Low Versus Low

[Sideswipe]

In general if the underlying popular support is 55% to 59% (my forecast for this election), then very high chance of losing 1 to 2 GRCs.
If the popular support is 50% to 54% (my forecast for 2017), then high chance to lose the 2/3 majority no matter how you draw the boundaries.

last GE, PAP percentage of valid votes to WP are 62-38, to SDA/NSP 68-32 and SDP 77-23. The oppositions popular vote differ too much so PAP should retain 2/3 majority unless support drop below 50%.

 

[aurvandil]

last GE, PAP percentage of valid votes to WP are 62-38, to SDA/NSP 68-32 and SDP 77-23. The oppositions popular vote differ too much so PAP should retain 2/3 majority unless support drop below 50%.

Under the current system where the Opposition has avoided 3 corner fights, the PAP will lose the election if underlying popular support falls below 50%.

The scenario of the PAP hanging on to power can only occur if we have a political landscape with lots of 3 corner fights.

The region of 50% ro 54% is the most difficult to model. This is because just a small shift can change the entire result. The 2/3 majority is the most statistically prominent feature and the fight for the PAP will be to hang on to the 2/3 majority. Without ballot box stuffing, it is almost statistically impossible for a 82/84 result since it is impossible to draw the boundaries so accurately that every GRC you win by a few hundred votes.

 

[Sideswipe]

Under the current system where the Opposition has avoided 3 corner fights, the PAP will lose the election if underlying popular support falls below 50%.
The region of 50% ro 54% is the most difficult to model. This is because just a small shift can change the entire result.

Let's say there was a uniform swing in all constituencies of +17% to oppositions last GE.
PAP votes 49.6%.
Oppositions will win
Aljunied GRC, Ang Mo Kio GRC, East Coast GRC, Chua Chu Kang SMC. Hougang SMC, Joo Chiat SMC, Nee Soon Central SMC and Potong Pasir SMC
Oppositions win 21 out of 47 seats.

uniform swing in all constituencies of +14% to oppositions
PAP 52.6%
Oppositions will win
Aljunied GRC, East Coast GRC, Chua Chu Kang SMC, Hougang SMC, Potong Pasir SMC
Oppositions win 13 out of 47 seats.

take into factor oppositions vote strength difference ( WP strong to SDP very weak ) Using last GE as reference, if all seats are more or less equally contested by the 3 major oppo parties, PAP with 48% to 50% support, will lose majority of seats against WP, win majority of seats against SDA, win all seats against SDP + those walkover seats if contested are likely PAP strongholds. I can see PAP retaining 2/3 majority unless support falls below 52%. PAP won't lose elections unless support drop below 48%.

 

[scroobal]

In politics , the issues that are critical would be

1) swings in marginal seats
2) incumbent MP facing voter issues such as Mah or weak MPs
3) Past voting trends of an electrorate
4) now the precincts analysis have become valuable

JBJ's win was a result of an internal revolt and housing issues in PSA Blair Plain and Low Hill road.

Let's say there was a uniform swing in all constituencies of +17% to oppositions last GE.
PAP votes 49.6%.
Oppositions will win

 

[scroobal]

I think you are too positive about the groundswell.

PAP operates very differently. They don't care very much of voter's perception as being bullies.

Gerrymandering with no qualms
High nomination fees
Limited media exposure to opposition candidates
limited rally site access

But their best strategy is reduce the number of eligible voters who actually do vote. In 2006, only 33% of eligible Singaporeans actually voted. The remaining 66% had no choice. Its funny how the government of a country is voted in by 33% of the country. Not much of a mandate.

Now you know why intimidation such as law suits are important in their arsenal of weapons.

Forgot to add that the past behaviour of the PAP is based on them still having an overwhelming majority in Parliament. The PAP is untested in situations when they look like they might lose the 2/3 majority or worse, lose the election altogether. There are so many entrenched interests and so many multi-million dollar ricebowls involved. Really hard to completely preclude the PAP from ever resorting to such tactics to stay in power for the "good of Singaporeans".

 

[CCBcsj]

High nomination fees

$13.5k is nothing. If they cannot afford the fees, they really have no business to be candidates.

But their best strategy is reduce the number of eligible voters who actually do vote. In 2006, only 33% of eligible Singaporeans actually voted. The remaining 66% had no choice. Its funny how the government of a country is voted in by 33% of the country. Not much of a mandate.

This stupid point keeps coming up. The oppos choose the constituencies to contest, not the PAP. Walkovers are decided by the oppos. Obviously the oppos choose the wards they can win and avoid those they cannot win. So in fact, if the other wards were contested, PAP would get much more than 66.6%.

 

[silverfox@]

$13.5k is nothing. If they cannot afford the fees, they really have no business to be candidates.

Candidates who have problems making ends meet, can't even take care of themselves, not to talk about taking care of the people if they won.

This stupid point keeps coming up. The oppos choose the constituencies to contest, not the PAP. Walkovers are decided by the oppos. Obviously the oppos choose the wards they can win and avoid those they cannot win. So in fact, if the other wards were contested, PAP would get much more than 66.6%.

I agree. Opposition always say not enough candidates, and there are so many opposition supporters who I am sure can step up and be a candidate as well, but to find a total of 84 is really that difficult for them?

I can't answer for them this question.

 

[cass888]

Candidates who have problems making ends meet, can't even take care of themselves, not to talk about taking care of the people if they won.




I agree. Opposition always say not enough candidates, and there are so many opposition supporters who I am sure can step up and be a candidate as well, but to find a total of 84 is really that difficult for them?

I can't answer for them this question.

Even if they did, would they have performed better? If they would, then they are incompetent in the first place since it is those constituencies they should have contested.

 

[silverfox@]

Even if they did, would they have performed better? If they would, then they are incompetent in the first place since it is those constituencies they should have contested.

I always think the results of those wards which are contested are the real results of what the majority wanted.

The losers will always think of excuses, think of those wards not contested, think that the election is unfair, voters who vote for the winner are blind, ignorant.

If that is the case why Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang can win so often and consistently while others can't? This is a question which the opposition should ponder. Not the PAP.

 

[IR123]

ED under PMO has all legitimate rights to change electoral boundaries. However, to look good, to sound convincing and win more votes, however they change, they usually provide a reason. Population shifts, HDB developments etc. The most ridiculous ever on record was Braddell Heights SMC (in between Potong Pasir and Hougang) being drawn into Marine Parade GRC in 1997 after GE 1991 Sin Kek Tong (SDP) scored 47% there. But the then-PM Goh Chok Tong explained it away as rebalancing Marine Parade demographics after cutting out MacPherson as an SMC to accommodate Chee Soon Juan's one-to-one challenge to Matthias Yao.

What you said sounds true. But it still begs the question: why change the boundaries of the other areas and not Hougang, when the immediate implication is that the power base of LTK will continue to build up and become unassailable?

My conclusion is that they actually want LTK to win in Hougang but do not want the WP to win in the other areas. If this is a reasonable conclusion, then the next question is why?

The other possible conclusion is that LTK wins because of his political acumen, to such an extent that his political opponent throws in the towel.






The PAP has shown incredible tenancity in maintaining their power and hold over Singapore. How is it that they cannot overcome two opposition politicians - one medically-ill and the other extremely cautious?

 

[cass888]

What you said sounds true. But it still begs the question: why change the boundaries of the other areas and not Hougang, when the immediate implication is that the power base of LTK will continue to build up and become unassailable?

Because Hougang is surrounded by hostile territory. Absorbing Hougang into P-PR GRC or AMK GRC or Al GRC will destabalise those GRCs. Absorbing hostile areas into Hougang will only make LTK's head bigger.

 

[IR123]

Because Hougang is surrounded by hostile territory. Absorbing Hougang into P-PR GRC or AMK GRC or Al GRC will destabalise those GRCs. Absorbing hostile areas into Hougang will only make LTK's head bigger.

Are you saying that if Hougang becomes a GRC, the PAP will lose?


And if the other GRCs include Hougang, then the PAP may lose?


That is why the PAP retained Hougang's boundaries for about 20 years? Because the PAP fear Hougang that much!?

 

[Perspective]

What you said sounds true. But it still begs the question: why change the boundaries of the other areas and not Hougang, when the immediate implication is that the power base of LTK will continue to build up and become unassailable?

My conclusion is that they actually want LTK to win in Hougang but do not want the WP to win in the other areas. If this is a reasonable conclusion, then the next question is why?

The other possible conclusion is that LTK wins because of his political acumen, to such an extent that his political opponent throws in the towel.

The PAP has shown incredible tenancity in maintaining their power and hold over Singapore. How is it that they cannot overcome two opposition politicians - one medically-ill and the other extremely cautious?

It is true that the PAP's first preference is to have no opposition (except NCMPs which do not threaten their power). For that matter, any ruling party would secretly prefer to have their powers unchecked.

If not, then PAP wants opposition they can work with.

The PAP certain prefers Chee less than LTK or Chiam because the latter can work with PAP better. In the view of opposition like them, working with the PAP for Singapore's betterment is not anything sinful. Whether we agree or not is another matter.

However, are we to blame PAP or LTK/Chiam/Chee? To me, none can be blamed. It is the people's votes that matter.

 

[IR123]

It is true that the PAP's first preference is to have no opposition (except NCMPs which do not threaten their power). For that matter, any ruling party would secretly prefer to have their powers unchecked.

If not, then PAP wants opposition they can work with.

The PAP certain prefers Chee less than LTK or Chiam because the latter can work with PAP better. In the view of opposition like them, working with the PAP for Singapore's betterment is not anything sinful. Whether we agree or not is another matter.

However, are we to blame PAP or LTK/Chiam/Chee? To me, none can be blamed. It is the people's votes that matter.

Those are not my perspectives, even the value judments of whether they are working for Singapore's betterment, etc.

My main point is that by not changing Hougang's boundary, the PAP implicitly want LTK to retain his stronghold. The PAP does not need to work with LTK. Neither do they need LTK's help to better Singapore. So why did they not get him out?



In actual fact, the PAP do not need to change Hougang's boundary if they really want to regain Hougang. I can think of at least three ways which are workable and to which LTK has no defense. The PAP has far more capable people in their midst to work out effective strategies.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I think opposition die hard supporters are a bit unfair to LTK and Chiam.

Imagine, when PAP praises LTK or Chiam, people start to say they are "approved opposition". But nobody will say PAP is "approved ruling party" when opposition members praise them!

When PAP didn't change the boundaries of LTK or Chiam, people say "see, I told you so, they are approved opposition" but when PAP really changes these boundaries then they will turn around and say "oh PAP are playing unfair"!

When LTK and Chiam did not get defamation suits because they didn't say anything defamatory, people will start to compare them with those who are sued for defamation. I mean, do you mean that you need to be "fixed" and sued for defamation to earn your "badge" as opposition members?

I think such talks about who and who are "approved opposition" is really meaningless. Ultimately, it is VOTERS who ultimately APPROVE these opposition members to be in parliament through their votes.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[IR123]

Ultimately, it is VOTERS who ultimately APPROVE these opposition members to be in parliament through their votes.

There is no question about VOTERS who APPROVE these opposition members.

The question is why did the PAP let the concentration of such voters build up?

That is a fair question.

 

[Sideswipe]

There is no question about VOTERS who APPROVE these opposition members.
The question is why did the PAP let the concentration of such voters build up?
That is a fair question.

CST and LTK are excellent grassroots mps & very popular in their constituencies, that's why they won successive elections.
don't discredit their achievements by saying why don't PAP change the boundaries & absorb the SMC into GRC.

It's not PAP style to change the constituency boundaries of opposition mp. Anson/Nee Soon Central/Bukit Gombak were gone from electoral map after JBJ was disqualified as mp and Ling/Cheo lost their re-elections.

In 2001 GE, CST won very narrowly. another 376 votes swing from CST to Sitoh and pap would have won.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

There is no question about VOTERS who APPROVE these opposition members.

The question is why did the PAP let the concentration of such voters build up?

That is a fair question.

You should ask PAP these questions, not opposition members or others. Speculations on these questions are not going to do opposition members good.

I have met an elderly PAP supporter during my public outreach last Sunday. He was shooting away and criticised LTK and Chiam. Although I am not from WP nor SPP, I have to defend them. I told him, let's be fair to LTK. He is one of the most hardworking MP I have ever seen. You don't hear his views on MSM does not mean he is quiet. He has attended almost ALL parliamentary sittings as compared to some PAP MPs and ministers who have a high record of absence from parliamentary sitting.

LTK has spoken on all Supply Committee debates although his views are hardly reported in the MSM while some PAP MPs or ministers have made very few speeches over the years.

As for Uncle Chiam, in spite of whatever inadequacy he has due to various reasons like past experiences and such, he has performed his duty as parliamentarian reasonably well too.

I am a realist and I have seen how difficult it is for opposition MPs to work. PAP government claims to be "first world government" but in actual fact, no first world government would ill treat their people's representatives like depriving them a proper office space. LTK and Chiam do not have it easy.

In HK, all Legco members are given grants to rent their office premises and employ their supporting staffs, regardless of their political affiliations. In Germany and almost all FIRST WORLD countries, grants are given to elected members. There are a lot more things like Elections reimbursement given to political parties which get certain percentage of votes...etc. All these countries believe in maintaining an institution with adequate political competition, checks and balance.

So in my view, whatever "little concessions" that LTK and Chiam might have "gained" from PAP, they do not have it easy here. PAP dominates STATE RESOURCES under People's Association and HDB to reinforcement their political work on the ground. Opposition members, be it LTK, Chiam or otherwise, are not given that kind of resources!

If I ever become the government one day, I will change all these. Political parties, be it ruling or opposition, must be treated as important assets for building a sustainable, stable government. PAP government has the besiege mentality that those who are not with them, must be some "donkeys or trouble makers" out to destroy them, out to destroy Singapore. I think this is not supposed to a healthy mindset of a self proclaimed World Class government. It is really a shame that they have Third Class mentality as a world class government.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[IR123]

...

I am raising a fundamental question, one that carry implications. Neither is it speculation because the appeal to empirical evidence is there and not to subjective opinions or anecodotes. Note however I am not questioning LTK's integrity or hardworking attitude. That is evident to all.

However I am aware that your lens is that of a politician. I would prefer to engage in order to uncover the current political framework. A framework that is more useful to neutral voters rather than the current method of voting in reaction to PAP's policies.



The question is fundamental because it asks if the oppositions truly get into Parliament via their political acumen.

Once a voter can understand this, he or she will have a framework to analyze the sound and fury of the coming Elections. There can be other starting points for analysis. Whichever you chose, a starting point is neccessary. Unless your mind is already set - only opposition for me or only PAP for me. In that case, you would not want questions to be asked where those answers are detrimental.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

The question is fundamental because it asks if the oppositions truly get into Parliament via their political acumen.

I have no doubt about LTK's political acumen though he is not perfect in some ways. Having the opportunity to work with him for quite a while, I think he has certain political acumen though inclining towards the more cautious and conservative side.

Most importantly, he avoids making mistakes.

Goh Meng Seng