opposition lawyer got office in Nehson Building, he got one customer go to him scarly he and the customer wife got go to bed right? You also know that woman right? her name Jaslyn Go remember? Heheh you know the story right? Nowaday Chia Ti Lik and Jaslyn Go very close together everytime go demonstration together with SDP one. They no good lah this type no moral type. You sarport them hah? Like that you oso no moral no standard one lah. All of you one kind of stupid no moral people still want to talk opposition for fuck? Tok cock alot lah you.

 

[Perspective]

good grief... i thought things would be simple. avoid 3 cornered fights and make sure the incumbent doesn't get the 2/3 majority!

To me, it is. And for me, that is good enough. Others have various other viewpoints.

 

[samurai1110]

How come 'Slipper Man' not invited? Oso that Ling fella. Chiam See Tong?