I really didn’t expect my post on Tan Kin Lian to attract the kind of attention it did (relative to the peace and quiet that usually resonates within these pages) but it’s been interesting to see the kind of responses that some people have had.
I attracted many incoherent comments and after trying to distill them, I can only conclude that it seems as though people only read what they want to read. The whole post wasn’t NEVER about blaming TKL for spoiling TCB’s would-be victory and I said as much:
…I like to use Mr Tan Kin Lian’s post-PE press statement to highlight one thing- that this is a classic case of Delusion/Cognitive Dissonance.
However, there is one reply I made to a comment that perhaps needs to be addressed and that was this:
(Abridged) In sum, my post was never about the result of the polls.
It was to show that TKL, in the face of his terrible results at the polls, is still trying to shift the blame onto circumstances that he feels are beyond his control. Now, after receiving many comments in support of TKL, I really feel aggrieved for all TKL supporters. The man spent $70,000 in campaign funds, presumably of money contributed or raised by his supporters, produced god-awful results and he still has supporters defending him?
That’s like the Investors of Sunshine Empire trying to defend the Directors of Sunshine Empire. Truly confounding.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit with this analogy because I got two replies that weren’t too happy about this and saying that I did not know what Sunshine Empire was about. That’s just silly- I wouldn’t have used an example if I couldn’t justify it.
The problem with many people is that they think too narrowly. They think that because Sunshine Empire is a ponzi scheme and a fraud, therefore I’m saying TKL is a fraud too. Obviously, I have to be stupid to say that. The common thing that TKL and the Directors have in common is a failed promise. Of course their intent is different but that’s besides the point here. Let me illustrate.
The directors of Sunshine Empire came up with a scheme that promised returns which were mathematically impossible. Ultimately the scheme collasped under its own weight and Investors lost money. Investors felt cheated because they were not given the returns they were promised and therefore, rightfully so, were angry and aggrieved.
Now, TKL campaigned hard in the PE. He got donations from supporters in order to do so. Now, let me assume here, that he campaigned to win and his promise was to be the ‘Voice of the People’. In the end, his results were god-awful, did he live up to his promise? Obviously not, since 5% of voters can hardly be considered to be ‘the People’. And what was his response to that? His Post-PE press statement that’s what. He did acknowledge in one line that there was a ‘weaknesses in my campaign strategy, my image and messaging’ but mostly he was shifting the buck to the private company engaged to conduct the informal polls for him, TJS and that he could not let his supporters down.
If I were a stakeholder in TKL’s ‘Voice of the people’ campaign, I’d be asking him how is it he spent $70,000 of donated funds in order to achieve such terrible results (obviously, if they were all equally good, he’d get 20%-25% depending on the share of spoilt votes). I wouldn’t be defending him by saying things like he got sabotaged, his character got assaulted or TJS stole his votes by being a latecomer and appealing to the same type of voter. After all, did any of TKL’s competing candidates force him to use his ‘Hi-5’ campaign? Did any of them compel him to a wooden delivery of his Presidential Broadcast speech? Did any of them coerce him to use an independent company to conduct polls that were inaccurate?
This brings me back to Cognitive Dissonance which is one’s inability to face the truth and in doing so, creates all sorts of implausible reasons in order to justify the result. It is especially deadly in Investing since time is a continuous entity and when companies or individuals go bankrupt, it’s usually too late. That’s why Traders usually have a stop-loss and Investors usually employ a margin of safety- to prevent our emotions from getting in the way.
Guess what. It even happens to cooks.
Ryan Goh: Life through these eyes 
Ryan,
With due respect, your comments are filled with hindsight and we know hindsight is always 100% good.
You are making too much of a presumption that TKL supporters like me who have invested time and effort, some even sponsored his campaign, is expecting any “return” of any kind. In a multiple corners fight like this PE, we are very realistic about the chances of winning but we still didn’t back off from supporting Kin Lian.
Thus your analogy of Sunshine Empire is really flawed. There are no promise made by Kin Lian of any kind, not about sure win, least nothing in return for our support behind him. Obviously, you are seeing things through the “investment modules” so widely spread among modern Singaporeans. We believe in Kin Lian’s 5 values and one of them is Public Service. Our support of KIn Lian is just a kind of Public Service to us, not that kinds of “investment” that you are talking about. This actually what I treasure most from participating in this campaign. All of those people who have come forward to help, are doing it whole heartedly in the spirit of Public Service.
You are actually MOCKING at us by insinuating that we are supporting Kin Lian hoping for anything in return. This is obviously unacceptable to me because I know many of the people who are behind the campaign, working much harder than I did, are truly doing it purely for Public Service. This may be something you would never understand due to your inclination and naturally, PAP has always tried to monetize Public Service in such a way that nobody would really believe there is still altruism alive somewhere in Singapore.
Goh Meng Seng
Hi Mr Goh,
Thank you for your comments but you, like the other TKL supporters, are taking things too personally and missing the forest for the trees. As I said, the common denominator in both cases is ‘a failed promise’. Since that seems too difficult for you to understand. Let me try to bring you through it step by step.
First, TKL campaigned on being “the Voice of the people”. I understand ‘the people” to mean ‘the public at large’ i.e. all of society or all voters. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Second, the poll results showed that he only got 5% of votes which therefore implies that he wasn’t the voice of 95% of the people.
So please tell me, how is that serving the public or his stakeholders/supporters who believe in his message?
Now, with every competition, there is going to be winners and losers. In this contest, TT was the winner and TCB, TJS and TKL the losers, so obviously none of them can be expected to promise to win. However, every candidate worth his salt must have at least tried their best; looking at TCB’s and TJS’s campaign, I can at least reasonably conclude that even though they lost, they did try their best- their campaign was credible and the results back up this view.
No one needed hindsight to tell that TKL’s campaign was bad executed. I honestly tell you that when I saw his nomination day speech, presidential broadcast as well as the vibe from commentators online, I knew TKL was going to do badly. The only thing I needed hindsight for was his ~5% vote share, I might have guessed 6,7,8,9 or even 10% but in relation to everyone else’s vote share, does that really matter?
So really, Mr. Goh, the point of my posts and my reply is “Stop Kidding Yourselves”. You say you and TKL’s supporters did it for Public Service. So let me ask you. How is a low vote share reflective of Public Service? Maybe it’s a service to TKL and his supporters but please do not confuse that with the public at large.
Btw, since you worked on his campaign, I’m very curious to know:
– How did all of you agree on/ support the idea to do the ‘Hi-5’? Was any pilot or focus group feedback carried out to test Public response to this?
– Did anyone in his campaign advise him that his wooden delivery of his message was as flat as day-old Coke?
– Did anybody write/vet his scripts for him?
– Did you guys hire an image consultant for him?
– Was your team really expecting a near-win for TKL?
Those, in my book, and definitely was within his control, were the reasons why he garnered such horrible results.
So really, you should do TKL and yourself a favour by not seeing criticism as an attack but rather feedback, and work go on those areas.
Goh Meng Seng,
Then you are truly delluded to fall in line behind TKL. For one, you are an opportunist to begin with. You hit left and right and nowhere have you ever contributed to Public Service. That you use this term is insulting as the PAP claim that they are working in the spirit of Public Service.
Chen Show Mao’s spirit would be exemplary of Public Service.
No. Not you who lurk in the Internet and go to Hong Kong when the election fever is over.
As to TKL, I used to read Lucky Tan’s blog and thought that TKL was indeed an honorable man who stood in the name of justice. But not ever, after I saw how he conducted himself in days before election and truly saw that he was just another opportunist who timed his Lehman’s coming forward has his foreword to the election.
TKL is merely an opportunist with no standard and taste in language and thinking facility.
Lucky Tan really saw the wrong guy despite his brilliance.
Death to the PAP and Opportunistic Singaporeans like TKL and GMS
Loh Kim,
I have been working on opposition politics for years, almost a decade and contested two GE. I am not someone who will just parachute from nowhere from overseas just for GE without much contribution to the political process before contesting an Elections. I would say, I deserve a good rest after such long years of political work in Singapore. If I go for sabbatical, I will announce it as it is, not hiding such information from public scrutiny.
Well, I am proud to say I have served my every effort in Singapore opposition politics, giving a good fight to PAP though I did not win. I am also proud to say that I have serve my term in NSP as Secretary General well to reset its public profile after it left SDA, being relatively unknown for the years it is under SDA. And yes, I am proud to say that I made exceptional effort to debunk PAP’s absurd HDB policy hidden under nice slogan like “Asset Enhancement Scheme” by raising awareness of the ills and bad implications of high HDB prices, totally against “conventional wisdom and beliefs”. All in all, I don’t get paid for any single cent for all these and I am proud for these services, no matter how little it may be seen to you, that I have rendered to political development.
Opportunistic? I dare to say that I would be the last one entitled to be called opportunistic. I worked for every bits of advancement with sweat and blood, never riding on anyone else fame or hijack anyone’s good work.
As for Ryan,
if by your logic, vote count is everything, then I must say the insistence of multi-million dollar annual salary by PAP must be of great Public Service sacrifices since they have gotten 60% of popular votes and won all but 6 seats in parliament!
Voting is a very complex process, especially when it is in multi-corner fight. The candidates can say all they want but ultimately, different voters voted according to many different reasons for different candidates. Even for same candidate, they will give all sorts of reasons for voting him or for not voting him. The poll result you see is the aggregate of all these different considerations and views, not just a simplistic one like because TKL cannot be Voice of People therefore voters don’t vote him. That’s over simplistic.
For this PE, I would say that the most common non-Tony Tan voters chose to vote other candidates because they have only one thing in mind, they don’t want Tony Tan to win. That is the only thing in their mind and their choice of candidates depends on who they think can best beat Tony Tan, not who is the one suitable to be President or which candidate could represent them well. Naturally, TCB and TJS would be a better choice than TKL because in most people’s mind, these two already have their base supporters basically due to their past partisan political contest in GE.
Thus, TKL is disadvantaged though he is could be seen as the most impartial choice, non-partisan and political neutral. In short, he lost because this PE has been turned into the extension of GE2011.
Goh Meng Seng
Hi Mr. GMS,
Please tell me why Vote Share isn’t everything?
Without vote share, you don’t get elected, without getting elected, you don’t get a chance to deliver on your campaign promises.
It’s as simple as that.
Sure, the PAP use of the GRC system makes things unfair but did the WP keep harping about it? No. They went and won 1 GRC and that’s the best way to deal with an unfair playing field. When you’re just a contestant, you can’t change the rules of the game you’re playing. So you gotta play the game as best as you can. It’s very nice to say idealistic stuff like “Impartial, Political-neutral” etc. but that’s obviously not what most people want otherwise, you guys would have gotten a much bigger vote share.
I’m actually surprised that given your own extensive experience in domestic politics, you didn’t learn that. And things like this don’t come costless- you must remember that TKL’s campaign, which was largely ineffective, cost $70K. If TKL supporters donated $70K just to justify a representation of their ideals, I shudder to wonder what is your definition of ‘Public Service’. If you guys wanted to do Public Service, I think that $ would have gone to better use in some charity.
Look at what the SDP has done- with Chee Soon Juan becoming less fiery and confrontational and attracting party members of a higher quality. That was one of the contributing factors to SDP’s revival in the recent GE. He finally learnt not to let his ideals stand in the way of greater things.
So, Mr. GMS, You can keep trying to justify TKL’s poor results on extenuating circumstance (maybe in a bid to convince yourself) besides his lack of political acumen but I really don’t see how that helps either you or him.
I’m not even sure why you’re trying to convince me either since I call it as I see it.
Dear Ryan,
Voting behaviour changes with different configurations of available choices. The most simple example is that a candidate in a one on one contest with PAP, he will get at least 25% or more. But when there is a three corner fights, then he might just get 2%. That doesn’t mean that he is no good. If you say nobody will support him, that is not true because he could have 25% instead of 2% if there is no multi-corner fight.
Does it mean that the third candidate is “better” than him. Not necessary so. There might be many other considerations. That person might not even be a well known individual but just because of the party banner he is standing under, he gets more votes.
Voters are not necessarily “rationale” in that sense but they will vote according to their perspective. As I have explained, in this PE, it is purely about “not letting Tony Tan wins” and with such consideration, all other things are just irrelevant… whether the candidate is most suitable for the post, in a much position to perform the role of President etc.
Thus I would say your understanding of the voting result for TKL is misconstrued and too simplistic.
Goh Meng Seng
Hi Mr GMS,
Really. I don’t stand to profit from TKL being elected or not so this will be my last take on the matter.
You can argue all you want about how TKL may have won etc. but fact is, end of day, he got 5% of votes, blew $70K of his donated funds as well as $48K of his own money (at least I hope the deposit was out of his own pocket otherwise you supporters just took a ~$120K loss) thanks in a large part to a campaign that didn’t understand what voters wanted. If he and his team were politically savvy, they should have known it was going to turn out bad.
And the more you try and defend him and his campaign team, all I hear is: “He could have won in a straight fight” [But it wasn’t, so deal with it!], “Voters aren’t rationale” [And you all didn’t account for that?], “He wasn’t standing under a party banner.” [Then he should have if that’s how voters vote!] These are realities that you can’t avoid. And you’ve said all this while avoiding my earlier questions on whether there was any Quality Control on his campaign speeches and actions.
Once again, and this is more to your benefit than mine- when you’re a contestant, you play the game according to its rules not how you think the game should be played. Otherwise, as your numerous experiences should have told you, all that you face is failure which is costly (and I don’t just mean in monetary terms).
Maybe you feel the need to continue justifying TKL’s terrible campaign. If that’s the case, feel free to continue leaving comments here. I won’t be closing the comments. I just like to point out that from what I’ve seen so far, the more you try to justify yourself, the more you expose how politically unsavvy TKL’s campaign was.
PS: Btw, I hope you’re the real Mr. GMS. If I receive word from the real Mr GMS (with proof of identity) that you’ve been posting in his name to make him look bad, I shall not hesistate to delete these comments. I’m sure you can understand why I’m making this disclaimer.
By your logic, Ryan, the PAP in 1955 were a failure as they only won three seats in the legislature and people who supported them were deluded! I guess that is the problem with people who can only see in the short term
Hi Paul,
I can’t say for sure I know the details but I venture that the PAP reworked their gameplan after that failure in 1955. And that gameplan after 1955 more accurately reflected what the majority of voters wanted. Either that or by your logic, they used the same campaign and got lucky that more voters came round to their point of view. Or a mix of both.
In TKL’s case, I’m sorry to say that his Post PE statement doesn’t sound like he realises that his campaign was a terrible one, there was more pushing the buck to factors beyond his control rather than owning the problems with his own campaign, hence it being an example of cognitive dissonance. GMS’s comments (if I can assume to be reflective of the view in TKL’s camp) on this post further reinforces my earlier post.
I like to see TKL use the same kind of campaign the next round (or rounds) and see if he can win based on that kind of campaign.
I highly doubt it.
[…] Disclosure – Ryan Goh: Life through these eyes: Cognitive dissonance continued – Blinkymummy: Perils of being a Female PhD Student – The Kent Ridge Common: I. Of “The State of […]
Ryan
“Goh Meng Seng” does sound like the real Goh Meng Seng.
Reminds me of Napoleon writing in his memoirs that he should have won the battle of Waterloo. At least that was a “near run thing”.
Here 5% is spun into victory, if it was a teo horse race. Well it was never because TCB, not TKL, first said he would stand.
Cynical Investor
I am not even saying TKL has won or would win. I am just saying analysis of the result is just too simplistic, that’s all.
Goh Meng Seng
[…] he and, Goh Meng Seng, are in denial over his loss. TKL’s media statement and GMS’s comments(see […]
Birds of the same “cynical” feather trying to take an opportunistic aim by claiming intelligient Cognitive Dissonance ….. one should search the roots of such feathers …..