I would like to thank Mr Goh Meng Seng [Blog] for spending his time in engaging a lively debate with myself in an entry of his blog titled "Checks & Balances" [Link]. I have reach a point where I need to divert to discuss about a topic (my continuation of Part 3 of How to win a GRC in 2006 will continue later, stay tuned).
I am a citizen of Singapore, born here, live here and most probably will die here. There are so many sets of rules and laws that we must abide. However, these laws are generally unheard of and not informed of until the day you commited an offence against these laws. Too late! For example, the Woman's Charter was created long before I could understand what is law about. Was the sets of law thrown onto my desk and declared it's up to myself to read it and understand it and abide by it. The answer is no! That's a sad fact. Hey we are talking about the pre-Internet period before 1994 where Internet was commercialised. Is every citizen expected to queue up at the Ministry of Law and pay a sum of money to buy a set of laws that most probably 90% of the population do not understand (the lawyer jargons used) at all?
Anyway, the topic today is about the R E A L I T Y of engaging in politics in Singapore. I am going to quote a paragraph written by Mr Goh MS and to be fair to him, I am quoting the whole paragraph:
"I do not believe in "conformist" approach, else I won't be in opposition politics in the very first place. It may just be true that MAJORITY of Singaporeans would just put great importance on paper qualification and we may have to play to the tune of this mindset, but deep down in our hearts, we must not be swayed or "corrupted" by such notion. In fact, it should be our mission to educate the masses the fallacy of elitism. Yeah, it is going to be tough job against REALITY but hey, who says it is going to be easy?"
Soccer is the number 1 sports in Singapore, if not the world. I don't need to proof that because FIFA has already proven that based on how much TV money they can command for World Cup as compared to other sports. So I am using the analogy of soccer to talk about the topic on engaging politics in Singapore - so that everyone who is "layman" or "heartlander" enough can understand.
The stadium is the place we will be to watch a soccer match. On the field, there will be 2 teams, the home team and the opposition team, of 11 players each with maybe 5 reserves and the backroom staffs (inclusive of coach). There is a set of rules, decided by FIFA and customised to local needs. There is a referee in charge and 2 linesmen assisting the referee.
The home team owns the stadium. They decide where to position the supporters of home and the opposition teams to the north, east, south and west stands inside the stadium, and of course, to their advantages.
The media inside the stadium are mostly from the home team's city and not from the opposition team's village.
A friendly match was arranged between the home team and the opposition team. In preparation for the game, the home team engages 16 good players (with 5 star players) and a master tactician as the coach. The opposition team, being from a poor village, somewhat to assemble 11 kampung players (with 1 good player but no reserve) and a untested coach.
When the match starts, the crowd will be roaring in support behind the home team - like the 13th player (the 12th player is the referee - when he is "kayu"). From the start, the advantages is clear, it is an uphill tasks for the opposition team to win the match.
When 1 of the kampung player is about to score (maybe from a questionable off-side position), the linesman raised his flag for a foul. Being from the village with its own set of cultures (which may be different from the civilised world whereby the rules are set based on), the player engaged with the linesman in a heated argument. The referee comes over and promptly show the red card to the kampung player. It's a sent off and now the game is about 11 (home) against 10 (opposition).
As the match progress, 2 opposing players (1 from home, 1 from opposition) collided and both were injured. The home team promptly replace the injured player. The opposition team, without reserve, has to live with an injured player that cannot contribute to the game anymore. So the match is now 11 (home) against 9 (opposition).
Can kampung player beats star and good players? Statistics say no! So the match ended 50-1, another world record! The next morning, the media writes all about the glory of the home team, interviews the winning coach and nothing about why they let in 1 unforgivable goal nor an interview with the opposition coach (deemed to be unable to push the sales of the newspapers).
Who are the relations from the soccer game to reality? They are (no name will be stated):
Stadium - country
N, E, S, W stands - GRC
city - rich party with cosmopolitans
village - poor party with heartlanders
home media - government-linked (partly owned) media
home team - ruling party
opposition team - opposition party
sets of rules - laws
star player - ministers
good player - elite MPs
kampung player - opposition candidate with certs (not degree)
referee - judiciary system
linesman - lawyers
sent off player - opposition candidate seeking refuge in Australia
injured home player - past MP charged in court
injured opposition player - bankrupt opposition candidate
score of 50-1 - the REALITY in parliament
Such is the reality that the opposition parties in Singapore have to face and have to play with. Most importantly, they must play and not continue complaining about being unfair. Stop complaining! Brush up you skills, recruit better players and use strategies to beat the ruling party at their own games!
Can you don't "conform" to the rules? Imagine if the opposition wanted to play rugby on a soccer field and in a soccer match! Disaster!
The ball was never in your court! Don't expect it to be passed into your court. Go to the opposing court and played their game and try to beat them to it. Then dribble the ball back to your court. That's the only way! There is no use complaining and getting upset and refusing to play or refusing to comply with the rules. It is of NO USE!
This is R E A L I T Y! It's time to wake up and I will welcome you to the REAL WORLD if you decided to play by the rules!
In part 2, I shall discuss what is this thing about paper qualifications that Mr Goh and myself have disagreement on! Stay tuned.
[P.S. (to Mr Goh): Engaging in debate with you is good. It gives us the opportunity to understand you and your mindset better. Who knows, one day I might be one the voters deciding between yourself and the PAP candidate on the ballot box in some GRC/SMC. I have 1 vote and I have great influence on another 3 votes at least. Try to convince me first and the thousands of voters before we will toss the lots on your side. Oh yes, this is Part 1 of my answers to your comment in your blog (link - see above). And yes, I used the Art of War against you. It's better to play the game in my court and let you defend against it than to play the game in your court and me defending my comments.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Dear K.S.,
I think your view here is pretty pessimistic. One should try to look at things in a more optimistic way.
This is not a "one time game" but multiple game. PAP might have won this time, next time, but I think in the long run, they will start losing, even if they are fighting 11 to 8 players on the other side.
The theory is simple, evolution. This has been touched by LKY before. The GRC might have tilted the field in favour for PAP in the short run, but in the long run, PAP ministers, MPs and its election machinery will lose the skills eventually. This is like saying have 84 football teams but 50 of them have not contest in any games before for 2 decades! Do you think they will still retain the skills of footballers without any contests for so long?
In Chinese ancient wisdom, this is call Fo Ji Tai Lai, meaning, if one is to go to the extreme, it will just turn around.
If one is to just look at the superficial firepower comparison between the Americans and the Vietcongs, obviously no one in his right mind would join the Vietcongs thinking that they will have swift victory. On hindsight, we know they have won the war against the ALL SUPERIOR Americans, why? Not only in Vietnam, in Korean War too. The Chinese just fought practically with bare hands (well, four sharing one rifle) in massive numbers. Who will think it will become stalemate ultimately?
What determines the outcome of the warfares, past and present? The Power of Mental Determination, that's what it is all about. Don't be overwhelmed by initial victories. Don't be totally demolished mentally by initial failures. When there is more hardship ahead, you could took either side of mental outlook, pessimistism or optimism. I will just take it as a tougher training ground than all my opponents and I shall prevail over it.
People who are not used to challenges, will take the pessimistic stand; Its end of the world and yes, if you think that way, it will truly be the end of the world for you!
Success or failure is just momentary instance; Treasure what you have learnt from the process which nobody could take away from you.
Goh Meng Seng
The football game analogy here is flawed. I do not at all agree with the way you define it.
In fact, I consider each constituency a different kind of ball game. A single seat one is more like two players pitting their skills against one another, like a game of tennis. While a GRC is something else entirely.
This is the reality:
1) Whenever the opposing player comes close to winning a single player game, the court is demonished and then the player has to be forced to play a different game. And if you can't field enough players, you are out. And the best part, the reigning team can thus steal a victory from this. Now, let's move on to the next portion on the argument that if the opposing team can beat the reigning champion in this new game they win more.
2) Should the opposing team comes close to winning, they suddenly realize taht the trophy that they are fighting for becomes no more when the next contest is due.
Personally speaking, I can't even call this rules we are abiding to. Like it or not I call this blatant cheating.
Dear Nelson,
These are opinions! You are right in your view that the game of SMC (1-on-1) and GRC (many-on-many) are different. It can be badmintion on 1 SMC, tennis on another SMC, etc.
What I did was to "stand above" Singapore and have an overall view and treat whatever is happening within the minute details as a whole game. That's the essence - the bigger picture (the Parliament as a whole).
Can't you see from all my blogs that I am as UNHAPPY as you are that the games keep changing. Isn't that clear that I share the same views that Enuos GRC, Cheng Shan GRC, Braddell Heights SMC were all absorbed because of some reasons that I cannot write about (the PAP might be reading this <- and I do not want to make the claims that the Election Department is not independent).
I hope you can look at views and opinions objectively (like Mr Goh <- at least he respected that and commented that the views were pessimistic, etc). We are not living in a communist state whereby I must hear and follow your views only.
Analogy is about some similarities with the real situation. Analogy is used to make a difficult-to-understand topic become easy. Analogy is meant to protray the actual facts but itself is not the actual facts. Analogy is used sometimes to poke fun at a topic. That's why I am using an analogy. There is not such thing as flawed opinions, there is only such things as like-minded thoughts or disagreement.
(Mr Goh: I will answer to your comments tonight. I do agree with you on many points though)
Hi K.S.,
Relax, dude.
Our enlightened govt does not react irrationally to the comments of the citizens. Or else the 'Changi resort' and other penal facilities in this country will need rapid expansion already.
However, I will take your advise to tone down on my comments. :)
Dear Mr Goh,
Perseverance is a must to survive in politics. People without this stamina drop out too quickly.
I share the same view that evolution is the event that might cause the PAP to lose power one day.
But the similiarity ends here for the moment. PAP has splitted before into PAP and Barisan Socialis in 1961! That's what I am waiting for! Another round of split among 2 different sets of elites with different mindset <- this is the ALTERNATIVE that I am waiting for!
Can I live to see it? Maybe. The founder of that party is already pass 80 and his son is already pass 50. I see no reason why I won't outlast them in life.
Sorry to say that I am not waiting for WP to become the alternative at the moment, unless of course WP managed to pull-in many elites of the workers (as contrast to the elites of the scholars for the PAP).
Dear K.S.,
You could continue to wait for the "split" or rather the "promise land" without doing anything. :) But I could tell you that when the day you are sleeping on your death bed, you won't see that happening!
The reason is simple, this is not 1963 but 2005. Why do you think they need million dollar annual pay for ministers? One of the main reasons is that this will be the most important glueing interests for the party heavy weights! Who want to rebel? Once rebel, you are going to lose that million dollar annual pay!
The splitting of PAP back then was the split of ideology; independence vs merger with Malaysia. Nothing else matter, no million dollar pay!
Goh Meng Seng
Yes. Forget about the possibility of a party split.
One only needs to remember the fate of Devan Nair, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong and Andrew Kuan to know where the path leads to if you choose to head in the opposite direction.
That is enough to ensure that someone would just bow up quietly without a big fuss.
Now to add on to what I have put earlier. I have no opinion as to the events leading to the current situation of people like Tang, Seow etc. They should of all people know, it is all simply politics.
What I am simply saying is, have these people in mind should you wanna try and be funny. Hahahah..
Dear Mr Goh and Nelson,
Noted your comments on splitting. Myself do not forsee anything about splitting happening in the PAP in the near future too. But who can predict the future? It is precisely the fact about losing control within the party that the "Vatican"-style approach for comradeship in the ruling party has been chosen. So there is always such a possibility, otherwise, why is there a need to guard against it?
And I was just summarising that the best oppositions at THIS moment, come from within the ruling party, not outside. It will take some time for the oppositions to have more credible candidates, or maybe WP can show us some surprises in the coming elections.
'Fo Ji Tai Lai' doesn't mean when cray piles up too high, another batch of craps should come...
The victory of opposition in the future is not something to celebrate if that's the sorta elements it can secure now go into the future.
What are leaders?
Post a Comment