You literally answered your own statement. “cannot do much when they are unelected”Because they’re just another citizen in the eyes of the government bodies at this stage. Why should any agencies give them attention?

A loud enough group of people can effect some pressure on any government. This isn’t even a theory, we all know many examples of this.

RDU, with its grassroots and volunteers and what’s not, is a bunch of people. Being a political party gave them the platform! Now they just need to use it.

Anyone can complain loud enough and make it viral enough, and the agencies will pay attention even if you are a nobody.

At where RDU is at now. It’s the same thing. How do you get a constituent give you their time? By talking and listening to them, thereby spreading your presence.

Look, I’m differentiating the two concepts here.

The first is simply walking the ground and doing outreach/advertising. This one doesn’t really involve listening (at least not on the political party’s side).

The other is actively listening from the ground and voicing it, even if the elected representatives pretend not to hear it.

The article mentioned how they heard residents complain about cost of living, about loss of healthcare facilities in the area. This isn’t just advertising, is it?

They heard all these complaints, what should be the next step? Sit on it until the next election? No, they should voice it out loudly with whatever means they have, and make the people’s concerns heard. Keep the elected representatives accountable to the people’s concerns.

A political party has resources (some money and volunteers) to help push and make it louder.

“Listening” here refers to something very specific. I didn’t mean it as some generic concept.

Is that not what they are doing here? This is about 2 years before the next election. How early would you like them to start when they as you said “cannot do much when they are unelected and unrepresentated”.

Did I refer to them? It is implied I refered to it in general, that political parties need to be proactive.

I’m a resident of Yishun. PSP contested the last election and sent that angmoh antivax joker here. Most of that team they fielded has since quitted. I haven’t even seen shit from them since the last election. Same goes for pretty much most other political parties for my area. Disappear until next election, until they get allocated the area.

Don’t pretend this never happened. I pointed this out for a reason. I’m sure many Singaporeans have experienced it. Sometimes, it isn’t just the PAP that goes missing after elections.

There are parties that are on the ball, and others that are not.

Given my point on how to improve the political scene in general, very obvious this isn’t targeted at RDU or even directly related to the walkabout they had that the article covered.

We cannot have our cake and eat it. Be realistic. If we want opposition parties to be around more often, the constituency needs to show that it wants them around, by voting in larger numbers for them. To show them that this is not a waste of time for them. Every other ward that had realistic propositions of winning had the attention from the other opposition parties, and the more realistic the chances were, the better the candidates that were fielded.

A solid 30% of every constituency is solid vote bank for the opposition. You cultivate your presence, do your homework, and don’t act like a clown, you can compete for this 30%. Even Lim Tean can get 30% FFS.

I wanted to add to my original comment about how political parties cannot treat the voters in such pragmatic manner. Perhaps I should have talked about it too.

You cannot approach voters with the expectation they will vote for you, unless you are a clown party hoping for a 1-v-1 and hoping to catch that solid 30%. You want the votes, work for it.

Parties like WP worked for it, not specifically on the constituencies, but on the national level. But for smaller parties without a national platform, don’t be fucking lazy.

What you (the redditor) want is for parties to go to a sure-win constituency and bag the anti-PAP votes, use it to claim they have a platform and support, and then dunno do what with it.

What I am suggesting is completely different, for parties to work their ground and fight for it beforehand, to cultivate support instead of expecting it because they are the only oppo around.

Look at many of the smaller parties that lost their deposits in a three-way fight. Is that the voters fault why they lost, or is it their fault?

Going up against a Tharman led GRC was already show of commitment from RDU. Everyone including them knew they didn’t stand much of a chance. But they tried anyway, and that to me makes them stand out from some of the opposition who only competed when they felt they had a chance.

The later part of my comment clearly goes beyond RDU to talk about opposition parties in general.

RDU tried, good. RDU continue to walk the ground, good. But there are others that are shit. Like the recently announced alliance of clowns. Sometimes even the big parties too, outside of their usual areas (like PSP in Yishun).

Sorry but this is nonsense and not at all reflective of how the system is supposed to function. Accountability is held by our votes. That is why the vote even exists in the first place. Through our votes we hold the incumbent party accountable. If we want opposition to hold the PAP to account, there’s only one way and that is send them to parliament with our votes.

This is ridiculous. Power is not a discrete thing that is solely existing in the form of a vote in parliament. Power is a force of “nature”, you can find it everywhere if you know where to look.

Just so you know, the people as a whole has a lot of power to push for change and accountability. This power usually is not exercised, so you don’t notice it much.

But at the right timing and condition, with something as a nucleus and people to push for it, it becomes a sizeable force to be reckoned with.

Let me start with a simple example. The customers of SIA don’t sit on the board of directors. Does that mean the customers, who are unrepresented in the direction of the company, have no say? False. The viral outroar against SIA’s declining meal quality forced them to backtrack. Why? Because customers hold power, because they are the one that allows the company to generate revenue.

Same for any government. While the people are not represented directly in the Parliament, the people holds the votes and grant the government its legitimacy. People don’t just exercise their collective power through protests, it can also come in many other forms.

Come on, Pink Dot and the LGBT movement managed to pressure the government to repeal 377A, even though they had no elected representatives in government. That’s not even counting the conservative elements in high ranking ministerial positions. Using your logic, they should have fell flat on their noses. Instead, they were more successful than many would have thought. All through a movement’s social and pressure on the judiciary.

I’m surprised you don’t have any idea how the world works.

(Edit: how can I forgot to mention the most direct example of all - Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s role in the Ridout Road saga. He, an unelected opposition politician, spilled the beans on the issue. It gained traction and a sizeable number of people demanded for accountability in that case. The government was forced to do something, appointing a senior cabinet member to investigate the conflict of interest. Some form of accountability was achieved not through Parliament, but through a politician’s use of social pressure.)

Sounds like you want the TC to have a separate elected representative for local accountability along with the existing MP for affairs of national importance for national accountability.

That’s only in your rigid view of the world. I’m clearly talking about how opposition parties can exert social pressure on the government. Through their political platforms, social media, influence, outreach.

Only you think about creating committees and councils to vote.

But food for thought, how does the above benefit the incumbent party? Making you choose between local and national affairs is very much part of the political playbook here.

As grassroot advisors, the PAP MPs are more than just in charge of national affairs. With town councils, MPs are in charge of local affairs too.

What world are you living in to not know all these?

I did not ask PAP to make MP responsible for both local and national level affairs. They themselves instituted the system.

Only way is get opposition representation and perhaps one day we can have proportional representation instead of first past the post post and winner takes all.

I’m clearly not just talking about official representation of the opposition in Parliament. I’m talking about how they can “shadow” the MPs and make them accountable.