atans1

Social activist, feminist in denial

In Political governance on 16/09/2015 at 5:13 am

Sorry for the extensive quote but I tot it impt to give a flavour of the rubbish that an otherwise rational person (even if she’s one of those who believe that ang moh values are always best and whose organisation, AWARE, said anal sex is normal) is prepare to believe when the facts go against her prejudices. My comments are bracketed and in are not in italics. 

I ask myself, as many netizens are also doing this morning, a series of questions: Why did the majority of Singaporeans vote for the PAP? Why did they reject some very capable and good people in the opposition parties? Why did we have such high expectations of more opposition parties winning this election?

The problem is I, and many others like me, talk to other people who share the same views and concerns, an example of ‘confirmation bias.’. Hence, the high expectations.
But the reality is quite different as a study of the history of Singapore elections will show: Fear tactics work. Governance based on a philosophy of threats of impending crisis works.

 
In this election, PAP distinguished itself by stoking negative emotions, with threats and fear-mongering: The opposition cannot be trusted; the opposition will squander the reserves; the opposition doesn’t even know how to manage town councils; Singapore will be in serious trouble if you don’t vote for the PAP. [True, but she left out what Tharman said about the need for an Oppo and what the Oppo said that made the PAP’s fear mongering plausible)

… the opposition parties were offering positive outcomes: If they got elected, they would fight for a better life, for a more compassionate society, and work towards a change in policies that currently support the excesses of a capitalist market economy. They were offering to put Singaporean’s welfare and wellbeing above the demands of the capitalist economy. [They were also campaigning negatively: that the PAP’s hegemony was bad and needed checking to prevent it going rogue. Isn’t that negative campaigning? Btw, I’ hope to comment on what the Oppo needs do now that opposing the PAP per se no longer is enough.]
 
http://www.inconvenientquestions.sg/Archive/2015/9/pap-must-return-to-roots
 
She concludes:

There is one certainty though. The PAP will change. They have to change to stay in power. [Why? Juz because you hate them? Didn’t you juz wrote, they did things the traditional PAP way and were rewarded handsomely?]
 
 
I voted for the PAP in the 1960s when they were a progressive party rooted in social, democratic ideology. I will vote for them again if they return to their roots.
 
 
But at this juncture in our history, I think we need diverse views, and diverse representation in parliamentto compel the PAP government to change.
 
 
My Facebook Avatar posted in response to the above tots:

Another one in denial. I’d put it this way. PE 2011 showed that 35% will vote PAP, 35% will vote for a more compassionate PAP person or policies. This election shows that the PAP are a lot smarter than the average cat and went after those who voted for Dr Tan but not for the PAP in 2011 GE. Btw, those who know me [my other Avatar, real life] know I predicted … in 2012 after PM’s May Day rally speech.

(Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/spot-on-my-2012-prediction/)

He went on: Pls leh in 60s, given the rhetoric of BarisanSoc, and their Chinese educated supporters, the English-educated (like my parents and Constance Singham) had no choice but to vote PAP. They were afraid to Cultural Revolution coming here. ))))

Here’s advice that all of us (especially those who like her in denial over the PAP’s huge victory) should heed:

— “Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.” This was said by the husband of Margaret Thatcher (remember her?), Dennis Thatcher.

— Boyzone’s Ronan Keating: “You say it best — when you say nothing at all.”

I’m thinking particularly of TOC’s “Savvy Artist” who tells us working adults constitute 30% of the voters (the data shows that there are a lot more of them as % of the voters) and implies that the anti-PAP voters iare entitled to lord it over the other voters.  I kid you not, go google “How PAP did not have the people’s mandate despite landslide victory”

 

 

Advertisements
  1. Read that article by Savvy Artist. It is a classic example of someone who seeks only the confirmation bias to support his claims. Hes not the first person to mention that there is no jubilation on the streets after the PAP victory. But this is hardly surprising. What jubilation is there to expect when people mainly vote for the status quo? It is not as if some great breakthrough was achieved. The silent majority behaves as such. The politically apathetic behave as such. They are not the sort of people who go singing and dancing in the streets. They make the choice they think best, then get on with their lives as it is. In fact, coming back to work on monday, there was barely any talk about the landslide result at the office. Work as usual.

    And I agree with you CI, when he sort of links the working adults to the 30% opposition vote. Sheer nonsense. He leaves out the youth vote, the post 1990s generation, conveniently not explaining how many opposition parties failed to capture their sentiments, and tried to paint a picture whereby anyone voting PAP only did so reluctantly and due to self centredness.

    When we were talking about websites in your previous posts, I mentioned that TOC needs to be careful if it wants to stay relevant. Sharing this sort of article shows that it still wants to be what it is, a haven for its own hardcore, rather than having bigger outreach. I am expecting Mothership and TMG to overtake TOC within the next few years.

  2. It really amaze me that the people are still in denial in the results of the election. Coming with all sorts of reasons to justify the win is tainted. The best part is that some of the bloggers, that I consider intelligent in their writing, are also espousing such views. Seriously, they have lost my respect E.g.

    1. Win is due to influx new citizens using numbers like increase in voters from 2011 to 2015. Come on. Yes there are new citizens but there is also Tanjong Pagar voting for the first time. Furthermore, there are also new voters coming of age that are eligible to vote. Quote this number and that number. Trying to be like the Heart Truth. Use data and mislead people.

    2. People want to have opposition voice but PAP intimate/bribe the people. Come on we are too sophisticated for that. I wanted to have opposition voice but I do not vote for them this time round. As I have commented in your previous post, PAP has really walk the ground in this elections. The opposition is in a state of disarray. No policy. Only manifesto (except SDP) is BLAME Govt for this and that. “I also know” (quote LHL).

    Another reason I would like to add is that WP really screwed up the management of Town Council. When auditor says cannot give qualified opinion, this is SERIOUS. So people will not give WP chance to run more TC if they cannot even get this in order. Running TC is also like running a small country in my opinion. If WP have apologised that they have screwed up and will improve, A number might have voted for them. Singaporeans are generally forgiving.

    But because I want opposition voice, I would have voted for them if I stayed in any of the wards that they are holding and also let them have a chance to learn and get things in order. Alas I am not and so I would also not give them chance to screw up other wards. Get this order for the next 4 years and people will vote for you.

    The reasons that there is such a dissonance among the opposition supporters is that they only read TOC, TRE, mix with people with the same similar thinking. So therefore they GROUPTHINK just as they accuse PAP of GROUPTHINK. What irony!

    So PAP win is not democracy and only Opposition win is considered democracy?

    Sorry for the rant. These people really irritate me no end.

  3. Hi Cynical Investor, can I have your permission to share some of your recent postings? Thank you.

  4. CI

    Agreed with your comments .

    Wil

    Likewise agreed.

  5. […] Letter to Mr Low TK, Dr Chee SJ and Mr & Mrs Chiam ST – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Social activist, feminist in denial – The Heart Truths: It is Time for You to Inspire and be Our Heroes – Likedatosocanmeh: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: