There has been a lot of talk about "By-Elections Strategy" right after 2015 General Elections and it seems that people are trying to push the blame to the complete contests opposition parties have put up for this GE.
They opined that the National Swing of votes against opposition was the result of the FEAR of PAP losing power. While this may be true but I do not think we should be quick to conclude that it is the fault of other smaller opposition parties for contesting all other seats in this GE.
The By-Elections Strategy is a baseless misguided strategic thinking. From past GE results, there is absolutely no Correlations found in By-Elections Strategy (i.e. contesting less than 50% of the seats) that really helped opposition parties gaining more results or seats.
For GEs held in 1991, 1997 and 2001, less than 50% of seats were contested but only for GE 1991, we saw a more successful campaign whereby SDP and WP together, won 4 seats. Ironically, in GE 2001 which opposition contested the LEAST seats since 1980s, opposition parties as a whole had the WORST results! Thus, there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between By-Elections Strategy and good opposition results.
For GEs held in 2006, 2011 and 2015, more than half of the seats were contested. But for these GEs, we saw a steady increase of opposition support for 2006 and 2011. In fact, for GE 2011, we contested nearly all seats other than the 6 seats in Tg Pagar which was disqualified on technicality, but we achieved the BEST RESULTS for opposition as a whole, since 1991.
Thus, there is absolutely no basis to claim that By-Elections strategy is vital for opposition electoral success. It is NEITHER the necessary nor sufficient conditions for opposition parties to perform well in elections.
Thus, we should not just believe blindly that we should have By-Elections strategy. In fact,I do not believe in By-election strategy at all. It is a misguided defeatist strategic thinking. It effectively secedes Power to PAP even without a fight and it means giving PAP a BLANK CHEQUE right before GE! How can that be good for Singapore?
The only thing that could possibly keep PAP up on its toes, to keep Singaporeans as its priority and to get it to take care of Singaporeans, is the FEAR of losing power during GE! If we were to submit to By-election strategy, it would mean that we would have taken off that sword over PAP's head right now and PAP would do whatever benefits itself and its cronies without the need to be bothered about Singaporeans' well being!
This is the reason why I am against the By-election strategy. From past statistical results, there is absolutely no basis to think that it could help opposition to win more seats. But at the same time, we are just selling out our only means to keep PAP up on its toes for such misguided myth and belief.
The problem lies with Voters' perception of FEAR. 2001, opposition parties lost badly due to FEAR; right after 911 terrorist attack in US. Similarly, for GE 2015, it was FEAR again, that resulted in a dismay showing overall for opposition. The FEAR of uncertainty if PAP lost power.
But small parties should not be blamed for that FEAR because only bigger opposition parties could effect that FEAR.
Some people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.
One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won't face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?
There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:
1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn't project any negativity to voters as a whole. (The only BAD thing or NEGATIVITY that comes from opposition was the APHETC saga! This has NATIONAL EFFECT on voters' perception but this is not the doing of smaller parties like PPP.)
2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters' mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .
Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?
Thus, please don't put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.
Contrary to those naysayers, opposition wasn't weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power.
We need to analyze the factors behind opposition's dismay showing in GE2015 with a balanced mind and not to believe blindly in some illogical and baseless claims or accusations or blame pushing masked behind some "comments".
To address the FEAR of PAP losing power, voters must be told that PAP will still be the dominant party tasked to form the government even if it lost over 50% of the seats. It is so far, the only party that could contest ALL seats alone.
It would most probably look for a COALITION partner and that would be REAL CHECKS and BALANCES kick in. Having a few opposition MPs in parliament may be good but they could not really effect policy direction change but a coalition partner with PAP would be able to do that.
Most likely WP will become PAP's coalition partner. I do not think other parties would want to be PAP's coalition partner other than WP. WP has said that it is open to become coalition partner, most probably a slip of tongue during a political forum. It has also said that it will not form coalition government with other opposition parties.
Thus, as far as I can see, there is really no problem even if PAP lost absolute Power and we should educate voters about that.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
GE2015: Stop Pushing Blame on Smaller Parties!
I cannot help but wonder why people cannot see through the plain attempt of some political leaders of shifting away blame when they come up with some totally illogical and even contradicting statements.
Half truth is thrown up to mask their flaw argument.
For example, people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.
One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won't face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?
There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:
1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn't project any negativity to voters as a whole. (The only negativity projected by opposition which has NATIONAL influence and implications, is only the doubts thrown on the AHPETC saga but this has nothing to do with the small parties at all!)
2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters' mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .
Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?
Thus, please don't put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.
Contrary to those naysayers, opposition wasn't weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power. Period.
Half truth is thrown up to mask their flaw argument.
For example, people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.
One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won't face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?
There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:
1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn't project any negativity to voters as a whole. (The only negativity projected by opposition which has NATIONAL influence and implications, is only the doubts thrown on the AHPETC saga but this has nothing to do with the small parties at all!)
2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters' mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .
Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?
Thus, please don't put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.
Contrary to those naysayers, opposition wasn't weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power. Period.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Reflection on earlier predictions of GE2015
Reflection of GE 2015
A couple of months before GE2015, I was sharing with quite a number of people, including editors from TR Emeritus on what I thought would be the outcome of GE2015.
In retrospect, I did make some accurate predictions but also bad judgement as well.
I told them that most probably WP would retain Hougang but lose Punggol East while Aljunied GRC was going to be a 50-50 fight. I was hoping that WP could win East Coast GRC (at that time, the formation of Fengsan SMC was not made public yet.)
The reasons I gave was that those residents who have changed from PAP to WP management (aka Punggol East and Aljunied) would have experienced first hand the vast differences and changes in the management of their town. Particularly for Punggol East which I have quite a number of friends and relatives who stayed there had complained profusely against the drastic drop of cleanliness in their neighbourhood.
Linking this situation to the AHPETC saga would naturally create negativity among the swing voters. Punggol East was thus expected to lose. As for Aljunied GRC, the adverse swing would mainly come from the negativity derived from the FMSS saga.
As for East Coast GRC, I would expect WP to win because I thought that those voters there would not have the bad first hand experience as those voters in Punggol East had. It would just follow the expected upward trending of increasing opposition support nation wide.
I also expected other opposition parties would fair better and we might see non-WP MPs in parliament this time round.
I was proven half right. WP did lose Punggol East and Aljunied GRC did have an extremely close fight. WP nearly lost, only won by a razor thin margin. But I was proven wrong about the isolated effect of the AHPETC saga and the upward trending of opposition support. I have underestimated the combined effect of Pioneer Package and the lost of middle ground voters' confidence.
Of course, some of the people I have spoken to, were practically laughing my predictions of WP losing Punggol East and Aljunied GRC having a close fight. Especially for the editors from TR Emeritus. They thought that it was due to my bias against WP which made me to come up with such predictions of loss of WP in Punggol East.
Some even thought that WP would win Aljunied GRC with INCREASED margin, citing reports that survey done on the ground has shown that very few voters regard AHPETC as important. I told them that it just needed a mere 5% of SWING voters to regard that as important, that will already be a killer.
Well, apart from WP's results, I guess if I have known that there would be a great National swing against opposition, I would have given this GE a big miss and save a lot of money!
Nevertheless, I will learn from this GE2015 that no matter how people want to isolate themselves from other "opposition" parties, all Non-PAP parties will always be viewed as one by Singaporeans.; those middle ground swing voters. It will be a wishful thinking that we could effect a clear differentiation between the different opposition parties.
All for one, one for all? Some of us may not want to think that way, but that's what the middle ground voters think.
Goh Meng Seng
A couple of months before GE2015, I was sharing with quite a number of people, including editors from TR Emeritus on what I thought would be the outcome of GE2015.
In retrospect, I did make some accurate predictions but also bad judgement as well.
I told them that most probably WP would retain Hougang but lose Punggol East while Aljunied GRC was going to be a 50-50 fight. I was hoping that WP could win East Coast GRC (at that time, the formation of Fengsan SMC was not made public yet.)
The reasons I gave was that those residents who have changed from PAP to WP management (aka Punggol East and Aljunied) would have experienced first hand the vast differences and changes in the management of their town. Particularly for Punggol East which I have quite a number of friends and relatives who stayed there had complained profusely against the drastic drop of cleanliness in their neighbourhood.
Linking this situation to the AHPETC saga would naturally create negativity among the swing voters. Punggol East was thus expected to lose. As for Aljunied GRC, the adverse swing would mainly come from the negativity derived from the FMSS saga.
As for East Coast GRC, I would expect WP to win because I thought that those voters there would not have the bad first hand experience as those voters in Punggol East had. It would just follow the expected upward trending of increasing opposition support nation wide.
I also expected other opposition parties would fair better and we might see non-WP MPs in parliament this time round.
I was proven half right. WP did lose Punggol East and Aljunied GRC did have an extremely close fight. WP nearly lost, only won by a razor thin margin. But I was proven wrong about the isolated effect of the AHPETC saga and the upward trending of opposition support. I have underestimated the combined effect of Pioneer Package and the lost of middle ground voters' confidence.
Of course, some of the people I have spoken to, were practically laughing my predictions of WP losing Punggol East and Aljunied GRC having a close fight. Especially for the editors from TR Emeritus. They thought that it was due to my bias against WP which made me to come up with such predictions of loss of WP in Punggol East.
Some even thought that WP would win Aljunied GRC with INCREASED margin, citing reports that survey done on the ground has shown that very few voters regard AHPETC as important. I told them that it just needed a mere 5% of SWING voters to regard that as important, that will already be a killer.
Well, apart from WP's results, I guess if I have known that there would be a great National swing against opposition, I would have given this GE a big miss and save a lot of money!
Nevertheless, I will learn from this GE2015 that no matter how people want to isolate themselves from other "opposition" parties, all Non-PAP parties will always be viewed as one by Singaporeans.; those middle ground swing voters. It will be a wishful thinking that we could effect a clear differentiation between the different opposition parties.
All for one, one for all? Some of us may not want to think that way, but that's what the middle ground voters think.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Press Statement on SGH Hepatitis C Mass Infections
Date: 11 Oct 2015
For Immediate Release
Press Statement on SGH Hepatitis C Mass Infections
SGH and MOH Should Take Full Responsibility and Do the Right Things
First and foremost, our deepest condolences to the families of the patients who were dead due to the outbreak of Hepatitis C mass infections in SGH. We also empathize with those families of frustrated patients who are infected and suffered from Hepatitis C infections which may have long term impact and implications on their health.
We are angry with Ministry of Health’s (MOH) and the Health Minister’s, Mr. Gan Kim Yong, obfuscation over this serious incident. MOH and Mr. Gan should take full responsibility for the failure of making public the information on the incident immediately when SGH informed them in late August.
PPP noted SDP commented about the issue. But we would like to look at the issue beyond the political angle --- this issue is so serious and it should be beyond politics. We share the point made by Singapore Democratic Party that there are reasons to believe that such deliberate delay of release of information in late August was based on political consideration of the impending General Elections. We condemn such act as it puts PAP’s party interests on top of public health interests. Such decision is totally irresponsible as it puts public health at risk.
PPP noted that Mr. Gan said he wanted to maintain “transparency” but such 'transparency" of delaying of information release is undesirable as it put patients to SGH in health risk directly, and Singaporeans indirectly. If this is the kind of “transparency” Mr. Gan is trying to maintain, we would be utterly disappointed. We urge Mr. Gan to make a public apology and step down for failing to inform the public in a timely manner. Such low standard of “transparency” would put even more Singaporeans at health risk if there were to be other major mass outbreaks of infectious diseases in the future.
PPP noted that MOH has stated in response to criticism that hospitals are to report on Hepatitis infections only for acute cases. We wish to point out that MOH’s standing order and protocol are totally outdated and show that it has learned nothing from the SARS outbreak in 2003. Any mass outbreak of infectious diseases should be reported and made public as soon as possible regardless of its nature. If there isn’t any standing protocol for immediate reporting of the cluster outbreak of such infectious diseases like Hepatitis C, which may result in serious complications as well as liver cancer, then we question MOH’s competency in its regulatory role.
MOH should review its standing protocols to include mandatory report by hospitals within a stipulated time if there is any suspicion of outbreak of any infectious disease. Such information should be made public immediately to keep patients alert while investigations are carried out concurrently. This is the level of professional standard of transparency we expect from MOH and all hospitals.
The information released by MOH and SGH so far seems to suggest that they are free from any forms of human errors or negligence. We find the report incredible and we hope this is not the standard of “ownself check ownself” logic which was promoted by PAP during the General Elections. 8 lives had been lost, and that has to be investigated by police as they are coroner cases, before one can rule out foul play or negligence.
The report by SGH suggested that the infections were most probably caused by multi-dose vials. As pointed out by SDP, all renal patients would have been screened for hepatitis before their kidney transplant. Thus there must be human error involved either the screening were not done properly, SGH staff has contracted Hepatitis and infected the patients or that there are lapses in the administration of injections of insulin into the patients.
It is incredible for SGH’s report to blame only the outbreak on the use of multi-dose vials without mention of human errors and lapses. We understand that such mention would have implications on SGH’s legal liabilities towards the patients and the families of those who died of the infections but it is important to be upfront and forthcoming on such matters and review its staffs on the safety of their current practices.
Regardless of whether it is due to human negligence or inappropriate protocol set for the administration of injection from multi-dose vials, we feel that it is totally inadequate for SGH to only be responsible of the treatment of Hepatitis C of the patients without mention of any compensation made to those who were affected. Hepatitis C is not just an ordinary infectious disease which can be easily cured. Some may be affected for the rest of their life. Although no amount of money could compensate the grieve of losing one’s love one but at the very least, the government and SGH should demonstrate their sincerity in making amends of their mistakes which have caused death and sufferings to the patients.
What was done cannot be undone and it is totally unfortunate for this outbreak to happen. The very least MOH and SGH could do is to be open and transparent in their handling the aftermath with the aim of reviewing the inadequacy of current protocols and administration so to improve public health safety in future. At the same time, we hope that SGH and MOH would assume all responsibilities of this outbreak and make appropriate compensations to the patients and the families of the dead.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
For Pro-Tem Committee
People’s Power Party.
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Press Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
For Immediate Release
Press Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
1) The conclusion of the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) has been announced by the President of United States as well as our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 5 Oct 2015. However the negotiation was done in total darkness of a black box operation in which, up till now, there is no formal public revelation of the details of all the 33 Chapters embedded in this agreement.
2) While the Minister of Trade and Industry Mr. Lim Hng Khiang has painted a rosy picture for Singapore SMEs to benefit from this TPPA, but we know that for every Free Trade Agreement, there will always be tradeoffs for every country.
3) It is inadequate for our Prime Minister and Minister to only talk about the potential benefits of TPPA without telling Singaporeans the tradeoffs we are going to make in return.
4) We urge the PAP government to make public all information with regards to TPPA as early as possible so that debate on this extremely important FTA could be carried out rigorously. We note that the government is obliged to make public the details of this agreement within 30 days from the signing. We would expect PAP government to fulfill this obligation.
5) It would be more helpful if an independent panel of academia, economists and experts could be set up to explain the potential implications of all the 33 Chapters.
6) We are particularly concerned over the impact on the income growth as well as job prospects of all Singaporeans, medicine cost, cost of living and population growth.
7) We are also concerned on the social and national impact of TPPA. In particularly, will TPPA give overwhelming powers to big corporations and MNCs to dictate our local legislation based on compliance clauses stated in it?
8) People’s Power Party is against black box operations for any legislation or ratification of any Free Trade Agreement without much transparency, open debate and scrutiny. If TPPA was proven to be overly controversial, we would want a referendum over its final approval.
9) We hope that PAP is more forthcoming and transparent with all the information of TPPA and do not shy away from public debate over this agreement.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
For Pro-tem Committee People’s Power Party
Press Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
1) The conclusion of the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) has been announced by the President of United States as well as our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 5 Oct 2015. However the negotiation was done in total darkness of a black box operation in which, up till now, there is no formal public revelation of the details of all the 33 Chapters embedded in this agreement.
2) While the Minister of Trade and Industry Mr. Lim Hng Khiang has painted a rosy picture for Singapore SMEs to benefit from this TPPA, but we know that for every Free Trade Agreement, there will always be tradeoffs for every country.
3) It is inadequate for our Prime Minister and Minister to only talk about the potential benefits of TPPA without telling Singaporeans the tradeoffs we are going to make in return.
4) We urge the PAP government to make public all information with regards to TPPA as early as possible so that debate on this extremely important FTA could be carried out rigorously. We note that the government is obliged to make public the details of this agreement within 30 days from the signing. We would expect PAP government to fulfill this obligation.
5) It would be more helpful if an independent panel of academia, economists and experts could be set up to explain the potential implications of all the 33 Chapters.
6) We are particularly concerned over the impact on the income growth as well as job prospects of all Singaporeans, medicine cost, cost of living and population growth.
7) We are also concerned on the social and national impact of TPPA. In particularly, will TPPA give overwhelming powers to big corporations and MNCs to dictate our local legislation based on compliance clauses stated in it?
8) People’s Power Party is against black box operations for any legislation or ratification of any Free Trade Agreement without much transparency, open debate and scrutiny. If TPPA was proven to be overly controversial, we would want a referendum over its final approval.
9) We hope that PAP is more forthcoming and transparent with all the information of TPPA and do not shy away from public debate over this agreement.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
For Pro-tem Committee People’s Power Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
