Goh Meng Seng's Tampines Journey - Watch this Space

[jw5]

PAP strategy is nothing but make used of personal rapports between the MP and residents to blunt people's hatred for gov's policies. Hence people may still vote for PAP not because they support the party, but due to individual preference for that particular MP.

Thus this is a bottom-up approach i.e working your way up from grassroots level. Oppositions basically adopt the top-down approach, focus more on national issues than kampong issues. To do so you need to have an effective vehicle to carry the message to the masses and we can't depend on Toa Payoh brothel to do so. Choices are limited other than to personally go down to spread the message. But effects are pretty slow and limited. What more is voter's mind can easily be swayed by constant media propaganda bombardments undoing all the hardwork. I even have one friend who originally intended to vote for SDP in Bukit Panjang but change his mind the last minute because his MP promise a swimming pool in the estate.

Whichever party that dictate the issue of the election campaign stand a higher chance of winning. Whether you can convince the voters to look at the bigger pictures or is it municipal issues that dictates voter's decisions.

I am expecting MBT to divert people's attention by focusing on the work he had done for the residents of Tampines in the past and future instead of addressing the issue of his HDB policies.

How often do they give out freebies like shopping and food court vouchers? Does anyone know what criteria they use for giving out? How is this kept track of?

 

[sampierre]

PAP strategy is nothing but make used of personal rapports between the MP and residents to blunt people's hatred for gov's policies. Hence people may still vote for PAP not because they support the party, but due to individual preference for that particular MP.

Thus this is a bottom-up approach i.e working your way up from grassroots level. Oppositions basically adopt the top-down approach, focus more on national issues than kampong issues. To do so you need to have an effective vehicle to carry the message to the masses and we can't depend on Toa Payoh brothel to do so. Choices are limited other than to personally go down to spread the message. But effects are pretty slow and limited. What more is voter's mind can easily be swayed by constant media propaganda bombardments undoing all the hardwork. I even have one friend who originally intended to vote for SDP in Bukit Panjang but change his mind the last minute because his MP promise a swimming pool in the estate.

Whichever party that dictate the issue of the election campaign stand a higher chance of winning. Whether you can convince the voters to look at the bigger pictures or is it municipal issues that dictates voter's decisions.

I am expecting MBT to divert people's attention by focusing on the work he had done for the residents of Tampines in the past and future instead of addressing the issue of his HDB policies.

Good Analysis of the current situation, 3M.

Elephanto,

The year that changed Singapore's political landscape forever has to be 1988, when the Parliamentary elections Act was amended to include Town Councils, GRC system, and the NCMP scheme. In the good old days when MPs are NOT required to run town councils, a charismatic Opposition candidate like Francis Seow could easily swayed thousands of voters to his side with his electrifying rally speeches without the need to do much groundwork.
But nowadays, EVEN IF you have a charismatic Oppostion candidate who can talk like Barack Obama or John Kennedy, you may not even come close to winning if the candidate is NOT prepared to do a lot of work on the ground before the start of the elections . Reason being that residents are wondering whether such an eloquent candidate who appears only during election time could possibly take charge of the town council. You know, the Hokkiens call such people as 'good to see, but no good to eat". Of course, if the Oppostion candidate is both charismatic and very hardworking, I've no doubt such a candidate would beat the stupid Papayas anytime. But so far, none has appeared on the horizon.
THAT'S WHY MY ADVICE TO ALL OPPOSITION CANDIDATES, NOT ONLY GMS,
IS TO WORK VERY HARD ON THE GROUND LEVEL TO WOO VOTERS AND DON'T WAIT TILL ELECTION TIME TO DO YOUR WORK. REMEMBER, CHIAM SEE TONG SPENT ABOUT 5 YEARS WOOING POTONG PASIR VOTERS BEFORE HE COULD BE ELECTED MP IN 1984.

Maybe because such grassroots activites are too, too daunting for our Oppostion candidates that they would prefer to be NCMPs????

 

[scroobal]

How do you gauge if a candidate whether from the PAP or from the opposition is doing well or has done the groundwork. May you can explain why you think that PAP deserve to win as you clearly feel that the opposition is not doing well.

The year that changed Singapore's political landscape forever has to be 1988, when the Parliamentary elections Act was amended to include Town Councils, GRC system, and the NCMP scheme. In the good old days when MPs are NOT required to run town councils, a charismatic Opposition candidate like Francis Seow could easily swayed thousands of voters to his side with his electrifying rally speeches without the need to do much groundwork.

Maybe because such grassroots activites are too, too daunting for our Oppostion candidates that they would prefer to be NCMPs????

 

[dunbluffme]

Whatever strategies they may come up with and I will not change my mind le... Knn 4 things!!!

1. My forgotten promotion in these 15 years of 'economy crisis'.
2. Ever increasing ERPs!!!
3. $40,000 HDB levy imposed when we upgraded our flat due to more children.
4. I want to see there is a healthy ratio of Christians and Buddhists in management level and parliament.

Now they talk about even higher productivity!!!

If one spends too much time finding more money, do you think he has time to even communicate with his children?

Only MPs and ministers have the luxury to enjoy happy family life and provide good career path for their pampered kids

 

[aurvandil]

Maybe because such grassroots activities are too, too daunting for our Oppostion candidates that they would prefer to be NCMPs????

It is quite bizarre that you are so fixated with grassroots activities. Ad hoc evidence seems the suggest that such activities are not very popular. How do you achieve "bonding" when majority of people do not show up?

On MPs doing work for their constituency, a complaint which surfaces very often is that the MPs are not very responsive. If you write to an MP on an issue, it can take up to a month to reply. The Weekly-Meet-The-People sessions are often delegated to the volunteer chairman. Many residents who have problems to meet their MP often have to queue for hours before being granted an "audience".

In the instances where they do get to meet the MP, the response is not always positive. We have an instance of a person who put off enough that he literally set the MP on fire. We have another case of a intellectually disabled boy who threatened the MP after the MP allegedly humiliated his mother. And we have stories of MPs who reportedly dodged or refused to answer tough policy questions.

The reason for this is that with the exception of the Ministers, being an MP is just a sideline. Although they are paid an allowance of $17,000 and more, all of the PAP MPs have day jobs. Only our 2 Opposition MPs are full-time MPs.

 

[sampierre]

How do you gauge if a candidate whether from the PAP or from the opposition is doing well or has done the groundwork. May you can explain why you think that PAP deserve to win as you clearly feel that the opposition is not doing well.

It's elementary, my dear Moderator.

If an Oppostion candidate has been working very hard on the ground to woo voters, many people would come to know of it thru word of mouth, newspaper reports, internet forums, and even party websites. Let's take for EXAMPLE, if GMS has been organising many grassroots activities in Tampines, I'm sure NSP website would have plenty of write-ups and pictures of such activities being held. The results of your hard work would be known only when the Returning Officer announces name of the winner. Let me be clear about this, you may still lose despite all the hard work, BUT at least you get the satisfaction that you've tried your very best as an Oppostion candidate.

BTW, moderator, please do NOT put words into my mouth as I've never said PAP deserve to win . I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT THE PAP CANDIDATE DID OR DID NOT DO TO WOO VOTERS. HERE, I AM ONLY FOCUSING ON OPPOSTION CANDIDATES' SHORTCOMINGS ON GRASSROOTS ACTIVITIES SO THAT HOPEFULLY THEY WILL SHAPE UP IN TIME FOR THE GE.

Anyway, I don't want to write on this issue anymore lest I be accused of damaging Opposition chances at the next GE.

 

[Sideswipe]

Good Analysis of the current situation, 3M.

Elephanto,

The year that changed Singapore's political landscape forever has to be 1988, when the Parliamentary elections Act was amended to include Town Councils, GRC system, and the NCMP scheme. In the good old days when MPs are NOT required to run town councils, a charismatic Opposition candidate like Francis Seow could easily swayed thousands of voters to his side with his electrifying rally speeches without the need to do much groundwork.

I don't know that before 1988, MPs are not in charge of town councils. You mean the constituencies / town councils before 1988 are in charge by the govt.
MPs before 1988 are just lawmakers of the constituency and nothing else?

yes, you're right.
our national and local issues are tied together when you select a MP.

 

[Perspective]

I don't know that before 1988, MPs are not in charge of town councils. You mean the constituencies / town councils before 1988 are in charge by the govt.
MPs before 1988 are just lawmakers of the constituency and nothing else?

Just being in Parliament and for PAP MPs, grassroots advisors. Estate management was in the hands of HDB.

 

[elephanto]

But nowadays, EVEN IF you have a charismatic Oppostion candidate who can talk like Barack Obama or John Kennedy, you may not even come close to winning if the candidate is NOT prepared to do a lot of work on the ground before the start of the elections .

Sampierre, I disagree.
I do not think voters bother if opp chaps can run town councils. You are using PAP's logic here.

Charisma & eloquence are prized assets. And when combined with authentic sincerity, chances of winning very high if the right electioneering strategies & tactics are used.

You keep stressing 'do a lot of work' yet castigate the work that Opp leaders as insignificant.

REMEMBER, CHIAM SEE TONG SPENT ABOUT 5 YEARS WOOING POTONG PASIR VOTERS BEFORE HE COULD BE ELECTED MP IN 1984.

Wrong conclusion. Chiam started in '76 in Cairnhill, until '84 that's 8 years of national visibility, only from '80 to '84 (4 years), does he have SDP, before that it was just him, his wife & his Volkswagen Beetle. Also, Howe Yoong Chong, PAP candidate for P.Pasir was badly hit by his 'defer CPF withdrawal to after 55'....
So many factors & you simply conclude the way it suits your argument...

It is quite bizarre that you are so fixated with grassroots activities.

Bizarre & fixated indeed. But the righteous & quarrelsome tone not very conducive to peaceful discussion either.

I too rest my case.

 

[elephanto]

I don't know that before 1988, MPs are not in charge of town councils.

Gosh, you must be in your 30s at most.
Town councils do not exist before '88. It was created together with GRC as part of Goh's 'municipal strategy' to dissuade voters to beware of articulate Opp leaders & focus instead on whether they can run your neighbourhood well.

Also, part of worldwide trend to devolve central admin authority.

Lots of LPPL, whenever it suits them, they will use 'economies of scale' argument again.

 

[IR123]

sampierre,

i do not know why you bother

if your point is significant and GMS does not take it, then he will lose; you can always say 'i told you so'

if GMS strategy is superior to your point, then he will win despite not following your advice, in which case he will say 'i have a better way'

maybe as you say, the safety net of NCMP helps in his strategy formulation, if so, he is not going to say that is part of his core strategy. Which politician would? Put PAP MPs in his place and it is worth a casino bet that they wouldn't either.

the important thing is that you speak what you feel is right; you need to leave it to them to decide

if you feel extremely intense about it, there are always independent seats around - go for it and you can live your talk - interacting with the grassroots; even if you don't win, you too have a chance at the NCMP seat - i don't think the PAP bother who wins so long as the winner is a moderate; you can always decline the NCMP seat and come back 5 years later

 

[scroobal]

Good points.

sampierre,

i do not know why you bother

if your point is significant and GMS does not take it, then he will lose; you can always say 'i told you so'

 

[kingrant]

I think that we have to face the facts and reality here. There is no doubt the PAP will be the govt again. I don't think any Opp party is eyeing the seat of govt. What the Opp and the voters can more realistically expect and hope for are for there to be an enlarged elected presence in parliament. If that fails, we want to have a fall back position - taking the NCMP seats. Charisma and oratorical and debating skills are therefore vital for the Opp bench. Grassroots work is secondary. Even PAP candidates in the past were catapulted to the general elections in big GRCs with little grassroots record, and made up for it after walking over. PAP electoral rhetoric is not always consistent: where the candidate is weak, they will tout the Party to vote for; where he is strong, they play on his individual strengths. Don't be fooled again.

 

[elephanto]

agree with kingrant.

However if
in spite of new generation of electorate,
in spite of new media age,
in spite of improved generation of opp candidates,

Spore electorate still cannot elect 5-10 Opp MPs then some serious questions must be asked.

Is it our Sinkie psyche, the GRC curse, pork barrel politics, or new citizen's fault?

Then the next challenge : to take up the 9 NCMPs slots to make the best of a bad situation or will that institutionalize PAP's scheme of giving people Opp effect but not Opp substance ? Will boycotting the NCMPs seats then help change electorate's mind or improve Opp candidate's prospects at future polls ?

Sigh...

Guess we will cross the bridge when we reach there....

 

[kingrant]

I think all of it. It's due to the "I want it, but not in my backyard" syndrome. The incumbent will always have the advantage, unless it really screwed up totally.

agree with kingrant.

Is it our Sinkie psyche, the GRC curse, pork barrel politics, or new citizen's fault?

Bad idea. Don't even think it. Barisan Sosialis did it in 1966 and spelt the end of the Opp.

Will boycotting the NCMPs seats then help change electorate's mind or improve Opp candidate's prospects at future polls ?

....

 

[scroobal]

Agree on both counts. Very well said.

I think all of it. It's due to the "I want it, but not in my backyard" syndrome. The incumbent will always have the advantage, unless it really screwed up totally.



Bad idea. Don't even think it. Barisan Sosialis did it in 1966 and spelt the end of the Opp.

 

[IR123]

I think all of it. It's due to the "I want it, but not in my backyard" syndrome. The incumbent will always have the advantage, unless it really screwed up totally.

The moment you think like this, that moment you gave up your rights to winning.

There are oppositions who won the electorate's imagination. JBJ got his in a by-election. If it is a backyard syndrome JBJ would not have won. LTK, CST and others had been given their chance.

Conceptually it is good to have oppositions. But the implicit assumption is that these oppositions will be able to advance their cause, voice their dissatisfactions and make the PAP more honest than they think they are.

Had LTK and CST delivered? They had 25 years to do that.

Therefore it is not the backyard syndrome that is at work here. Rather it is the lack of competence as demonstrated by the entrenched oppositions. If you doubt this, take a look at the thread on 10 reasons why the PAP must fail. Determine which are the valid reasons. Then take a look at the WP and SDA website, their speeches to see how many of these reasons are voiced. Their websites are controlled by them, not the PAP.

Concluding, it is more helpful to think of the public's reticence to vote for the oppositions as the oppositions inability to demonstrate sufficient competency. Then the question what consitutes 'sufficient competency' will arise.

Though not a political party, the TOC is more competent in reflecting people's needs on the ground. Similarly the use of NCMP is a good alternative to demonstrate to the people that 9 NCMPs can give voice to their needs.

Call it 'probation' before being offered a 5-year contract.

Still, I will not discount the possibility that there will be a significant swing of votes towards the oppositions for the coming Elections, enough to get them a few more seats.

Maybe Singapore's hopes for good oppositions should rest in the new citizens. KJ is effectively a foreign local talent. We need more of such people in the opposition.

 

[kingrant]

I can bet you to the last dollar. The Opp will never capture enough majority to form the govt. That's just as well. The Opp may be ready here and there, but not in sufficient numbers. Better not to win the seat of govt now and deliver real horrific governance and lose the voters' trust forever. I said that the Opp may win more Parl seats than the last GE, but don;t expect an avalanche.

The moment you think like this, that moment you gave up your rights to winning.

Exactly. JBJ won a by-election. I'm talking abt a general election. When the majority's settled with the PAP, winning a by-election is easier. It's called the by-election effect. Also, then, in Anson, there were significant disaffection - my point abt PAP ruling badly.

In CST case, the PAP dropped their ball when Old Man compared MBT's A levels with CST's.

Also, in LTK's case, the PAP candidate was not a potential Minister. The not in my backyard syndrome really works if the threat comes from a Minister-in-waiting, and Old Man endorses him.

There are oppositions who won the electorate's imagination. JBJ got his in a by-election. If it is a backyard syndrome JBJ would not have won. LTK, CST and others had been given their chance.

 

[aurvandil]

Had LTK and CST delivered? They had 25 years to do that.

I suppose it depends on what they are supposed to be delivering. In the course of their 25 year history, they have seen their compatriots bankrupted and jailed. They have been warned in no uncertain terms that they will only be tolerated as long as they are "moderate". With these constrants, what do you think they could have achieved?

I think the greatest achievement of the late JBJ, LTK,CSTand even CSJ is that they are a testament to the strength of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming oppression.

Concluding, it is more helpful to think of the public's reticence to vote for the oppositions as the oppositions inability to demonstrate sufficient competency. Then the question what consitutes 'sufficient competency' will arise.

For the longest time, GMS has been asking MBT to do a policy debate so that Singaporeans can understand the issues. If MBT is so much more competent than GMS, why not agree to the debate with GMS? Demolish GMS once and for all in a swift decisive blow and then ride triumphantly in to take Tampines GRC.

 

[3_M]

All politics is local

Whilst national issues itself is also a form of local issues, municipal issues are really the most basic local issues.

No way that we only emphasize only on national issues and ignore the local issues in the respective ward.

hence I believe the bottom up approach i.e campaigning at grassroots level are more effective than top-down one.

Due to the limited resources, it still boils down to how well we can make use of them.