Pritam's idea of PAP-WP Coalition

[Forvendet]

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

Look at the broader picture. PAP in coalition cannot function as PAP as it had been. The mentality of speaking up against PAP is an entrapping mentality, i.e. always opposition mentality. If you can be part of power with the help of PAP in coalition, why not? That'd be a good first step to diluting PAP power, better than just speaking against it or the uncertainty of a sudden total change in government, isn't it? My take is still, SDP, NSP and SPP are duds and even worse, for the country.

 

[wwabbit]

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

Your insinuations that WP will choose to coalesce with the PAP just for the sake of money and cabinet posts is totally illogical. If they are interested in money and cabinet posts they will more likely be working with the 3rd party which will provide them with not only more cabinet posts but also the Prime Minister post.

If WP chooses to form a coalition with the PAP in the case of a hung parliament, then it will only be because they believe it is for the best for Singapore. Pritam Singh is quite right to say what he had said - the possibility of a coalition with the PAP cannot be discounted. Let's take for example if GE2011 had a freak result such that opposition wins all seats where they scored 39% or better. We'd have:

PAP - 42
WP - 23
NSP - 12
SPP - 6
SDP - 4

So there are 5 possible combination of coalitions:
1. PAP + WP
2. PAP + NSP
3. PAP + SPP
4. PAP + SDP
5. WP + NSP + SPP + SDP

I think PAP + WP would have been the most viable

 

[Perspective]

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.

I think both the first 2 posts of this thread missed the point (of Sneering Tree, that is).

Scenario 1 tells you there are 9 parties in a hypothetical Singapore Parliament where none hold the majority. The largest party, WP, has 38 out of 113 seats and need 19 more. PAP has 12 seats and UFP (some new party formed 20 years from now) has 10. The 3 parties form a coalition of 60 seats to govern, despite past history between PAP and WP. The other 6 parties occupy the remaining 53 seats, each with about 2 to 15 seats - they form the opposition.

Scenario 2 has 2 parties, PAP with 74 seats, WP with 17 seats, both taking up all except 2 of the 93 seats which is under a new TJS party. It could have been 74 vs 19 but despite the lopsidedness, PAP and WP form a coalition and it becomes 91 vs 2.

There is a gulf of difference between 1 and 2. 1 looks very far away, 2 is possibly closer in the timeline. And more importantly, 1 is necessary, 2 is scary and negates necessity. Both are examples of PAP and WP forming a coalition, but lead to very different conditions. Pritam and Sneering points to 1, there are dishonest attempts to put it as 2.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

The resident insect tries very hard to fly all round and sting but in the end, really lost in action!

Goh Meng Seng

 

[zhihau]

I think PAP + WP would have been the most viable

if sympathy cards are played, PAP may still have an extra edge, as you've mentioned, a minority Government would still function, albeit the 2/3 aye is no longer a given luxury.

 

[wikiphile]

if sympathy cards are played, PAP may still have an extra edge, as you've mentioned, a minority Government would still function, albeit the 2/3 aye is no longer a given luxury.

It should never have been in the first place, the wankers in white has become so used to it that they believed it was theirs by birthright and mandated by heaven.

 

[Perspective]

Many despise degrading and name-calling types in forums because they wish to debate cleanly, constructively and contributively, but the ones who can skip these yet have issues with proper laying out of positions are more fearful of having their arguments toppled over easily. No wonder non-constructive tearing down of whoever their opponents are in spite of quality works best for them.

 

[zhihau]

Pritam and Sneering points to 1, there are dishonest attempts to put it as 2.

me thought it is pertinent to know public perception of a coalition Government and me presume Cass888 would want no part of this.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, The point I am making is that any such talk is providing fodder for either the less matured or for the mischievious and to the detriment of the WP. One forummer has already gone to town with it on this thread. As Locke pointed out it is an academic discussion point and we are far from any where close to a condition of this nature even in the distant future. The only ones to keep repeating this academic discussion involving Pritam are out to create mischief. The permutation and scenarios are best left on the academic floor.

I think both the first 2 posts of this thread missed the point (of Sneering Tree, that is).Scenario 1 tells you there are 9 parties in a hypothetical Singapore Parliament where none hold the majority. The largest party, WP, has 38 out of 113 seats and need 19 more. PAP has 12 seats and UFP (some new party formed 20 years from now) has 10. The 3 parties form a coalition of 60 seats to govern, despite past history between PAP and WP. The other 6 parties occupy the remaining 53 seats, each with about 2 to 15 seats - they form the opposition.Scenario 2 has 2 parties, PAP with 74 seats, WP with 17 seats, both taking up all except 2 of the 93 seats which is under a new TJS party. It could have been 74 vs 19 but despite the lopsidedness, PAP and WP form a coalition and it becomes 91 vs 2.There is a gulf of difference between 1 and 2. 1 looks very far away, 2 is possibly closer in the timeline. And more importantly, 1 is necessary, 2 is scary and negates necessity. Both are examples of PAP and WP forming a coalition, but lead to very different conditions. Pritam and Sneering points to 1, there are dishonest attempts to put it as 2.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Only people with something to hide or hidden agenda would not want people to know about such political thoughts and ideas.

If the idea or thoughts are open for "mischief", as Scroobal has put it, it means that the idea has no solid foundation to stand on its own or the one who originates the idea has not been effective in selling his idea. Hiding in halfway house will not bury this issue as once it is out in the open, it will bound to be discussed. Hoping that others will not discuss or cause "mischief" with it, is really behaving like an ostrich. Sooner or later you will have to face it. What happens to the spirit of "accountability"?

Well, it is a blessing in disguise that this issue can be discussed in the open NOW with a fair bit of balance rather than being manipulated by others during the hustling of next GE. But don't expect insects to understand such things.


Goh Meng Seng

me thought it is pertinent to know public perception of a coalition Government and me presume Cass888 would want no part of this.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

If an issue or idea or whatever could be "made use" to become a "mischief", the fear of such will always be there. The only way to diffuse such fear is to face it flatly. The only reason why such issue can become of "inconvenience" (I wouldn't put it as "threat") basically because the one who has put up such idea has not fully explained the idea and fail to convince most of the supporters. The fear is derived from the fear of losing support. But who says you can't turn the table around?

Take for example HDB prices. Prior to 2008, it is a common theme that high HDB price is GOOD for ASSET Enhancement. When I first take on the task of debunking such notion and working against such tide, some people basically say I am crazy, going to lose big because 80% of HDB owners will not vote for me. It will take effort to convince people of the alternative view of the issue. I don't shy away from such difficult issue.

Of course, on hindsight, everybody now rides on the tide to say yeah, HDB price too high.... You either follow Public opinion or mould Public opinion out of it. I believe Pritam is able to convince supporters what he has said is reasonable, just have to put in more effort.

Goh Meng Seng

Bro, The point I am making is that any such talk is providing fodder for either the less matured or for the mischievious and to the detriment of the WP. One forummer has already gone to town with it on this thread. As Locke pointed out it is an academic discussion point and we are far from any where close to a condition of this nature even in the distant future. The only ones to keep repeating this academic discussion involving Pritam are out to create mischief. The permutation and scenarios are best left on the academic floor.

 

[scroobal]

Singaporeans generally have a poor understanding of politics. The aim of a political party is to form govt or to be part of govt. No political party aims to form an opposition. The more important question is how did a particular political party contribute either in opposition or as member of a coalition govt.

Let's take scenario 2 as spelled out by Perspective purely as an academic exercise. LHL has a stroke and his mind is jolted. He offers WP a share of govt making it 91 vs 2. WP gets Ministry of National Development, MOT and community development. LTK becomes Minister of the first ministry, followed by Chen and Sylvia. And they do a sterling job. Singapore becomes a much better place. Would the country be better off if WP chose to be the real opposition and stay put when they could have contributed more significantly.

The possibility of genuine talents appearing in a number of parties is a likely long term scenario. The possibility of major parties including PAP coming to agreement to carve out Singapore to retain some hold is also not out of this realm. Most parties around the world talk about govt or share of govt. only in Singapore we talk about aiming to be good opposition, because toppling the PAP seems a fantasy to many.

Let's face it, we are talking about sour grapes who like to talk about LTK and Chiam being "accepted" by the PAP. One of the first to raise this was Ling how Doong when he lost his seat. Are we not surprised? Now we have GMS creating the scene for such comments to fly. By the way, Ling was sued and paid $120k as compensation. SDP supporters also like to raise the same comments.

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

 

[Perspective]

Bro, The point I am making is that any such talk is providing fodder for either the less matured or for the mischievious and to the detriment of the WP. One forummer has already gone to town with it on this thread. As Locke pointed out it is an academic discussion point and we are far from any where close to a condition of this nature even in the distant future. The only ones to keep repeating this academic discussion involving Pritam are out to create mischief. The permutation and scenarios are best left on the academic floor.

You would think that the renowned forummer would heed your advice if the intent was not something else. If you had been known personally, assertions like "create mischief" would not have rested. Similarly for the penchant with certain serious discussers deemed linked to an ex-party over the unaffiliated whom are drawn to fire over his ridiculous assertions including against the former out of spite. There's only one this "something-else". Everything is personal from the start. As the old adage goes, it's not the message but the messenger. Remember you need depth to understand the message but folly to blackwash the messenger. Don't waste your time on people with no depth, that's my point.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Scroobal,

This is quite disappointing. I have specifically said that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with Pritam's position of PAP-WP coalition as it would become the obvious result in a situation of hung parliament. I didn't even say that WP MPs are "PAP approved" MPs; apparently I don't think so else CSM won't be trying so hard to try and convince PAP that WP MPs are there to help them govern better!

Please don't put words into my mouth.

Goh Meng Seng

Let's face it, we are talking about sour grapes who like to talk about LTK and Chiam being "accepted" by the PAP. One of the first to raise this was Ling how Doong when he lost his seat. Are we not surprised? Now we have GMS creating the scene for such comments to fly. By the way, Ling was sued and paid $120k as compensation. SDP supporters also like to raise the same comments.

 

[Perspective]

Singaporeans generally have a poor understanding of politics. The aim of a political party is to form govt or to be part of govt. No political party aims to form an opposition. The more important question is how did a particular political party contribute either in opposition or as member of a coalition govt.

Let's take scenario 2 as spelled out by Perspective purely as an academic exercise. LHL has a stroke and his mind is jolted. He offers WP a share of govt making it 91 vs 2. WP gets Ministry of National Development, MOT and community development. LTK becomes Minister of the first ministry, followed by Chen and Sylvia. And they do a sterling job. Singapore becomes a much better place. Would the country be better off if WP chose to be the real opposition and stay put when they could have contributed more significantly.

Not true. In Germany, for example, a hung Parliament resulted in calls for the 2 biggest - Social Democrats and Christian Union - to come together as partners - but it did not materialise. In the end Merkel of CDU formed a union with a smaller party and Social Democrats were contented as the opposition. Usually it's very hard to get the top 2 to work together because the other is usually the reason why they exist in the first place.

The WP is free, even at this stage, to accept a mind-jolting coalition resulting in 87 PAP MPs and 2 PAP NCMPs vs 1 SPP NCMP. I can assure we can say bye to WP in 2016.

 

[scroobal]

It's an academic discussion and not what is likely to happen or could happen. Thus the comment about mind being jolted. People still cannot tell the difference between forming govt and joining another party. Look at Australians, Isrealis and many other countries etc. The liberals and Nationals have been coalition partners for years but bitter enemies in the state of Queensland.I cite again the case of Lib Dems who are mortal enemies of the Uk Tories and was formed to fight the Tories and not Labour. Their very formation and existence was fight the Tory policies and not the labour policies. They are now in govt with the Tories.

Not true. In Germany, for example, a hung Parliament resulted in calls for the 2 biggest - Social Democrats and Christian Union - to come together as partners - but it did not materialise. In the end Merkel of CDU formed a union with a smaller party and Social Democrats were contented as the opposition. Usually it's very hard to get the top 2 to work together because the other is usually the reason why they exist in the first place.The WP is free, even at this stage, to accept a mind-jolting coalition resulting in 87 PAP MPs and 2 PAP NCMPs vs 1 SPP NCMP. I can assure we can say bye to WP in 2016.

 

[scroobal]

I don't have to put words in your mouth. You are doing a perfectly good job yourself. I know where you are coming from and you are right. But as I have repeatedly stated, it is playing into the hands of WP detractors who grab such opportunity with glee. They know full well that most Singaporeans do not know the meaning of a an academic discussion even if it bit them in the face.

Pritam though right was politically foolish by taking on that question at face value. I am not ruling out that it is a planted question. The PAP and most people are well aware that comments about Chiam and LTK being "approved", "acceptable" etc have been floated around and such a question is godsent. Then we have you raising it again.

If someone made a false allegation that you are a paedophile.In your case, you will actually stand in front of a kindgarten every day as a matter of principle while most people would avoid it deliberately to prevent any ideas forming. Principles and common sense generally don't go hand in hand. Why you think old folks clutch firmly on principles.

Scroobal, This is quite disappointing. I have specifically said that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with Pritam's position of PAP-WP coalition as it would become the obvious result in a situation of hung parliament. I didn't even say that WP MPs are "PAP approved" MPs; apparently I don't think so else CSM won't be trying so hard to try and convince PAP that WP MPs are there to help them govern better! Please don't put words into my mouth. Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Haha, I don't quite agree that principles and common sense don't go hand in hand. That's because there is the lack of the third factor, wisdom.

It was meant to be a passing remark when someone ask me about the possibility of coalition government and I think Pritam's "academic conclusion" is quite apt. That's about it. But somehow, I am quite curious why WP supporters and insects were so sensitive to it. It must be the case that they view this "academic conclusion" NO GOOD to WP's position; but why?

As you have put it quite nicely, there is nothing wrong to have PAP-WP coalition and I fully agree with it. It is a rational conclusion, never mind whether it is academic or not. But you are saying different thing now. You are saying most Singaporeans lack political wisdom and that is why they may not see the good rationale? I beg to differ and such mentality is actually quite close to PAP's, always treating Singaporeans as ignorant digits.

As I have said, even in the face of self interests at stake, they can be convinced that high HDB price is BAD for them. This is the litmus test and they are definitely not ignorant lot. What they need is just a good doze of reasoning and political education.

It is the refusal and ostrich mentality which make things worse for WP and Pritam. Avoiding this issue altogether, brushing it aside as "academic exercise" isn't going to help in the long term. Well, you may be right that Pritam is foolish to answer that "trick question" at face value but since the cat is out of the bag, he will have to deal with it, not merely hiding it. Because, I may not be the only one who will bring this up in future.

Goh Meng Seng

I don't have to put words in your mouth. You are doing a perfectly good job yourself. I know where you are coming from and you are right. But as I have repeatedly stated, it is playing into the hands of WP detractors who grab such opportunity with glee. They know full well that most Singaporeans do not know the meaning of a an academic discussion even if it bit them in the face.

Pritam though right was politically foolish by taking on that question at face value. I am not ruling out that it is a planted question. The PAP and most people are well aware that comments about Chiam and LTK being "approved", "acceptable" etc have been floated around and such a question is godsent. Then we have you raising it again.

If someone made a false allegation that you are a paedophile.In your case, you will actually stand in front of a kindgarten every day as a matter of principle while most people would avoid it deliberately to prevent any ideas forming. Principles and common sense generally don't go hand in hand. Why you think old folks clutch firmly on principles.

 

[jw5]

Let's not be too harsh on GMS.
He doesn't realise that the issue now is not why Pritam made that remark, or whether a coalition will happen, or what impact it will have on hardcore opposition supporters, etc.
The issue now is why GMS made that remark. What were his intentions?

My take is that it's really not that complicated.
He is simply envious that Pritam is in parliament and he is not. He sees Pritam as someone younger, more eloquent, who is almost a direct replacement for him. He knows CSM is way beyond him, but Pritam is not.

Ok, what are MY intentions for saying this?
It's because GMS has gradually irritated me more and more with his recent post election comments, whereas I think Pritam has been the outstanding performer in his team. I read the exchanges between him and Shanmugam in the ST and was particularly impressed with his responses. He took him on headon, without being nasty while not backing down either.

 

[Perspective]

It's an academic discussion and not what is likely to happen or could happen. Thus the comment about mind being jolted. People still cannot tell the difference between forming govt and joining another party. Look at Australians, Isrealis and many other countries etc. The liberals and Nationals have been coalition partners for years but bitter enemies in the state of Queensland.I cite again the case of Lib Dems who are mortal enemies of the Uk Tories and was formed to fight the Tories and not Labour. Their very formation and existence was fight the Tory policies and not the labour policies. They are now in govt with the Tories.

Good points. Politics does make strange bedfellows. I think so far, no one disagrees that any PAP-WP coalition can ever come to pass. While you are concerned about how it taints the WP at this point, I am not worried so. Of course, village idiots don't understand the message and have to compensate by shooting the messenger by understanding it (or pretending to understand it) totally opposite way. In a short space of one week this sotong is absolutely blur on my point on two occasions on two different topics. So I need to say again, I am not you.

My point is, WP going into a coalition with PAP when PAP has 81 out of 87 seats undermines one of the very principles that people in WP came forward - they do not want such overwhelmer politics. To paint WP this way is to assert that they have betrayed this very principle and as you say it is mischievous but I say dishonest. Both may be right and both are nothng new. Only later then we see clarity.