Pritam's idea of PAP-WP Coalition

[Goh Meng Seng]

Sneering Tree has accused me of taking cheap shot at Pritam for saying that he is fine with PAP-WP Coalition but let me put the record straight, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG for Pritam to believe in having PAP-WP coalition government in the event of hung parliament.

In fact, I would have more respect to Pritam if he had stuck to his stand and not hide behind some "academic exercise" excuse. And I believe within WP, there are many members who would agree with him that it would be good for WP to go into a PAP-WP coalition in the event of hung parliament.

The only reason why people would see this as a "taboo" subject is that they think if such idea is to be let out too early, they might lose the hardcore anti-PAP votes. But seriously, if you have such views, political views, you should put it up upfront and let voters examine them thoroughly. Politicians should have such intellectual integrity and courage to do that and try to convince voters why this idea is the best approach for the country, instead of hiding it and try to "con votes".

Put it in simple terms, WP has maintained a far distance from other opposition parties, only appearing for electoral negotiations just after the boundary is out. There are practically no interactions whatsoever on policy matters and such. Of course, from NSP perspective, WP has elbowed its way into Moulmein Kallang and would most probably to do it again at Tampines. Under such circumstances, would it be possible for WP to have a coalition with any other opposition parties at all? I seriously doubt so. Unless there is another new upcoming opposition party with Dr Tan CB as figure head.

If there is a hung parliament with a third or even forth party having seats in parliament, I do not think any of the other opposition parties would be able to form any coalition government on their own. They would either do it with PAP or WP. The only other alternative is for WP to go into coalition with PAP.

The obvious result would most probably be PAP-WP coalition. Thus, technically speaking, it is not wrong for Pritam to say that preference would be a PAP-WP coalition. There are many reason to have such a coalition. The most important reason is for transitional stability from one dominant party rule to multiple party rule. For such transition to be stable, the nation would need the coalition to have at least some ruling experiences. Well, the hardcore anti-PAP voters may not buy that but the middle ground voters might support that.

Whatever it is, I think Pritam is entitled to his rational view and he should stand firm on his belief. For people like Sneering Tree to suggest that by bringing up Pritam's political stand is like taking a pot shot or cheap shot at him or WP, it is truly an insult to Pritam's intellectual conclusion and political belief.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Bro, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. What Sneering Tree is trying to say is that your comments however genuine or honest that you are about it can easily be considered as costly to the WP. As you are well versed in this game, the benefit of a doubt cannot be given. In politics, you hide the warts however true it is. What Pritam said is clearly something that can happen. Note who the Tories are in bed with - the Lib Dems who are their mortal enemies compared to Labour. But this is not a discussion for our voters who have not very matured. You keep repeating what Pritam said about coalition and people think that he is leaning towards the enemy and you happily stoking the fire. Get the picture.

Let the matter rest. It already hard to find quality opposition minority candidates and you of all people should know that having done the near impossible of forming a Malay Bureau and providing the Malay community a foothold in opposition politics as a community rather than as a group.

 

[kingrant]

GMS could have a more persuasive voice here if he had gotten at least one MP seat. Now, with not even a seat, and he tries to sound like an oracle here, if not a gas bag.

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. Is that what GMS believes he is doing?

 

[ssrrvv11]

goh meng seng has absolutely nothing else to offer except more sour grapes. he certainly has a damn big ego to match his big LOSER status.

 

[RafflesTiger]

WP is nothing more than a party which is using anti PAP votes to challenge PAP at the ballot box but does nothing much to challenge PAP in real issues... The voters have been keep in the dark.. Pritam probably sees a coalition where PAP offers him some deputy minister post in future.. The way I see the WP challenge PAP is like a bunch of panties wearing rich people(not workers) who will eventually bed the enemy for self glory..

As Yaw Shin Loong puts it, voting for PAP is for national interest.. And Hougang people are silly enough to vote for a man who believes in this. If WP is just like PAP, its better to go for PAP because we know them very well.. Many people including me will probably switch back to PAP if WP gets too strong..

Whats the use of having WP if they will eventually embrace the same policies as PAP, perhaps with slight revisions.. Look at the Lib Dems in UK, voters are rejecting them at the ballot box.. The Labour party will probably get a lot of the lib dem's votes and go on to form the next government..

If WP does not stand up to PAP, I rather vote PAP.. I agree with Goh Meng Seng on this following point.. If Slyvia, Yaw and Low want to use the anti PAP momentum to get more seats in Parliament and eventually form a govt with PAP with their top people being offered cabinet posts, then please tell the voters, we are not dumb..

Chen Show Mao recently compares WP to Wei Zheng.. Historically, Wei Zheng served the enemy.. Tang Taizhong killed his brothers at Xuanwumen and upsurped the throne.. And Wei Zheng was the teacher of Li JianCheng(Crown Prince) who was killed by Li ShiMin... PAP is no Tang Dynasty although both headed by a Lee.. PM is no Li Shimin.. I think the electorate is not sophisticated enough to understand WP's real intentions.. That is to be the side kick of PAP and eventualli bed them..

I can tell you guys empirically that if WP and Low were as much of a threat as JBJ and Francis, Low would not be allowed to survive for so long, let along wrestle a GRC from them..

 

[Robert Half]

What is the point of having a PAP-WP coalition garment

44 seats is needed to change the garment and I believe 39.9% did not voted for such a silly combination

 

[RafflesTiger]

What is the point of having a PAP-WP coalition garment

44 seats is needed to change the garment and I believe 39.9% did not voted for such a silly combination

Its very useful for Low, Yaw and Pritam because PAP will give them cabinet posts and million dollar salaries...

 

[Robert Half]

Its very useful for Low, Yaw and Pritam because PAP will give them cabinet posts and million dollar salaries...

Oh ...then people may vote in a 3rd party.

Possibly SPP will return to Parliament with one elected seat

The Chiams are quite good in winning single seats but not GRC

 

[Robert Half]

Why I say SPP but not NSP as a 3rd party ?

Because the Chiams are proven & had the experience. Maybe Nicole Seah at best become NCMP in next GE

 

[Forvendet]

In a hung parliament, any combination is a possibility as long as the coalition has 44 seats or above. There's no point pre-excluding PAP and must stick with non-PAP parties. I would worry if that's the case. Given a choice of SDP, NSP and SPP, it's a riff-raff no choice. None of them so far has any real ministerial cailbre. A strong WP offering coalition with PAP would surely downsize, rightsize and improve PAP as coalition terms and conditions would surely include getting rid of some deadwood ministers for to make way for new WP ministers. Civil service and military would experience and understand that PAP isn't everything. That'd be good for both parties and the country and a quantum leap in the development of democracy, not democracy as defined as overthrow PAP at all cost.

 

[Maximilian Chua-Heng]

GMS,

WP is very single-minded on what it wants to achieve, ie - election - parliament - groundwork.

GMS don't be a jack of all trades, a master of none.

 

[Robert Half]

In a hung parliament, any combination is a possibility as long as the coalition has 44 seats or above. There's no point pre-excluding PAP and must stick with non-PAP parties. I would worry if that's the case. Given a choice of SDP, NSP and SPP, it's a riff-raff no choice. None of them so far has any real ministerial cailbre. A strong WP offering coalition with PAP would surely downsize, rightsize and improve PAP as coalition terms and conditions would surely include getting rid of some deadwood ministers for to make way for new WP ministers. Civil service and military would experience and understand that PAP isn't everything. That'd be good for both parties and the country and a quantum leap in the development of democracy, not democracy as defined as overthrow PAP at all cost.

If that is the case, may I ask who is the real Oppositions in the Parliament ?

People voted in opposition members to speak up against PAP not to team up with PAP

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Bro Scroobal,

I think that is the intriguing point. Why would Sneering Tree feels that my comments could be "costly to WP"? That is why I ask him if Pritam should feel ashame of his comments on PAP-WP coalition?

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with Pritam's comments in the first place. It is a candid and truthful revelation of his assessment and I agree with him, if there is a hung parliament, the most likely outcome would be the formation of a PAP-WP coalition government.

If Sneering Tree means that by highlighting this idea of Pritam would make WP "looks bad" or "lose votes", I think WP has come around such problems. I mean, even for a person who openly declare his vote for PAP has been elected as WP MP during GE2011! I think he worries too much over such things. In fact, I would say that if this is part of WP manifesto for next GE, it would actually make distinctions for WP vs other opposition parties. This is important especially so when WP would most likely be fighting 3 corner fights with other opposition parties.

Goh Meng Seng

Bro, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. What Sneering Tree is trying to say is that your comments however genuine or honest that you are about it can easily be considered as costly to the WP. As you are well versed in this game, the benefit of a doubt cannot be given. In politics, you hide the warts however true it is. What Pritam said is clearly something that can happen. Note who the Tories are in bed with - the Lib Dems who are their mortal enemies compared to Labour. But this is not a discussion for our voters who have not very matured. You keep repeating what Pritam said about coalition and people think that he is leaning towards the enemy and you happily stoking the fire. Get the picture.

Let the matter rest. It already hard to find quality opposition minority candidates and you of all people should know that having done the near impossible of forming a Malay Bureau and providing the Malay community a foothold in opposition politics as a community rather than as a group.

 

[zhihau]

Let the matter rest.

bro,

could help me out here? supposing come next GE, both PAP & WP scores 41 seats each, and party A wins a 5 member GRC, what would the outcome be like? the first 2 parties to seal the coalition?

 

[zhihau]

If that is the case, may I ask who is the real Oppositions in the Parliament

bro,

would be more appropriate to ask who is serving the public better & who is self-serving...

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Politics is not about principles but rather politics is about the art of the possible and of compromise. The question to "Pritam" was in the context of an academic exercise i.e posed by the forum moderator and he probably should have qualified his statement every way until sunday.

The PAP has funnily enough been MORE than happy to LOB accusation after accusation in GE 2011 for the WP to come clean about its attempts to gain power. whereas its own attempts to stay in power through GRCs etc etc are well pure :_)).

I believe that any discussion of coalition WP NSP PAP etc is nothing more than political fantasies and political self masturbation. The numbers do not justify the talk or the consideration, and any comment on it should be seen as highly speculative with little weight put on it. Let the chips fall first and then talk



Locke

Sneering Tree has accused me of taking cheap shot at Pritam for saying that he is fine with PAP-WP Coalition but let me put the record straight, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG for Pritam to believe in having PAP-WP coalition government in the event of hung parliament.

In fact, I would have more respect to Pritam if he had stuck to his stand and not hide behind some "academic exercise" excuse. And I believe within WP, there are many members who would agree with him that it would be good for WP to go into a PAP-WP coalition in the event of hung parliament.

The only reason why people would see this as a "taboo" subject is that they think if such idea is to be let out too early, they might lose the hardcore anti-PAP votes. But seriously, if you have such views, political views, you should put it up upfront and let voters examine them thoroughly. Politicians should have such intellectual integrity and courage to do that and try to convince voters why this idea is the best approach for the country, instead of hiding it and try to "con votes".

Put it in simple terms, WP has maintained a far distance from other opposition parties, only appearing for electoral negotiations just after the boundary is out. There are practically no interactions whatsoever on policy matters and such. Of course, from NSP perspective, WP has elbowed its way into Moulmein Kallang and would most probably to do it again at Tampines. Under such circumstances, would it be possible for WP to have a coalition with any other opposition parties at all? I seriously doubt so. Unless there is another new upcoming opposition party with Dr Tan CB as figure head.

If there is a hung parliament with a third or even forth party having seats in parliament, I do not think any of the other opposition parties would be able to form any coalition government on their own. They would either do it with PAP or WP. The only other alternative is for WP to go into coalition with PAP.

The obvious result would most probably be PAP-WP coalition. Thus, technically speaking, it is not wrong for Pritam to say that preference would be a PAP-WP coalition. There are many reason to have such a coalition. The most important reason is for transitional stability from one dominant party rule to multiple party rule. For such transition to be stable, the nation would need the coalition to have at least some ruling experiences. Well, the hardcore anti-PAP voters may not buy that but the middle ground voters might support that.

Whatever it is, I think Pritam is entitled to his rational view and he should stand firm on his belief. For people like Sneering Tree to suggest that by bringing up Pritam's political stand is like taking a pot shot or cheap shot at him or WP, it is truly an insult to Pritam's intellectual conclusion and political belief.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[wwabbit]

could help me out here? supposing come next GE, both PAP & WP scores 41 seats each, and party A wins a 5 member GRC, what would the outcome be like? the first 2 parties to seal the coalition?

If a coalition can be formed, then yes the first of any two parties that can seal a coalition will form a majority coalition government. It's not as easy as you think, it will take days of negotiations before a coalition can be agreed on. A recent case study is the 2010 UK GE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

If a coalition cannot be agreed on, then a minority government will be formed. The president will appoint the PM and the PM appoints the cabinet, but this will be an unstable government because at any point of time a motion of no confidence can be passed. To improve stability the minority government will try to do a deal with the smaller party such that the smaller party will vote against such motions in exchange for passing of some policies.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

I don't know why you ended up with the principle thing. As I have already stated, the most "POSSIBLE OUTCOME" is PAP-WP coalition in the event of hung parliament. It is not based on any "principle", so to speak.

Well, I would agree with you that such "academic exercise" is fertile (until the giant falls) except that it demonstrates when the intellectual cold logic and rational being applied, you will end up with such conclusion. In fact, here again, I truly think this is a HIGH POSSIBLE outcome as I have put up various other reasons here. Not my fantasy though, Pritam's.

Things would get very interesting next GE and I think by then, all signs would be very clear.


Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Politics is not about principles but rather politics is about the art of the possible and of compromise. The question to "Pritam" was in the context of an academic exercise i.e posed by the forum moderator and he probably should have qualified his statement every way until sunday.

The PAP has funnily enough been MORE than happy to LOB accusation after accusation in GE 2011 for the WP to come clean about its attempts to gain power. whereas its own attempts to stay in power through GRCs etc etc are well pure :_)).

I believe that any discussion of coalition WP NSP PAP etc is nothing more than political fantasies and political self masturbation. The numbers do not justify the talk or the consideration, and any comment on it should be seen as highly speculative with little weight put on it. Let the chips fall first and then talk



Locke

 

[zhihau]

If a coalition cannot be agreed on, then a minority government will be formed

ooo... minority Government, neat, isn't it? :p:p:p

 

[zhihau]

Things would get very interesting next GE and I think by then, all signs would be very clear.

bro,

i've not given up hope on you, a minority Government would still be plausible, so it seems.