Opposition unity is a madman's notion

[yellowarse]

If you really want a regime change in 10 years, it can only happen one way - all the best people from the opposition parties join Worker's Party. Nicole Seah, VW, SPP people, plus the WP pick up a few more people with CSM's pedigree. It will be the strength of the party combined with the strength of the candidates that win the votes. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening either because I don't see these people joining WP willingly, I don't see WP accepting all of them willingly, and there's not enough of these kind of people.

As you say, ideal but undoable. Next best thing is to have all the best people in opposition remain in their respective parties but forming an alliance, a super-body, for the purpose of formulating electoral strategies toward winning a majority ... and when the time comes, a coalition govt. Talented candidates do not need the WP label to win, but their parties need to minimize cannibalizing one another's votes if they are to defeat PAP in key constituencies.

IMO, a regime change would take 20 years... and that is being optimistic. Like it or not (I don't), we should expect to be ruled under PAP for at least another 20 years, unless something unexpected implodes within the PAP.

Without opposition collaboration, even 20 years (4 GEs) is optimistic. PAP is not going to sit around and allow opposition representation to creep up by 10 seats every election without tweaking the playing field further in their favour, rewriting the constitution if necessary (that's why the first aim is to wrest 2/3 majority away).

 

[wwabbit]

Talented candidates do not need the WP label to win

From GE2011

Worker's Party Team for Moulmein Kallang GRC
Mohd Rahizan, Toh Hong Boon, L Somasundram, Frieda Chan
Votes won: 41.45%

Singapore Democratic Party's Team for Holland Bukit Timah GRC
Tan Jee Say, Ang Yong Guan, Vincent Wijeysingha, Michelle Lee
Votes won: 39.92%


Talent alone means nothing.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

A regime change with an alternative coalition government in place that will put Singaporeans' interest front and centre. Social safety net, more labour rights and higher wages for local workers, universal healthcare, more affordable public housing, reduced reliance on foreign labour, immigration curbs, lower cost of living through land pricing reform, greater freedom to speak up without fear of arbitrary arrests...

If we implement all these, we'll definitely go into deficit spending. Our budget surplus is not astronomical, you know.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

As you say, ideal but undoable. Next best thing is to have all the best people in opposition remain in their respective parties but forming an alliance, a super-body, for the purpose of formulating electoral strategies toward winning a majority ... and when the time comes, a coalition govt. Talented candidates do not need the WP label to win, but their parties need to minimize cannibalizing one another's votes if they are to defeat PAP in key constituencies.

You need to show you can win seats in Parliament on your own first, otherwise any talk of any alliance however informal is premature.

 

[yellowarse]

Our budget surplus is not astronomical, you know.

Our defence spending is.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Our defence spending is.

That is a necessity.

 

[tanwahp]

Talented candidates do not need the WP label to win, but their parties need to minimize cannibalizing one another's votes if they are to defeat PAP in key constituencies.

There's an apparent contradiction. If there are candidates who can do much better without WP than WP candidates, they should be strong enough to win on their own might whether it is a 3 or 10 corner fight.

We have to get real. A candidate is a face, not a hero, who cannot do without the team behind him. Same goes to singers. Whether Jacky Cheung or Sammi Cheng, the composers, songwriters and the record label company made the difference.

 

[metalmickey]

There's an apparent contradiction. If there are candidates who can do much better without WP than WP candidates, they should be strong enough to win on their own might whether it is a 3 or 10 corner fight.

We have to get real. A candidate is a face, not a hero, who cannot do without the team behind him. Same goes to singers. Whether Jacky Cheung or Sammi Cheng, the composers, songwriters and the record label company made the difference.

Erm the Beatles wrote everything and recorded everything themselves. (OK, with the help of 1 more producer).

Anyway, I think the situation with opposition is not as simple as "opposition unity" or "every man for himself". Most important thing is for the opposition to articulate for their own party their vision for Singapore. So far I'm not seeing enough of this. This requires research, a working knowledge of how things in Singapore work. The recent SDP proposal for the reform of HDB is a good example of this.

I would also love to cut back on defence but right now everybody in the South China Sea is screaming at each other. There are big questions that arise: 1. What happens when the US goes to war with China in the South China Sea, and 2. What if Singapore were to go to war with any one of the countries where there are substantial foreigners in Singapore, ie Philippines, China, or Vietnam. 3. What if any of these 2 countries go to war with each other. (And if Singapore gets dragged in qn 3 turns into qn 2.) So it's unfortunately a bad time to talk about cutting back on defence.

Parties can co-operate with each other by helping to promote the idea that it is OK to vote for the opposition. They can exchange views with each other, especially if they think that their ideas have more in common with each other than with the PAP. They can hold discussions, share ideas. But where there are limits to opposition unity is that each of them has a mind of their own. People should be holding policy discussions, because when you look at the big picture, the opposition parties have to move to the next step of evolution, from the "fuck PAP" mode (which is fun but not substantial) to the "this is my vision for Singapore" mode. And at the same time they have to keep on practicing politics as usual.

What are the problems for Singapore? The rent is too damn high. And there are too many foreigners. Should we cut back on foreigners? I believe that the opposition parties have to be very careful when talking about this because after this strike, the foreign workers' pay will jack up and we will see some companies struggling to adjust. So if you open your mouth and gloat it could be bad politics. Etc etc.

There should be more movement between parties because this is the stage where they are starting out, finding their own feet. People should move to the parties which best represent and reflect their ideals. But to what extent do they have a strong identity? SDP - I see that they are western style liberals. WP - I see that they are a softer and gentler version of the PAP, although I still don't really know what they stand for. The rest - the brand identity is not very clear.

 

[scroobal]

The call for opposition unity is just euphemism to beg for a good constituency to challenge the PAP. Chee is certainly concerned after SDP has been pushed aside in the last 2 GEs. If I was Chee, stick to Bt Timah and Sembawang and build on it. Everyone wants to go for constituency that has a weak minister or PAP candidate.

Can't wait for 2016 - the proof will be in the pudding. I like to see a candidate or party blame their defeat to the lack of opposition cooperation or alliance and people buying it. Only NSP was making noise about Moulein, the rest of Singapore could not be bothered.

No credible candidate or party would attempt a 3rd cornered fight - I would not call Harbans Singh or Desmond credible, just clowns.

 

[yellowarse]

If I was Chee, stick to Bt Timah and Sembawang and build on it.

Plus Tanjong Pagar which was previously uncontested. They shouldn't over-stretch.

 

[yellowarse]

There's an apparent contradiction. If there are candidates who can do much better without WP than WP candidates, they should be strong enough to win on their own might whether it is a 3 or 10 corner fight.

Wrong. An oppo candidate may squeak by one-on-one in a straight fight with the PAP, say 52% vs 48%. But in a 3 cornered fight, the oppo vote will be split: e.g. 40% (opp) vs 12% (opp) vs 48%, giving the race to the PAP. Even if the third party loses its deposit, it would have cannibalized some of the oppo vote.

 

[yellowarse]

Parties can co-operate with each other by helping to promote the idea that it is OK to vote for the opposition. They can exchange views with each other, especially if they think that their ideas have more in common with each other than with the PAP. They can hold discussions, share ideas. But where there are limits to opposition unity is that each of them has a mind of their own. People should be holding policy discussions, because when you look at the big picture, the opposition parties have to move to the next step of evolution, from the "fuck PAP" mode (which is fun but not substantial) to the "this is my vision for Singapore" mode. And at the same time they have to keep on practicing politics as usual.

Agree mostly. I'd even go further and say that if a broad-based alliance can be formed, the parties can pool resources together and come up with shadow policies to rival the PAP's, with these policies necessarily accommodating the ideological differences of the various constituent parties. That will pave the way for a future shadow cabinet, and even a coalition government.

Each party on its own has limited resources in terms of talent, manpower and time; it is not realistic to expect a single party to tackle PAP on all fronts.

 

[yellowarse]

That is a necessity.

That's what your Pappy masters would have you believe.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

That's what your Pappy masters would have you believe.

On the contrary, I am simply loyal to Singapore and recognize basic geopolitics. You should not classify every notion as either PAPPY or anti-PAPPY.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Agree.

Opposition unity also should not be confused with horse trading. The latter is merely a tactical scheme that lasts only the duration of the hustings and nothing more.

We also had a good, well-fought GE2011 even though not everyone came to a friendly agreement during horse trading. That's the key take.

Those who are currently calling for oppo unity in fact WANT to confuse the two, because they want the good GRCs and use oppo unity as some kind of bargaining chip to pressure others.

there are also those who want the cover of oppo unity to mask deficiency or lack of preparedness, or inability to connect with the ground.

The call for opposition unity is just euphemism to beg for a good constituency to challenge the PAP. Chee is certainly concerned after SDP has been pushed aside in the last 2 GEs. If I was Chee, stick to Bt Timah and Sembawang and build on it. Everyone wants to go for constituency that has a weak minister or PAP candidate.

Can't wait for 2016 - the proof will be in the pudding. I like to see a candidate or party blame their defeat to the lack of opposition cooperation or alliance and people buying it. Only NSP was making noise about Moulein, the rest of Singapore could not be bothered.

No credible candidate or party would attempt a 3rd cornered fight - I would not call Harbans Singh or Desmond credible, just clowns.

 

[LeMans2011]

Yeah... clowns like GMS defines opposition unity as united with himself as the leader... someone who has zero achievement... and a load of disgruntled oppo supporters who wants to portray WP as proPAP... with people like that it is better to let the fittest survive than trying to forge "unity" cos' these jokers will be spending their effort arguing the meaning of unity

 

[scroobal]

Absolutely agree. SDP did very well in %increase of votes and they should have the safety while they build ground support.

Plus Tanjong Pagar which was previously uncontested. They shouldn't over-stretch.

 

[wwabbit]

Agree with TBFH. The people (in the political parties) calling for "opposition unity" are not calling for the kind of "unity" that yellowarse so idealistically believes in. They are simply afraid of being made irrelevant during the horse-trading session compared to the stronger opposition parties so they make up this "oppposition unity" thing as a way to get the stronger parties to yield constituencies to them. "If you don't give way to us, that means you are forcing a 3-corner fight, that means you don't believe in opposition unity, that means you are a PAP dog" is what they are trying to paint the stronger opposition party as in order to guilt them into yielding.

 

[yellowarse]

Agree with TBFH. The people (in the political parties) calling for "opposition unity" are not calling for the kind of "unity" that yellowarse so idealistically believes in. They are simply afraid of being made irrelevant during the horse-trading session compared to the stronger opposition parties so they make up this "oppposition unity" thing as a way to get the stronger parties to yield constituencies to them. "If you don't give way to us, that means you are forcing a 3-corner fight, that means you don't believe in opposition unity, that means you are a PAP dog" is what they are trying to paint the stronger opposition party as in order to guilt them into yielding.

There may be some, as you say, who use 'unity' in an opportunistic sense, but I believe Tan Jee Say is on the same page as I:

* * *
[h=2]Hougang by-election: An occasion for opposition unity[/h]Published by The Online Citizen on May 10, 2012

<fb:like send="true" width="450" show_faces="false"></fb:like>Press statement issued by Tan Jee Say

I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to call for a by-election in Hougang.
In addition to allowing the people of Hougang to be represented in Parliament, the Hougang by-election has also put the issue of opposition unity into focus. Our first priority is to ensure that Hougang remains with the opposition and not fall into the hands of the PAP. At this juncture of our political development post-<wbr>GE2011, the best way forward is for all of us to support WP in its defence of the seat against the PAP. I am sure WP will appreciate this gesture of political cooperation from individuals and other opposition parties alike and will reciprocate accordingly in the run up to the 2016 general election.

Opposition unity is the concern of every one and is not a one-way street. All must play their part. Supporters of opposition unity rightly expect all opposition parties to work together, cooperating and complementing each other to maximize their chances of success at the polls to advance democracy in Singapore.

There is much for every opposition party to do to ensure victory in the 2016 GE. Going forward, voters want more than a mere opposition voice in Parliament. They want alternative policies to be presented to them to deal with the pressing issues facing Singaporeans that the ruling party seems unable to handle. The next GE will be fought on quality of candidates and coherence of policy proposals. We have the responsibility to offer good candidates with well thought out policy alternatives to our fellow Singaporeans. We should concentrate our resources on recruiting the best candidates to join our ranks and together formulate good policy alternatives. Intruding into fellow opposition parties' wards will dilute our resources and not maximize our strengths.

The Hougang by-election is an opportunity to demonstrate oppositon unity and build opposition co-operation towards the next general election.

 

[tanwahp]

Agree with TBFH. The people (in the political parties) calling for "opposition unity" are not calling for the kind of "unity" that yellowarse so idealistically believes in. They are simply afraid of being made irrelevant during the horse-trading session compared to the stronger opposition parties so they make up this "oppposition unity" thing as a way to get the stronger parties to yield constituencies to them. "If you don't give way to us, that means you are forcing a 3-corner fight, that means you don't believe in opposition unity, that means you are a PAP dog" is what they are trying to paint the stronger opposition party as in order to guilt them into yielding.

It's minimal attempts to see what can be done to damage bigger opposition parties like WP by painting them as exclusive and domineering. It's "if I go down because of you, I don't let you get away easily either". Knowing themselves to be smaller and are at a disadvantage at negotiations. Even if it does no damage in reality, they probably think it's better to try than not. For them, nothing to lose as long as they don't go into badmouthing and really accuse WP of helping PAP. These subliminal messages can be done by their supporters like methink and robox.