Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Does Your Vote Really Matter?

No, Your Vote Doesn't Matter

Unlike what the govt would like you to believe, the reality is, your vote doesn't really matter. Your vote absolutely counts, but it doesn’t matter. Yes, you’ll change the total number of people who voted for one party, but you won’t change the outcome.

If everyone thought that way, then a fluke election result could happen - many in power would say, to frighten you. But the reality is everyone doesn't think that way. And even if you start thinking that way, your closest family member won't automatically follow you.

I have all past 12 general elections (GE) results to back me up on this. None of the 12 GEs came up with fluke results, not even close to one. The lowest that the PAP polled was in 2011, but still won 60.1 per cent of the total votes.

So the truth  is you can just go out to the election booth and cast for the opposition or damage the vote, it doesn't really matter. Even if you have damaged your vote or refused to vote, they still need another vote to break any tie, not just your vote.

The chances of your vote becoming the decisive vote of which party to rule Singapore is 1 in 2.3 million (depending on total number of voters), as difficult as winning Toto lottery. It may take thousands of elections for any fluke results to happen, assuming no gerrymandering and tweaking of the election rules by the ruling party. 

The argument that it is a duty of every citizen to vote, and exercise your sacred rights to decide the government, again doesn't hold water. The assumption here is that when you vote you will always vote the right people or party to best manage the country and it's resources. But we have seen how many MPs that the people voted, turn out to be scandalous individuals who needed to be replaced through by-elections. Their choice turned out to be hurting the voters themselves through bad policies and corrupt practises by those elected.

There is no guarantee that the PAP will take care of voters' needs and expectations, just as nobody can tell for sure, if the opposition could actually do a better job than the current government over time.



WHY PAP KNOWS YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER

Over a period of about 20 years under the ironclad rule of Lee Kuan Yew, there was no opposition MP in the Parliament. It was embarrassing that every Parliamentary session was like a corporate meeting of PAP Incorporated, especially if one decides to telecast it on national TV.

So they started the Nominated MP scheme, now called Non-Constituency MP, where a few specially selected professionals or businessmen could ask some questions in Parliament, so as to provide some homework for the PAP Ministers and MPs to do, to justify their existence.

But this scheme, as long as it is still there, is a measurement of how confident the PAP is, of winning the next and future General Elections. As long as the number of opposition MPs is very low (say less than 20), the NCMP scheme will always be there.

In their best showing in 2011, the oppositions have 6 elected MPs in Parliament winning 6 out of the then 87 contested seats. That is less than 7% of the total number of seats, despite winning nearly 40% of the total votes in the General Election. This mismatch is so wide, it is unbelievable.

The voice of 40% of voters were represented by only 7% of the MPs in  Parliament.

Gerrymandering of boundary, redesignating of Constituencies, the undemocratic GRC system, plus other constraints placed on the opposition helped made this happened. And it is why the NCMP scheme is still needed to make Parliament look less like a HQ of PAP.

So even if the opposition were to win say, 55% of the total votes, they will just have another 5 to 10 additional MPs in Parliament.

See? Your vote doesn't matter at all. PAP will still have around 80% of the MPs in Parliament despite losing the majority of total votes.

PAP would then have enough time to tweak the rules and Constitution to ensure the party stays in power in the following GE, if they decides to have one.

Remember, they also have the power to suspend GE in the name of national security, but at the moment, they have enough of mechanism to ensure they do not need to resort to this trump card.

Now you know why PM Lee was always smiling when talking about General Election. It is a non-event to him, probably like a Circus coming to town that he needs to perform in once every few years. The power given  to PAP over the last 53 years had allowed them to change the rules of the game so much in their favour that it really is making a mockery of the democratic process of having elections.

They have enough safety nets to entrenched themselves permanently as the govt of Singapore and what LKY once said is now a fact (see photo below). The PAP, with no apology, is the permanent government of Singapore. And with no apology, your vote doesn't really matter to them.





Sunday, August 28, 2011

PAP Got Kicked in Presidential Election


PRESIDENTIAL elections in Singapore rarely set pulses racing. The job is that of a well-paid but largely ceremonial head of state, who is not allowed to represent any particular party. The poll on August 27th was the fourth time the post has been directly elected, but the first time there has been any doubt at all about the outcome. Four candidates competed, all surnamed Tan. One, Tony Tan Keng Yam, was seen as the representative of the government and the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled Singapore ever since it withdrew from the Malaysian Federation in 1965. As expected, he won. But he barely scraped home, with a shade over 35% of vaild votes cast, and just 7,000 more than his nearest challenger, Tan Cheng Bock, a former PAP MP, who campaigned against his former party colleague. Tan Jee Say, a former senior civil servant and banker who was an opposition candidate in the general election in May, won 25%, and the fourth candidate, Tan Kin Lian, just 5%. Voting is compulsory but nearly 2% of voters spoiled their ballots—more than 37,000, it was judged.

The PAP never endorsed Tony Tan formally. But he has held a number of cabinet jobs, and the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy. He also enjoyed the backing of party activists, trade unions, chambers of commerce and community groups. So, that he won not much more than a third of the vote is a remarkable slap in the face for the government. All the same PAP diehards protested that, since two former PAP MPs had garnered 70% of the vote, this was an endorsement for the party.

This follows the general election in May when the PAP did worse than in any election since 1965. It still won 60% of the vote, which left it, in Singapore’s first-past-the-post system, with 81 out of 87 elected seats in parliament. But the party acknowledged it as a setback, and Mr Lee promised to do some “soul-searching”. Voters seem to feel, however, that the government has still not got the message. The presidential election turned into a relatively low-risk chance to teach it a lesson.

A constitutional change in 1991 accorded the president some limited powers—including a veto over the government’s use of past financial reserves, and over senior appointments. The idea was to install a check over a putative future government that was spendthrift and populist, and stacked the civil service with its cronies. The eligibility criteria for presidential candidates are strict, ensuring that only pillars of the establishment need apply.

Until this year, only the first direct presidential election in 1993 had more than one candidate—in that case a virtual unknown who barely campaigned, but who still, in a foretaste of this year’s shock, won more than 40% of the votes.

In general elections opposition parties, which are small and fragmented, are at a disadvantage. Most parliamentary seats are in big “group” constituencies, where they struggle to field slates of credible candidates, and whose boundaries, they claim, are manipulated in the PAP’s favour. The presidential poll is the only one that is island-wide and not affected by these considerations. It gave voters the opportunity to install a different sort of check into the political system. The result is sobering for the PAP. As the country's biggest newspaper, the pro-government Straits Times, put it in reporting the result: "the voting patterns show a society more politically divided than ever before.”

They reflect a widespread sense that the government, blinded by Singapore’s astonishing economic progress, has lost touch with the grievances of ordinary citizens. This sense is in part about particular issues, such as the cost of housing or immigration, which some blame for depressing local wages. But it is as much a question of style—a resentment at what is seen as the government’s paternalistic belief that it knows best.

They also reflect the breakdown, thanks to the internet, and especially social-networking sites, of the government’s virtual monopoly over the media. In both general and presidential elections, the government’s opponents were able to change the terms of the debate by taking it online. For example, when one of the newly elected opposition MPs complained on his Facebook page that he was not allowed to attend constituency functions on a public-housing estate, the issue soon became a national one about the perception of a pro-PAP bias in public bodies.

The realisation that more than 60% of Singaporeans voted against the government’s favoured candidate will presumably provoke more soul-searching within the PAP. Some will take it as proof that the party must move further and faster in opening up to adjust to the “new normal” of a political system with a sizeable opposition. Others, however, may take the opposite view: that too much liberalisation has led to a fading of the fear of the unpleasant repercussions that used to deter critical commentary and opposition activism. In short, that Singaporeans are forgetting who knows best what's good for them. - The economist
--------------------------------------
BBC UK
Singapore's former deputy prime minister Tony Tan has won the country's presidential election by a narrow margin.

The result was announced after a recount between Tony Tan and fellow front-runner Tan Cheng Bock.

Tony Tan, 71, was seen as the preferred candidate of the governing People's Action Party, which has run Singapore since independence.

Singapore's presidency is a largely ceremonial position.

The election was the first of its kind for 18 years.

Election officials said Tony Tan won by just 7,269 votes out of just over two million valid votes cast in Saturday's four-way race.

The Elections Department ordered a recount after the first tally showed the two front-runners were less than two percentage points apart.

The four candidates all shared the same surname, Tan.

Tony Tan's slim margin is seen as a blow for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who had backed him in the run-up to the election.

In a general election three months ago, the People's Action Party won all but six seats, but the opposition made significant gains.

Voters expressed their anger over immigration, living costs and high government salaries.

Singapore - a former British colony with a Westminster-style parliamentary system - instituted the position of president in 1965 when it became a republic.

Presidential candidates run as individuals because Singapore's head of state is supposed to be non-partisan.
------------------------------------------------
A change to Singapore's political landscape
By LIM MUN FAH
Translated by Soong Phui Jee
Sin Chew Daily

Voices questioning the competence of the newly-elected Singapore president could be heard within the society right after the results of the country's presidential election was announced.

After a fierce contest, former Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan won a narrow victory by receiving 744,397 votes, or 35.19% of about 2.1 million votes.

Former member of parliament Tan Cheng Bock received 737,128 votes, or 34.85% and Tony defeated Cheng Bock by a narrow margin of 7,269, or 0.34%!

Tan Jee Say, seen as the biggest rival of Tony Tan before the election, earned 529,732 votes, or 25.04% while Tan Kin Lian got 103,931 votes, or 4.91%.

Some posted online after the result announcement that if Jee Say and Kin Lian did not contest this time, Tony would be the second George Yeo. Also, some "congratulated" Tony for being elected the President of Singapore by 737,128 voters out of the total population of about 5 million people, implying that Tony won because of votes from "immigrants".

Even though Tony was openly supported by dozens of unions and associations, as well as being secretly "blessed" by the People's Action Party (PAP), he was able to only won a narrow margin by less than 1%. It was indeed an embarrassing victory. It has not only set a blow to the personal prestige of "the people's President", but as well brought another shock after the general election in May.

The general election in May has been described as an important watershed for Singapore's political history as the PAP won only 60% of votes while losing a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) for the first time. Nevertheless, public opinion still believes that the PAP holds at least 40% of iron votes.

However, the presidential election results showed that the iron votes of the PAP might be only 35%. It is undoubtedly another political defeat for the PAP, but a great encouragement for the opposition.

In addition, there were as many as 37, 826 invalid votes, which were five times more than the 7,269 majority votes of Tony! This has further made the election of Tony less convincing. Why did so many Singaporeans give up the chance to create a history in Singapore this time? This is in fact another issue to be studied.

Although the Singapore government has deliberately kept a distance from the presidential election, the fierce election has apparently led to many surprising political changes. Among the most significant changes is that voters have become more strong-minded. They now dare to challenge the strongman's political authority, as well as oppose to the conservative political system.

These changes have led to the emergence of a new political landscape in Singapore, as well as a more competitive new era with more possibilities!
---------------------------------------------------------
First-past-the-post system no longer viable for Singapore?
Letter from Kannan Balakrishnan 04:46 AM Aug 30, 2011

THE Presidential Election brought forth many debates over the powers of the office but, following the close results, perhaps the debate should now centre on the viability of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system.

It is undeniable that under this system, Dr Tony Tan garnered the most votes and won. But 64.8 percent of the electorate also did not vote for him.

The FPTP system has provided for strong governments and clear winners in past General Elections (GE) and Presidential Elections here.

However, given that Dr Tan himself has described the political post-GE climate as a "new normal", perhaps it is time to reconsider the system for something that can accommodate a larger pool of candidates, without diluting the votes that each can garner.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, in conceding defeat, said: "Even though I lost by only 0.34 per cent ... we have to follow our British system, first past the post."

However, the British, who have been the proponents of this electoral system for years, have themselves considered change.

Recently, a referendum was held in the United Kingdom for a change in the electoral system, and although the results seemed to show that the electorate was against a change, there was a low voter turnout of 42.2 per cent.

More importantly, counting districts such as those in London, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh Central, cities comparable to Singapore, recorded "Yes" votes above 50 per cent.

There are several alternative electoral systems out there under the system of preferential voting, a type of ballot structure in which voters rank candidates in order of relative preference.

These include the single transferable vote and the instant runoff voting, which are used in America, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Take for example the instant runoff voting, where voters' ballots are first counted as one vote for their first-choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, he/she wins.

Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a new round of counting takes place, with the second choice from each ballot for the eliminated candidate counted as one vote for the remaining candidates.

This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of the vote against the remaining candidates.

If such a system had been used for the recently concluded Presidential Elections, it would have resulted in a winner with a larger majority of the votes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why Tan Jee Say Did Not Win
By Benita Aw Yeong and Zul Othman

The 40 per cent opposition vote in the May General Election (GE) did not translate into support for losing presidential candidate Tan Jee Say yesterday.

He got 25.04 per cent of the votes, coming in third.

The winner, Dr Tony Tan got 35.19 per cent. Dr Tan Cheng Bock who came in second got 34.85 per cent. MrTan Kin Lian came in last with 4.91 per cent.

Speaking to reporters at Bedok Stadium around 1.30am today before the results were announced, MrTan Jee Say, a former senior civil servant, said that if there was to be a winner other than him, he preferred Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Mr Tan said it had been a "good fight" and that the trust gained from his supporters will "never be misplaced".

He also believed that his seemingly confrontational image had indeed cost him votes.

Mr Tan added he wished he had three months to campaign for his presidential bid.

"You can scrutinise candidates better. I am not confrontational. That's an image that has been created. I had not gone on the streets to throw stones."

People who voted for the Opposition in the GE would not simply vote for a former opposition man in the Presidential Election (PE), said Dr Reuben Wong, an assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore.

"With the media blitz and debates that have been taking place, Singaporeans have been made to think more about the role of the Elected President," Dr Wong said.

Sensible voters

"Singaporeans know that you don't vote for a president for the purpose of performing checks on the Government, which was a platform Tan Jee Say campaigned very much upon," Dr Wong said.

Associate Professor Cherian George at the Nanyang Technological University's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information said Mr Tan's candidacy probably worked to rival Dr Tan Cheng Bock's advantage.

"Mr Tan Jee Say might have directed votes which did not favour Dr Tony Tan towards Dr Tan Cheng Bock, because he came across as too confrontational or too young," said Dr George.

Dr Wong added that Mr Tan also lost because of his inability to convince voters that he was above party politics.

The 57-year-old stressed throughout his campaign that he did not have "emotional ties" to the People's Action Party (PAP), having never been a member of it.

But this might not have worked to his advantage, Dr Wong asserted.

"In addition to the enduring image that he is confrontational, he couldn't convincingly answer to the charge that presidents should not be partisan and be above party politics.

"In my opinion, he wasn't able to assure voters that he would not discriminate against the PAP," he said.

But Dr George said Singaporeans should not forget who Mr Tan was up against.

"Dr Tony Tan is a household name, and Dr Tan Cheng Bock relatively well-known.

"To even get a single percentage point away from these candidates is something that is extremely difficult," he said.

The father of four had been optimistic about his chances throughout Polling Day.

Earlier, after casting his vote at St Stephen's School at Siglap View, Mr Tan felt that his views had "resonated with the people".

The intermittent downpour yesterday did little to dampen the spirits of Mr Tan, who commented that he saw the showers as a blessing.

He added that his wife was his lucky charm.

The Oxford University graduate studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics on a government scholarship before joining the civil service for 11 years.

He later joined the private finance sector, and is currently an investment advisor. He stood in this year's GE as a candidate with the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. So will we see him in the next election?

Said Mr Tan: "I will have to talk to my supporters and see what role I can play."

Tan Jee Say told the press last night on what he believes are four factors that contributed to his loss in the Presidential Election.

Tan won 25.04% of the votes on Polling Day, or 529,732 of the valid votes. He said that he is satisfied with the results of the election but expressed that there is room for improvement.

He attributes his loss to four factors.

Insufficient time for his campaign

Tan feels that a longer campaign period of three months would have let him connect better with the electorate. There will be more time to communicate his ideas and allow the voters to know him better.

Lack of political background

Tan states that his political career is far shorter than the other candidates. He has never been a member of parliament nor a deputy prime minister. He is not well known to many Singaporeans and lacks a political track record.

Lack of contact with the elderly

Tan said that he connected with younger voters through the internet and this has won him many votes. But he did not get through to the older generation of Singaporeans as they do not get on the internet as much.

A perceived confrontational attitude

Tan emphasised that many misunderstand and thinks that he will be confrontational towards the government. This has lost him some votes.
---------------------------------------------------
A Bruising Presidential Election
By Santha Oorjitham

KUALA LUMPUR - Voter discontent and a contest that was too close to call were the hallmarks of Singapore's presidential election last weekend -- much like the general election in May.

Former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan won 35.2 per cent of the 2.1 million votes on Saturday, closely followed by former People's Action Party (PAP) member of parliament Dr Tan Cheng Bock with 34.8 per cent.

In the May 7 polls, the opposition Workers' Party (WP) team had wrested the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency from the PAP team with a 9.4 per cent majority.

"Coming so close after the general election, the presidential election was a continuation of the voters' reaction -- to deliver a more concrete message that they are still not satisfied," said a former grassroots leader.

After the general election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reshuffled his cabinet, set up a committee to review ministerial salaries and began to tackle concerns about the cost of housing and the impact of the large number of foreigners on public infrastructure.

"Addressing housing and transport will take time," said former administrative officer Donald Low.

A more structural issue, he noted, was the question of fairness, "which was made very salient by the WP dispute with the People's Association over the use of community facilities".

Back in June, WP chairman Sylvia Lim said the Housing Development Board had informed the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (combining the two constituencies that WP won in the general election) in an email that it had leased 26 public sites that the council had managed to the People's Association, a statutory board administering a network of grassroots organisations.

On Aug 15, Lim said, the People's Association informed the party that "booking by WP will not be allowed".

The sites -- mainly fields and hard courts often used for community events -- were "strategically located and convenient to residents", she said, adding that the move would prevent the party's MPs from organising activities and curtail their "ground presence".

Desmond Choo, the PAP candidate who lost to WP's Yaw Shing Leong in May, is now Hougang's grassroots adviser. He responded in a media statement that grassroots activities had been curtailed by town councils run by the WP.

During the presidential campaign period, Tan called for an investigation into the dispute.

"It is important that justice and fairness should be done, and not only that; the public should see that justice and fairness have been done," he told reporters during a walkabout.

"But grassroots organisations under the People's Association umbrella serve the PAP-appointed adviser, whether or not he or she is the elected MP," Low pointed out.

Although he had hoped for political and institutional reform after the May polls, he wrote, "As the Aljunied debacle shows, things are depressingly similar."

Election observers agree that Tan, the PAP's preferred candidate, drew his support from the party's traditional vote bank. But they're divided on how to interpret the rest of the votes.

"The combined votes of Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock are actually the PAP voters," said the former grassroots leader. "The people decided the two candidates who talked about keeping to the constitutional and institutional role of the president got 70 per cent of the votes."

Assoc Prof Dr Alan Chong of the Nanyang Technological University's School of International Studies, disagreed.

"Tan Cheng Bock made it clear his supporters were an amalgamation of opposition and ruling party supporters," he argued. "He was the ultimate centrist candidate, with the tendencies and independent streak of an opposition member."

For Chong, the presidential election continued a healthy trend.

"The spirit of democratic competition has come back, beginning with the general election.

"Now the supposedly tranquil presidential election has turned into something far feistier. Singaporean democracy is definitely alive and well. The PAP can no longer take Singaporean votes for granted, as they have done in the past."
---------------------------------------------
Analysis of Vote Counts by Regions
Voting patterns in different areas

Although the Elections Department did not release the breakdown of votes by electoral divisions, unofficial indications obtained from various sources showed a disparity in voting patterns.

In a report in The Straits Times, the final tally showed that support was spread unevenly across the island.

Although Dr Tony Tan won by a slight margin of 0.34 percentage point, the gap in favour was much larger in many areas.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock had a clear lead in certain parts - he won handsomely in large parts of the west like Ayer Rajah, Jurong and Choa Chu Kang.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock was MP for Ayer Rajah for 25 years and runs a clinic in Jurong West.

He also won a large number of votes in north-eastern new towns like Punggol and Sengkang.

As for Dr Tony Tan, who was MP for Sembawang for 27 years, won consistently in areas in the north, centre and east like Sembawang, Nee Soon and East Coast.

In many of these areas, the front-runner was often a clear three to six percentage points ahead of the second- placed candidate, according to sources.

The Straits Times reported that sources on both sides attribute the geographic disparity to the fact that both Dr Tans have established good reputations in the area. They also have local grassroots workers there.

There could also be an element of demographic reasons for the differences across the island.

In areas such as Punggol and Sengkang where there is a dispportionate number of young residents, Dr Tan Cheng Bock was seen to have led the count there and in parts of Hougang new town and Hougang single-member constituency (SMC).

In Aljunied GRC, both Dr Tans are said to have obtained around 30 per cent of valid votes, similar to that obtained by Mr Tan Jee Say there.

As for Dr Tony Tan, he did well in older estates like Bedok and Pasir Ris - estates that have traditionally been supportive of the People's Action Party (PAP).

However, he had a greater lead in areas like East Coast GRC's Siglap ward and Joo Chiat SMC, where 85 per cent and 99 per cent of voters respectively live in private housing.

Dr Tony Tan received 30 per cent of the vote in Siglap and 41 per cent in Joo Chiat.

It also seems that Dr Tony Tan's strong financial and economics background have likely drawn the more upper-middle-class residents to back him.

He also led by several percentage points in many landed housing areas such as Tanglin in Tanjong Pagar GRC.

It also happened that the votes separating the two Dr Tans at many counting centres were in the double or triple digits, one way or the other.

In response to the vote margin, Dr Tan Cheng Bock's response early Sunday morning was: "It is fewer than the number of votes in the smallest SMC. But it made all the difference in deciding who gets the keys to the Istana."

Saturday, May 7, 2011

General Election 2011 - Final Verdict


From: Observer
Subject: At a Glance - General Election 2011

Share of valid votes:
PAP: 60.14%
WP: 12.82%
NSP: 12.04%
SDP: 4.83%
RP: 4.28%
SPP: 3.11%
SDA: 2.78%

Comments:

If you look at the share of valid votes, the opposition parties, WP
did well (12.82%) and NSP also did well (12.04%) . The rest of the
opposition parties are in another group below 5%.

PAP won 81 seats but with a lower over percentage of 60.14%. So voters
have sent the right messages and want PAP to make the necessary
improvements.

The result speaks of a responsible and mature electorate, supporting
the incumbent party, reminding it of areas for improvements, and
welcoming good opposition candidates.
---------------------------------------------------
Watershed Election:-

1. Most number of seats contested by the oppositions since independence.

2. Lowest percentage of votes won by the ruling party since independence.

3. First time an opposition party won the biased GRC, conceived by the PAP.

4. Most number of members from one opposition party elected into Parliament, since independence.

5. First time - 3 ministers of various ranked voted out of Parliament.

6. First time - a nominated Speaker of Parliament got voted out before taking office.

7. First time - a full-fledged Minister (of Foreign Affair) got booted out during a General Election.

8. The PAP won Potong Pasir seat by the narrowest margin since independence - 114 votes.

9. Chiam See Tong, the longest-serving opposition MP in parliament, got booted out after changing constituency for this GE.
The picture is now history of a Heartland Matyr.
---------------------------------------------------
From: wiseguy

Ah Loong says he will now listen to the peasants...If he has
really repent, it may happen. His father may not be around in 5 years
time. Or, if the old man has still not kicked the bucket by then, he
should be advised to step down gracefully. Aljunied proved that more
and more people are no longer intimidated by that most eminent senior
citizen...

Oso, he needs to revamp his entire Cabinet. People like Wong Cant
Sing, Viviene ManaKiriKanan, Mabok Tan, $$$ Tuck Yew, Yakult Ibrahim,
Raymond Lampah, and Lim Swee Sway, must go. It's people who really
cared for the people who should be promoted to Cabinet posts.

Unfortunately, I could only think of one right now (which speaks
volumes about the absence of people skills in the PAP leadership) - Dr
Lily Neo for Minister of Community, Youth & Sports. For filling the
other Cabinet posts, Ah Loong needs to look at those younger
candidates who were introduced in 2001 and 2006 elections and have
since built themselves a good reputation for local grassroots work.

Ah Loong has 1 to 2 years to do the above. After that, what policies
he introduced, how these policies are going to be formulated and
implemented will determine the outcome of the 2016 elections.

Of course, having said that, Ah Loong can still choosed to go back
acting bizness as usual. Promising Opposition members, churned by this
election could be hounded into bankruptcy, And the old man may turn up
for the 2016 hustings on a wheelchair and a portable life support
support system in tow...

Oso, more gerrymandering may be on the way: Mountbatten and Joo Chiat
SMCs in the south may moved north to Sembawang GRC. Marine Parade &
East Coast GRCs may move west and merged with Jurong GRC. Looks like the next 5 years may get to be very interesting to see.

If Ah Loong turns out to be the proverbial leopard who cannot
change its spots, I oso dont mind lah....I want to see how far he can
stay on.

Lightning party's bad performance last night did not happen over a
course of 9 days, but over a period of 4-5 years starting from the
2006 elections. Barely months after that election, Ah Loong raised GST
to 7% and gave salary increases for himself and his kaki nang.

Then, in the name of creating thousands of toliet-cleaning jobs
serving foreigners, he opened the floodgates to them, and they in turn
sapu all the better jobs, health facilities, school places, and nice
homes even MRT standing space, at the expense of the locals.

His next big mistake was to write a cheque for 100 billion peanuts of
taxpayers' money, to Temashit, Govermin Investment Caput, & Town
Councils, to play tikam-tikam during the sub-prime crisis.

When people tried to show him the error of his ways, he dont want to
listen. Now having lost 2 Cabinet ministers, 1 future minister, 1
might-have-been Pariahment Speaker, & 1 for-show only MP, Ah Loong
says he has repented, he has seen the light, he will listen, he will
serve the people.

If Ah Loong's mea culpa turns out to be juz wayang, history will
repeat itself again in 2016. Of course, to avoid that, Ah Loong can
resort to gerrymandeering all the constituencies into 1 super-GRC or
give citizenships to 6 million more foreigners. We shall see.

---------------------------------------------------
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Have you seen the faces of the PAP MPs and ministers in their post-election interviews with the press? They looked shocked and were uncertain on what to say and how they should face the public. They were worried they would look arrogant, and that they could use the wrong words during the interview, that would be twisted by the twitter and facebook to mean they erred again. In short, they are rattled!

In past elections, the PAP made full use of the media to gag the oppositions. One can only hear the opposition speaks when one visit one of those rallies. And opposition candidates were painted by PAP as poor quality candidates, lacking in speaking skills and brains.

But in this GE the PAP realised that they could not gag the oppositions anymore with the advent of the social media sites and the growing ability to access information via mobile devices at lightning speed, and free video sites like Youtube. So they loosened the media grip, which they will now live to regret, though it is inevitable.

Suddenly, the politically apathetic Singapore public, were exposed to scores of speeches by opposition candidates, screaming and shouting their messages in such clarity and eloquence into their consciousness, never before allowed in the past, raising questions that they have been asking themselves in their sub-conscience.

The interest generated was immense, and opposition rallies saw such huge crowds, not just for the Workers Party but all the rest. And all of a sudden we have super heroes and heroines to worship. All of a sudden, long time opposition candidates like Sylvia Lim became a national messiah of some sort. Her past speeches which were curbed previously, but now available in Youtube, became a cult and a revelation.

In a short span of 9 days, Singaporeans were made to realize that Singapore actually do have very talented political figures, and all that lies about not enough people joining politics, and the need to pay high salary to get talent to join politics were thrown out of the window. It is just that these talented people are not following the wishes of the Lee family.

In that short span of time, a young girl called Nicole Seah burst into the scene and mesmerized the whole of Singapore like a Goddess from heaven. Her Facebook "likes" overtook that of the most popular man in Singapore, the legendary Lee Kuan Yew, causing the PAP to call up their members to boost up Mr Lee "likes" overnight to prevent the legend from falling off its altar.

The passive and fearful public was stunned into admiration by this 24-year-old, who dares to openly scold the Prime Minister and his cohorts for all their shortcomings.

And for once, the almighty men-in-white, looked very human indeed, with all their flaws exposed to the core. The way they behaved and responded after the elections, they look like wounded chickens that had lost their feathers as well.

The "May Revolution" has begun in Singapore, and these young talents we had will surely be a force to be reckon with in the next few elections. The Lee Dynasty is in danger of crumbling into oblivion if it does not reform itself quickly enough.

---------------------------------------------------
PAP returns to power with reduced mandate
May 8th, 2011 | Author: Your Correspondent
As expected, the PAP won the 2011 general election though with a reduced mandate.

Though the PAP swept 81 out of 87 seats, its share of the popular vote slipped to 60.14 percent from 66.6 percent at the last election in 2006, its worst result since independence.

It also lost a GRC, and along with it 3 ministers, for the first time since the system was introduced in 1988.

The Workers’ Party emerges as the strongest opposition party in Singapore, winning Aljunied GRC by a comfortable margin and increasing its percentage of votes in Hougang SMC.

The three NCMP seats are likely to go to Ms Lina Chiam (SPP), Mr Yee Jenn Jong (WP) and one candidate from WP’s losing team in East Coast GRC.

The biggest loser appears to be the Singapore People’s Party which lost all its contested seats, including Potong Pasir SMC and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

The Singapore Democratic Party saw its percentage of votes improve, but was unable to win Holland-Bukit Timah GRC with its ‘A’ team polling a respectable 39.9 percent of the votes.

In spite fielding the largest slate of candidates among opposition parties, the National Solidarity Party lost all of them including Tampines GRC which was helmed by the unpopular PAP Housing Minister Mah Bow Tan.

The other parties all performed dismally including the newly formed Reform Party which was plagued by bitter in-fighting a few weeks before the election.

Despite optimism among netizens that a political tsunami may arrived, the PAP continues to maintain a stranglehold on power, retaining its two-third majority which will enable it to pass any bills and laws as and when it wishes.

The results of the election show that parties do have an impact on voters’ choices. The Workers’ Party managed to win at least 40 percent of the votes in all the seats it contested even with weak teams as compared to the other opposition parties.

As predicted earlier, the impact of the new media is limited though it may rise in future elections. Though the PAP has won the election, it has clearly weakened and the loss of a GRC may pave the way for more changes to come in Singapore’s new political landscape.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

General Election definitely this year

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: "truth"
Subject: GE definitely this year

The papist are trapped. They have only a small
window this year to hold GE without recession.
If they delay beyond this year, they definitely
have to fight an election in the mist of a recession
which could be as bad as or worst than 2009.

3 rd round briefings have been completed, so it
cannot be very far off.

I hope the oppositions are all ready to seize this
opportunity to make a big impact on Singapore
politics. Give LKY a present to bring to his grave.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Elections Propaganda?

From: "Alexx"

A "make-everybody-feel-good" propaganda. Election is comming. Junky minded
Singaporean should remember to vote for the PAP again and later got
themselves screwed and treated like second class or even third class
citizens.

Fri, Jan 22, 2010
my paper

IT'S good news for Singapore workers - 51 per cent of companies here surveyed in the latest Hudson Report said they would be looking to hire.

The quarterly survey of more than 400 executives by the global human-resource consultancy showed that employers are more optimistic, further confirming the rapid recovery in the employment market.

Across all key business sectors, 51 per cent of respondents said they will increase hiring in the first three months of this year - a significant jump from the 34 per cent in the previous quarter.


This is the greatest quarterly rise in expectations since The Hudson Report began in the fourth quarter of 1998. Except for health care and life sciences, all other industries expect positive headcount growth.

The banking and financial- services sector leads the field with the highest expectations, with 69 per cent planning to hire more staff, up from 43 per cent in the last quarter.

In particular, candidates with experience in private banking, corporate finance and commodities trading are especially sought after.

High growth is also expected in the field of information technology and telecommunications, with 60 per cent of respondents expecting to grow headcount in Q1, up from 36 per cent in the previous quarter.

The additional hiring is driven by demand for financial IT specialists, as banks undertake major projects again.

The largest rise in hiring expectations is, however, seen in the media, advertising and public- relations sector.

About 46 per cent of respondents plan to boost their recruitment this quarter - which is more than twice the figure in Q4 last year, which stood at 18 per cent.

This is the only sector where no respondents said they plan to reduce headcount this year.

The 51 per cent of respondents across all sectors who plan to grow headcount this quarter is more than double the corresponding figure of 23 per cent year-on-year.



The growing buoyancy in the job market means that most respondents expect to have to pay higher starting salaries to attract new managerial hires.

Across all sectors, only 8 per cent said they would pay no increment at all, while 42 per cent expect to have to increase starting salaries by more than 10 per cent to recruit the candidates they want.

According to the Hudson survey, most companies - 74 per cent - said they plan to pay discretionary year-end bonuses for last year, and also give out significantly higher payouts this year, particularly for the health-care and life-sciences sector.

More respondents are also very positive about their firms' performance this year.

Across all sectors, 14 per cent anticipate excellent performance - a higher proportion than in the other markets surveyed in Asia.

A further 64 per cent said performances will be good, while only 2 per cent thought it will be poor.

These figures also show that companies are considerably more optimistic than they were last year, when just 3 per cent forecast excellent performance and a further 44 per cent said it would be good.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Do I smell a General Election round the corner?

From: "truth"
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:43:38 GMT
Local: Wed, Sep 16 2009 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: Do I smell a General Election round the corner?

The ground is extremely bitter. Internal polling indicated only
20+% job approval rating.
So these measures are to sweeten the ground first.
Will not be this year. Could be next as there is a small window
of economic opportunity before a second dip.

"The Cynic" wrote in message

> Have you all noticed that the latest developments in the corridors of
> power are aimed at appeasing locals, eg, curbs on property
> speculation, setting a cap on immigrants, taking measures to make
> Chinese nationals learn basic English and increasing allowances for
> full time NSmen. These are some of the grouses that have been
> simmering on the ground for a long time but the MIW either brushed
> them off or justified their stance. One MIW even went to the extent of
> saying that China mei mei at kopitiams created jobs for locals.

> However, the groundswell must now have alarmed the hierarchy and hence
> they are taking remedial steps. Why the sudden interest in listening
> to the ground? Obviously they intend to hold a General Election soon.
> Hence, they have decided to go soft. We can expect more yearend
> goodies and payouts, and then GENERAL ELECTION.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

From: Peter Lye
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jul 7 2009 12:05 am
Subject: The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

Sir Francis Galton who is a half cousin of the Charles Darwin and a
person steep in aristocracy and the study of inheritance of
intelligence during the early 1900s was surprised that the crowd at a
county fair was able to guess the weight of an ox better than the
estimates of the cattle experts at hand. Although no single guess of
the crowd and cattle experts were correct, the mean of their
collective guess of the crowd was more accurate than that of the
cattle experts. For Francis Galton, this was not only a surprise but
most probably represented an unlearning of his basic belief in the
superior wisdom of the intelligentsia proxied by the aristocrats of
his time relative to the wisdom of the crowd.

Many years ago, the elder statesman of Singapore; Lee Kuan Yew once
made a comment that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the 1
man 1 vote system which is the cornerstone of democracy. Such a
comment by a politician would have been equated to a politician
committing career hara-kiri. However, in Singapore Lee Kuan Yew was
commended for his candor in being willing to surface such a sensitive
topic for the public to start pondering about. The topic did not take
much root and died a natural death on the media and eventually in much
of Singapore.

It was an old Washington Post editorial where Francis Galton
experiment was mentioned that revived my memory of the comment made by
Lee Kuan Yew. What unsettled me was that Lee Kuan Yew have a few
parallel in terms of beliefs with Francis Galton with both of them
being highly intelligent, influential members of society and thought
leaders. In addition, the topic of inheritance of intelligence has
also some parallel in the 'Graduate Mother Scheme' that has been
abolished. This scheme provided off-springs of graduate mothers
priority points in getting into choice schools. This scheme was
relatively short-lived as it saw opposition not only from non-graduate
mothers who were dis-advantaged by it but also by the graduate mothers
themselves I believe on an altruistic heart chord of preserving the
scared equal opportunity for all and sundry. At least it proves that
political apathy has not gone as far into the woods as some might have
thought. To be fair to Lee Kuan Yew, it was a Ministry of Education
policy and not entirely his making.

Perhaps, we all should be mindful that though the 1 man 1 vote system
is not perfect, it is most probably the best that we have. To me, this
is so scared that most attempts to improve the system will more likely
injure it than do any good to it and perhaps should be considered an
out of bounds topic for a long time.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter

Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are
of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any
companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these
opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and
opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for
correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

From: wakalukong
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jul 7 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

On Jul 7, 12:05 am, Peter Lye wrote:


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> The Wisdom of Crowds-Singapore Election Perspectives

> Sir Francis Galton who is a half cousin of the Charles Darwin and a
> person steep in aristocracy and the study of inheritance of
> intelligence during the early 1900s was surprised that the crowd at a
> county fair was able to guess the weight of an ox better than the
> estimates of the cattle experts at hand. Although no single guess of
> the crowd and cattle experts were correct, the mean of their
> collective guess of the crowd was more accurate than that of the
> cattle experts. For Francis Galton, this was not only a surprise but
> most probably represented an unlearning of his basic belief in the
> superior wisdom of the intelligentsia proxied by the aristocrats of
> his time relative to the wisdom of the crowd.

> Many years ago, the elder statesman of Singapore; Lee Kuan Yew once
> made a comment that perhaps there should be a re-examination of the 1
> man 1 vote system which is the cornerstone of democracy. Such a
> comment by a politician would have been equated to a politician
> committing career hara-kiri. However, in Singapore Lee Kuan Yew was
> commended for his candor in being willing to surface such a sensitive
> topic for the public to start pondering about. The topic did not take
> much root and died a natural death on the media and eventually in much
> of Singapore.

> It was an old Washington Post editorial where Francis Galton
> experiment was mentioned that revived my memory of the comment made by
> Lee Kuan Yew. What unsettled me was that Lee Kuan Yew have a few
> parallel in terms of beliefs with Francis Galton with both of them
> being highly intelligent, influential members of society and thought
> leaders. In addition, the topic of inheritance of intelligence has
> also some parallel in the 'Graduate Mother Scheme' that has been
> abolished. This scheme provided off-springs of graduate mothers
> priority points in getting into choice schools. This scheme was
> relatively short-lived as it saw opposition not only from non-graduate
> mothers who were dis-advantaged by it but also by the graduate mothers
> themselves I believe on an altruistic heart chord of preserving the
> scared equal opportunity for all and sundry. At least it proves that
> political apathy has not gone as far into the woods as some might have
> thought. To be fair to Lee Kuan Yew, it was a Ministry of Education
> policy and not entirely his making.

> Perhaps, we all should be mindful that though the 1 man 1 vote system
> is not perfect, it is most probably the best that we have. To me, this
> is so scared that most attempts to improve the system will more likely
> injure it than do any good to it and perhaps should be considered an
> out of bounds topic for a long time.

> Peter Lye aka lkypeter

> Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are
> of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any
> companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these
> opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and
> opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for
> correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

-------

LKY suggested fiddling with the one-man-one-vote system after the PAP
did badly in elections. He suggested that perhaps older people should
be given more than one vote since they had seen more of life (he
always suspects that the young would do him in since they're more
demanding).

He should be thankful that his suggestion died a natural death. If
older people had been given more than one vote each, the PAP would be
soundly thrashed in the next elections because these older people
can't get their full CPF and suspect that their money would be gone
forever.

Wakalukong

Monday, April 13, 2009

Don't even think that you can "vote" us out

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore, soc.culture.malaysia, soc.culture.british, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.china
From: "LobertEatSHIT"
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:46:26 +0800
Local: Fri, Apr 17 2009 6:46 am
Subject: Haha..."voting" , my foot!

Hey you peasants!
Don't even think that you can "vote" us
out of our lucrative "business"...opps...we mean
our public office.

We already "fix" you clowns so that you can
NEVER vote us out, ever.


First....we already made into bankrupts those that
have any semblance of leadership, motivation, skills
or knowledge that can provide some form of alternative
voice amongst you.....


Second, we made sure that the poor and the underclass
who are the real ones that needs a voice in pariahment
will NEVER be able to afford the huge ELECTION DEPOSIT.
Since these underclass are the most FUCKED by us....making
sure that they never get any representation is critical, ok.


Third.....the ones that CAN afford the Election Deposits will
only those middle class who are actually BENEFITTING from
our lop sided system. They are the weak minded, the spineless
and the hedonist amungst you...and they will be too afraid to
rock the boat, lest they lose all their "benefits"..
See...even NO LAWYERS dare to represent any dissident when
we put them before our kangaroos....so do you think they will
dare to run against us?


Fourth....for the "presidency"...we put in the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
requirement that the clown must work for some BILLION dollar
corporation, 99% of which is controlled by us....hence only
our kaki nang can ever be eligible...you did not protest because
you bought our argument that only those that are "successful"
can "lead"...little did you know that success here in the tiny
dot is NOT about your skills or knowledge...but about how
low you can bow to us, the elites, and how high you can carry
our BALLS.


So you think you can "vote" us out?
LOL.