2econdsight

"to rescue truth from beauty and meaning from belief"

SDP’s GE Slogan

4 Comments

Like most in Singapore, I have never been a member of any political party. Neither am I one currently.
But my views – publicly expressed and shared, not just with some friends – are for the Change we Must and to End PAP’s Dominance Before PAP Ends Us All.

Let me state upfront that I support SDP as an additional, alternative voice in parliament. I haven’t read all the details of their policy papers and, hence, cannot honestly and will not give a view yet. But in principle I support those policy alternatives as starting points to engage citizens.

Perhaps, this expression of support suffices not the die-hard SDPers or anti-PAPers. Well, sorry about that. But one has to be honest with oneself, first and foremost.

It is in that vein of support and with a mind to share my views as input for SDP’s campaign that I share my 2cents on what may make SDP’s campaign more effective.

Campaign Slogan, ‘Your Voice in Parliament’
‘Your Voice in Parliament’ is a vast improvement over GE2011 ‘SDP Promise’, a pledge to run government in a transparent and accountable manner.

For one, ‘Your Voice’ is unambiguous and easily understood compared to ‘Promise’.

Secondly, the focus is singular. A voter can identify when, where and whether it is her ‘Voice’…not some conceptual ‘Promise’ that translates into 10 pledges (how many can one recall easily?).

Thirdly, ‘Your Voice’ is a living thing; it changes with the need of the hour, with changing circumstances (the voter’s), it can be spoken softly, shouted loudly, – or, indeed, be silent – when it is called for.

Most importantly, it captures the zeitgeist, what voters, more than anything else here and now, want – to be heard.

Can Slogan Be Improved On?
I think so.

The very 4 strengths (not exhaustive) identified require some deliberate, self-initiated thinking. How many voters can do that? Without prompting? If SDP can get the voter to hear/read, stop and think – would that not be more effective a slogan?

‘Your True Voice In Parliament’ will help to trigger that thinking process.

Why ‘True Voice’?

First and foremost, ‘Your Voice’ may only cause a reader to ask, if at all, ‘Do I not have one already?’ or ‘Am I not entitled to one?’. But ‘True Voice’ dismisses both doubts as a given. Instead it focuses the voter’s mind on ‘Yes, has my voice been actually, correctly, truly heard?’ You want to set off a voter’s thinking process to uncover all the different dissonances boiling silently within her. And, indeed, remind her time and again of that when she reads or hears those words, ‘Your True Voice in Parliament’.

Secondly, ‘True’ inherently implies SDP commitment to accurately reflect the voter’s views, instead of and more than SDP’s own party’s views.

Thirdly, ‘True’ is an adjective to put PAP on the defensive. PAP can easily brush aside ‘Voice in Parliament’ with e.g. of how they have responded to feedback. But with ‘True’, such claims invite voters to ask themselves; Yes, but only after we ‘cry mother cry father!’, Yes, but it’s not good enough! Yes, but it’s not our TRUE feelings, our TRUE desires!

Yes, but where is my true voice in parliament

Fourthly, with ‘True Voice’, SDP would be setting in process to help make the electorate a thinking one. More importantly, a questioning one, “The important thing is not to stop questioning.” (Einstein)

A questioning electorate is Singapore’s best guarantee for the government we truly deserve.

Concluding Remarks
Some may argue that ‘Your True Voice in Parliament’ is a tad long. Well, I can only say that ‘Towards a First World Parliament’ did not appear to affect another party’s unprecedented success in GE2011.

If I was a GE candidate, I’ll test everything I say and do against the one defining question, that will help me win the election; namely, ‘Does it reach out to the FMMs (fence-sitters, marginal supporters, mal/mis-informed)?’

You see, against this very question rests the votes that determine the outcome of my candidacy. In a sense, you can say, everything else is a sideshow.

I am not saying ‘Your Voice In Parliament’ cannot do that job, merely, can it be more effective? I was warned that SDP may view my suggestion as negative criticism. I for one believe that SDP’s CEC members are unlike the PAP’s who brook no views other that those pre-screened, pre-sanctioned.

This is my one ‘True Voice’ on SDP’s slogan.

 2cents

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “SDP’s GE Slogan

  1. A slogan has to be simple and it must resonate with people. It must convey a better future. I recommend reading up on American and British political campaigns. E.g. Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” was very effective in the US.

    Here are some possible slogans –

    We the People
    Singapore For ALL
    SDP For People
    We are Singapore
    Our Future Our Country

    It may be best to select the slogan through a focus group study.

    Like you, I hope SDP will overcome past MSM smeared propaganda. When LKY is after someone, you know that someone has real substance!

    P.s. I thought the recent Singaporeans First was an excellent name choice.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Daily SG: 16 Jan 2015 | The Singapore Daily

  3. Dr Chee Soon Juan is well known for being outspoken. To him, free speech is absolute and it is his right to defame.

    As a blogger, I have expressed my views that free speech comes with responsibility and have argued against Opposition Members that speak without consequence.

    I have now been threatened with arrest and legal actions by NSP’s Ravi Philemon if I do not remove a blog entry he thinks is defamatory.

    It is ironic that my post was criticising Ravi Philemon for his belief in absolute free speech.

    http://sggeneralelections2016.blogspot.com/2015/01/ravi-philemon-threatens-arrest-legal-actions.html

    Like

    • Hi,
      Thx for dropping in and yr comment.
      – Can you provide the link to when Dr Chee actually said ‘free speech is absolute and it is his right to defame’?
      – I think ‘free speech comes with responsibility’ does not in any way mean tt you are immune or indemnify from any legal action that someone may bring against what you say. They are 2 different things.
      – If Ravi Philemon has ‘threatened you with arrest’, you can safely laugh it off. He’s no policeman nor is a ‘defamatory’ accusation is no public crime.
      – Why should it be ironic? Free speech and defamation are 2 separate and different issues. You are free to say your piece, if someone’s reputation is unfairly or unsubstantiated-ly injured, it’s her right to sue. The court them decides.

      That’s my 2cents view.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s