My
article on WP’s silence in many hot and controversial issues has received mixed
reactions as usual. Some are still unhappy that the WP has stayed away from
making a stand when the people wanted them to say something. Some have
complimented the WP for being wise by not being drawn or trapped into a
situation like Chee Soon Juan or JBJ and other opposition politicians and be
smashed to bits and buried alive.
There
are merits and reasons to want WP to speak up. There are also very good reasons
not to speak up but speaking up only at a critical moment when it counts. It is
easy for WP to fire away at the many issues that the people are unhappy about
and score political points and win over more supporters. Other than this, they
are not going to gain anything meaningful and may open themselves to attacks
just like cleaning the ceilings of hawker centres. Everything they said would
be used to slice them to pieces, right or wrong, nitpicking to the tiniest
hair. Even if they can say all the right things, all they need to do to get
into trouble could be as minor as a sneeze while speaking.
What
would happen to the issues if WP did not speak up? The problem could magnify
and accelerate to an intolerable level much faster since no protest could be
seen as everything is good, no problem, policy well received, or no one can
find anything wrong with the policy. It is like allowing the fire to burn
itself out.
Speaking
out and pointing out problematic areas would allow remedial actions to be taken
to rectify the flaws and could even turn a bad policy or issue around. A
potentially explosive issue or bad policy could be massaged to become more
acceptable. Speaking out, criticizing is helping to solve a problem, helping to
make things better. The bad part is that no one likes to hear the bad news, the
critiques, and people who spoke out are seen as bad people, trouble makers, the
messenger of bad news, and often be kicked in the arse.
This
may be a good reason why WP chose to stay reticent, don’t ruffle the feathers,
don’t be a smart aleck when it is not welcomed, don’t be the messenger of bad
news and don’t get butted for trying to help. What is the point when whatever
they said would be received badly and seen as stirring trouble, with the wrong
intention? Must as well let people be
happy with their mistakes and let the problem and pain fester and rot, and wait
for the opportunity to pick up the pieces when it is too late to salvage a bad
situation. Being quiet, non committal has many merits and can be strategically
very sound too. It can also be a game of psycho, making the enemies wandering
what one is up too and what is brewing. It may force the enemies to panic, to act
prematurely and start barking for the wrong reasons. It can mislead the enemy
to become complacent, to think there is no threat, all so nice and humble and
accommodating. A nice and easy going politician, always smiling and so sweet
can be even more dangerous than a barking dog. It is all a game and how the
politician can play to his advantage. What is real or unreal?
We
are just bystanders watching the chess players moving their pieces. Who will
emerge the winner when it is game over, the quiet one or the one that is kpkb
for the wrong reasons?
12 comments:
Aiyah, please lah uncle.
You don't have to "speak up" simply for speaking up -- that's like being a rebel without a cause.
SILENCE is often the best PUBLIC strategy if you have no viable solutions to contribute. Otherwise you're just complaining, and in short time, you'll lose your supporters.
The WORST thing any would-be opposition political enterprise can do is to make statements that will cause more divisiveness on an issue.
"Either-Or" is essentially a false choice. You take a position, you lock yourself in. If backfire, you lose to the point you cannot recover yourself. You become divisive, you play to the unruly, unthinking, emotional MOB -- already "hot" from the issues at hand.
Better to keep quiet, keep your powder dry, and maintain control on impulses to outburst. Then think very carefully about the issues and formulate non-divisive responses and solutions.
The WP only KPKB once every five years.
P.S. Being quiet doesn't necessarily mean you are "non-committal".
I doubt the WP are playing "mind games" as you would suggest.
The PAP don't scare easily lah. The are bold and obnoxious, plus they have all the power -- to the point they can come out and devastate any opposition via a variety of "dirty tactics".
What is there to speak up when there is no major issue to be look into?And if one is not ready to be the Chairman,why not just keep quiet as a normal director and get the monthly salary ,oon oon chia bee hoon?
And dun anyhow speak up just to show that one is working.
That Ah Huat propose to punish those poor towkays for paying their staff CPF late instead of thinking how to help those poor towkays who has to plead with the judge for a bit of times to pay up...
And Ah lian talk about those parental leaves..as if Sinkies are overstress....
If I towkay,you think I will support those chia leow bee who got no feeling to be the Garmen?If my good but nearly pokkai towkay is force to close shop because of punishment,you think I can still get a job that allow me to blog as and when I like?
Drink my Ah Huat kopi better than listen to Ah Huat story.
No talent means no talent.Buay How Seow.
That is why I say don't ask a hundred or a thousand questions in Parliament. As 10 good and relevant questions will be good enough.
Some questions can simply write to the perm sec or minister for an answer no need to go to Parliament and waste time.
We should kpkb only among ourselves to raise awareness of the issues among fellow patriots and citizens.
But never kpkb in gahmen websites.
The best feedback to the PAP gahmen is no feedback.
Example.
SMRT breakdowns.
That's the best feedback ever.
If you feedback BEFORE the breakdowns, PAP will not believe you anyway.
So the fastest way to convince PAP is to agree with them.
And then sit back and watch the whole thing fall apart.
why so many "religious guru" try to politicise issues to advance their personnal goals?
why some public area are reserved for certain exclusive groups? who started this??? so whose faults?
one man meat is another man posion .... have a new meaning here???
knnccb ....
The origin of parliament is for people to kpkb.
Parler = to speak in French.
How can WP go there and keep quiet? We do not elect them to be dumb, but we elect them to speak up on behalf of us.
Nevertheless WP is still one notch above PAP. Being dumb is better than speaking in a way those PAP did that cause me ad nausea.
Better to keep quiet than to tell lie, talk sycophantic, brag...etc.
Wah, RB, you are like the reincarnation of Sun Tzu or Napoleon, because they would have said the same things as you. Political warfare is very similar to real war, ain't it? Don't let your enemy bait you into cowpeh cowbu too much, eh?
“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Sun Tzu
"If it is to your advantage, make a move forward;
if not, stay where you are."
@ November 23, 2013 1:08 pm
In other words, inaction is often better than blindly charging in.
The downfall of the PAP will be due to their hubris. Their arrogance breeds a mentality of always being right. They scorn the idea of populism. And what does the PM do? He does a disappearing act during a crisis, and when things die down, opens his mouth too damn much uttering hot air and fighting ghosts - and that goes with his ka-kias.
I am often reminded that:
Those who talk a lot know less than what they say.
Those who say little know more than what they talk about.
@ November 23, 2013 9:17 pm
Sun Tzu also taught:
"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands,
but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
Post a Comment