- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,079
- Points
- 0
Now I am not a person in the know like scroobal or goldendragon or dunno who else. I am just an observer, a young man who has studied a little politics. And I am just looking into the future here.
Where I see the prospects for opposition unity is the case that I outlined earlier: they fight it out, and maybe one or two take turns to die. Then last opposition party standing is the main opposition party. Then you can have all the opposition unity that you want.
But right now, we are not talking about opposition unifying to be powerful enough to wrest power away from the PAP. During the last election, I wanted more opposition people in parliament, because it is time for the opposition to develop and grow. But right now, the immediate first step is the effect that this opposition has on the PAP. And that is the meaning of the co-driver philosophy. Also known as the co-driver dilemma. If you want to be a helpful, constructive co-driver, you are actually acting as the PAP's friend, and helping them to improve their standing with the people by giving them feedback. Yes, you make the system a better one, but it may not be to your benefit. You might get up to 10 seats when the people demand more of the same. But after that, can you grow large enough to shove off the PAP (assuming you want to do that in the first place)? That is not an easy question to answer but without answering that question, I can safely say that the opposition will not know what the fuck they're doing.
The other thing is, it does seem as though after years of knuckledusting, the PAP has in the last year switched tack. It is called the Teo Chee Hean "What do you think" policy. After years and years of "fuck the PAP" suddenly the PAP turns to you and asks you in the face, "what do you think?" So what is the first word that comes out of your mouth? "errrrrr".... let's face it, we all know now that the opposition does not have all the answers either.
Almost under the radar, Low Thia Khiang has built something remarkable. But what is the next step? Each opposition party must have an identity and ideology unto itself, not just "fuck PAP". Now is the "hundred flowers bloom" era, the Cambrian explosion where a lot of opposition parties rise up. Some will do well, others will not, and still others will make significant contributions before fading away. This stage of the competition is vital, because this is the "talking" stage. This stage (assuming that progress is made) is when the parties figure what they are really about, educate themselves. A lot of things will be said and learnt. Maybe the Singapore public will also educate themselves. Lots of issues have been aired in a fashion that has been more democratic than before, and those Singaporeans paying attention will learn what it's all about: the strike. The M Ravi case. The Hougang case. The Ng Boon Gay case. The Function 8 case. Gay rights. SMRT. Foreign talent. Sun Xu. A lot of things will make people think.
Later on, if things keep on swinging against the PAP, then the PAP will lose their supermajority. Then there will be horse trading in other directions. The PAP will have to decide how to cut deals with people. Like it or not, horse trading is a fact of life in parliament. You bend a little, I bend a little, both sides get their laws passed. Otherwise, there is deadlock. PM Lee is not talking about deadlock because he wants to raise a bogeyman, deadlock is real. And if you want to see a real example of deadlock, listen to how GMS is still bitching about WP / NSP Kallang Moulmein issue.
People say that there cannot be opposition unity because there was no opposition unity in the past. That is like saying that opposition will not win a GRC because they have never done so in the past. Fact is, it is not an inherent trait of the opposition that there will be quarrels and deadlock. It is about the players, how they play the game, whether or not they are mature. Sometimes when you want to quarrel, you should just shut the doors and thrash it out, PAP style.
I take tanwahp's point that sometimes TJS' behaviour has been shocking. Running for president, waiting so long before ruling himself out of Hougang. I think where he and Chee Soon Juan are concerned, they did the best for each other: a short marriage of convenience and then they're through. TJS helps revive SDP by lending some credibility (incidently I was walking through TP Bus interchange when that famous meeting at Delifrance was taking place) but gets out before he seriously challenges CSJ's leadership of the party. But the using of the SDP as a convenient platform leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
And like Obama said about democracy, it is a very messy process. In the past, Singapore did things neatly. If we become democratic, things will be more messy. Doesn't mean that it will be bad. But nobody will be able to wave a magic wand, as LKY once did, and implement a grand plan wholesale. There will be one patch here, another patch there, sometimes the policies and solutions will be internally incoherent. That is a fact of life and that is what you sometimes have to accept in a real democracy.
Where I see the prospects for opposition unity is the case that I outlined earlier: they fight it out, and maybe one or two take turns to die. Then last opposition party standing is the main opposition party. Then you can have all the opposition unity that you want.
But right now, we are not talking about opposition unifying to be powerful enough to wrest power away from the PAP. During the last election, I wanted more opposition people in parliament, because it is time for the opposition to develop and grow. But right now, the immediate first step is the effect that this opposition has on the PAP. And that is the meaning of the co-driver philosophy. Also known as the co-driver dilemma. If you want to be a helpful, constructive co-driver, you are actually acting as the PAP's friend, and helping them to improve their standing with the people by giving them feedback. Yes, you make the system a better one, but it may not be to your benefit. You might get up to 10 seats when the people demand more of the same. But after that, can you grow large enough to shove off the PAP (assuming you want to do that in the first place)? That is not an easy question to answer but without answering that question, I can safely say that the opposition will not know what the fuck they're doing.
The other thing is, it does seem as though after years of knuckledusting, the PAP has in the last year switched tack. It is called the Teo Chee Hean "What do you think" policy. After years and years of "fuck the PAP" suddenly the PAP turns to you and asks you in the face, "what do you think?" So what is the first word that comes out of your mouth? "errrrrr".... let's face it, we all know now that the opposition does not have all the answers either.
Almost under the radar, Low Thia Khiang has built something remarkable. But what is the next step? Each opposition party must have an identity and ideology unto itself, not just "fuck PAP". Now is the "hundred flowers bloom" era, the Cambrian explosion where a lot of opposition parties rise up. Some will do well, others will not, and still others will make significant contributions before fading away. This stage of the competition is vital, because this is the "talking" stage. This stage (assuming that progress is made) is when the parties figure what they are really about, educate themselves. A lot of things will be said and learnt. Maybe the Singapore public will also educate themselves. Lots of issues have been aired in a fashion that has been more democratic than before, and those Singaporeans paying attention will learn what it's all about: the strike. The M Ravi case. The Hougang case. The Ng Boon Gay case. The Function 8 case. Gay rights. SMRT. Foreign talent. Sun Xu. A lot of things will make people think.
Later on, if things keep on swinging against the PAP, then the PAP will lose their supermajority. Then there will be horse trading in other directions. The PAP will have to decide how to cut deals with people. Like it or not, horse trading is a fact of life in parliament. You bend a little, I bend a little, both sides get their laws passed. Otherwise, there is deadlock. PM Lee is not talking about deadlock because he wants to raise a bogeyman, deadlock is real. And if you want to see a real example of deadlock, listen to how GMS is still bitching about WP / NSP Kallang Moulmein issue.
People say that there cannot be opposition unity because there was no opposition unity in the past. That is like saying that opposition will not win a GRC because they have never done so in the past. Fact is, it is not an inherent trait of the opposition that there will be quarrels and deadlock. It is about the players, how they play the game, whether or not they are mature. Sometimes when you want to quarrel, you should just shut the doors and thrash it out, PAP style.
I take tanwahp's point that sometimes TJS' behaviour has been shocking. Running for president, waiting so long before ruling himself out of Hougang. I think where he and Chee Soon Juan are concerned, they did the best for each other: a short marriage of convenience and then they're through. TJS helps revive SDP by lending some credibility (incidently I was walking through TP Bus interchange when that famous meeting at Delifrance was taking place) but gets out before he seriously challenges CSJ's leadership of the party. But the using of the SDP as a convenient platform leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
And like Obama said about democracy, it is a very messy process. In the past, Singapore did things neatly. If we become democratic, things will be more messy. Doesn't mean that it will be bad. But nobody will be able to wave a magic wand, as LKY once did, and implement a grand plan wholesale. There will be one patch here, another patch there, sometimes the policies and solutions will be internally incoherent. That is a fact of life and that is what you sometimes have to accept in a real democracy.
