But i can tell you which democratic city does the above. =D

My last reply to you. I still have hope you can pause and think out of the box.

Please try not to be confused between obstacles and unfair practices.

Losing a soccer match because the players are poorly trained, it was raining and the field was wet, these are obstacles.

Losing a soccer match because the referee was very obviously biased against the losing team, that is unfair practices. No amount of “good strategy” can overcome that. That the losing team score maybe one goal despite the referee’s biase does not invalidate the fact that the referee is biase.

Similarly, when you see one or two opposition MPs in parliament ONLY, you should be questioning why only so few, what’s wrong with the rules. Not thinking : the rules must be fair to allow one or two MPs to enter parliament.

Please tell me which democratic country redraw their electoral boundaries in the last minute?

You have dandruff!

Or perhaps you meant the other less well known Godwin’s law against rational reply.

In a case where someone makes a rational argument that you cannot accept and cannot find a reply to but yet is still indignant so you throw out this accusatory phrase hoping to end the argument which exposes the holes in your own – Less well known (By a huge margin)Godwin’s law

Did you mean this Godwin?

Is this the case?

I must be blind because after reading through what i wrote 3 times i fail to see where i mentioned Hitler.

Either i did mention Hitler by not mentioning Hitler or you are sadly mistaken.

Please impart your wisdom.

Godwin’s Law condemns such posting and does not deserve any reply!

You are so right again.

Why do these whiners want a level playing field instead of thinking of ways to circumvent obstacles?

It’s this type of can-do attitude that marks all great nations.

Although i have a problem with one example you shared earlier. If a child performs poorly in an examination, can get tuition or ‘sifu’ and such. But what if such a child performs excellently in the exams but is in direct competition with the son of the university dean, who barely passed, for the last place in the uni but loses the place because of connections. Or in real life cases where chinese students in malaysia cannot enter the course of study they want just because they are not bumiputra? What is the strategy here if there is only one university? (read one govt)

Because the example you shared can be put in this way. The opposition is the student who does poorly. He can perform better by conducting more meet the people sessions, walk around meeting the residents, generally building his support base, learning from successful opposition, changing the methodology of campaigning etc – akin to the student getting better results because of tuition.

But come election time, where he is campaigning is suddenly redrawn on the electoral map to include 2 PAP strongholds where majority are known to be PAP supporters. And now the majority are PAP voters and he loses. – akin to unfair practises causing the performing student to lose his uni place.

What is the strategy here? How do i get real?

Insight please oh God of Strategy.

The fact that you easily dismiss the multiple obstacles contributing to the lack of winning of opposition as excuses shows you have not think critically.

I have already given you numerous analogies but it seems you are difficult to be enlightened.

One day, when you yourself experienced unfair practices done against you, perhaps you will understand. Right now, anyone who performs poorly in your eyes are just losers who have nothing but excuses.

Again, as I said before, I hope you are not a boss or someone in authority. I really pity anyone who has to suffer your judgmental outlook.

The benchmark of 30% opposition votes is the Singapore standard over many GEs, definitely not mine. If I understand your reasoning correctly: 30% to 35% is normal performance, 15% to 30% is poor performance. 35% to 45% is good performance. 45% to 50% means ready to win. Therefore, the party that got less than 30% in the last GE is a poor performer. Am I correct? I am sure you have many excuses for the poor performance. My view is that the voters do not agree or support the tactics all along and translated into votes. Why then continue to pursue such tactics to date instead of changing course and learn from the more successful? We don’t need rocket science to change course and follow the more successful candidates’ tactics.

I do not subscribe to your view that being opposition automatically does not get you votes as others had proven it. The opposition had even been invited to appear in last Sunday’s Talking Point to epouse her view. There were many reasons why candidates lost their deposits in the past election.

There is no different in the Singapore benchmark set by the voters all these years unless of course you want to set your own benchmark for others to follow.
Whether one absorbs the message and agree or not, the votes received during the GE is the final arbiter. There is no right or wrong idea in politics. It is whether you agree or disagree with the idea floated. In other words, put to the vote and let the majority decide in GE. No point of arguing until the cows come home when the voters have the final say.

I hates elections cos only a few lucky ones can actually vote. Those who vote against the PAP always will find their ward redraw elsewhere if the majority vote against. Why do u think the elect team been doing? doing nothing for four years?

Come on, make voting secret by removing the location id leh…

If no one in a GRC, and if PAP vote fall below 50%, they must share it with the opposition to make things fairer.

The opposition will have better luckyif they contest in a never contest before ward or if the PAP promises not to touch those wards and left it alone as a single ward.

Sg really needs people representation. We r living in fire and water now, it taxes increase every year…waolao…cannot tahan anymore and 40s once they lose their jobs, game over!

Will the high and mighty take notice pls!

The benchmark is your own standard. And when you judge according to that standard, of course it seemed they lack credibility. Just like if I decide the passing mark is 60 out of 100, someone who scored 59 would have failed.

Personally, I don’t think being opposition automatically gets you votes. Otherwise, there will be no candidates that will lose their deposits, which is a fact in the past election.

Rather, I see it as this way. 30% to 35% is normal performance, 15% to 30% is poor performance. 35% to 45% is good performance. 45% to 50% means ready to win. Less than 15% means the candidate should give up. Of course over 50% means they win.

So therein lies the difference between your views and mine. Our benchmark is different.

As for SDP making “noise”, have you ever absorbed their message? Have you critically read through their ideas? If your answer is yes, then you should state why their ideas is wrong.

Sometimes I feel that those who are bitter at SDP are former supporters who felt “betrayed” by SDP’s key persons being arrested and in the case of CSJ, disqualified as candidate. In that case, I should remind these people who is the REAL cause? SDP or PAP?

There is already a benchmark that 30% of the voters will vote for the oppositions come what may. If a political party cannot even secure this benchmark in a GE and still want to shout at the top for everyone to hear with all its idiosyncracies and theatrical shows to amuse us, do you think it deserves the voters’ support, let alone a united opposition camp?

>> In my opinion, voting CSJ into the Parliment is an appealing proposal now.

>> Firstly, he’s bold enough to pursue and ask critical questions that so many people wants to know; such as Temasek losses, Influx foreigners, HDB losses… etc.

>> Secondly, he will hound the MPs to work harder for their salaries; like his engagement with George Yeo over the internet; and his perseverance is what is lacking in the opposition camp right now.

>> Thirdly, if PAP tries so hard to keep him out, maybe it’s time to send him in.

>> Fourth, if he’s as bad as you think of, it surely won’t be a threat to the current regime. First class team must have no problem handling just one CSJ.

There is already a benchmark that 30% of the voters will vote for the oppositions come what may. If a political party cannot even secure this benchmark in a GE and still want to shout at the top for everyone to hear with all its idiosyncracies and theatrical shows to amuse us, do you think it deserves the voters’ support, let alone a united opposition camp?

Thanks for your compliments, however, to be a good politicians, in my opinion, one has to possess two qualities.

1.) One has to want to serve
2.) One has to have the capability to serve

On both counts, I do not qualify. What I can do is to give my vocal support to those who qualified, in my eyes, the above two points.

To me, all PAP MPs failed on the first point. Once, a long time ago, some of the old guards possessed these two points but the newer cohorts no longer possess this.

As for the opposition, I recognise some do not possess the second quality (in fact many Singaporeans erroneously thought ALL opposition lacks the second criteria), but many do possess both and in those few, I give my full support, regardless of which party they come from. That much I can do.

I will also continue to push for the support of an opposition alliance, which I feel is the best way to break the PAP hegemony. Unfortunately, without first hand knowledge of the inner workings of various opposition parties, I do not know what is the real obstacle towards that alliance. I can at best speculate.

@122) smallvoice585 on November 9th, 2009 5.49 pm

No one really has the final answer to the effectiveness of civil disobedience in Singapore. Even though I disagree with this strategy, it is still after all, my opinion. I had urged SDP to adopt a different strategy, especially those that proved to work for WP and SPP (which really is old SDP, whereas the current SDP is “new SDP”), but they are the one doing the hardwork, hence their own counsel they will keep.

It is really easy to dish out advice in the comfort of our home in relative anonymity but there are real people out there risking their way of life to champion for our cause. At the end of the day, we can give advice but it would be churlish of us to hurl at them our abuses or give them our scorn if they do not follow our advice.

Whether our dear Mr Toolang wish to admit or not, over 300,000 Singaporean voters voted for them, and if we were to extrapolate this percentage to the entire population, that will be more than 1 million people.

One million or more people has no corresponding representation in parliament. This mutated proportion is something everyone should be concerned about, nevermind about the strategies of individual opposition parties.

In another time and another age, this taxation without representation had spurred greater reaction than what we have now.

At the end of the day, everyone has to do their part.

it takes lots of hard work for one to move a mountain and there is no guarantee that one will finish doing it in his lifetime – but it takes someone to move the first rock and show the others that the first rock, second rock or the third rock can indeed be moved. while at the same time it is easier to see from the current frame of time that the big mountain is still there and it may take a lot of other people to finish the work.

Thank you very much for your concern. I think you know that my psychological and intellectual constitution are made of much sterner stuff than to be rattled by desperate name-calling. In fact, I’m quite entertained by it.

Thanks to all who said positive things about my arguments. But I must appeal to netizens here not to be concerned about their superiority or inferiority in relation to others. Such trivialities should not distract us from our real mission which is the elevation of the debate between opposing views that are vigorously expounded and passionately felt.

I also encourage people who disagree with me not to relent but to reinforce their arguments with more cogency and to inform their advocacy with more knowledge and evidence. That way, hopefully, they can demolish my arguments more legitimately.

Re: “Actually, smallvoice585 makes better arguments than BryanT.”

Yes he DID – though I don’t agree that he DOES, if the present tense is used to suggest habitualness.

And then again, smallvoice585 DID only after he was severely challenged. but as I said, Lee Kuan Yew’s agents never feel a need to substantiate when they fight on behalf of their Master.