Sunday, July 6, 2014

Ong Ye Kung also says so

Excerpt the above from Ong Ye Kung as interviewed in That was exactly what I used to mention in one too many blog posts about the PAP.

The PAP will have to communicate at a new and different level. Will they know how to do it? I can see them trying very hard but not very successfully. Fix the image the problem or all your messages will inevitably carry baggage that you want to leave behind.

What if I let on that despite my blistering criticisms of the PAP I have gradually become a closet supporter since the last GE? However if they cannot bring out what I have kept then this failure to connect will cost them my vote. It is not up to me to tell them how. This is something they must find out and act on. Had I not read the above from Ong Ye Kung, I wouldn't have admitted this much!

Hint: Learn from Pope Francis the delivery and substance of your messages. He had a far harder job than the PAP and he was succeeding even from the get go. The PAP just doesn't have it and could be getting it right for all the wrong reasons. I cannot support that.


  1. Open and honest communication is so essential these days. We should be thankful there are some good communicators (like Pope Francis) to learn from. Likewise there are some really good personalities in both the dominant and opposition parties here. It boils down that some individuals have it, some just don't. And we need to make that distinction - not by the brand, party or creed they hail from

  2. You believe this failure to communicate is one of skill ? Not really . It is one of credibility . Lee Kuan Yew had no problem communicating. When nobody believes you changing words won't help.

    1. I had purposely used Pope Francis someone with immense credibility as an example.

      I didn't want to write this then but if they fail to get it right within a year of the last GE they aren't going to get it right at all. Don't look to the PAP but the voters. They are among the most intelligent anywhere.

    2. Your use of the Pope as an analogy is very apt but I'm afraid you're referencing the wrong Pope with respect to LHL. There's a reason why only Pope Francis can have been Pope Francis -- years before he was the Pope, he was already practicing living the simple life, amidst the downtrodden in the slums of Latin America. I think the most apt reference to a Pope when it comes to LHL is the Pope before Pope Francis, ie. Ratzinger. There's a good parallel here -- immaculate academic background, well-respected among the hierachy, kinda knows what needs to be done (in terms of direction) to steer the flock forward, cognizant of today's challenges and the changed environment. But in both cases, powerless to impose change. In Ratzinger's case, whether its failure of imagination, or just his bandwidth / personality mismatch, or that he's handicapped by the bureaucracy. In LHL's case, probably a combination of his bandwidth / personality mismatch and perhaps, handicapped by the many sacred cows that he's grown up under that he's afraid to slaughter or make too many major changes. Therefore, I hope the best outcome for Singapore is that LHL does a Ratzinger someday - recognise his limitations and hand over the baton to someone else. Someone from the outside. Forget about grooming someone else for another 20 years of apprenticeship. Or, it could well be that the best outcome for Singapore is that LHL does an Abe (PM Abe of Japan). Look at the Abe today vs the Abe before the LDP was walloped in the polls and lost power. That old Abe was indecisive, too cautious, recognize the problems facing Japan but virtually powerless to do anything. He was literally hospitalized in exhaustion before he lost power. Look at the Abe of today. Decisive, vigorous. Maybe that's the path LHL could take too. Regardless of Abe or Ratzinger, its not going to be up to him. When you're too mired inside the tunnel, you cannot see beyond it -- its just too hard. It'll have to be forced by external events. And my gut feel is the next GE.

    3. Thanks JG for adding this bit on Ratzinger. I didn't use Ratzinger because foremost as usual I wanted to keep is simple and short. Thanks for adding your analysis with Ratzinger here which is the other missing half.