Opposition parties mutiny against Chiam See Tong

[Perspective]

At least the WP is honest. When asked to join others/work closely/form an alliance, they just say "NO!".

That's one of the things I agree with the Workers' Party - you see what you get. It's better to disagree with one-opposition-united and mean it than to agree and don't mean it. The rest are hypocrites. The only thing is WP has also come up with the "we're friendly to all" crap, although they stop there.

They have been accused of being arrogant but it's usually the opposition supporters and it's better to be called arrogant by opposition supporters than to look stupid in front of fence sitters and PAP voters. The latter outnumbers the former by 3 to 1.

When the opposition starts trying to unite, that's where they create more bad publicity. Because of this, months ago I said opposition unity was a pro-PAP concept because it benefits PAP when they start fighting. Ramseth disagreed. Later, even he also agreed.

Opposition supporters should stop calling for unity and hence pressuring the opposition to do so, resulting in stupid fighting. The right thing to do is, usually your ward comes with one PAP and one opposition candidate - you just vote for the opposition candidate will do, never mind what party.

 

[scroobal]

It will be interesting how these wayward idiots will spoil the show. Agree that PAP will use this to their advantage. My sense is SDP will not be involved. Without SPP, SDA is an empty shell. Desmond is an imbecile.

This infighting will be the addon anmo PAP needs to show trhe voters that opposition politicans are not interested in grassroot welfare but only on their own wekfare.

I however do wonder how did SDP come into been for jkoining up any form of alliance is not going to happen unless SDP takes the lead and Chee and his ego would perfer that. As of now, if SDP were to join SDA, dun thuink Chee would like to go under desmond, both cant tolerate each other.

 

[scroobal]

It the uneducated that don't seem to understand. This notion of united opposition is really bizarre. The only unity is to avoid 3 cornered fights.

That's one of the things I agree with the Workers' Party - you see what you get. It's better to disagree with one-opposition-united and mean it than to agree and don't mean it. The rest are hypocrites. The only thing is WP has also come up with the "we're friendly to all" crap, although they stop there.

They have been accused of being arrogant but it's usually the opposition supporters and it's better to be called arrogant by opposition supporters than to look stupid in front of fence sitters and PAP voters. The latter outnumbers the former by 3 to 1.

When the opposition starts trying to unite, that's where they create more bad publicity. Because of this, months ago I said opposition unity was a pro-PAP concept because it benefits PAP when they start fighting. Ramseth disagreed. Later, even he also agreed.

Opposition supporters should stop calling for unity and hence pressuring the opposition to do so, resulting in stupid fighting. The right thing to do is, usually your ward comes with one PAP and one opposition candidate - you just vote for the opposition candidate will do, never mind what party.

 

[silverfox@]

When the opposition starts trying to unite, that's where they create more bad publicity. Because of this, months ago I said opposition unity was a pro-PAP concept because it benefits PAP when they start fighting. Ramseth disagreed. Later, even he also agreed.

Opposition supporters should stop calling for unity and hence pressuring the opposition to do so, resulting in stupid fighting. The right thing to do is, usually your ward comes with one PAP and one opposition candidate - you just vote for the opposition candidate will do, never mind what party.

The reason why opposition cannot unite is because they refuse to put down their differences for the greater good.

2 reasons it will work if,

1) Everyone put down differences for the greater good of the people.

2) They have a charismatic, iconic leader to lead them.

 

[silverfox@]

That is the problem with Chiam See Tong. He thinks that since he is the chairman of SDA, he can suka-suka do as he likes! No need to consult others.

The same as when he was with the SDP. Wants everything his way. He alone is supreme and wants veto power. No consideration for others. A man who thinks too highly of himself... that without him, all will come to nought!

Put the veto power 1 side 1st.

Is SDP in a better state when Chiam See Tong is around or when Chee Soon Juan is in charge?

 

[Qantas]

Put the veto power 1 side 1st.

Is SDP in a better state when Chiam See Tong is around or when Chee Soon Juan is in charge?

CST should just sack Desmond from SPP. Problrm solved. Without a party, Desmond cannot be sec-gen of SDA.

 

[cass888]

It the uneducated that don't seem to understand. This notion of united opposition is really bizarre. The only unity is to avoid 3 cornered fights.

What is the problem with 3 cornered fights? The Singapore electorate has always been very unforgiving of the 2nd and 3rd choice opposition parties.

 

[silverfox@]

What is the problem with 3 cornered fights? The Singapore electorate has always been very unforgiving of the 2nd and 3rd choice opposition parties.

Previously for the common good, the last election, the opposition parties avoided 3 corner fights, this time round, it will be interesting. Because I think there will be 3 corners.

Something that I want to mention is what makes SDA?

Chiam See Tong alone or everyone?

CST was the one who brought together this Alliance. But it seems everyone have different ideas how it should be run. Without CST, will the Alliance still be welcomed by the people? Honestly, more people know about CST than SDA.

Look at how LKY rules the PAP before. 1 is 1, 2 is 2. Some call it the iron fist. Effective or not I don't wish to go further, but at least there is no dirty linen being washed in public in a coming election.

LTK is really "kiang" (clever). Not joining any of these factions when everyone start realising its not PAP that killed the opposition but the opposition trying to backstab each other.

 

[BlueCat]

these opposition parties,if they still do not co-operate and agree among themselves,how to win more seats

 

[silverfox@]

CST should just sack Desmond from SPP. Problrm solved. Without a party, Desmond cannot be sec-gen of SDA.

At this point of time, CST can't sack Desmond already. The only option left for CST is to leave SDA. The cracks are there

 

[cass888]

Previously for the common good, the last election, the opposition parties avoided 3 corner fights, this time round, it will be interesting. Because I think there will be 3 corners.

You miss the point. Usually the 2nd choice oppo candidate will get less than 1000 votes.

 

[Qantas]

At this point of time, CST can't sack Desmond already. The only option left for CST is to leave SDA. The cracks are there

I know that CST cannot sack desmond from SDA (the umbrella) but I thought CST is in charge of SPP (the party) which is a component of SDA. If CST is in charge of SPP, surely he can sack Desmond from the party and without a party, Desmond cannot hold office in the SDA. Let me know if my logic is wrong.

 

[cass888]

I know that CST cannot sack desmond from SDA (the umbrella) but I thought CST is in charge of SPP (the party) which is a component of SDA. If CST is in charge of SPP, surely he can sack Desmond from the party and without a party, Desmond cannot hold office in the SDA. Let me know if my logic is wrong.

Your logic is wrong because even if Chiam is sacked from SPP, he will still be SDA member and Chairman so even if Desmond is sacked from SPP he is still SDA Sec Gen.

Chiam cannot have it both ways.

 

[Qantas]

Your logic is wrong because even if Chiam is sacked from SPP, he will still be SDA member and Chairman so even if Desmond is sacked from SPP he is still SDA Sec Gen.

Chiam cannot have it both ways.

Ok presume u are right. So only way is for CST to sack Desmond from SPP and then pull the SPP out of SDA. I am not sure SPP constitution is the same as SDA constitution cos if Desmond is already sacked from SPP how can he still remain as a member of SPP.

 

[cleareyes]

The reason why opposition cannot unite is because they refuse to put down their differences for the greater good.

2 reasons it will work if,

1) Everyone put down differences for the greater good of the people.

2) They have a charismatic, iconic leader to lead them.

An united oppoistion is not going to happen. Cooperation between the opposition parties is a definite situatin and have been happening.

Why cant there be a united opposition? Too many egos, too many ideas and too many idiots trying to outfight each other. All we need is one scandal to be blown up big and the united opposition will be in crap and mess again.

I think the focus will and shnould be to avoid 3 corner fights and cooperation in terms of media exposure and qui8t the call for united opposition.

So far the only group that has been openly calling for united opposition had been from SDP and they do so with the intent of having SDP taking the lead, which is not acceptable by many.

 

[scroobal]

The smarter way is not to do anything with Desmond or SDA and deal directly with RP. And thats what they are doing.

Desmond, PKMS and Justice Party are essentially impotent. It is not factor in the equation. SDA is a tail and cannot wag the dog. Its constitution is specificcaly written to protect the automomy of its component parties. SDA is a vehicle for GE for tactical reasons.

It can only shoot blanks.

Ok presume u are right. So only way is for CST to sack Desmond from SPP and then pull the SPP out of SDA. I am not sure SPP constitution is the same as SDA constitution cos if Desmond is already sacked from SPP how can he still remain as a member of SPP.

 

[Qantas]

The smarter way is not to do anything with Desmond or SDA and deal directly with RP. And thats what they are doing.

Desmond, PKMS and Justice Party are essentially impotent. It is not factor in the equation. SDA is a tail and cannot wag the dog. Its constitution is specificcaly written to protect the automomy of its component parties. SDA is a vehicle for GE for tactical reasons.

It can only shoot blanks.

Ok got your point. Thks.

 

[zack123]

I think the focus will and shnould be to avoid 3 corner fights and cooperation in terms of media exposure and qui8t the call for united opposition.

In this case the opposition should have a common meeting to indicate which are the wards they will be contesting to avoid 3-corner fights. Then they will have time to concentrate on garnering support for their individual wards.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Your logic is wrong because even if Chiam is sacked from SPP, he will still be SDA member and Chairman so even if Desmond is sacked from SPP he is still SDA Sec Gen.

Chiam cannot have it both ways.

Your assumption is incorrect. SDA does not have any individual members but only component parties as members. i.e. only those members of component parties can sit on the council of SDA.

Thus, technically speaking, if Chiam is out of SPP and not a member of any of its component parties (i.e. PKMS or SJP), he will lose his MP seat as he will no longer be part of SDA and he gets elected on the SDA platform. Similarly, if Desmond is out of SPP and not a member of any other component parties, he cannot be part of SDA, least office holder of SDA council.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[cass888]

Your assumption is incorrect. SDA does not have any individual members but only component parties as members. i.e. only those members of component parties can sit on the council of SDA.

Thus, technically speaking, if Chiam is out of SPP and not a member of any of its component parties (i.e. PKMS or SJP), he will lose his MP seat as he will no longer be part of SDA and he gets elected on the SDA platform. Similarly, if Desmond is out of SPP and not a member of any other component parties, he cannot be part of SDA, least office holder of SDA council.

Goh Meng Seng

Then why did Chiam say he will remain SDA member even if SPP pulled out? I believe SDA has an "MP remains member of SDA at all costs" clause like the SPP or to a lesser extent the NSP. Do they have the same for officer bearers?