(Or “Will Loh’s “duckweeds” rescue WP?”)
In 2015, I didn’t bother to even glance at the WP’s manifesto because of the way WP MPs had treated its 2011 manifesto: like toilet paper or should this be duckweed? I mean despite the problems that the PAP had justifying its public transport policies (even making some U-turns) , WP didn’t raise the issue of nationalising the system despite it being in the 2011 manifesto and despite it being an intellectually valid proposition. I mean even the retired chief economist of GIC (now at IPS) says “Private or government owned companies are more suitable because they can look after key stakeholders and public interests more better.”*
So I couldn’t help but snigger when Leon (the Lion) Perera
recently told MediaCorp’s Bharati Jagdish
We had a manifesto with many positive and proactive ideas for Singapore, to make Singapore better, and some people reacted to that by saying, “This is quite technical, this quite complex, there are so many different ideas in here, we need more time to digest and process that.”
… more than 130 specific policy recommendations. So, I think that’s something that, in hindsight, I would say that maybe we should have done better in terms of communicating the richness and the value of these ideas.
To convince people that these are good and positive ideas, these are not just ideas that are opposing for the sake of opposing, but we have a proactive, positive agenda for the country. And that’s something that I want to spend more time on in terms of convincing people of the value of those ideas.
Well going by the evidence of the parly debate about NCMPs and the subsequent vote, it’s clear that the elected WP MPs are useless in parly What do you expect of a bunch of highly paid social workers whose poster gal is the PAP’s very own Kate Spade Tin, who talks rubbish in parly but does good social work?
So it’s up to Leon the Lion, Dennis Lim and Daniel Goh, all NCMPS (who the WP secretary-general sneeringly calls “duckweeds”. Because unlike him and the other WP MPs, they don’t do full-time social work?) to show S’poreans that the WP can hold the PAP to account and communicate the WP’s manifesto ideas to the voters.
On these “duckweeds”
(Loh’s sneering word, not mine nor the PAP’s, rest the hopes of all those of us who want a less hegemonic PAP. The elected WP MPs are juz content to take the money, keep quiet in parly, and do social welfare work. They are the real duckweeds?
— NCMP: Why WP wins either way. I repent of this piece because by Low calling NCMPs “duckweeds” and by the WP messing up the vote on making Daniel Goh a NCMP, WP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. PAP got away with a score draw. Next week, I’ll blog how the WP could have had its cake and eat it; taking principled stands on NCMPs and pushing for Daniel Goh to get the vacant NCMP post. And why WP didn’t.
*”I would like to say my poor** use of evidence does not contradict the argument that publicly listed companies are poor vehicles for public transport corporations. This is because their main priority is making profits for shareholders.
Private or government owned companies are more suitable because they can look after key stakeholders and public interests more better.”: Recent Facebook post.
**He quoted StatesTimes assertion that SMRT made a profit of S$1 bn. The
Indian Indi behaved like TRE, ASS, FATPAP when pointing this out, making snide, uncalled remarks. With a friend like the Indian, does anyone who disagrees with the PAP need enemies?