Singapore Democrats

if it's a strategy more than just purely out of angry desperation, then there is consideration of target audience and timing.

for even though it is the right of every citizen, like your good self and comrades, to voice his or her discontent on the street, when you guys operate as a political party, it's more than that already.

it would be cool though if you guys aren't part of any party. :)

In an authoritarian regime, there is hardly any line differentiating activism from politics. Both are not allowed to blossom and gain support from the people who are constantly kept under an environment of unsettled existence, under fear.

Both freedom and democracy are essential bases for a sustainable economic development to benefit the populace, not one that leads to “cyclical crises” and the ever-widening income gap between the “rich and poor”, thus marginalizing the majority.

But in Singapore, under the dictatorial PAP rule, there is naked exploitation of the workers who form the vast majority by foreign MNCs, GLCs and TLCs.

People remain "atomized" so that there is no avenue for them to come together to voice their grievances or frustrations in an organized manner.

For too long the majority is subjected to an existence of conformity designed to perpetuate the system of oppression and exploitation by the autocracy.

Coercive "laws" are enacted to instill fear in the minds of the people. Now it's an offence for even one person to demonstrate or show public displeasure against the regime.

Such is the fear of the ruling clique that claims to be in power through "democratic elections".

For democracy to take root, there must first be freedom. Without freedom there can never be democracy.
For the expression of freedom, there has to be a free and pluralistic media.

With media headed by a former deputy prime minister and deliberately staffed by a number of intelligence operatives, news and information become mere propaganda, an exercise almost devoid of ground reality.

One good example of the propaganda media is the heavy censorship on the ongoing wet market saga. What is spewed by the PAP propaganda rag is totally different from the sentiments of those directly affected by the heavy-handed actions of the ruling clique.

It is true that democracy should not be an "airy-fairy" concept used only in esoteric arguments. What is not clear in the article is whether democracy forms part of the means or ends towards a better society.

Even if the lay Singaporeans are disgruntled with the state of the country, they are far from convinced that more democracy is the lynch-pin to a better lives. They become more perplexed when told (in this article) that democracy is the tool for get more opposition MPs into parliament, as if this is the ultimate intent.

Using the analogy of warfare to illustrate the struggle against the government is also probably unwise. Executing political manoeuvres to outflank the enemy or drop behind their lines connotes an deliberate avoidance in meeting real issues head-on.

My belief is that SDP has a useful role to play on the local political stage. But at this juncture, it should not focus on nebulous concepts that the majority people cannot relate to.

It must first build on identifying itself with with people's immediate concerns and basic needs. A sustainable and acceptable branding is critical. What else it does or champions after entering parliament can perhaps be a slightly different story.

Perhaps, LKY, in the wiadom of old age, is begining to perceive.

He told CSJ in court that Chee articulated well and could outdo Chiam See Tong ansd enter parliament. And more recently, he said he did not care if SDP came to power as long as they knew how to govern.

Perhaps, the old man has been sincere and musing.

All those he had succeeded in cajoling into politics, through repeated tea parties and promises of success with very high pay, and in unlikely event of failure, guarantees of alternative high appointments, he must be secretly despiaing. "You can't expect the new generation to be sacrificial and committed, like the old guards". Goh Chok Tong spent a whole life deciding if he had the guts to be PM; even LKY rejected him as first choice.

Even Lee Hsien(ought to be "Xian" in correct pin-ying spelling) Loong could be suspect, for LK's two other children, having a mind of their own like himself, have been recalcitrant somewhat (they rumoured that Hsien Yang is recalcitrant, and his daughter has been publishing reactionary essays in the press, and had nearly married against daddy's wishes!).

Perhaps, LKY is musing - if only those artificially painted by him into power were of the natural propensity to lead, like a CSJ!

BryanT says:

[color=purple]But at this juncture, it should not focus on nebulous concepts that the majority people cannot relate to. [/color]


In an authoritarian system which controls everything, including how one "spits" there is no such thing as what the majority people think or "cannot relate to".

The autocratic system through its eunuch media is engaged in a daily propaganda blitz to make sure that the majority live in constant fear.

The bootlicking media does not reflect ground sentiments but only what its master, the dictator, wants to talk down to the people. This is clear from the ongoing wet market saga.

To know if the majority wants or interested in freedom and democracy, is the authoritarian regime prepared to free the media from its clutches? Why have a former deputy prime minister overseeing the media with dubious intelligence operatives masquerading as reporters and journalists?

Why not free the media and see if the people want change, a change for a system in which there are free, fair and democratic elections with a free and pluralistic media for the people to make informed judgment? Then only we can be sure whether certain concepts are “nebulous” or indeed necessary for the advancement of our society.

The ruling party dictates all aspects of life in Singapore. Political dominance and suppression. Democracy had long non-exist in the PAP regime. Freedom of speech is curtailed. Outstanding oppositions paid a heavy price for being in the opposition arena.

A climate of dissentient. Authoritarian, all almighty and despotic, leaving no room for opposition, with their half-truth and propaganda attacking every move of the opposition.

Fighting The PAP on all fronts is a gigantic task. But with grit and determination and unity from the other opposition parties, it can be done.

Nothing is insurmountable. The sentiments of the people speak volume of the right time for change.

PAP has overstepped their own power of self-abused.

We cannot tolerate a government, whose interest is self-corrupt in all legality.

Pragmatism is about recognising that this enemy for now holds all the cards, makes all the rules. It is about understanding that playing his game, recklessly charging head-on against overwhelming force only to be swatted aside like a pesky fly, is an inglorious end. It's suicidal and rightly deserving of contempt.

That is what fools do for 'face' and it's good to know that the SDP isn't about to go down that route. I have to say that there is a feeling that the SDP is fighting the battle for democracy with growing confidence, growing strength and growing intelligence.

You have an inherent advantage: unlike the other parties you are not afraid of him. Your enemy's very size does mean he struggles against huge inertia, his muscular right arm often not knowing what the left is up to. We have seen ample proof of this. Right now his too many cooks are busily tripping him up in both the wet and financial markets and he is helpless to turn the ship around, to stop the rot in a timely fashion.

In a free and fair contest on a level playing field it would be reprehensible to support any political party not playing by the rules. But Singapore's elections have none of those desirable qualities and the very rules are questionable. PAP lost its integrity way back in Barisan Socialis days and with that its reputation for honesty and any claim to the respect of Singaporeans.

They must be assaulted unmercifully on all fronts and gradually, inch by painful inch they will inevitably yield the high ground. They lost the [b][i]MORAL[/i][/b] high ground a very long time ago.

support SDP all the way
no matter what, PAP and LKY must be dismantled and do away with

now, not only Singapore citizen are suffering, but the evil policy of LKY
is 'helping' tyrants in the regions
destroys many more innocents lives.

stop evil being it get worst

Using the analogy of warfare, the article mentioned the employment of a variety of approaches to weaken PAP's hold on power. There was also talk of avoiding a direct frontal assault.

In theory, SDP is right on this count, but perhaps only partially. Minimally, I agree with SDP and other readers here that a direct frontal assault is foolish, in view of the ruling party's current strength, monopolies and the multitude of cards it holds tightly.

But I doubt that participating in elections (without doing anything else) is considered a direct frontal assault. Parties who adopt this approach can only lay hollow punches -- direct, but cause hardly a dent. I call these groundhog parties. No, not the American holiday celebration parties, but local political parties that emerge from their burrows only when election beckons. [b]I give credit to SDP that it is not one of these.[/b]

By the way, since we are on the subject of direct frontal assaults, I think "nonviolent action campaigns" qualify as these. They are direct onslaughts on the law that exactly deplete the energy of the attackers without any commensurate impact on the fortress walls. In fact, the walls are further thickened and reinforced with laws such as the POA -- a converse impact.

The article is correct -- political parties must do more than just run for elections. Outflanking manoeuvres, airdrops, infiltrations, or even ruses -- one can call these multiple approaches, but they hardly stand for strategy.

Liddell Hart stated that "[b]in strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there[/b]; a [u]direct approach[/u] to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an [u]indirect approach[/u] loosens the defender's hold by upsetting his balance."

E[b]ssentially, the indirect approach is handy in not only avoiding the strength of the enemy, but it also allows one to concentrate its limited resources toward a critical point.[/b] Those who have served in the Army would be familiar with the term "key terrain".

Army commanders know that the challenge is identifying the "key terrain" that will unravel the opponent's defence. For the overthrow of Suharto, although there were various other issues, it was corruption; in the recent Japanese election, LDP's loss was attributed to Taro Aso himself and the party's complacency in recent years; and so on. The Reformasi Indonesia leaders and DPJ knew where to target to marshal the support of the people.

I won't do SDP a favour by helping to derive what the key terrain for the Singapore context should be, but it is apt to state what it is NOT.

The key terrain is not the people's clamour for opposition in parliament or yearning for more democracy. It is also not the people's feeling of suppression or loss of freedoms. The economic crisis should be ending soon, so it would no longer be a point of attack by the time PAP decides to call for elections. People may feel it is an overkill to haul opposition members to court so often, but the people's sense of injustice at these is also not key terrain. The foreign media and NGOs are also hardly key to wearing down the defences or determination of the defenders.

My recommendation is for SDP to strategise carefully what it intends to target, especially when resource constraints and sustainability are issues.

[b]Perhaps the defence may not collapse immediately, but there could be a slight breach in the castle wall if one aims correctly.[/b]

first of all you are dealing with a population which is largely compliant, especially when it comes to politics. these people's first reaction when encountering cases of civil disobedience is ' aiyoh why like this. so disruptive. ' status quo preservation is dear to their minds, by design of the totalitarian regime.

it is debatable though whether a hard knock will knock some sense or will it make them recoil further into their comfy.

[i]but[/i] you also plan to contest in the elections. so status quo preservers will be conflicted in their decisions.

those who are hardcore against the pap will support you nevertheless. i am sure your target audience aren't these people. it's the inbetweeners, or best, the supporters of pap.

unless your strategy is to civil disobey until you gather strength. converting citizens to civil disobeyers is i don't think your strategy, since you will need a great number of disobeyers to make an impact, at least not in the current singaporean context.

that said, it does serve as a reminder that singaporeans have a basic right to assembly and free speech, and encourages them to think about these issues when the government goes especially harsh.

but it all really depends on where you want to contest in the coming election, the demographics of the electorate. because what you do outside of election, civil disobedience, will affect their impression of you.

to add to my above post,


surely u do not want your two part strategy, civil disobedience and elections, to contradict one another? it would be a total waste of resources.

I agree with Dr Chee wholeheartedly. The PAP must be fought on all fronts.

I think there is no inherent contradiction between civil disobedience and electoral campaigning. Practicing civil disobedience hurts electoral success rates in the short run only because of the state media's ability to distort facts. This we know can and have changed with the Internet. We see this being reflected in SDP's recent growth in rank and file members.

BryanT waxes lyrical on the need to identify "key terrain" and the necessity of an indirect approach. He then proceeds to drop clues on what this key terrain is not, stopping short of providing any positive answers. This is just the I-know-but-I-wont-tell-you routine to make himself appear intelligent and wise. The truth is, he has no answers. He cannot have any answers because he spends the entire day prowling this website. Look at everything he has written, all recycled from the state media.

Unlike him, I won't pretend I have answers, just ideas to share. I think SDP should somehow try to erase this disconnect between social and political reality that PAP attempts to enforce. Social media and social networking technology looks like a promising tool to accomplish this. For my part as a start, I will try to push SDP news through to my Facebook friends and direct them to this site. Let politics "creep" into their everyday social lives.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17984-its-official-your-bullying-boss-really-is-an-idiot.html?full=true&print=true

It's official: Your bullying boss really is an idiot

Got a bullying boss? Take solace in new research showing that leaders who feel incompetent really do lash out at others to temper their own inferiority.

"Power holders feel they need to be superior and competent. When they don't feel they can show that legitimately, they'll show it by taking people down a notch or two," says Nathanael Fast, a social psychologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who led a series of experiments to explore this effect.

In one, Fast and his colleague Serena Chen, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, asked 90 men and women who had jobs to complete online questionnaires about their aggressive tendencies and perceived competence. The most aggressive of the lot tended to have both high-power jobs and a chip on their shoulder, Fast and Chen found.

To see if a bruised ego can actually cause aggression, the researchers manipulated people's sense of power and self-worth by asking them to write about occasions when they felt either empowered or impotent and then either competent or incompetent. Previous research has suggested that such essays cause a short-term bump or drop in feelings of power and capability, Fast says.
Feel-bad factor

Next, Fast and Chen asked their volunteers to select a punishment to be given to university students for wrong answers in a hypothetical test of learning. Volunteers chose between horn sounds that ranged from 10 decibels to a deafening 130 decibels.

The volunteers who felt the most incompetent and empowered picked the loudest punishments – 71 decibels on average. Workers who felt up to their jobs, selected far quieter punishments, between 55 and 62 decibels, as did those primed to feel incompetent yet powerless.

Flattery seems to temper the aggressive urges of insecure leaders. When Fast and Chen coaxed the egos of these volunteers by praising their leadership skills, their aggressive tendencies all but disappeared. This is proof that leaders are aggressive because of a hurt ego, not simply a threat to their power, Fast says.

This might also explain why leaders of organisations both big and small surround themselves with yes-men and women, he says.

Blind flattery may not be the best solution for the 54 million US citizens estimated to have experienced workplace bullying (PDF). But easing leaders into new positions of power, or telling them that it's natural to feel daunted, could prevent future outbursts, says Adam Galinsky , a social psychologist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois.

Journal reference: Psychological Science, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02452.x

Since we are on the subject of strategy, let me introduce another military concept.

The German armed forces teach an elegantly named concept called [i][b]Schwerpunkt[/b][/i], meaning focal-point. It is is similar but not exactly the same as "key-terrain".

[i]Schwerpunkt[/i] requires one to identify his own strengths, and then pit it against the perceived weak-points of his enemy. Other battles are what we call secondary efforts; they are not strategic, but tactical in nature.

I am sure SDP can pinpoint its own strengths, although some organisations are confused about these or get themselves self-deluded as to what these are.

Perhaps I can suggest that some of SDP's strengths are a very intelligent and charismatic leader, an apparently cohesive core-team (currently), and a strong communication mechanism to it supporters or potential ones.

I must clarify that these strengths are from a comparative viewpoint, and only in comparison to the other opposition parties, and not necessarily the ruling one.

I was tempted to list down some of what I see as its weaknesses, but that is not relevant for this discussion, and I will leave it for another day. Also, I have a feeling many here would rather not read about it, besides the ubiquitous censor might be activated as well.

Contrary to what [b]waterfirex[/b] stated, I was not playing a "I-know-but-I-wont-tell-you routine". My earlier posting on key-terrain clearly stated that "I won't do SDP a favour by helping to derive what the key terrain for the Singapore context should be."

[b]Not helping to derive means just that, and in no way implies that I already know what SDP should target[/b]. I am also now not trying to pretend I know what the weaknesses of its opponent are.

My previous and current postings are aimed at encouraging readers to make some useful suggestions to SDP, even if it is unlikely to happen, [i]on ad hominem[/i] grounds.

Hi Dr Chee,

Generally, I agree with what you say. It is good that you use a military analogy to describe the struggles against PAP. However, the example is flawed. In trying to overcome a perceived enemy, one has to study the strength and weakness of the enemy before employing a certain strategy. You can't simply use all the strategy in the book and hope to have one succeed.

For example, you can't outflank the enemy or perform complex maneuvres if you do not have the numbers or the training.

For a small force against a larger well entrenched force, usually guerrilla tactics are used. Even so, for a long term victory, eventually, the larger force has to be worn down and taken down by a main force.

Back to politics, SDP is small now and PAP is large, as such, your choice of strategies is limited. If they are slow, you have to be quick. If they are apathetic, you have to be caring. If they are arrogant, you have to be humble. Eventually, to win against PAP, you have to win the hearts and minds of the people (specifically those of at least one GRC). Already, there are many who are unhappy with PAP and are ready to vote in opposition candidates if you know how to capture their votes.

If you study the military history of the world, you will notice that usually an alliance of smaller factions against a larger faction and employing the correct strategy will win a battle.

This is the clue to your eventual win into parliament. Ally with all the smaller opposition party, form a common brand and I have no doubt you will capture some seats in parliament.

Once the alliance can capture some seats, the snowball effect will take place.

There after, whether this alliance will form the next government will depend on its performance versus that of PAP.

I hope in your daily struggle against PAP, you will not forget that in the end, you have to WIN.

Don't forget ISA.