G. Hui
Quite a number of people have commented that the various opposition parties should merge. Proponents of this idea would argue that this would create a stronger opposition with more shared resources to challenge the PAP in 2016. I would beg to differ. Such sentiments although logical in theory are simplistic.
Each opposition party has its own views, ideology and beliefs as enshrined in their respective manifestos. There are therefore distinct differences between each party. If that were not the case, JBJ would not have resigned from the WP to form the Reform Party. Nor would Chiam See Tong have left the SDP to join the SPP. James Gomez similarly left the WP to join the SDP. From these movements, one can see that to merge all the various opposition parties into one super opposition party is not only untenable, but wholly unrealistic. Beautiful in theory but totally unworkable in practice.
Opposition parties exist to proffer their own ideas and proposals. In the David and Goliath struggle between the PAP and the opposition parties, it is easy to lose sight of that. However, let us remember that the opposition parties exist to give voters a choice and an opportunity to vote for a party they feel best represents them, be that the PAP, the WP, the SDP, the SPP, the NSP or the Reform Party. They do not exist solely for the purpose of toppling the PAP. As such, calls for the various opposition parties to merge so as to mount a more effective challenge against the PAP is short sighted.
Say all the opposition parties merge and become a super opposition party whereby you have all the opposition heavy weights in one party. They may very well beat the PAP at the ballot box. But what happens next? If their sole unifying factor was to defeat the PAP, this alliance would quickly crumble once they win the election. They may agree to provide the alternative voice, but what should that voice say?
As such, political parties should never merge just to topple a common enemy. This would simply lead to infighting once that common enemy is defeated. This fragmentation would not only negate the positive impact of an alternative voice but destroy any clear vision that one opposition party may have had on its own.
Therefore, let democracy take its course. Slowly but surely, the opposition parties will develop, grow and get stronger. They should not merge as a shortcut to victory. This is the beginning of change, a first step on Singapore’s journey to a mature democracy.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
the republicians think that what is good for the whole, is good for the individual. democrates on the other hand think that what is good for the individual is good for the whole. these are contrasting values of the 2 major parties in us politics.
to stand out and appeal to voters in the ge is like advertising a brand in the market and asking the consumers to buy/try it. you need to define what the brand stands for and stress on that attributes constantly to attract voters, members and donations. like mercedes is luxury while volvo is safety.
why the workers party is more popular than the other parties is that it has a name that already marks its mission to the working class. so what is good for the working class is good for the the nation. it is clear and concise but also made it difficult to unposition and alienate some voters.
the rest of the oppositions did not do as well as they do not have a distinct positioning. probably nsp comes close to position itself as nationalistic, unintentionally through their supernova. and some parties brand itself around political figures which will not be enduring, rf and spp for examples. of all parties, pap appeals to the broadest spectrum of ‘consumers’ with a proven brand abeit loses some shines recently.
with the need for market positioning in mind, opposition is not the correct term to use as this simplify the existence of these parties. the very fact of using this term opposition prejudge the party and its candidates and set the tone of the parties as direct opposite to the incumbent which may not necessary be the case. while the pap loses votes in this ge due to the need for opposing voices in parliament, this need will diminish in future as oppositions become more common. Non-pap parties has to quickly position themselves, highlightlight their values and synchronise their acts with their values, to attact talents and voters, and as well as to guide its policies making. else they will fade with the political figures or be just scatter noise in the background.
to 151004:
While I understand your point, I think it’s not helpful to use “market positioning” as an analogy. That sounds opportunistic (although politicians can often be very opportunistic).
You are more correct to emphasize that it’s positioning based on values, philosophy, ideology and the commensurate approaches and actions. This is important to the electorate because we need to know what we are voting for (and what we can expect from our elected representatives).
For now, we view the opposition in rather limited terms – to act as a check on the ruling party. Indeed, this is how the opposition parties view themselves. None of them are ready to even take over the reins of governing the country. This is their shortcoming and it has been so for a very long time.
I agree that the other political parties have to start thinking hard about their core values and philosophy i.e. what do they stand for (beyond opposing the incumbent)? What is their stance on economic matters? What is their position on balancing individual rights with social order etc? In short, what they will do if they were the government.
When we discount campaigning along racial, religious, cultural lines, it’s clear that our society is not so diverse as to give rise to many different competing philosophies. Over time, the logic to coalesce around key socio-economic and political values will be apparent to the existing parties who constitute the Opposition.
As a nation, we have to mature politically. This applies to the opposition parties too. They have been stuck in “childhood” phase for a long time.
To 2 cents worth:
Yup, that could be the scenario. I agree with you.
rgds
Do the opposition parties exist solely to defeat the PAP?
-
Maybe the question to ask is does the opposition parties exist solely to be defeated by the PAP.
Even if they merged the chances of success is slim. They should be very realistic like Mr Low Thia Kiang or PAP. They have very little ability to attract A teams. You need minimum 3.5 star catch candidates to make people give up 5 PAP MPs.
They should form their own shadow cabinet and come together for more wargame sessions to make it in 2016. Relying on the starpower of Chiam See Tong and JBJ will not make it in future. They should start to have more top guns in their CEC if they want to raise their profile and chances. SDP seems to be the next contender for 3rd place.
I dont study politics but as a laymen, I dont see any merger of any teams possible yet. And we have not reached a level of politics for politic sake yet.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/talk-at-the-post-museum-election-perspectives/
When GCT or LKY, cant remember who, says the borrowing of members shows that these people are not genuine, I neither support or oppose that idea. But I still don’t think parties can merge. But people can choose to select their party affiliations because our parties are still in its infancy.
So far I have seen both SDP and WP better organised than other teams. Probably because even with “new management” they have years of foundation already. But definitely their views on policies and engagement towards the PAP are far constrasting to each other, merger is not possible.
NSP, SDP have still need more work to do. Probably a merger. So who will be the leader??? Or will NSP n SDP dissolve into the WP? Too many “high flyers” too little empty seats? WP party whip could be as strong as PAP. So maybe still safer to stay away from WP?
RP, SDA seems one man team???
GE2011 results should show some idea what they need to do next. People are not getting any younger too.
ooopps correction
i mean NSP and SPP maybe can merge….??
SDP can stand on their own, whether or not people vote for them.
WP has same wavelength as PAP. So not too intimidating to simple minded Singaporeans.