Molly MeekLow Thia Khiang of the WP: A co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously
Shanmugam of the PAP: Do you really want a co-driver who will be fighting with the driver to take over the wheel and slapping, kicking him? Is this the way forward?
Molly Meek: What, Mr Shanmugam?! You are already anticipating that the co-driver will slap the driver? So you think the driver will fall asleep or drive dangerously?
P.S: No wonder the PAP has always been lauded as an honest and incorruptible party. Molly salutes Mr. Shanmugam for his absolute honesty.
*****
The esteemed Mr. Shanmugam also reminded citizens of their role with regard to the immigration policy.
Shanmugam: If you look at the bus analogy, the people sitting in the bus are the people who have the right to ask for information. They are the ones who should be bringing up what the concerns of the people are.
If they believe that numbers are too large, they have the power to ask for information and then raise it as a specific point during parliament. Was that done? Or is this pure political opportunism?
Molly Meek: Does the power to ask for information equate to the power to get the information being asked for? For instance, does the power to ask for the exact employment statistics of Singapore citizens and PRs without the two groups being lumped together equate to the power to have access to the information?
Does the power to ask come with the power to influence? If not, what’s the point of asking? Imagine 2 Scenarios.
Scenario 1
Passenger: Hey Captain, is the bus going to crash into the tree?
Driver: No, it’s not! Shut up and sit down. Don’t distract me from driving!
Passenger: But it does seem we are going to crash! Drive away from that tree!
Driver: No! Don’t be stupid. You will die if I drive in another direction.
Passenger: Noooo!!!!!! Help!!!!!!!!!!!!
Driver jumps out of bus. Bus crashes. Passenger dies. Bus is damaged beyond repair.
Music of “What a wonderful world” plays in the background.
Scenario 2
Passenger: Hey Captain, is the bus going to crash into the tree?
Driver: No, it’s not! Shut up and sit down. Don’t distract me from driving!
Passenger: But it does seem we are going to crash! Drive away from that tree!
Driver: No! Don’t be stupid. You will die if I drive in another direction.
Passenger: Noooo!!!!!! Help!!!!!!!!!!!!
Co-driver pulls the brake just in time.
Bonus: Scenario 2.1 (Sequel to Scenario 2)
Co-driver pulls the brake.
Driver: What the hell are you doing? Look, now the bus is not moving. We are in a gridlock.
Co-driver: Don’t be stupid. You mean you want to crash into that tree?
Driver: What tree? Don’t fool around.
At this point, the bus turns sentient and ejects the driver. Co-driver takes over.
Music of “What a wonderful world” plays in the background.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: GeneralElection |
Molitics 
Enough with these analogies! Riposting with alternate interpretations only confuses and lets the minister dictate the debate. Are the electors so dim as to need a driver – co-driver analogy to understand the role of an opposition? You should recast the debate on your own terms, make it crystal clear what you are seeking and don’t use imagery that forces listeners to translate it to the real world… ‘If the PAP is the driver, and the opposition is co-driver, then… what am I? – a passenger? the motor, the tires?’ (you are all ‘digits’, remember? So maybe you are the number plate.) It can get a little ridiculous. Having made the rhetorical flourish, of course, the minister no longer gives a shit.
Everyone must remember, they only get to vote once. And they vote for the person they want to win. Full stop. No choice of driver or co-driver. They cannot nuance it. The unstated assumption behind the ‘freak result’ idea is that voters actually only want to punish the PAP by giving them, say, 55% without kicking them out. But if you vote opposition, it means you, personally, want a change of government. You should not fear to vote as you wish merely because more than half the people might agree with you. If that happens, you should be happy.
So don’t waste time dissecting the ruling party’s verbal tricks. Expose their fallacies, yes, but don’t get bogged down by their dissembling. They are generally not good speakers; they just get flattered by the msm. Rallies are dismissed as ‘wayang’ but there are good speakers among all the parties this time. People have nothing to fear but fears fabricated by the PAP.
If voters are not dim, they won’t be confused by interpretations of the analogies which, I think, are made quite clear here. It is unfortunate, but I do see people who will get swung by Shanmugam’s nonsensical retorts.
Exposing their fallacies and doing all that you find necessary isn’t mutually exclusive with what is being done here. I believe Low originally made the analogy precisely because he saw a need to show how simple the situation is compared to how the PAP has twisted the situation into soe conspiracy theory. And now Shanmugam is adding smoke to the analogy. His ridiculous move is just being carried to its logical end here.
Low Thia Khiang should read this. He can have a lot of fun performing a play using the scenarios at the rallies.
Hi,
Yes, I was just telling friends I think the WP anticipated the silly word play and engineered a scenario where the straightforward PAP retort would lead down this alley.
Still, my agenda for this comment is a little different…
First, I apologize if this looks like self-serving spam, but I hope you read on a bit.
I’ve developed a tool for “rating candidates holistically on multiple criteria”. My intent was to get voters to assess candidates on all relevant criteria. Especially the issues.
It may be found at: http://vote.individualpreference.info/
I think we need to take the “quantitative techniques” used to assess alternatives in the public service to assess candidates holistically. Especially to balance the cognitive effects of over discounting the future by forcing people to make explicit judgments (e.g. which is more important: a candidate’s views on issues or electoral promises? by how much?) To quote a snippet of MM Lee’s remarks to the press:
SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has a simple message for voters in the heat, dust and clamour of the election campaign – he has urged them to look at the fundamentals. In a statement issued just two days before Nomination Day, he reminded Singaporeans not to risk their assets, property values, and job opportunities…
Issues relate to the future, risking assets, property values and job opportunities in the near and distant future (as well as those of one’s children) should matter as well.
What I am asking for is that you take some time to take a look at it and, if you think it worthwhile, share this with your readership. I have not been blogging and curating a readership and cannot push this out as effectively. I want to get this out to Singapore net users. The strategy is to go through the politically conscious, and have them involve their less politically conscious friends. It is those people that I would like to reach. I want them to more effectively weigh pork vs issues. (Issues and, thus, the future tend to be hyper discounted by Singaporeans.) I hope you will help.
(I’m not doing this for self-serving reasons. Publicity of this nature does not really help me. For more details, please contact me at the indicated e-mail address.)
[This comment is out of place. Feel free to delete it.]
[Incidentally, I recall reading your blog perhaps 7 years ago, glad to see you’re still around.]