By now, 4 former government scholars have opted to join Opposition Parties.
Tony Tan and Hazel Poa:
SAF Merit Scholarship and PSC Overseas Merit Scholarship respectively, and both educated at University of Cambridge. First joined Reform Party (RF), then recently quit and joined National Solidarity Party (NSP). Ms Poa was part of the elite Administrative Service when she quit the service.
Benjamin Pwee:
Joined Singapore People's Party (SPP). PSC OMS and educated at University of Cambridge. Mr Pwee too was part of the elite Administrative Service.
Jimmy Lee:
Joined SPP. Recipient of the DSTA scholarship and educated at Cornell University.
.....................................................................
When presented with these facts, the top burning question is:
Qn#1: Why are there no former government scholars joining the Workers' Party?
I'm not sure about you, but the answer seems pretty obvious to me. My take, as usual, is pretty simple.
(A) 'Cultural Differences'
As its name suggests, the Workers' Party represents the worker, the common man in the street. And with its leader, Mr Low Thia Kiang, being a Chinese (Nantah)-educated Chinese teacher-turned-businessman, this gives the Workers' Party a solid 'cheena' edge. The latest addition of Chen Show Mao basically reinforces this 'Chinese' appeal.
(I'm not using the term 'cheena' in any derogatory manner. After all, I am known to my long-time school mates as a 'super cheena kong' and a 'commie'. To me, being 'cheena' is having a good command of Mandarin (form), have more or less 'Chinese or Confucian' values (function), and proud to be 'cheena' (motivation). Comes with its unique goods and bads, as with any other cultures.)
Yes, the Workers' Party speak English and all, but its main appeal is definitely towards the 老百姓, who are mostly Chinese. Don't get me wrong. In terms of target audience, this is the largest group of voters. It is a good strategy.
In addition, through its Malay-Muslim Vice Chairman, Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob, this must gain some good mileage with the Malay-Muslim voters.
Meanwhile, the PAP is basically a party formed in 1954 by English-educated middle-class professional men who had returned from their university education in the United Kingdom. Till today, it is still controlled by such English-speaking/educated Singaporeans.
Hence, in terms of aligning with its profile of its leaders, the Workers' Party definitely has some kind of 'customer-segmentation' advantage.
In terms of image, the Workers' Party is quite the anti-thesis of the elitist PAP. This fits too neatly into the Hegelian Dialectic. The question is: What and where is the synthesis? Is the synthesis necessarily a 2-party system? This is such a limiting thought.
I digress... I love the visual image of the PAP in their pristine white collars and the WP in their light blue collars. If only we would stop to think about the definition of a blue-collar worker these days... Oh... the semiotical debates could go on forever... I digress...
However, this very advantage of the WP poses as an obstacle to attracting former government scholars.
In terms of working styles, values etc, western (UK or US)-educated former government scholars are unlikely to be able to reconcile with those of the key figures in a relatively 'cheena' party. Yes, Chen Show Mao has been (very) educated in the US, but do remember that he has Taiwanese parents after all. (I shan't start on the Overseas Chinese/Taiwanese discourse.)
So, if you have been moulded after those in the ruling party, but somehow develop a disagreement with it, what do you do? Where do you go?
Going by process of elimination, start from the top of the political list arranged according to power...
Ambitious and highly-educated candidates who wish to enter politics via opposition parties ain't gonna join with the aim of remaining as a member.
These former government scholars are looking for top leadership positions. And there is nothing wrong with such intentions. If you wanna do something in a concerted and impactful manner, make sure you have:
(i) the ability (which they must believe they have),
(ii) the desire/motivation (which they have demonstrated by stepping up and joining the opposition), and
(iii) the opportunity.
The last component is not merely about having the opportunity to join any political party. This last component is about control. About power. And to have power, you need to find a sure way to the top.
The top leadership positions in the Workers' Party are pretty much filled by people who are unlikely to be replaceable any time soon. Its Secretary-General, Mr Low, is in his mid 50s and is a key figure. Its Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, is a P65er in her mid 40s and is also a mainstay. With the entry of Chen Show Mao, it's even harder for these former government scholars to walk to the top.
(C) Workers' Party Policies ≈ PAP Policies?
A friend, a current public servant, suggests that these former scholars have chosen not to join the Workers' Party because its policies are similar to those of the PAP.
I can't conclude on this point. Went through WP's manifesto. The key thing that stood out to me was the use of the term 'dignity' in its philosophy of governance. See here.
If the Workers' Party interprets the definition and value of this term as I do, then it can concluded that Workers' Party policies are UNLIKE those of the ruling party. Just this word alone can make all the difference.
It all depends on execution. And that remains untested to date.
Qn#2: Does this mean only parties, fueled by former government scholars, will become powerful?
I think we have been hardwired to confuse academic achievements with leadership and administrative abilities.
And the insecure elitists (not elites) grab every opportunity to remind you of how great they are to have graduated from Oxbridge and Ivy Leagues at undergraduate level, not post-grad, mind you. Coz undergrad is harder to get in... ZZZZzzzz...
I've written about this earlier. Read this and this.
I only know that a Singapore, without Lee Kuan Yew and his old guards (not the current PAP), is a scary place to be in.
Too many 'fire and forget' alphas in power and to be emplaced in power.
Too few prudent 'prevention is better than cure' statesmen.
A slow-motion crash and burn.
SAF Merit Scholarship and PSC Overseas Merit Scholarship respectively, and both educated at University of Cambridge. First joined Reform Party (RF), then recently quit and joined National Solidarity Party (NSP). Ms Poa was part of the elite Administrative Service when she quit the service.
Benjamin Pwee:
Joined Singapore People's Party (SPP). PSC OMS and educated at University of Cambridge. Mr Pwee too was part of the elite Administrative Service.
Jimmy Lee:
Joined SPP. Recipient of the DSTA scholarship and educated at Cornell University.
.....................................................................
When presented with these facts, the top burning question is:
Qn#1: Why are there no former government scholars joining the Workers' Party?
I'm not sure about you, but the answer seems pretty obvious to me. My take, as usual, is pretty simple.
(A) 'Cultural Differences'
As its name suggests, the Workers' Party represents the worker, the common man in the street. And with its leader, Mr Low Thia Kiang, being a Chinese (Nantah)-educated Chinese teacher-turned-businessman, this gives the Workers' Party a solid 'cheena' edge. The latest addition of Chen Show Mao basically reinforces this 'Chinese' appeal.
(I'm not using the term 'cheena' in any derogatory manner. After all, I am known to my long-time school mates as a 'super cheena kong' and a 'commie'. To me, being 'cheena' is having a good command of Mandarin (form), have more or less 'Chinese or Confucian' values (function), and proud to be 'cheena' (motivation). Comes with its unique goods and bads, as with any other cultures.)
Yes, the Workers' Party speak English and all, but its main appeal is definitely towards the 老百姓, who are mostly Chinese. Don't get me wrong. In terms of target audience, this is the largest group of voters. It is a good strategy.
In addition, through its Malay-Muslim Vice Chairman, Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob, this must gain some good mileage with the Malay-Muslim voters.
Meanwhile, the PAP is basically a party formed in 1954 by English-educated middle-class professional men who had returned from their university education in the United Kingdom. Till today, it is still controlled by such English-speaking/educated Singaporeans.
Hence, in terms of aligning with its profile of its leaders, the Workers' Party definitely has some kind of 'customer-segmentation' advantage.
In terms of image, the Workers' Party is quite the anti-thesis of the elitist PAP. This fits too neatly into the Hegelian Dialectic. The question is: What and where is the synthesis? Is the synthesis necessarily a 2-party system? This is such a limiting thought.
I digress... I love the visual image of the PAP in their pristine white collars and the WP in their light blue collars. If only we would stop to think about the definition of a blue-collar worker these days... Oh... the semiotical debates could go on forever... I digress...
However, this very advantage of the WP poses as an obstacle to attracting former government scholars.
In terms of working styles, values etc, western (UK or US)-educated former government scholars are unlikely to be able to reconcile with those of the key figures in a relatively 'cheena' party. Yes, Chen Show Mao has been (very) educated in the US, but do remember that he has Taiwanese parents after all. (I shan't start on the Overseas Chinese/Taiwanese discourse.)
So, if you have been moulded after those in the ruling party, but somehow develop a disagreement with it, what do you do? Where do you go?
Going by process of elimination, start from the top of the political list arranged according to power...
PAPWP- Other opposition parties
- Stand as an independent candidate
Ambitious and highly-educated candidates who wish to enter politics via opposition parties ain't gonna join with the aim of remaining as a member.
These former government scholars are looking for top leadership positions. And there is nothing wrong with such intentions. If you wanna do something in a concerted and impactful manner, make sure you have:
(i) the ability (which they must believe they have),
(ii) the desire/motivation (which they have demonstrated by stepping up and joining the opposition), and
(iii) the opportunity.
The last component is not merely about having the opportunity to join any political party. This last component is about control. About power. And to have power, you need to find a sure way to the top.
The top leadership positions in the Workers' Party are pretty much filled by people who are unlikely to be replaceable any time soon. Its Secretary-General, Mr Low, is in his mid 50s and is a key figure. Its Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, is a P65er in her mid 40s and is also a mainstay. With the entry of Chen Show Mao, it's even harder for these former government scholars to walk to the top.
(C) Workers' Party Policies ≈ PAP Policies?
A friend, a current public servant, suggests that these former scholars have chosen not to join the Workers' Party because its policies are similar to those of the PAP.
I can't conclude on this point. Went through WP's manifesto. The key thing that stood out to me was the use of the term 'dignity' in its philosophy of governance. See here.
If the Workers' Party interprets the definition and value of this term as I do, then it can concluded that Workers' Party policies are UNLIKE those of the ruling party. Just this word alone can make all the difference.
It all depends on execution. And that remains untested to date.
Qn#2: Does this mean only parties, fueled by former government scholars, will become powerful?
I think we have been hardwired to confuse academic achievements with leadership and administrative abilities.
And the insecure elitists (not elites) grab every opportunity to remind you of how great they are to have graduated from Oxbridge and Ivy Leagues at undergraduate level, not post-grad, mind you. Coz undergrad is harder to get in... ZZZZzzzz...
I've written about this earlier. Read this and this.
I only know that a Singapore, without Lee Kuan Yew and his old guards (not the current PAP), is a scary place to be in.
Too many 'fire and forget' alphas in power and to be emplaced in power.
Too few prudent 'prevention is better than cure' statesmen.
A slow-motion crash and burn.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar