The opposition is not governing Singapore are they? Can you pick me one country in the 1st world and any from 3rd with a democratic elections that has a government that has garnered 33% of the votes.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Stop saying 66% voted for PAP when the actually figure is 33%.
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
I know where you're coming from. You're saying the PAP governed with just 33% of the votes, doesn't matter if the opposition had 15%. I can understand that.
However, that kind of argument would only appeal to the solid opposition voters like you and me. I think most would not comprehend or see the relevance of "66% is actually 33%" complex argument when there are many other better ways to question the PAP's legitimacy. And in the last election if the opposition had won all the 47 seats contested it would form a coalition government despite 37 seats uncontested - would they be shooting themselves on the foot if they had used your argument.
In some countries, with their system, 15% won't even result in one seat.
As of now, I already count 3 who find this argument easily dismissed, excluding myself.
You can add me into the list as well.
the u.s. general election in 2008, the national voting-eligible population (vep) turnout rate was 62.3% based on total ballots counted - 132.6m out of 212.7m. if slightly more than half of that (52.9%) voted for obama, the actual vep vote percentage for him was only 33%. we call that popular vote (and even at 33% of total vep, it's really not that "popular"). electoral votes are what put a person into presidential power.
Oh, yes, voter turnout. Good point that I had forgotten.
I have noted that turnout in Singapore is the highest in the world because of compulsory voting. We get more than 90% voting when most countries manage 40% to 70%, depending on political mood.
(Actually it's not so "compulsory", the fine is just $5. But Singaporeans are the usual law-obeying type and scared if they do not vote something will happen to them.)
So contrary to Scroobal's argument that no where else governs with 33%, I would dare say his facts are wrong.
I would rather the opposition not use arguments that PAP can easily demolish. Such facts are easily and readily obtainable.
also, the high voter turnout rate in sg offers little consolation to the opposition because of a sizable proportion of "walkover" constituencies. no matter how one looks at it at any angle, the numbers are skewed and the oppo is screwed.
Its was a fully contested elections. Many Singaporeans are not given the opporutnity to vote. You clearly have little understanding of the process.
That's EXACTLY the stand that opposition should use - no opportunity to vote.
Note that it is not the same as what you said earlier - 66% is actually 33% - which is lamer.
In conclusion, it is "PAP won 66% but only half of Singapore got to vote" and not "PAP won not 66% but 33% because half of Singapore got to vote".
If you still don't understand, I think you need to remove the shades.
Suddenly you came to your senses - Do read the very first post of this thread.
PAP has applied 2 approaches in its elections strategy and I better write this in point form for easy comprehension
1) Trying to exclude potential candidates by intimidation, high deposit, pre-requisties such as GRC, suitability certs etc
2) Trying to reduce the number in the voting universe and both seem to be mutally inclusive.
None of it appears in first world countries. Electroral colleges does not exclude anyone or reduces the voting universe.
PAP has applied 2 approaches in its elections strategy and I better write this in point form for easy comprehension
1) Trying to exclude potential candidates by intimidation, high deposit, pre-requisties such as GRC, suitability certs etc
2) Trying to reduce the number in the voting universe and both seem to be mutally inclusive.
None of it appears in first world countries. Electroral colleges does not exclude anyone or reduces the voting universe.
I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.
There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.
936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.
The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.
The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.
To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.
*****
Tell me if the above has gone to explain the intimidation, high deposit, pre-requisties such as GRC, suitability certs etc.
The impression is that you are technically trying to count 66% into 33%.
I don't think we disagree too much on the rest. I think it is important to sell a message the correct way.
we can go another 5 good years arguing whether it is 66% or 33% and the situation will still remain the same.
but if the stand is NOT 66% or 33%, but 'the citizens are not given the opportunity to vote', then 'no opportunity to vote' directly questions the support base of the PAP's rule.
The difference is crucial.
(1) the locus of control shift from the PAP (why won't you remove/reduce the barriers to entry?) to the Oppositions (your support base is not strong)
(2) it changes an academic point into one of an election stance/manifesto/motto.
Well, a possible election stance if the opposition parties can approach it with the passion they bring to LUP or contesting in Bishan-Toa Payoh.
Dear Scroobal
I would say the fact that a large percentage of Singaporeans do not or have not voted including me in the last 15 years does not not negate in any sense the size of the PAP's majority. I believe this is so for two primary reasons.
1. Firstly the small geographical and high density of Singapore means really that national politics are local politics and vice versa, there is no UNITED Republic of Hougang though with the MND's and HDB declaration I would argue there is a strong case for that. There are no large political economic or social stratification that can be seen in geographically larger political areas like the UK and the US
2. Secondly higher voting turn outs which exceeds those of the US and the UK and changes the electoral dynamics substantially.
Locke
I would say the fact that a large percentage of Singaporeans do not or have not voted including me in the last 15 years does not not negate in any sense the size of the PAP's majority. I believe this is so for two primary reasons.
1. Firstly the small geographical and high density of Singapore means really that national politics are local politics and vice versa, there is no UNITED Republic of Hougang though with the MND's and HDB declaration I would argue there is a strong case for that. There are no large political economic or social stratification that can be seen in geographically larger political areas like the UK and the US
2. Secondly higher voting turn outs which exceeds those of the US and the UK and changes the electoral dynamics substantially.
Locke
Dear Locke,
I guess you and others have mistaken Scroobal's position.
What Scroobal is saying is that PAP cannot claim to have "MANDATE" because technically speaking, PAP has only 33% of Singaporeans voted for them. This is of course, partly due to the fact that only half of Singaporeans have the chance to cast their vote.
In Singapore, voting is deemed to be "compulsory" but in effect, there isn't any penalty like stripping of citizenship if you don't vote. US, England etc is unlike Singapore where voting is not compulsory. Thus, if those middle ground in Singapore who generally voted for PAP decide not to go to the poll, PAP will have a big problem.
Goh Meng Seng
I guess you and others have mistaken Scroobal's position.
What Scroobal is saying is that PAP cannot claim to have "MANDATE" because technically speaking, PAP has only 33% of Singaporeans voted for them. This is of course, partly due to the fact that only half of Singaporeans have the chance to cast their vote.
In Singapore, voting is deemed to be "compulsory" but in effect, there isn't any penalty like stripping of citizenship if you don't vote. US, England etc is unlike Singapore where voting is not compulsory. Thus, if those middle ground in Singapore who generally voted for PAP decide not to go to the poll, PAP will have a big problem.
Goh Meng Seng
Another way of looking at 33% voting for PAP is 67% not opposing PAP and even much less than 33% voting for opposition. Get more opposition candidates and give PAP more contests instead of arguing over silly things like little kids arguing over marbles and kites. Wah, I didn't fight him only ah, he can't say he wins, wait till I fight him then you see. Fight first lah! Can't even fight, talk what?
Last edited:
No, Ramseth. 15% voted against them while 52% neither voted for or against them because they do not have the chance to vote.
For "MANDATE", it is important to have "DEFINITE INDICATION" of support, not about "NO OPPOSITION" to their position. It means that in order for any political party to earn their MANDATE, they need to have definite support from the voters. They cannot argue that because 52% didn't vote against them while 33% voted for them, therefore they have the so call "MANDATE". This is a flawed argument.
I am not even saying anything about fighting, just merely an observation that PAP cannot claim to have 66% "MANDATE" to rule because not everybody has the chance to vote to indicate their support or opposition. And the fact that they only garner 33% of ALL Singaporeans' votes.
But yes, they can say that they have "WON" the elections. Winning the elections does not necessarily mean having the "MANDATE". For example, if a dictator has put up an elections but later on, he locked up ALL this strong opponents and threaten those voters that did not vote for his party would face grave repercussions. In the end, his party WON the elections with 99% of the votes cast, with less than 15% of seats contested. Would you consider that this dictator has 99% "MANDATE" from the people? Obviously not. This may be the extreme case but that is the basis of Scroobal's point of view.
Goh Meng Seng
Well, look at the issue from another angle. Our Presidential Elections.
Could we claim that our current president to have the MANDATE as our country's president? Obviously not. While there is supposedly to have an elections but PAP has blocked all contestants except their anointed one.
In some countries, even when there are no contestant, they will still go for voting. If the single candidate cannot achieve a certain percentage of votes, he will not be considered as elected. These are systems that provide an avenue for the government of the day to claim true MANDATE to rule. Would PAP dare to have this system installed?
Goh Meng Seng
Could we claim that our current president to have the MANDATE as our country's president? Obviously not. While there is supposedly to have an elections but PAP has blocked all contestants except their anointed one.
In some countries, even when there are no contestant, they will still go for voting. If the single candidate cannot achieve a certain percentage of votes, he will not be considered as elected. These are systems that provide an avenue for the government of the day to claim true MANDATE to rule. Would PAP dare to have this system installed?
Goh Meng Seng
Last edited:
Yes. When citizens are not given the chance to vote, its legitimacy is in question even if it wins 66%, especially if it directly or indirectly causes the walkovers. If it gets 66% with an islandwide voting then a different story.
However, that is different from the argument that 66% is 33%, unless someone is very sure that the opposition would win 100% of the votes in the uncontested wards.
The assumption that with GRCs you cannot have more than one party is false. The prospect of having 9 GRCs go to PAP and 5 GRCs going to another party is not impossible.
The GRC would create a dominant party culture, but possibly a purebred 2-party culture. However, I would argue that it would create difficulty for a multi-party culture or an impure 2-coalition to emerge as it favours biggest parties around, as it is grouped results and winner takes all. For those who advocate multi-party culture, GRC would be the biggest obstacle. For those who can live with 2 parties as they think what they see in US or UK is enough, then the GRC is a lesser enemy although opposition can still be against it for other reasons.
End of the day, the entire system is only advantageous to PAP only because PAP tailored it to filter the people's voting patterns. If the people's voting patterns change, PAP's intention would backfire. Hence I would tackle flaws of the election results with the people rather than PAP. That of course does not mean PAP can't change the system again to fit with the new voting patterns, but heck, it is as if raising the "unfairness" to them has brought about any change in the first place.
Similar threads
