- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 259
- Points
- 18
It looks like PAP has not learned from the lessons of 2011 GE.
LTK is right. The PAP of old is not the PAP of today. George Yeo made a very good comment that when an organisation get going for many years, the rot starts to set in and what they do not "realise" will set its doom. He wanted to be the "reformist" voice inside the Party but unfortunately he got booted out.
In the sixties up to the early eighties, PAP has a very strong dedicated grassroot base whose support begin from ordinary folks in the mass anti-colonial movement. In the early days, PAP filled many ordinary folks with just simple education backgrounds to be candidates. Later the Barisan Socialis made a critical mistake when it withdrew from running in the elections and so gave PAP a free hand. PAP responded by running country with excellent economic policies that uplifted the people's standard of living. With a strong grassroot base, it continued to enjoy continuous support from the populace.
The second phase began in the late seventies when LKY started to raise candidates of technocratic calibre rather than from its grassroots. It needed folks with experience in running the government. These are folks from civil service, military and private sector. These candidates get parachuted into constituencies and yet they won. I think in this phase, the strong grassroots base, though somewhat disgruntled, continued to back PAP. Despite lacking experience in grassroots, the technocratic candidates prevailed even if they do not spend time tilling the ground. This was the policy that followed up to this date, and PAP continued to win elections.
Soon the cracks appeared. PAP lost Anson and Potong Pasir even with their so-called high-calibre candidates. PAP came up with the GRC policy and used to so-called bait of estate upgrading and this sustained PAP. In the process, something happened in the grassroots base. The older generation gradually passed on in life and now we have a different grassroot base in the RCs, People Association and CCCs etec. The present cadre base in PAP have very little experience in tilling the ground at all. They are just successful elitist folks in their careers.
In the nineties up to now, PAP had still not realised that its grassroots no longer function as an efficient feedback base and the folks lack the fire and conviction of those in the fifties and sixtie which began as a fight against colonial authorities. I once went to a Meet-the-MP session and curiously asked the fellow why he volunteered. From the conversation, I realised that this young man joined to help the MP so as to increase his networking which can help in his career. What a discovery! I was told RC members get privileges in housing and carpark allocation, and some even did for such petty stuff. I recounted an experience of my friend who was so disgusted with his RC, who organise the welcoming ceremonies for constituency events to curry favour with their MP. The MP made his usual appearance in constituency event, garlanded and made his usual speech. He absolutely is "clueless" about his constituency and note that the MP has a full time job, and he relied on these folks to carry out his job. I reckoned PAP MPs got carried away with this practice, and they do not really interact with the residents extensively. That is even worst for those who are ministers whose portfolios just do not allow them to interact with their constituency members.
All these while, Worker Party moved towards being a genuine grassroot movement under LTK. He started wisely with Hougang and made efforts to engage the local residents. He raised teams of grassroot members who have a conviction to fight against PAP. Back in those days, the Opposition parties are so ridiculed that it take tremendous convictions to stand up to support and be politicking members. So you have this trend when PAP grassroot members are progressively filled up of folks with self interest and opposition ones who spend time extensively on the ground to canvass.
What Sylvia Lim said in one rally was telling. She said that prior 2011 GE, she and her team spend many days trolling the constituency to gather support. It was to follow LTK's simple strategy. Win the ground and you have a chance. KPK and his likes, did not do such stuff. When it was time for Sylvia to canvas in the GE, the folks in Aljunied already have seen her. KPK - he just turned up in Punggol ..if he had done years of extensive canvassing prior to Punggol, things would have been different.
Notice the difference between WP and PAP's decisions in this by election. PAP continued to parachute a candidate who joined last-minute while WP stayed the ground and sent the same person into the election. This was the REAL difference.
KPK was not from grassroots, had no experience in grassroot politics and performed poorly as a candidate. The most important attributes of a politician are to be likeable, politically knowledgeable and portray genuineness in helping people. KPK failed in all these counts primarily I reckon he had no experience in grassroots at all. He could not even answer simple political queries and seeked to evade them. He appeared clueless and lacking convictions. He could not convey the empathy needed of a politician. If you look at Tan Cheng Bock, this guy is somebody! He was somebody who had been a doctor in village, and he continued to relate to the ordinary folks genuinely as a politician. He continued to garner increasing popular support from his constituency. If you do good and relate, your reputation will spread.
In this age, KPK received no help from his grassroot backers as I reckoned they are not the ones who are genuinely into politics to further PAP's interest. They are a dysfunctional group lacking convictions and have no ideas of the ground. Rivervale plaza's problems was there all the while, and nobody did anything until PAP had to fight a by-election. This is telling! PAP grassroots in Punggol did not feedback upwards of the urgent problem of Rivervale at all.
From 2011 elections, PAP should have learned its mistakes. It did not. Why? I think this have to do with the folks now running the government have very little experience in learning politics from the ground. For example,TCH was parachuted into PAP from being a career soldier in SAF. None spend their initial years tilling the ground unlike what you are seeing in Worker Party ...
KPK was thoroughly "exposed" in this by-election. Sammyboy forummers did an excellent expose, see below:
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?141970-Dr-Koh-PK-genuine-fraud
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...-Dr-Koh-s-credentials&highlight=koon+Sir_Fcuk
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?141975-Hougang-Residents-Koh-Poh-Koon-very-arrogant
The decision to field KPK and an ill-conceived attempt to present him as a "grassroot folk" of Punggol which he was not, seriously undermined PAP. If you are genuinely from the ground, it will show. KPK had nil experience, and it also showed. If he has empathy for the ordinary fellow, he was not experienced enough to convey it. PAP, for what it is, just make very bad mistakes and so out of sync. This BE was supposed to close, and it was not even close. WP won by a large margin with a weak candidate in Lee Li Lian, whose CV was not comparable to KPK.
PAP, I think they will read this sentiment here, and I reckon they will change. Will they? We will see in the next elections. They have to make a decision to gather candidates with calibre but also with fire and convictions. They have to revamp their grassroot base, and seriously ask themselves what does PAP stand for? It is just for materialistic gains? In all and all, PAP needs issues that can galvanise their base plus a strong motivational leadership. Its current leadership is lacking in my view. Thoroughly of technocratic calibre, and lacking political charisma and convictions, no wonder PAP lost even to a terribly weak candidate from the opposition.
LTK is right. The PAP of old is not the PAP of today. George Yeo made a very good comment that when an organisation get going for many years, the rot starts to set in and what they do not "realise" will set its doom. He wanted to be the "reformist" voice inside the Party but unfortunately he got booted out.
In the sixties up to the early eighties, PAP has a very strong dedicated grassroot base whose support begin from ordinary folks in the mass anti-colonial movement. In the early days, PAP filled many ordinary folks with just simple education backgrounds to be candidates. Later the Barisan Socialis made a critical mistake when it withdrew from running in the elections and so gave PAP a free hand. PAP responded by running country with excellent economic policies that uplifted the people's standard of living. With a strong grassroot base, it continued to enjoy continuous support from the populace.
The second phase began in the late seventies when LKY started to raise candidates of technocratic calibre rather than from its grassroots. It needed folks with experience in running the government. These are folks from civil service, military and private sector. These candidates get parachuted into constituencies and yet they won. I think in this phase, the strong grassroots base, though somewhat disgruntled, continued to back PAP. Despite lacking experience in grassroots, the technocratic candidates prevailed even if they do not spend time tilling the ground. This was the policy that followed up to this date, and PAP continued to win elections.
Soon the cracks appeared. PAP lost Anson and Potong Pasir even with their so-called high-calibre candidates. PAP came up with the GRC policy and used to so-called bait of estate upgrading and this sustained PAP. In the process, something happened in the grassroots base. The older generation gradually passed on in life and now we have a different grassroot base in the RCs, People Association and CCCs etec. The present cadre base in PAP have very little experience in tilling the ground at all. They are just successful elitist folks in their careers.
In the nineties up to now, PAP had still not realised that its grassroots no longer function as an efficient feedback base and the folks lack the fire and conviction of those in the fifties and sixtie which began as a fight against colonial authorities. I once went to a Meet-the-MP session and curiously asked the fellow why he volunteered. From the conversation, I realised that this young man joined to help the MP so as to increase his networking which can help in his career. What a discovery! I was told RC members get privileges in housing and carpark allocation, and some even did for such petty stuff. I recounted an experience of my friend who was so disgusted with his RC, who organise the welcoming ceremonies for constituency events to curry favour with their MP. The MP made his usual appearance in constituency event, garlanded and made his usual speech. He absolutely is "clueless" about his constituency and note that the MP has a full time job, and he relied on these folks to carry out his job. I reckoned PAP MPs got carried away with this practice, and they do not really interact with the residents extensively. That is even worst for those who are ministers whose portfolios just do not allow them to interact with their constituency members.
All these while, Worker Party moved towards being a genuine grassroot movement under LTK. He started wisely with Hougang and made efforts to engage the local residents. He raised teams of grassroot members who have a conviction to fight against PAP. Back in those days, the Opposition parties are so ridiculed that it take tremendous convictions to stand up to support and be politicking members. So you have this trend when PAP grassroot members are progressively filled up of folks with self interest and opposition ones who spend time extensively on the ground to canvass.
What Sylvia Lim said in one rally was telling. She said that prior 2011 GE, she and her team spend many days trolling the constituency to gather support. It was to follow LTK's simple strategy. Win the ground and you have a chance. KPK and his likes, did not do such stuff. When it was time for Sylvia to canvas in the GE, the folks in Aljunied already have seen her. KPK - he just turned up in Punggol ..if he had done years of extensive canvassing prior to Punggol, things would have been different.
Notice the difference between WP and PAP's decisions in this by election. PAP continued to parachute a candidate who joined last-minute while WP stayed the ground and sent the same person into the election. This was the REAL difference.
KPK was not from grassroots, had no experience in grassroot politics and performed poorly as a candidate. The most important attributes of a politician are to be likeable, politically knowledgeable and portray genuineness in helping people. KPK failed in all these counts primarily I reckon he had no experience in grassroots at all. He could not even answer simple political queries and seeked to evade them. He appeared clueless and lacking convictions. He could not convey the empathy needed of a politician. If you look at Tan Cheng Bock, this guy is somebody! He was somebody who had been a doctor in village, and he continued to relate to the ordinary folks genuinely as a politician. He continued to garner increasing popular support from his constituency. If you do good and relate, your reputation will spread.
In this age, KPK received no help from his grassroot backers as I reckoned they are not the ones who are genuinely into politics to further PAP's interest. They are a dysfunctional group lacking convictions and have no ideas of the ground. Rivervale plaza's problems was there all the while, and nobody did anything until PAP had to fight a by-election. This is telling! PAP grassroots in Punggol did not feedback upwards of the urgent problem of Rivervale at all.
From 2011 elections, PAP should have learned its mistakes. It did not. Why? I think this have to do with the folks now running the government have very little experience in learning politics from the ground. For example,TCH was parachuted into PAP from being a career soldier in SAF. None spend their initial years tilling the ground unlike what you are seeing in Worker Party ...
KPK was thoroughly "exposed" in this by-election. Sammyboy forummers did an excellent expose, see below:
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?141970-Dr-Koh-PK-genuine-fraud
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...-Dr-Koh-s-credentials&highlight=koon+Sir_Fcuk
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?141975-Hougang-Residents-Koh-Poh-Koon-very-arrogant
The decision to field KPK and an ill-conceived attempt to present him as a "grassroot folk" of Punggol which he was not, seriously undermined PAP. If you are genuinely from the ground, it will show. KPK had nil experience, and it also showed. If he has empathy for the ordinary fellow, he was not experienced enough to convey it. PAP, for what it is, just make very bad mistakes and so out of sync. This BE was supposed to close, and it was not even close. WP won by a large margin with a weak candidate in Lee Li Lian, whose CV was not comparable to KPK.
PAP, I think they will read this sentiment here, and I reckon they will change. Will they? We will see in the next elections. They have to make a decision to gather candidates with calibre but also with fire and convictions. They have to revamp their grassroot base, and seriously ask themselves what does PAP stand for? It is just for materialistic gains? In all and all, PAP needs issues that can galvanise their base plus a strong motivational leadership. Its current leadership is lacking in my view. Thoroughly of technocratic calibre, and lacking political charisma and convictions, no wonder PAP lost even to a terribly weak candidate from the opposition.
Last edited:
they hav to find an elite doggy who cant connect!!! orbi goot ah!!!!! 
