I saw a severe problem for opposition.

[VIBGYOR]

No one lambasts Sebastian Teo, Tan Soo Phuan or Seow Khee Leng.

who are they? neber heard before..

On the contrary, Koizumi's heydays was the days where freedom of speech on the net was most self-stifled in Japan history. Japanese forummers who criticized him would be castigated and cyberbullied to no end and criticism of Koizumi was unheard on the net. Despite his supporters' claim that he is charismatic and is Singapore's Obama or Koizumi, CSJ's critics still outnumber his supporters. Why? Self-centredness typical of Singaporeans? Or that no one really measures up to Obama and Koizumi.

i think you and many other as well, fell into the media trap, otherwise he wouldn't have gardnered 20% votes...

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

He is more handsome and charismatic than Old Fart lah, Old Fart use ISD and Operation Coldstore to stop his rise to power or taking power away from him.

"...a ringing voice that flowed beautifully in his native Hokkien. The girls adored him, especially those in the trade unions. Once he got going after a cold start at the first two meetings, there was tremendous applause every time he spoke. By the end of the campaign, Lim Chin Siong was seen as a charismatic figure and a person to be reckoned with in Singapore politics and, what was of more immediate concern, within the PAP."

that is why old man removed him via Ops ColdStore

 

[SamuelStalin]

Somewhat. But it seems Lim Chin Siong is much more credible and of course, charismatic than Chee Soon Juan.

 

[SamuelStalin]

Actually Teekee kinda has a point. These days, there are a lot of "idol" type world leaders. Latest example is Obama, in other countries, Japan's former Premier Koizumi, Russia's Putin and Taiwan's Ma Ying Jeou. U don't have to be handsome like some movie star but they have to be fairly decent looking and very chrismatic

china's Wen Jia-Bao is not bad too. A kind, fatherly old man, quite similar to India's Mahatma Ghandi. I think people like them are far better than most of the rest, especially that Taiwan dog called Ma Ying-Chieu.

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

Somewhat. But it seems Lim Chin Siong is much more credible and of course, charismatic than Chee Soon Juan.

unfortunately yes

but methinks CSJ has mellowed down a bit perhaps due to the jail term?

 

[drifter]

I saw a severe problem for opposition.

Currently every party has only a small token of forces..

They are mostly unknown to the community.

May it be qualifications or "looks". okay, i know we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. But both factors are really important. If Obama is ugly I dun think many people would want to vote for him.

If you put people who doesn't make people like them at first sight, or if that person looks like a crook or what, people will not be convinced. Epescially when you are new and running for coming elections.

Unless you have the gift to make people like you. The chances of oppositions making an impression will be very hard.

So oppositions needs to take this into consideration and gather more strength, may it be education qualifications or just a simple pleasant look. Not Manhunt of the year. Just a down to earth Two Goody Shoes Look...LOL..Because some times you could easily sum up a persons character by looking at him/her, and refering to your own mental database of the people you met before. People need someone who will serve them instead of their own interests.

Always remember, your eyes is the window to your soul.

Also very important not too many young people in your team, Otherwise people may think you guys have no experience at all.

your jesus look like a junkie gay too .

 

[Perspective]

Dear Perspective

Correct Messenger, wrong message even worst pacakging.




Locke

Well if you could find the correct messenger, message and packaging. An answer to a whole host JBJ, LSC, LCS, FSS, HS, FS, TLH, SKL, SC, ST, CST, LTK, SL, CSJ, LHD, CCC, LMK, FT, CCT, DM, LYH and dozens more. Perhaps it's time Lockeliberal steps up into the fray.

 

[angry_one]

This is something i notice too. It's a sinkee trait for everyone to want to be the leader, but none to be part of a team. That's why it's very difficult to get all the opps to unite, because each believes it is the sole answer to sg's problems. Even within a party there are problems, like CSJ vs CST in the past, the Philip Jeya now, in RP.

The enemy is at hand! They should learn to put aside their differences for now and vanquish the true evil!

The leadership has failed because they have failed to built parties based on the first amongst equals principles. Against the domineering personality of LKY, they have sough to built personalities against LKY all the whilst forgetting that LKY had a team of equally bright and capable leaders.

Have they tried everything ? Going to bed with each other ? God look at the unholy alliance in Malaysia and the Unholy alliance between LKY and the communist pre 1959. How hard has each opposition tried to sleep with rivals within the opposition camp ?

Perhaps they have tried everything, but only in small steps so that they can tell themselves they have tried and all that matters really is that they exists and they stood ? Perhaps at the end of the day, they expect that without a struggle , without leadership, without unity, without imangination, the SG electorate will suddenly decide to wake up and vote a sizeable opposition in ?



Locke

 

[Perspective]

Dear Perspective

To me the history of opposition in Singapore, is a litany of failures in leadership, imagination and a navel gazing tendency to look at the past and past practices instead of the future.

The leadership has failed because they have failed to built parties based on the first amongst equals principles. Against the domineering personality of LKY, they have sough to built personalities against LKY all the whilst forgetting that LKY had a team of equally bright and capable leaders.

Have they tried everything ? Going to bed with each other ? God look at the unholy alliance in Malaysia and the Unholy alliance between LKY and the communist pre 1959. How hard has each opposition tried to sleep with rivals within the opposition camp ?

Perhaps they have tried everything, but only in small steps so that they can tell themselves they have tried and all that matters really is that they exists and they stood ? Perhaps at the end of the day, they expect that without a struggle , without leadership, without unity, without imangination, the SG electorate will suddenly decide to wake up and vote a sizeable opposition in ?

Locke

I agree with this post more than the other. On hindsight, I get the feeling that those in the opposition don't care more for the people to tailor themselves than what they personally believe in and what they personally want to do and achieve in their oppositional participation, or above listening to a small group who happens to share the same view for their comfort.

Do I blame them? Frankly no. I can't expect them not to be selfish when the people had not been selfless to them.

It appears elementary for support to come with improvements, but half the time improvements come only after support.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Perspective

Which came first for the opposition in SG the chicken or the egg ? Which comes first support and then improvements or improvements and then support ? All I can say is take a leaf from the PAP, they did not have the support, they schemed, slept with the enemy rode the tiger, stole the support AND frakking kept it whilst stamping out all all opposition both real and imagined. If that is not a clear enough lesson to draw from Singapore's political history then the opposition frankly deserves to remain, small ineffective, insular and half assed comprainning and whining about a lack of support from the people till a splinter faction from the PAP with the correct lessons and DNA in its blood splits away forming a viable effective opposition



Locke

 

[Perspective]

Depends on what is the egg and what is the chicken, whether there are a few small eggs or few small chickens. Or whether it was an egg that never hatched. Not specific.

Your history buff needs to go deeper. PAP didn't ride the tiger, it was LKY who rode the tiger, so it was wrong to say PAP came without support. They started with support - it was cofounded with the "communist sympathisers". Whoever became the only tiger and whoever would be eaten was one issue, but the PAP would dominate in the end.

Let's say if the 1959 PAP took a time capsule to 2009 and started from scratch. It wouldn't be as easy as throwing out the Labour Front.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Perspective

The PAP started as a legislative opposition with THREE seats and 8.8% of the vote in 1955 without the communist tiger. In 1959 with communist support as acknowledged even by LKY they became the ruling party. The numbers tell the difference

You really are nitpicking bones here. There would have been a world of difference between a Communist Left Wing PAP and a Centre Left PAP led by LKY. Which Tiger could or would have won was the only issue and to the victor the spoils.

If the PAP of 1959 heck even 1955 took a time capsule and started from scratch in 2009, they would still have won might have taken them twenty years but they would win never the less because of their inherent qualities.

1. LKY would have a team in place, and that team would still be that bunch of fantastic old guards. Now I can't see the PAP of the 1990 repeating the same feat but u did use the PAP of 1959 in your time capsule argument

2. He would have leapt on to the populist bandwagon to score " Political Points." even with three seats in parliament as in 1955. He would not for one errr avoid issues like whether Ministers should resign for incompetence. He would probably campaign strongly against foreign talent then switch positions when he came to power or campaign on Social and Class divisions only to drop the issue when he was in power. He would probably like JBJ repeatedly accuse the government of incompetence but argue it better and with a stronger grasp of policy than JBJ.

3. Even if like the SDP, he wanted to be arrested for civil disobedience he would have ensured that his arrest would make him more popular and not less.

4. He probably would have united the opposition in a milder form of riding the tiger. Taken over the PKMS. etc etc





Locke

 

[zeroo]

I saw a severe problem for opposition.

Currently every party has only a small token of forces..

They are mostly unknown to the community.

May it be qualifications or "looks". okay, i know we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. But both factors are really important. If Obama is ugly I dun think many people would want to vote for him.

If you put people who doesn't make people like them at first sight, or if that person looks like a crook or what, people will not be convinced. Epescially when you are new and running for coming elections.

Unless you have the gift to make people like you. The chances of oppositions making an impression will be very hard.

So oppositions needs to take this into consideration and gather more strength, may it be education qualifications or just a simple pleasant look. Not Manhunt of the year. Just a down to earth Two Goody Shoes Look...LOL..Because some times you could easily sum up a persons character by looking at him/her, and refering to your own mental database of the people you met before. People need someone who will serve them instead of their own interests.

Always remember, your eyes is the window to your soul.

Also very important not too many young people in your team, Otherwise people may think you guys have no experience at all.

You are right..take alook at these candidates to be..most of them look like a toad or retard. Singaporean dunno who they are, so we have to judge by their looks..knn would I rather to vote for someone who look like a char kuay tiao uncle or new handsome, educated candidates introduce by the PAP? Tha anser is obvious! SDP will take in any dog and cats as loong as they r willing..they dun care about standard, which is good for the country as PAP will continue to rule Singapore for a thousand years!

 

[FuckSamLeong]

You are right..take alook at these candidates to be..most of them look like a toad or retard. Singaporean dunno who they are, so we have to judge by their looks..knn would I rather to vote for someone who look like a char kuay tiao uncle or new handsome, educated candidates introduce by the PAP? Tha anser is obvious! SDP will take in any dog and cats as loong as they r willing..they dun care about standard, which is good for the country as PAP will continue to rule Singapore for a thousand years!

Good for you lor! You can continue to have PAP cocks to suck till the end of your days!......lol....lol

 

[Perspective]

The PAP started as a legislative opposition with THREE seats and 8.8% of the vote in 1955 without the communist tiger. In 1959 with communist support as acknowledged even by LKY they became the ruling party. The numbers tell the difference

Wrong facts. Fong Swee Suan was a founder member of PAP. Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair were 2 of the 4 candidates in 1955, in which 3 won. They were known communist sympathisers (although some accounts gave them socialist ideologies). They cofounded the PAP. PAP could already field 25 candidates in 1955. Would include the pro-communists among thousands who jam-packed Victoria Hall. Sending only 4 candidates was a deliberate strategy.

You really are nitpicking bones here.

No. Wrong facts.

If the PAP of 1959 heck even 1955 took a time capsule and started from scratch in 2009, they would still have won might have taken them twenty years but they would win never the less because of their inherent qualities.

Thanks for addressing my primary point, which means you agree the PAP today is not as easy meat as the LF then. The PAP has inherent qualities, that I agree, but that doesn't mean they will use the same strategies, which was what you suggested, since the LF and PAP were different. The conditions are also different. For all you know, the 1959 PAP would not work with any opposition party now since they do not see any tigers in their midst.

2. He would have leapt on to the populist bandwagon to score " Political Points." even with three seats in parliament as in 1955. He would not for one errr avoid issues like whether Ministers should resign for incompetence. He would probably campaign strongly against foreign talent then switch positions when he came to power or campaign on Social and Class divisions only to drop the issue when he was in power. He would probably like JBJ repeatedly accuse the government of incompetence but argue it better and with a stronger grasp of policy than JBJ.
3. Even if like the SDP, he wanted to be arrested for civil disobedience he would have ensured that his arrest would make him more popular and not less.

Maybe, maybe not. Again it is simplistic to think that using the same strategies of 1959 would work in 2009.

Like I said, LTK, JBJ, CSJ have all failed, you Lockeliberal could take the plate. For me, my principle is never think that only I can see things that 20 other people can't. That's ego to high heavens.

4. He probably would have united the opposition in a milder form of riding the tiger. Taken over the PKMS. etc etc

Again you miss a part of history. PAP worked with the "tiger" but not with every player in the "market". They were not only against the ruling LF but also every other opposition in there. If there was no "tiger" they may have worked with someone else? But they may also have worked alone - LKY said he would have nothing to do with "weak men". Whereas your argument now is that all opposition should work together, don't be selective and work despite whoever. So your narration of the PAP was wrong, again.

 

[Perspective]

You are right..take alook at these candidates to be..most of them look like a toad or retard. Singaporean dunno who they are, so we have to judge by their looks..knn would I rather to vote for someone who look like a char kuay tiao uncle or new handsome, educated candidates introduce by the PAP? Tha anser is obvious! SDP will take in any dog and cats as loong as they r willing..they dun care about standard, which is good for the country as PAP will continue to rule Singapore for a thousand years!

I can put a picture selecting 12 PAP MPs that can look worse than this.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

According to what Perspective says, I think in terms of so call "best rally speakers", only newscasters who speak perfect English and Chinese would be ideal.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Perspective

The PAP started as a legislative opposition with THREE seats and 8.8% of the vote in 1955 without the communist tiger. In 1959 with communist support as acknowledged even by LKY they became the ruling party. The numbers tell the difference

You really are nitpicking bones here. There would have been a world of difference between a Communist Left Wing PAP and a Centre Left PAP led by LKY. Which Tiger could or would have won was the only issue and to the victor the spoils.

If the PAP of 1959 heck even 1955 took a time capsule and started from scratch in 2009, they would still have won might have taken them twenty years but they would win never the less because of their inherent qualities.

1. LKY would have a team in place, and that team would still be that bunch of fantastic old guards. Now I can't see the PAP of the 1990 repeating the same feat but u did use the PAP of 1959 in your time capsule argument

2. He would have leapt on to the populist bandwagon to score " Political Points." even with three seats in parliament as in 1955. He would not for one errr avoid issues like whether Ministers should resign for incompetence. He would probably campaign strongly against foreign talent then switch positions when he came to power or campaign on Social and Class divisions only to drop the issue when he was in power. He would probably like JBJ repeatedly accuse the government of incompetence but argue it better and with a stronger grasp of policy than JBJ.

3. Even if like the SDP, he wanted to be arrested for civil disobedience he would have ensured that his arrest would make him more popular and not less.

4. He probably would have united the opposition in a milder form of riding the tiger. Taken over the PKMS. etc etc





Locke

 

[Ramseth]

You all missed the point and PAP got the point. Opposition supporters fighting among each other in public is good for PAP in government.

If PAP says TLH or Kenneth J. (opposition past and present) are no good, people would think yah yah biased. But if opposition supporters start putting down each other, past and present, then all PAP needs to do is relax and smile.

 

[Perspective]

You all missed the point and PAP got the point. Opposition supporters fighting among each other in public is good for PAP in government.

If PAP says TLH or Kenneth J. (opposition past and present) are no good, people would think yah yah biased. But if opposition supporters start putting down each other, past and present, then all PAP needs to do is relax and smile.

Frankly I think there are very, very few "opposition supporters" on the net in the sense that they care about the opposition growth and wellbeing, rather than hoping or asking from the opposition what they themselves want to see. A lot are anti-govt, anti-PAP or anti-certain/policy/politics but that does not mean they support opposition in the above manner or it would benefit the opposition.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Perspective

Did the PAP win its three seats in 1955 with communist support or without ? You have it right on the communist left / social leftist being part of the PAP from the start even in 1955. My own reading of the history of that period indicated a rather tepid unsure alignment between the two parties in 1955 culminating in a full fledge tiger ride in 1959. I believe that we are both correct in our viewpoints but disagree when we actually count communist support or riding the tiger as starting.

The strategies will be the same, because in my view the people from 1959 are basically the same people with the same thinking albeit adapted for the times. I have already listed what I believe to be the key qualities that the 1959 team will bring to 2009.

1. Intelligence
2. First amongst equals
3. Political machivellian cold blooded ruthelessness.

With these attributes in mind and keeping what they did in 1959 I have surmised what they would do in 2009 again with the current issues at hand.

Thinking differently is not EGO. We are all wired differently with differing experiences and viewpoints. You would be surprised how much LKY disagreed with the old guard :_)) but then again if thinking differently is err "EGO" what is thinking alike with "20 people" united ass kissing and great leader worship, or just seeking like minded agreement because it is better we all think alike ?

The principle of working with the tiger was that of sleeping with the enemy. Perhaps they might have gone to it alone but looking at the machivellian ruthlessness inherent in the 1959 gang , they probably would have sought to dominate and control the opposition as a stepping stone towards fighting against the dominant power of the day.


Locke