Ian On The Red Dot

Reading this post, I see xizor2000’s point. This is the analogy that was used:

But in the case of our opposition parties now, it is more like that of a fresh graduate looking for a job and with nothing much to show except for his FYP (Final Year Projects) or internships. For one to argue that the opposition has nothing to show and thus shouldn’t be allowed into parliament would be equal to the argument that no fresh graduate should ever be given a job for his lack of experience, or having no clue on how he should be doing his job! The fact that both Potong Pasir and Hougang have taken that step to vote in Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang respectively, would say a lot about what they think a people – gahmen relationship should be.

I appreciate his point that just because an individual doesn’t have prior experience in a job (or any job for that matter) doesn’t mean he or she shouldn’t be given a chance to do a job. Like I said in my earlier post, there are a lot of markers to see if a person might be suitable for the job. In this case, to use the analogy that xizor2000 offered, the potential employer can look at the fresh grad’s FYP, internships, resume and grades as an indicator of suitability for a job.

The key thing to note of course is that the fresh grad would most probably be offered an entry level position within the organization. In this case, being a member of Parliament would be the entry level position as opposed to the more senior positions of running a government and being a minister.

Why is the above important?

Because when a party and its members contest an election, they are not only contesting to win seats in the Parliament, but enough seats to form a government.

Well, at least that’s how I think it works in most countries.

In Singapore, the opposition has made it a strategy to NOT to try to win enough seats to form the government.

There are valid reasons for this. One of them is that the voters in Singapore might not be prepared for an opposition led government and thus not vote for any opposition candidate because of the psychological barrier erected by the fear that a freak result might occur and the opposition wins a majority of votes such that the end result is the opposition gets no votes.

So, the opposition thinks some opposition in Parliament is better than no opposition thus they don’t try to win the majority of seats.

Basically, they play to lose the war.

To extend xizor2000’s analogy, the fresh grad goes for an interview where two positions are offered, one more senior than the other. Afraid that he might appear too cocky and then lose out on the more junior position or for whatever reason I cannot think of now, the fresh grad during the interview disqualifies himself from the more senior position by saying,

“Look, I don’t think I’m ready to be in the senior position. It is not that I’m not good. I am. But I want to be fair to you. I want to give you a chance to assess me then if I am really really qualified, you can promote me from the junior position to that more senior position some time in the future.”

The fresh grad aims low. He just wants to get into the company. He sees himself no up. Or rather he assumes that the future employer sees him no up and is afraid to overextend himself in case the future employer indeed sees him no up and holds the desire for the more senior position against him and he gets nothing at all.

So back to the opposition. What I want to see is an opposition prepared to go in not just to win the little skirmishes, or the battles but the whole freaking war. No one should ever play a game already prepared to lose the bigger prize.

I know, I know. The opposition just wants to get one foot in and build from there. Frankly, I think that strategy hasn’t quite worked out.

No?

They should work on their resume before going for the interview, prepared to get the highest position possible. They should be prepared to form the government if they win and should work on more things outside of just being members of Parliament and running constituencies to show us that they can be the government. If they don’t win, they could possibly be more effective watchdogs.

Effectively, they should be telling the potential employers,

“I’m fit for the top job. Hell, I could be the CEO from day one. But if you put me in the entry level position, I’ll be the god damn best entry level worker you ever have.”

But, frankly, that’s not the message they are sending. At least to me. And if they aren’t playing to win the biggest prize or at least sure they can win it, how can I be confident they can be good at anything.

Self-confidence backed by preparation for bigger things, if you must remember, is something employers look for.