SDP's proposal to WP for a unified candidate was a masterstroke

by: Kien Lee

I think SDP's proposal to WP for a unified candidate was a masterstroke, incorporating complex theories of behavioural economics (Game Theory).

The decision/scenario set of this particular prisoners' dilemma are as such:
a. PAP vs WP: Close fight
b. PAP vs WP vs SDP: PAP wins
c. PAP vs WP+SDP: Close fight

SDP is saying to WP: There IS NO scenario (a) because we are definitely going into this by-election. You and I can only choose between scenarios (b) and (c).

If WP DOES NOT believe it can win in a 3-way fight, then it might be forced to take up scenario (c). SDP has stated that it will only accept scenario (c) if it gets the candidate representation whilst WP gets the Town Council -- it doesn't matter whether WP has the track record of 40%+ votes previously. Why?

Here's an analogy to explain: You have built a car, and all you lack is a starter fuse that ONLY I have. If I don't give you this fuse, you and I can't get out of here, and we both die (or lose). I (SDP) will only give you this fuse if you let me drive but you can still own the car. In this example, it doesn't matter that the rest of the car costs $150,000 and the fuse costs only $5.

The only way WP outright scoffs off this proposal IS IF it believes it can win in scenario (b). However, if WP does win in scenario (b), the biggest loser is not SDP but PAP.

Lastly, most everyone seems to think the tradeoff mentioned in SDP's proposal of unified candidacy is ridiculous because the job of running a Town Council is supposedly a grubby, thankless job that doesn't payoff, i.e. WP would never want to take this on. If you thinkso, then you are very very wrong. Municipal management is a HUGE business and it is a chance to build a power base.