PAP dirty tricks against WP in 1997 revisited

J B Jeyaretnam was the target of a vicious PAP smear campaign in 1997, with DPMs Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan playing key roles

By Chong Wee Kiat
Posted on June 23, 2011 by satayclub

Tang Liang Hong with James Gomez in Australia, June 2000 (source)

The year was 1997. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, having been dealt a black eye by the voters at his first general election six years ago, was eager to prevent any further losses of seats. Things were looking up for him, as the main opposition party – the Singapore Democratic Party – had apparently imploded, with its founder and icon Chiam See Tong having been ousted from the party following a series of internal disagreements. The new party leader, Dr Chee Soon Juan, had done himself no favours with an ill-conceived hunger strike to protest his sacking from the National University of Singapore.

However, the Workers’ Party apparently had other ideas. Led by the rambunctious and indefatigable J B Jeyaretnam – who became the first man to defeat the PAP since Singapore’s independence at the Anson by-election of 1981 – the WP was gunning for a Group Representation Constituency. Mr Jeyaretnam’s team for Cheng San GRC included prominent Chinese grassroots leader and lawyer Tang Liang Hong (邓亮洪). They were up against the incumbent PAP team, led by Education Minister Lee Yock Suan, and a close contest was expected. After all, this election would mark Mr Jeyaretnam’s return to politics after a decade-long absence – twice elected as MP for Anson, he was expelled from Parliament in 1986 following a conviction which he claimed was politically motivated.

Mr Goh and his cadre of PAP leaders – including Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, whose disdain for Mr Jeyaretnam was by now well-known – were dreading the thought of having five additional MPs from the WP. A decision was made in Cabinet to keep the WP candidates out of Parliament.

They pored through Mr Tang’s past speeches and singled out one that he had made way back in 1994 at a National Day celebration dinner. In the speech, Mr Tang said that he would like to see more members from the “silent majority of Chinese-educated” Singaporean stepping forward and playing a more active role in society. The then-Minister for the Environment, Teo Chee Hean, was present at the event – and he later informed his Cabinet colleagues that Mr Tang had “worked people up” over issues of language and religion, and that it was his duty to “expose” such “dangerous” people.

One by one, senior PAP leaders came out to lambast Mr Tang, claiming that he was an anti-Christian, anti-English educated Chinese chauvinist during the heat of a hotly-contested election campaign. The mainstream media was used to cast repeated attacks on Mr Tang’s character, with Senior Minister Lee leading the chorus by saying that saying that “if he’s (Tang’s) against the English-educated, he must be against the Malay-educated even more. If he is against Christianity, he must be against Islam even more because Islam represents even a deeper exclusiveness. So this approach must be destructive.”

Mr Tang responded by claiming that the remarks from the PAP leaders were lies. Immediately, he was sued for defamation by some 13 PAP MPs. Amongst them was the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam.

Together with Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Tan and Prime Minister Goh led the charge in Cheng San, making it a “personal” battleground and claiming that a vote for the WP team was a vote against them. Of course, none of them were actually candidates in that particular constituency; they all all enjoyed walkovers in their respective wards.


Tang Liang Hong was bankrupted and had his property seized following the 1997 election. He entered into self-imposed exile in Australia.Angered by their tactics of heavy bombardment, Mr Tang lodged a police report, accusing the PAP leaders of criminal defamation.

Mr Jeyaretnam was handed a copy of the report during an election rally midway through his speech, and he announced to the 80,000 strong crowd that he had in his hands a police report made by Tang against “you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his people”.

Those fateful words would later become the basis for a flurry of lawsuits by the same PAP leaders against Mr Jeyaretnam, alleging that he had, by conveying the news to the crowd, implied via innuendo that the PAP MPs were all guilty of criminal acts and were therefore unfit for office. Having already sued Mr Tang for a total of $8,075,000, the PAP leaders were still baying for Mr Jeyaretnam’s blood, even though he had done nothing more than convey a simple fact to the audience.

The WP lost the election by 53,553 votes to 44,132.

******

A Mareva Injunction was soon granted against Mr Tang, freezing all of his assets including his property in Bukit Timah and all his bank accounts – as well as those of his wife. Fearing the worst, he left into self-imposed exile in Australia. He has not returned to Singapore since.

Mr Jeyaretnam was returned to Parliament as a Non-Constituency MP. He was made a bankrupt in 2001 after being unable to pay the more than $600,000 in libel damages awarded to the PAP leaders. As a result, he lost his seat in Parliament. To make a living, the former judge and senior lawyer was reduced to hawking his self-published books on the streets. He was discharged from his bankruptcy in 2008 and founded the Reform Party soon after, but died before he could make a final push to win back his Parliamentary seat.

******

What is the point of bringing up all this now?

The two Deputy Prime Ministers who were so instrumental to the battle for Cheng San and the subsequent moves to demolish Mr Tang and Mr Jeyaretnam are back in the public eye.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong is now the Prime Minister.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam is the odds-on favourite to be elected the next President of Singapore.

 

The front page of The New Paper on the eve of Polling Day (1997)

Both men have re-invented themselves as politicians with a “softer” touch. Prime Minister Lee made an unprecedented apology for the failings of his administration during the general election campaign in May this year. He urged civil servants and MPs to remember that they were “servants, not masters” of the people. He said that the PAP needed to transform itself and become a more compassionate party, distancing himself from the hardline approach used under his father and then Mr Goh.

However, that still could not prevent the WP from fulfilling Mr Jeyaretnam’s unfinished dream of winning a GRC. The party won six seats in the election, deposing two cabinet ministers in the process. In addition, they won another two NCMP seats, giving them their strongest Parliamentary presence in history.

As for Dr Tan, he adopted a lower profile following the events of 1997, going on to serve another ten years as Deputy Prime Minister before retiring from politics in 2006.

He went on to become Chairman of the government-owned Singapore Press Holdings – a position reserved for PAP stalwarts and loyalists – as well as Deputy Chairman and Executive Director of the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), serving under Lee Kuan Yew.

Yesterday, he resigned from these two positions and re-emerged to announce his candidacy for the office of President – the highest office in the country. He is currently regarded as a gentlemanly, dignified politician, and the outgoing President has given a ringing endorsement of his “qualities to lead the country”.

Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan were key players in what was possibly the PAP’s darkest hour. Cheng San, and the events that followed it, represented a highly-calibrated operation to smear, discredit and demolish the PAP’s most vocal dissidents and to intimidate the voters into rejecting an alternative voice.

 

Not long after, both Mr Lee and Dr Tan were plaintiffs in an expertly-cheoreographed series of lawsuits designed to stifle and bankrupt their two antagonists. The case was roundly criticised by international lawyers and jurists as an abuse of the legal process, and not long after, Queen’s Counsel were barred from appearing in Singapore courts.

With Mr Lee and Dr Tan holding the two highest offices in the land, all power and authority – both legal and moral – will be vested in their hands. Though it may appear as though the leadership of Singapore has gone through a “sea change” following the watershed 2011 general election, in reality, little will have changed if Dr Tan is elected.

What about the possibility that Dr Tan may have mellowed and softened his stance? At yesterday’s press conference to announce his candidacy, he appeared to have no regrets at all about the lawsuits which he initiated, justifying them on the basis that “everyone should have the right to clear his name” after being slandered.

Though it is not likely that Dr Tan – or any other senior political figure – would want to attempt similar actions in today’s political climate, it is notable that he was a key figure behind PAP smear campaigns in the past.

Whether or not this damages his moral authority is up to the voters to decide, but seeing as the mainstream media is likely to whitewash the truth, it is important that those who are too young to remember the events of 1997 are made aware of his past track record – especially since it is a track record that he continues to stand by, up until today.

******************************

The author is a contributor who enjoys discussing politics and history with his friends at the kopitiam and office canteen. He was a resident of Cheng San GRC during the 1997 General Election and describes himself as a “hardcore” Workers’ Party supporter. He moved to Hougang in 2003.

******************************************

For background,  reports, and analysis of the Tang Liang Hong incident:

The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore, Francis T. Seow, former solicitor general of Singapore (here)

Against the odds: one man's bid for democracy, Mark Baker, Sydney Morning Herald (here)

Tang Liang Hong's homepage, in English and Chinese (here)

Tang Liang Hong in Wikipedia (here)

"A Nation Awakes: Frontline Reflections"

(source)

ABOUT THE BOOK (launched on 16 December 2011)

Few nations if any, have ever held two national elections in a span of four months. Fewer still are key players who took part in both. This book is the story of extraordinary men and women who fought Singapore's 2011 General Election in May and the Presidential Election in August. Together with their loyal and dedicated supporters, they displayed great courage and conviction, and in so doing changed the political landscape forever.

The writers of this book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society - student, teacher, university researcher, social worker, doctor, economist, lawyer, advertising, media and IT personnel, blogger, housewife and retiree. They cut across all age groups from their twenties to their sixties. They have come together in this book to relate and share their personal journey with Singaporeans.

Unlike most post-election commentaries written by third-party observers, this book is unique as it allows readers to hear from the horse's mouth how in four short months, Singapore's single dominant party system has given way to the emergence of a politics of diversity with positive implications for the country's future system of government.

CONTENTS:

• Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe
• Preface by Tan Jee Say
• Prologue by Prof Staffan I Lindberg
• From Essay to ‘Ho-say’ by Tan Jee Say
• Fear No More by Dr Ang Yong Guan
• Building A Singapore Our Future Generations Can Be Proud Of by Michelle Lee Juen
• I Could Not Say No by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
• Is There a Climate Change? by Dr Wong Wee Nam
• The Doctor’s Heart by Dr Leong Yan Hoi & Dr Tan Lip Hong
• A Personal Journey To The 2011 Elections by Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah
• Beyond Social Work But Not Apart by Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
• Let’s Run The Race Together by Fahmi Rais
• Singapore’s Social Media Revolution by Jarrod Luo
• Staying Relevant With Neither Sound Nor Fury by Alex Au
• All The World’s A Stage by Bentley Tan
• Young And Emancipated by Nicole Seah
• Bridging the (Democracy) Gap With Youthful Passion by Dexter Lee
• A New Lease Of Life For Old Fogies by Patrick Low
• Like A First Lady by Patricia Khoo Phaik Ean
• Epilogue: Get Organised For A Broad-Based, Non-PAP Government by Tan Jee Say
• Appendix: Summary Extract Of Essay by Tan Jee Say



REVIEW

“The courageous spirit and vision of Tan Jee Say and other bravehearts from Singapore’s opposition parties and civil society in the 2011 elections resembles a collective ‘Singa’s roar’ which continues to reverberate across this city-state in Southeast Asia. The ‘Singa’s roar’ resonates with other popular movements striving for democracy in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and around the world.”

-- Associate Professor Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney. She is an author of several books on Singapore and Southeast Asia.

“I met Jee Say in Singapore a few months after his historic candidacy for the presidency, nearly forty years after we had been students together at University College, Oxford. The ideals of fairness and justice of his youthful days had clearly survived a very distinguished career in the public service and in finance, along with passion and courage.”

-- Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, Member of Parliament and adviser on national reconciliation in Sri Lanka; he contested the presidency of Sri Lanka in 1999. He is currently the Chairman of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats.

“This book brings out the robust and diverse nature of Singapore, and these attributes are positive for the development of Singapore as a financial centre.”

-- Tim Tacchi, Senior Partner, TT International, a global fund manager with its head office in London.

"It gives me great pleasure to introduce and commend this fascinating and stirring book about Singapore’s recent presidential and general elections....By revealing the feelings, thoughts and motives of a diverse group of hard-working professional Singaporeans…, this book is testimony to the vital importance and benefits of active citizenship, vigorous democracy and public-spirited leadership. Many of the individual accounts of involvement in the elections are a moving reminder of the personal sacrifices that people are willing to make to further their vision of a better society. To support an opposition candidate in a country accustomed to continuous single-party rule is to risk job security, business prospects, family life, personal privacy and social acceptance. Although the contributors to this book would never make the claim themselves, they are all modest heroes.

....The founder of the modern Olympics said that “the most important thing is not winning but taking part”. This is the message that shines out from the contributors to this book. The presidential election was one of those elections in which the official winner was in many ways the loser and the official loser was in many ways the winner. By showing that it was possible to launch a major challenge against the dominant party, Jee Say Tan and his friends and supporters bestowed a great service to the people of Singapore, not only this year but for the future."

-- Extract from the Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe, Master of University College, Oxford. He has published and broadcast extensively on British and American politics mainly in the subjects of elections, parties, public opinion and public policy.

***************************************************

(source)

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Tan Jee Say (TJS)

TOC: When did the idea for this book come about? What were the motivations?
TJS: The idea came after the Presidential Election ended. Like the GE before it, the PE was hotly contested. To have one heavily contested election is already quite unusual in Singapore, to have two in a span of 4 months is unprecedented and this led to much heightened political awareness among a normally docile and apathetic electorate. We feel this should be recorded and our contributory role explained so that Singaporeans can understand and appreciate how ordinary people like ourselves can make a difference.

TOC: Your media release says the writers of the book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society. Do they include any PAP members and/or supporters?
TJS: The broad spectrum refers to the writers coming from all social-economic sectors rather than political. PAP members and supporters are not included because this book is about the role of non-PAP forces in transforming the political landscape whereas PAP wants status quo.

TOC: What do you hope this book will achieve?
TJS: We hope the book will help Singaporeans get rid of their fear about participating in the political affairs of their own country and see it as normal, healthy process in taking Singapore to the next level.

TOC: Are there any other things you would like to say about the book and the book launch?
TJS: This book is unique as it is written by players not bystanders or political observers.It is an insiders account which is seldom seen in Singapore.

------------------

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Paul Tambyah (PT)

TOC: When were you approached to write for this book? Describe the circumstances.
PT: Soon after the Presidential elections, Jee Say brought up the idea of writing a book to document the remarkable events surrounding the two elections. He asked me if I would contribute and I readily agreed.

TOC: Why did you decide to contribute?
PT: I thought that it was important for me to be a part of this book as I had been a part of the campaigns and I thought that it would be useful for Singaporeans to hear a little background that could not be conveyed in a Rally speech. I was also proud to be associated with the people in the campaign and pleased to be asked to contribute to this historical text.

TOC: What do you hope the stories contained the book will achieve?
PT: I sincerely hope that the stories in the book will show how ordinary Singaporeans who are part of the mainstream but are not satisfied with many of the policies and directions that are being promoted by the ruling party can come forward sincerely to offer alternative views. These views now have a number of platforms by which they may be heard and Sinagaporeans, being a mature people can decide for themselves which policies are best for themselves and their families. This book is one such platform and I hope that it will help more Singaporeans to come forward. This can only be good for Singapore

------------------------


Extract from Associate Professor Tambyah’s chapter:

Paul Ananth Tambyah

One day in 2009, I received a call from a friend who was politically active in the ruling party asking if he could talk with me in person. I was a bit apprehensive, but when he said that the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) had decided to nominate me for consideration as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), I decided to say yes. It turned out that the SMA, which represents a significant proportion of general practitioners (GPs) in Singapore, was upset about several issues that had come up recently. It perceived there to be a media campaign highlighting errant doctors, especially those in the private sector. More importantly, the SMA guideline on fees which had helped self-regulate the profession for years and was, in fact, established as a result of prompting from the Ministry of Health, was suddenly deemed anti-competitive and had to be withdrawn.

The SMA warned of dire consequences, all of which have come to pass at both ends of the spectrum. At the lower end, we have the spectacle of corporate GPs charging less for a consultation than a hawker charges for a plate of char kway teow! Naturally, these GPs are forced to shift the charges to medication prices, and reducing the impetus to prescribe judiciously. Patients are thus locked into high-cost drugs often prescribed for chronic illnesses, contributing significantly to the rising cost of healthcare in Singapore. Other GPs have had to become highly qualified beauticians in order to cover their costs by offering aesthetic services. After the elections, the moves to incorporate more GPs in the management of chronic diseases are a positive sign, but one only hopes that the paperwork will not be too great a hurdle. At the other end, we have the story of Dr Susan Lim charging what her patient was willing to pay and numerous others who have not garnered the attention of the media, but are well known within the medical community.

The SMA, for some reason, thought that I would be bold enough to speak up in parliament about its concerns, and that perhaps things would change for the profession and for patients. Subsequently, I received a message letting me know that the professional bodies had nominated me for NMP and that I had to go for an interview. I called my good friends Siew Kum Hong and Braema Mathi and asked them about the interviews and the wisdom of going ahead with the application. Both had done very good work as NMPs despite the constraints of the position and they encouraged me to go ahead.

The interview began with a question on what issues I would raise if selected. I was frank and began by talking about patients who were penalised for diseases that they had through no fault of their own. I asked, which parents would choose for their child to have leukemia and thus why should they be forced to deplete their Medisave accounts or their resources so that they became eligible for Medifund in order to pay for the treatment. I did not get a very encouraging response and, in fact, Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa turned the question around and asked whether I thought that the same principle applied to other sectors of the economy. She asked if I felt that GST should be lifted for essential goods, as I had argued that basic, essential and children’s healthcare should be free. I was cautious but I said I did feel that GST should not be imposed on basic necessities such as rice and milk, and cited other countries which exempt these from GST. At once, I saw from the faces across the table that I had mentioned the unmentionable. Apart from Mr Low Thia Kiang who had a silent grin, the rest of the committee had stern faces.

To lighten the mood, Mr Michael Palmer asked what other issues I would raise. I mentioned that I had been nominated by the SMA and thus was morally obliged to bring up issues of concern to the organisation in addition to patient issues. The issue I highlighted was the plight of the ‘HDB GPs’ who face rising costs and are unable to pass these costs onto their ‘heartlander’ patients who often cannot afford expensive medications or treatments. The result of this is well documented in the SMA GP surveys which I cited and which have shown declines in the income and standard of living of the average GP in Singapore over the last decade.

This was met with some incredulity as all the MPs, beginning with Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, began to point out that at every meet-the-people session after the university admissions process started, anguished parents were out in force to appeal for their children who did not get into medical school. My answer was a little weak as I mentioned that they probably did not realise the average GP’s plight, or even know that more than half of the graduating class were GPs doing the hard work of primary healthcare in Singapore’s housing estates.

I now know why Singaporean parents want their children to become doctors – this was wonderfully explained by Professor Lee Wei Ling in her Straits Times (ST) column on 23 December, 2009. Singaporeans parents anxious about their own health and that of their families resonate with the situation described by Professor Lee in our public hospitals. The rest of the interview was unremarkable, and to be honest, I was not too surprised when I discovered through both The Straits Times and The Online Citizen that nine other worthy individuals had been chosen as NMPs (five of whom had listed then-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as their favourite politician!). I did write in to ask why I was not selected, but the reply was merely a polite “we are unable to comment on the special select committee’s decision” on either mine or Kum Hong’s non-reappointment.

Chen Show Mao's Journey back to Singapore

Extracts from an essay, My Journey back to Singapore,  by Chen Show Mao (source)

MY EARLIER YEARS AND WHAT SHAPED ME

Let me begin with my earlier years. What shaped me to be who I am today.


In the many schools I attended right through Stanford and most recently in my practice as a corporate lawyer, I spent almost all of my time and energy on my work and my career. I also have a young family and my wife and I naturally spend as much time as possible raising a family, bringing up our children the best we can.

But over time a sense grew stronger within me-- the sense that I needed to give something back to society for what I have received, which has been a great deal.

You see ... Along the way, I formed a belief:


We have, each of us, benefitted from what others around us or before us have given or contributed. I do not believe that any of us is who he is solely as a result of his individual talents, hard work and ambition. In my case I benefitted from what my parents gave me (it goes without saying), also my teachers, my colleagues, the people who donated money to build the schools I attended, and to fund scholarships for needy students, and so many others before and around me.

I use the words “give” and “contribute”. I do not think it is solely a matter of exchange in which I received something from these benefactors only because they had received something from me in return. Take my teachers as an example. What they did for me was not, as most see it today, part of a transaction in which I paid my fees and they provided their services (and met their key performance indicators). The good teachers brought their hearts and minds and the best part of themselves to the task and gave me an education.

That extra bit made all the difference, and it was freely given to me.

It is up to me to give back.

As I grow older, the sense grows stronger that I may not have all that much time to give back.

*************************************

SERVICE: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Now, let me talk about service as a role of the government.

As I see it, our government's central task to serve Singaporeans.
You may say, "Yes, of course." But I am not sure if we always remember to use that yardstick to measure the success of our government policies.

To me service means putting at the center of things the object of our service.

The question is simple, it is a matter of perspective, who will be at the center of things, that is all. Is it the people of Singapore, or some measure of gross development or growth, that has over time been taken as a proxy for what's good for Singapore.

For instance, when the economy grew by 14%, as it did last year, but median household income grew only 3%, or 0% after you adjust for inflation, then we need to ask "who is all this growth for?" Who is at the center of all this economic growth if most Singaporean households barely kept pace? I have come to meet many more Singaporeans in this situation since my return.

It has got to be: all this economic growth will go to benefit MOST Singaporeans, in the long run if not necessarily in the short run.

But is that the case?


SERVANT LEADERSHIP

In his National Day dinner speech in Ang Mo Kio, the Prime Minister said that we've got to “keep on getting our economics right, our policies right and our politics right”. All three are important, and we need to get our politics right in order to get our policies right. It is what I have been talking about. It is our aim. I believe that through well- functioning multi-party Parliamentary politics, we will get more responsive government policies that put at the center of things the service of the people of Singapore.

Some of our leaders worry about that. ESM Goh Chok Tong warned that Singaporeans must “choose between pragmatic and populist politics”. In pragmatic politics, Singaporeans will accept measures with short-term pain but long-term gain. "In populist politics, they want immediate gratification and ignore the long-term costs.”

He is right. I face the same problems everyday: do I go jogging today or not? I'm often tempted to avoid short term pain at the expense of long term gain. In politics, people often vote the same way. Now let's talk about populist politics.

Populist politics pose a real danger to Singapore. That is why we criticize the government's populist policies such as making opposition wards last in queue for Lift upgrading programs, and making cash distributions to citizens just before the general elections. These populist policies have the effect of linking votes to lifts and to cash in the voters' minds, and appear to pander to the voters' worst instincts. They focus the voters' attention on the very short term, instead of what may be good for the country in the long term.

These populist policies were put in place by a government with an overwhelming majority in Parliament. So Singapore has always had to face the temptations of populist politics. And if one feels that, on the whole, Singaporeans in the past had chosen well between populist and pragmatic politics. Then there is no reason to feel overly concerned that we will not continue to do the same, just because we have now made the pragmatic choice of giving the opposition a few more seats in Parliament.

In the face of the temptations of populist politics, I don't think the solution is to say: Let's have fewer voices. Instead we should have more voices. Voices to educate, to reason, to persuade. If you feel you know better what is good for the people you serve, then, as a Servant, you need to make that case to them in a fair and unbiased manner.

The truth is many of us look to our government leaders, our Servants, for guidance and leadership. We want to learn from our leaders and make progress. We welcome help to make up our minds. But that final decision is ours to make. That is key. The added burden of PERSUATION is a necessary (and welcome) burden that must be taken on by our leaders who aim to serve in the new normal. Ultimately it is their duty to respect our decision, including the decision to elect opposition MPs to represent us in Parliament.

NOW, THAT to me, is Servant Leadership.

Friends, We live in a democracy in which the people are sovereign, and our politicians are not rulers of the people, but are public servants. We must remember this, even as we look to our politicians for leadership. I believe our country needs every woman or man who is willing to come forward to serve. To step forward and offer to play a bigger part in public life, in the life of our community.

The way I see it. At this point in our nation's history, the act of coming forward is an act of public service. Taking the first step forward makes half the journey.
The way I see it. When you choose to embark on your journey of service, you may feel that the steps you can take are just too small. BUT you know something? -- you will be a source of strength, encouragement and inspiration to the people around you.

Come, friends, step forward, do what you can.

****************************************

Read more here.

Is Singapore Elections Department incompetent, or were there shenanigans?

I am surprised that our super-expensive PMO, under the close watch of the super-expensive PM, cannot devise and operate election procedures that are, and are clearly seen to be, clean and fair.

Running a free and fair election is neither brain surgery, nor rocket science, nor differential geometry.

The irregularities that SDP reported are a case of Elections Department's incompetence, if not worse.

Before the forthcoming Presidential Election, the Elections Department must get its procedures in order, so that all loopholes for shenanigans are closed.

It must make public how the loopholes are being closed, and how fairness is being achieved. It must be accountable to the people.


Postscript

On the issue of transporting ballot boxes from the polling station to the counting place, Section 48(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (here) states that:

Every presiding officer of a polling station shall despatch each such packet and the ballot box or boxes in safe custody to the Returning Officer or an Assistant Returning Officer at the counting place where the votes cast at the polling station are to be counted in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Comparing with other aspects of the elections such as polling and vote counting, the transportation of ballot boxes has received little attention in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

To convince everyone that ballot boxes are indeed in safe custody during transportation, and that any of the following shenanigans cannot happen:

•  genuine ballot boxes being discarded
•  fake ballot boxes being added
•  ballot boxes being tampered with

I would suggest that during transportation:

• the presiding officer of the polling station or his representative escort the ballot boxes (I don't know whether this was required during the recent elections)
• candidates and polling agents be allowed to escort the ballot boxes

Such provisions are in keeping with an open and transparent, free and fair election.

****************************************

No Reply from Elections Department

Friday, 17 June 2011

Singapore Democrats

( source1, source2)

The Singapore Democrats wrote to the Elections Department on 26 May 11, pointing out a series of inconsistent practices carried out by election officials on polling day during GE 2011. It has been three weeks and the ELD has yet to reply.

The most serious concern is the fact that buses that were used to transport the ballot boxes to the counting centres had carried other ballot boxes.

Our polling agents had observed that when the buses arrived at the polling stations to pick up ballot boxes there were other boxes on board. When our polling agents asked to inspect these boxes to verify their source and to make sure that they were valid, presiding officers refused to allow them to do so.
The officers also refused to explain why the boxes were in the bus or where them had come from.

Other problems include the inconsistent application of rules by different officers at different polling stations. Presiding officers did not follow these reulations which resulted in situations where our candidates were barred from entering the polling stations even though they were plainly authorised to do so.

When it comes to elections one cannot be too careful and the ELD must take every measure to ensure that the process is completely transparent and not leave room for any questions.

We have written to the ELD again and reminded them to respond to our queries. We append the letter that we wrote on 26 May:
*************************

26 May 2011
Ms Goh Jing Xian
Manager (Public Education & Training)
Elections Department, Prime Minister’s Office

Dear Ms Goh,

We thank you for your reply.

Before I give you the names of the places where we encountered problems, I wish to bring to your attention another observation.

Our polling agents stationed at Beacon Primary School said that when the bus arrived to pick up the ballot boxes, they noticed that there were already ballot boxes on board. We presume that these were ballot boxes that were picked up from another polling station.

Our polling agents wanted to verify this by checking those boxes. Unfortunately they were prevented from doing so. How does one ensure that the boxes being transported are indeed the ones that were used for polling during the day from another polling station?

With regards to the disallowance of candidates into the polling stations, we wish to bring to your attention that at the Hwa Chong Institution, Bukit Timah Primary School, and Raffles Girls Primary School our Holland-Bukit Timah GRC candidates were refused entry.

This is in contravention of the Parliamentary Elections Act which, as you say, states that "candidates contesting at the election in a constituency and their authorised polling agents may enter a polling station during the poll in that constituency."

With reference to food being consumed inside the polling stations, we wish to inform you that across the polling stations at the Sembawang and Holland-Bukit GRCs, we were allowed to deliver meals to our polling agents.

However, at around 5pm when we were getting dinner for our polling agents at several polling stations across the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, we were suddenly prevented from going into the polling stations to handover the food. This was not the case for the polling stations in the other constituencies.

We also note that in your letter you state that: "Polling agents are allowed to enter the polling station on condition that the election agent has informed the presiding officers of the names of the polling agents who are to be stationed at the polling station."

We were told the day before by ELD

Yet, without these lists our polling agents were allowed entry into all the polling stations except for one.

You also say that, "Each time a candidate’s polling agent seeks entry to the polling station during the day, the presiding officer will ask to check the letter of appointment and to keep the oath of secrecy form."

Apparently this is not the case as the polling stations at our Sembawang GRC did not insist on this procedure. Our polling agents at the Beascon Primary School at the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC was also not required to hand in the oath of secrecy form each time they entered the station.

Finally, the schedule provided to us clearly stated that the main counting centre for the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC was at the Zhenghua Secondary School. However, our candidates were told by the presiding officer there that the Zhenghua school was not the main counting centre. Asked where it was, your officials said that they did not know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Election expenses

How much money did the opposition parties (and often it's the opposition candidates, spending their personal money) spend during the 2011 election campaigns?

How much of a financial advantage did PAP have against the oppositions?

For the record:

(source)

Political landscape, media coverage, and polling process examined

Forum on Post-election Analysis (source)

(Brief extract)

One week after the General Elections of 2011, Singapore human rights NGO MARUAH (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Singapore) and socio-political community blog The Online Citizen (TOC) jointly presented a post-elections forum at the Post-Museum on 15 May 2011.

************************

Associate Professor Cherian George (from the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University) offered attendees some perspectives on what GE2011 would mean for democratisation in Singapore.

He highlighted that “the mathematical results are less important than how the numbers are interpreted”, and cited the shock announcement of MM Lee and SM Goh from the Cabinet. This showed that the People’s Action Party (PAP) had interpreted the election results as a signal that it had to change.

A/Prof George argued that “although the political culture has evolved to be less amenable to top-down government, Singapore remains inhospitable to progressive causes and has yet to develop spaces for mature debate”.

On political culture, he felt that voters are now increasingly more likely to reject rules which are unfair, e.g. the GRC system. He noted: “To the extent that the public sees unfairness, it will apply a kind of electoral affirmative action: it will give the opposition a discount and judge the PAP more harshly. Thus, people crucified PAP candidates for saying silly things, but politely pretended not to notice when opposition candidates did the same.”

...

*********************

Next up was Associate Professor Paul Ananth Tambyah, a member of MARUAH.

MARUAH had conducted a media monitoring project during the elections. Due to limited resources, the scope of the project had to be limited to the three main English-language daily newspapers in Singapore, namely the New Paper, the Straits Times and TODAY.

The media monitoring project sought to measure the relative impartiality of the print media during GE2011, and in doing so contribute to the process of free and fair elections in Singapore.

A/Prof Tambyah introduced the different measurements used, from the column inches of coverage, to the type of photos published, and the placement of articles.

In terms of coverage, the PAP received an overwhelming amount of column-inches of articles, as compared to other opposition parties or even the opposition as a whole. The disparity was more distinct in the Straits Times, as compared to TODAY or the New Paper.

...

***************************

The third speaker was Ms Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH. She briefly described the election monitoring project conducted by MARUAH.

...

Ms Mathi noted that many respondents had highlighted the lack of privacy at the voting booths, with some voters feeling that it was too open. This, coupled with the close presence of some election officials, was the source of some unease.

The presence of a serial number on the ballot paper, and the practice of writing one’s polling number on the counterfoil of the ballot paper, also appeared to discomfort many respondents.

But overall, respondents did not report any major irregularities, and the election regulations (e.g. no campaign materials within 200m of a polling station) appeared to have been adhered to. Finally, over 80% of respondents felt that their vote was secret.

*****************************

Mr Alex Au, who blogs at Yawning Bread (www.yawningbread.org), primarily focused on an online survey on voter preference that he conducted, and the positioning of the various political parties and how that may have affected voter appeal.

(Note: Mr Au’s presentation can be found here: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/talk-at-the-post-museum-election-perspectives/)

He first highlighted the limitations of an online survey, but suggested that the limitations could be mitigated with a high number of respondents. 2,051 responded to his survey, of which 1,756 voted, and of which 1,609 voted for an opposition party. With such a skewed sample, he decided to focus his survey analysis on respondents who voted for an opposition party.

Mr Au found that the breakdown of respondents in the sample closely matched the vote share obtained by the various opposition parties. With that, he proceeded to describe the results of his survey.

Among those whose 1st choice was an opposition party, 71.5% chose the Workers’ Party (WP), followed by the SDP with 24.6%. The survey also indicated that respondents rated both the WP and the SDP highly for their principles and proposals, and also the quality/likability of their candidates, when deciding their vote. However, he noted that the SDP’s vote share was lower than the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and Singapore People’s Party (SPP), even though the 2 parties had a lower rating than the SDP in the earlier survey questions.

He next placed the different political parties on a chart with two axes, representing the attributes of free-market/socialism and liberalism/conservatism. His hypothesis was that the SDP had a lower vote share, as it was ideologically furthest away from the PAP, which was also where most voters were located. With voters not keen to change too much at one go, it meant that fewer voters were keen to vote for SDP.

...

For a full report, and links to videos, texts and powerpoint views of the talks, see here.

Joan Hon, daughter of Hon Sui Sen, on LKY

First note (source)


A reply to Catherine Lim's blog post (here), "The GE 2011 Political Demise of Lee Kuan Yew: A Supreme Irony"

by Joan Fong (a.k.a. Joan Hon)

May 18th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

Dear Catherine,

I read your commentary with some exasperation. It seems as if you have to make a wonderfully accurate commentary on all that is going on politically and go down in history for your sharp wit and perception. And to talk in terms of “downfall” with such relish so many times just got my goat.

He happens to be someone I know. In the past I have been with him a few times, not often, enough to be able to read his mind and make a comment that hit the nail on the head as to what he was pondering.

Take this as a woman’s instinct. The instinct of a woman who happens to like men, as part of the human race, as friends, and who feels for their welfare. And who care to makes them cushioned against things that are hurtful, especially to their ego.

Before his wife died and we visited for Chinese New Year, 2010, He let us (me and my sister) in to view his wife, someone who had always been on easy terms with me. I put my hand on her shoulder as she lay immobile and prayed over her.

He waited until I had finished, and then pointed to the wall behind me. “She chose this herself,” he said. I saw a large framed picture of the Virgin carrying the Child Jesus. And was astounded. She had in the past brought back a glass bust of the Virgin for my mother.

We went back to the dining table and indulged in some juicy gossip, none of it political. My nephew gave him this thing like a hamburger that his firm was selling, to show him something invented and made in Singapore.

In CNY 2011, he went down to our car to talk to my mother because she could not climb stairs anymore. She had been brought by us, her four daughters, to the wake at the Istana of a good friend without our telling her what it was all about, and she burst into tears when she realised what had happened. Loong and Yang were concerned and didn’t know how to placate her. Their father was not around. So, it was at this Chinese New Year visit, 2011, that she got to meet him.

She asked how Ling-Ling was, and she was called out from her computer to talk to her too.

He asked if she still went to Mass every day. She is now 94. We said yes for her as she is stone deaf. How does she go? he wanted to know. I said, “Oh, by taxi, with the maid.” My sister said to me later, “Idiot! We all go daily Mass and we take her there, and it is only on days she didn’t follow us in the morning that she takes a taxi.” It doesn’t matter. When you are growing old, details are immaterial.

I had just lost my husband to cancer half a year before that. He had just lost his wife. One can guess how he feels now at the vacuum in his life. I can also guess, most of his fire and confidence stemmed from her lively presence in his life.

She would say funny things to me like, “Look at me. If he didn’t marry me, nobody else would have!” and she actually doubled up in laughter. She used to shove yogurt into my mouth saying it is good for me. I hated yogurt and she never dug this truth out of me but fed me a second spoonful. She asked if I remember which room I used to stay in, in Oxley Road. I pointed to one of the middle rooms – that one!

When I bought a house, she was my lawyer, and said to me how stupid we were long ago, not to have bought our properties. “In those days, if we didn’t have the money, we just didn’t go and buy one. We didn’t want to borrow money, not even from the banks.”

When Loong lost his first wife, he was disconsolate. His father wished he had a religion or a God to carry him through this, my father said. I wrote him a long soulful letter on how we are all contingent beings, not responsible for our own existence on earth and who are journeying in this life with us. I said, if he didn’t believe in God, well, I did and will pray for him. God will compensate him for this tragedy.

His father told my father that I had a good heart, like my mother. That little remark meant that Loong must have snapped out of his mood.

In life, it is people that matter and not things. Things can go hang but it is the people who matter. If they are sad you lift them up. If they fall, one does not shout to all their lowly stance and describe their wounds with accuracy.

I am trying to say they are as human as you and me. And I have not spoken about our friendship with them, in case we give the idea we like to hobnob with the great. If now he has no power over the masses anymore, I would step forward and offer my support. I would do anything to boost his morale.

I sense now he is tired of everything, without his wife, even politics. It is time to step back. Will he be out of the picture completely? No, his opinion will still be sought and he will give it for what it is worth.

There are worse things in life he had suffered without having to worry about one GRC ward being lost. And if Loong can act as he thinks, and can promise to aim to corrent deficiencies, and thus swing votes for himself, he is doing all right. Time to put himself out to pasture. I don’t think he feels much sorrow leaving the picture.

Well, I might be wrong. It is my two cents worth. Now I too will return to the shadows. I have a late husband to muse over. And I wish you all the best and hope you are happy.

Joan

********************************************

Second note (source)


Somebody sent this to me, and I realised, my personal comment to Catherine, and nobody else, is being sent around and commented on.

Okay, what I was saying to Catherine is simply, LKY is a family friend and I gave her some insights into our interactions with him to say he is a human being with feelings. No matter what he has done, you don't hit a man when he is down, even if verbally.

It is not a humane thing to do. If you think MM was vicious towards other people, there is no need to be like him then, and be vicious to him. Just go through the letters that are in this site and you will see the degree of viciousness in the comments, which are not justified.

You want to talk about the Marxist conspirators? My nephew's wife was arrested. I was suffering along with him throughout the whole business. At the time I didn't know if there was or was no conspiracy and when in the end, it turned out these people were innocent, it was all-in-all a very regrettable thing.

Those who object are not old enough to see Communism coming down to the top of the Malay peninsula, according to what is called the Domino theory. This was something I was personally fearful about, to the point of wanting to emigrate. So, MM and the government are equally fearful, and hence the heavy handedness of their using the ISA to investigate things.

I was laughing at all the comments made. How you can condemn people without knowing what is true and what isn't.

For the record, my family of mother and three sisters and myself have been opposing government policies even before my father went into politics. It took MM 10 years to persuade him to stand for election. Articles always called him the reluctant politician.

Ok. I didn't like anything against human rights. And morality. I didn't like the way they told people to have two children only. And I can demarcate between actions that you can blame on the government and those you have to blame on the people who execute the policies. It was the nurses who scolded women who were having their third child in KK Hospital that I found distasteful.

And then Catholic schools lost the right of admitting who they wanted to admit. If you have three or more children you lose your right of admission.

If you have to blame the government for anything, look at the policy, look at those who put forth the policy and then look at the people on the ground carrying this out, and then decide who you really want to hate.

Next, if you were Singaporean and married a foreigner of low education, your spouse was barred from living in Singapore. Something I found stupid, inhumane and distasteful.

Next was the abortion policy. This was the thing I could not stand, wrote umpteen letters to the press and none were printed.

So after my Dad had passed away and I could not then disgrace him with my doings, I wrote an Open Letter to the PM (at that time LKY) with a copy of the video Silent Scream, and a picture of babies all bloody and mangled in buckets. I sent a copy of these to all MP's.

My argument, I told PM, was not based on religion. It was from pure humane considerations. It was also from common morality. Why should it be a crime if the baby is born and you kill it, but it is lawful before it is born?

I told him of a remark overheard in a shopping mall: "Have a good time man! Just give her five dollars!" I swung round to see who said that and it was a boy talking to her friends, all of whom looked around 13 years old. This is what abortion is doing to their morals. It is just Casanova's charter. More girls can be taken advantage of without the boy being at risk of being held responsible.

People get confused. Is this right or wrong, morally -- to kill a baby in the womb? Why are we doing it if it is wrong? As usual we imitate the West slavishly. Roe vs Wade in America. The decision that unlocked the flood of abortions we have now.

The next consideration I told PM, was that we need manpower. The reduction of births will only lead to economic consequences that are bad for the nation. Now, see the 1.2 fertility rate? I rest my case.

It is too late for me to add this to that letter, but I can't help adding this point now. Why are we giving parents something like $20,000 for every child they bear, plus maternity benefits, but we are still aborting babies. Isn't it time to rethink the policy?

For the record, my Dad, Hon Sui Sen, was the first President or CEO(Chairman?) of DBS. His salary was a princely chiak-buay-leow amount of $10,000 per month. At that time, Goh Keng Swee was a very sick man and my Dad did most of his work. This is the Civil Service. The boss gets the credit. So, LKY persuaded him to stand for election, something he had no interest in and would prefer to die than to do it. He had a fear of public speaking. But he agreed.

His pay fell to $3,000 per month. All the other Ministers also earned $3,000 per month. PM earned a little more -- $3,500 per month. This was when he went on record in the press saying he was a kept man! The year was 1970. By 1983, when he had a heart attack and died, my Dad earned $14,000 per month. I read in the papers that Malaysian Ministers earned $18,000 per month. The ringgit was not far off our Singapore dollar. Don't forget we were kicked out and had nothing in those days to make our dollar worth much.

Next thing that riled me - those casinos. All religious heads are dealing in their respective religions with the terrible problems of addictive gambling. All these head begged not to have casinos. I'm sure those in Parliament had a ding-dong verbal battle over it too. I'm sure, reading MM's mind again, he would rather NOT have them. His own father was ruined by gambling, he said.

So why are we having the casinos now? To get jobs for 35,000 people. I can bet you the gambling addiction will in future send more than 35,000 people to ruin. Counting bankrupt addicts and their family members. And this number will grow and grow with time, but the 35,000 jobs will stagnate. To help these people find jobs you ruin a larger number of people.

I read Lily Neo's speech in Parliament and was filled with rage at the thought -- there are the poor people and there are the high salaries of the rich. I am not one of these rich. Retired without pension. Coupled by the fact that an old retainer of ours (meaning someone who had worked for us at home for his whole life) was sick together with his wife. Two people who would be bankrupted by it. We contributed a five-figure sum to help out.

The PAP are right in recognising that it is not the poor fighting for themselves now. The middle class and rich can recognise how terrible is their plight and where injustice lies and are putting their money where their mouth is. There are MPs who give their MP earnings to the poor. I hear Lily Neo is one of them.

I hate to report that I have been shooting my mouth off to PAP MPs who came calling. "You just wait. You won't know what has hit you when the results are out!" I let loose about arrogance, over earnings, my Dad and his poor pay. When MM said something about this generation having forgotten about the Old Guard and what they did, I wanted to say, the Old Guard didn't pay themselves fabulous sums of money, and they didn't start casinos, or let Mas Selamat escape or foul up the roads with traffic.

But they started abortion. And we gave it to my Dad at meal-times and my mother said he had better leave the PAP, and the poor man kept quiet and never let on his own stand on the matter. Look, if I can let MM know my mind regarding abortion {he replied saying he wanted people to have their choice, but lowered the permitted period for abortion from 6 to 3 months} do you think I want to make a show of knowing him well or his family?

What I am able to do is -- disagree with him, tell him so, but in nice terms. I don't have to hate him or the PAP. Right now I feel we have won our right to speak our minds without having to bear grudges and hate anybody at all. Or be rude to them when you do not agree.

One thing Singaporeans have not really fully cultivated yet is being magnanimous. I count myself guilty too sometimes. How to disagree without being disagreeable? It simply makes a bad show of ourselves and after that nobody will listen to us.

Joan Hon

PAP vote shares by wards in Aljunied GRC

(source: Asia One)

PAP's weakest links in Aljunied

Sources told The Straits Times that the lowest scoring division was Mrs Lim Hwee Hua's Serangoon, which garnered about 40 per cent of the votes.

Next up was Madam Cynthia Phua's Paya Lebar division. This was followed by Mr George Yeo's Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division and Mr Ong Ye Kung's Kaki Bukit division. And then came Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed's Eunos division.

All scored below 50 per cent, with Mr Zainul doing better by scrapping under with between 1,000 and 2,000 votes.

Heeding Catherine Lim after seventeen years

The little article that rocked Singapore

MARK MacKINNON

SINGAPORE— From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Friday, May. 20, 2011 7:19PM EDT (source)

(extract)

That little article was published in the fall of 1994 in Singapore’s Straits-Times newspaper. In it, Ms. Catherine Lim – until then best known as a novelist – committed the shocking act of pointing out that while the long-ruling PAP had done a good job running Singapore’s economy, it had done little to endear itself to those it governed. “There is very little in the way of affectionate regard,” she wrote.

It was a truth the government didn’t want to hear. In the weeks that followed (and particularly after she wrote an equally blunt follow-up column), Ms. Lim was attacked in print and in person by the government of then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong, who accused her of “demolishing the respect for and standing of the Prime Minister and his government by systematic contempt and denigration in the media” – a serious accusation in a country where government critics often wound up defending themselves in court on charges of libel, or worse.

Suddenly, Ms. Lim’s columns weren’t welcomed by the Straits Times any more. She was told that she had angered the country’s paramount political figure, Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s authoritarian founder who once said “if you are a trouble maker … it’s our job to politically destroy you.”

“I understand [why the government was angry]. I knew that what I had done – which seemed innocuous to Western eyes – was to them a gross violation of the Confucianist ethos” of respecting your seniors and superiors, Ms. Lim explained in an interview Friday.

Flash forward to 2011, and Ms. Lim has reason for her good humour. The recent elections – which saw a best-ever result for the opposition – saw criticism of the government become commonplace on the Internet and particularly on social-media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. During the campaign, Ms. Lim, who now blogs on her own website (catherinelim.sg), saw her writing “go viral, I think that’s the word,” she says with another giggle. Political scientists credit her with helping get out the youth vote, which swung heavily behind the opposition.

Young voters (aged 21.0 to 25.9) were responsible for 4.5% vote swing in 2011 Elections

Following the line of analysis (here) where I concluded that the young (aged 21.0 to 25.9, i.e. first-time of-age) internet-savvy voters will provide a 4.8% vote swing to the Alternative Parties in the 2016 Elections, I now analyze the extent to which the first-time of-age (FTOA) voters influenced the 2011 Elections.

I break the 2011 electorate up into three groups: first-time of-age (FTOA,  9.55% of electorate), new citizens (NC, 2.79%) and the older voters (OV, 87.66%). [For simplicity, I assume that no voter belongs to both FTOA and NC.]

The overall vote swing of the entire electorate to the Alternatives was 6.46% (=66.60%-60.14%).

Assuming that the internet-savvy FTOA are 90% pro-Alternatives (here), and NC are 90% pro-PAP (here), then OV are 64.65% pro-PAP (in order for the overall electorate to be 60.14% pro-PAP).

Thus, the vote swing among OV towards the Alternatives is a mere 1.95% (=66.60%-64.65%), compared with the overall vote swing of 6.46% towards the Alternatives.

FTOA are in fact responsible for 4.51% (=6.46%-1.95%) of the 6.46% vote swing.

This conclusion highlights the great importance of the internet and the youth in the recent election. To achieve electoral victory, Alternative Parties must win the battle for the  hearts and minds of our youth.


My calculations

There are 2,350,873 voters in 2011 (here).

The 2010 census (here) shows 224539 citizens aged 20.0-24.9 . I take this as an estimate of the number of FTOA. Hence, FTOA is 9.55% (=224539/23508730) of the electorate.

Next, I estimate the number of NC.

There are 2,350,873  voters in 2011, and 3,230,700 citizens in the 2010 census (here).

Dividing the first number by the second, 72.77% of citizens are voters.

According to figures from the Home Affairs Ministry, nearly 90,000 foreigners became new citizens between 2006 and 2010.

The number of new citizen voters (NC) is therefore 90000x 72.77%=65493 ~ 65500.

NC comprises 2.79% (=65500/2350873)  of the 2011 electorate.

All voters other than FTOA and NC are grouped as OV which is therefore 87.66% of the electorate.

Assuming that FTOA are 90% pro-Alternatives, and NC are 90% pro-PAP, then (in order for the overall electorate to be 60.14% pro-PAP) OV must be 64.65% pro-PAP.


This statement can be verified as follows:

9.55x0.1  + 2.79x0.9 + 87.66x0.6465 = 100x0.6014

  [FTOA: 9.55% of electorate, 10% pro-PAP;

    NC: 2.79% of electorate, 90% pro-PAP; etc]

Demographic advantage of 4.8% vote swing to Opposition in 2016 Elections

by Helluo Librorum

It is clear, from various online polls conducted during and after the recent General Elections, that Singaporean netizens are overwhelmingly pro-Alternative (Opposition) Parties (i.e. against PAP). Consistently, over 90% of the netizens support the Alternatives in these polls.

[Of particular significance are two online surveys:

Yawning Bread's post-polling-day survey (here and here) shows 7.05% (122) voted for PAP, and 92.95% (1609) voted for Alternatives.

Stephan Ortmann (City University of Hong Kong)'s pre-polling-day survey (here) shows  5.83% (78)  pro_PAP, and 94.17% (1260) pro-Alternatives.

Using various internal indicators, I think these surveys capture representative samples of internet-savvy Singaporeans, which I think the vast majority of future young voters will be.]

Netizens are disproportionately younger than the general electorate.

In five years' time, a new cohort of internet-savvy young people will have become new voters, and be predisposed to vote for the Alternatives.

This demographic factor naturally favours the Alternatives. But how big an advantage is it?

My rough estimate is that, assuming that the new 2016 voters are 90% pro-Alternatives, while the old voters (already voting in 2011) remain 39.86% pro-Alternatives, then the 2016 voters overall will be 44.62% pro-Alternatives, a significant swing of 4.76% towards the Alternatives.

Hence, there is a demographic advantage of a 4.8% vote swing to the Alternatives in 2016.

Persuading voters beyond the reach of the internet to support the Alternatives is crucial and laborious. On the other hand, reaching young voters via the internet is far easier, and extremely important, in terms of the sheer number of young voters.

[Remark

Even though new voters provide a significant boost to the Alternative vote share, the old voters remain indispensable in any Alternative Party's electoral victory.

For an Alternative Party to obtain 50%, 55%, 60% of the total vote share, it must have 45.8%, 51.3%, and 56.9% (respectively) share of the old voters. ]

My calculations

First, I estimate the number of new 2016 voters.

The 2010 census (here) shows 243141 citizens aged 15.0-19.9.  New 2016 voters were aged 15.5 to 20.5 during the census.  So I take 243141 as the number of new voters.

(The census show 263750 residents (citizens and PR) aged 15.0-19.9, and 263017 residents aged 16.0-20.9. Thus the number of residents aged 15.5-20.5 can be fairly accurately estimated using either number.)

Next, how many voters will there be in 2016?

From 2001 to 2006, voter number increased by 6.029%. From 2006 to 2011, voter number increased by 8.851% to 2,350,873. (source)

Assuming 8.85% increase from 2011 to 2016, there will be 2,558,925 voters in 2016.

New voters will therefore be 9.50% (=243141/2558925) of the 2016 voters.

Assume that these 9.5% new voters are 90% pro-Alternatives, and the remaining 90.5% old voters are  39.86% pro-Alternatives, then overall the 2016 voters are 44.62% pro-Alternatives. (9.5x90+90,5x39.86=4462.33)

Related post: Young voters (aged 21.0 to 25.9) were responsible for 4.5% vote swing in 2011 Elections (here)

How Singaporeans made electoral history in 2011 (a video album)

 

Time for the hatchet to be buried

The Temasek Review (source)

The late opposition politician J B Jeyaretnam was viciously persecuted for his opposition to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's PAP

“Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That’s the way I had to survive in the past.”


Those by-now infamous words were uttered by then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew with reference to his bête noir, the late opposition leader J B Jeyaretnam. They came to aptly symbolise the PAP’s hard-line approach to politics under Mr Lee’s stewardship – if you voice your dissent too openly, you must be prepared to be destroyed.

To Mr Lee’s credit, he never tried to disguise his intolerance of those who refused to toe the line. As a leader, he preferred to be feared than loved – in fact, he once remarked that “if nobody is afraid of me, I am meaningless”. By the time their quarrel was over, Mr Jeyaretnam, a former judge and senior lawyer, had been bankrupted, jailed, expelled from Parliament not once but twice, and reduced to hawking his self-published books on the streets in order to eke out a living.


And what crime did he commit? He disagreed with Lee Kuan Yew, and dared to do so openly. Instead of restricting his fire to the policies introduced by Mr Lee’s PAP, he took aim at the system which Singapore’s founding father had introduced. He held the belief that Mr Lee had amassed so much power that he was veritably a dictator. And to compound his offence, he managed to win over the support of the people – twice defeating PAP candidates in his ward of Anson to become the first-ever opposition MP in the post-independence era.

Mr Lee was so vexed by Mr Jeyaretnam’s electoral victories that he ranted to President C V Devan Nair, who would later recount his chilling words: “Look, Jeyaretnam cant win the infighting. I’ll tell you why. We are in charge. Every government ministry and department is under our control. And in the infighting, he will go down for the count every time. I will make him crawl on his bended knees, and beg for mercy.”

Mr Jeyaretnam was just one of the many people to end up broken by Mr Lee’s sharp hatchet. Francis Seow, a former solicitor-general of Singapore, was detained without trial and subjected to torture before being forced to flee into self-imposed exile.

Tang Liang Hong, who ran alongside Mr Jeyaretnam in Cheng San GRC in 1997, suffered the same fate after being bankrupted; even Mrs Tang was not spared. Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, remains a bankrupt to this day, rendering him unable to contest any elections.

And that’s without even getting started on the long list of political detainees who were locked up under the draconian Internal Security Act as part of Operation Cold Store – including Chia Thye Poh, Lim Hock Siew, Said Zahari, Poh Soo Kai and Mr Lee’s own PAP co-founder, Lim Chin Siong.

Mr Lee’s supporters and apologists have argued that such repressive action was necessary in Singapore’s formative years because there was no room for dissenting views in the nation’s relentless drive towards economic prosperity. Yesterday, Mr Lee announced that he would be stepping down from the cabinet in acknowledgement of the fact that Singapore has evolved beyond him. He said that he did not want to impede the efforts of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to transform the PAP into a more caring party that truly listens to the voices of the people.

Indeed, many have observed that Mr Lee’s tough style no longer resonates, especially with the younger generation of Singaporeans. His threat that the voters of Aljunied GRC would have to “repent for five years” if they chose to vote against the PAP has been seen as the nail in the coffin that sealed victory for the Workers’ Party – the first time that any opposition party has managed to win a GRC.

One of the defeated candidates, Zainul Abidin Rasheed, said that Mr Lee’s comments about the Malay-Muslim community had been extremely hurtful and offensive, even though Mr Lee himself insisted that they had not cost his party any votes.

Mr Lee’s decision to step down cannot have been made without consideration of these factors. With the advent of the internet, Singaporeans in their 20s and 30s are more expressive, individualistic and sophisticated than ever before.

The climate of fear that Mr Lee created during his years in power has all but dissipated, and with it has gone the culture of deference that a once-compliant electorate had towards its government. PM Lee himself made this clear when he said that the PAP had to be the servants rather than masters of the people; this marks a gargantuan shift from his father’s constant refrain of “only we know what’s best for you”.

If the Prime Minister is truly serious about moving towards a more inclusive and compassionate society, then the PAP itself must evolve towards being more tolerant of dissenting views. The new generation leadership has made baby steps towards this – the establishment of the Speakers’ Corner and the increase in the number of Non-Constituency MPs from three to nine being cases in point. However, this all runs the risk of being perceived as tokenism on the part of the PAP – some have even said that it is nothing but “wayang” – if PM Lee does not send a clear signal that the era of hatchet-man politics is well and truly over.

He can start to do this by discharging Dr Chee Soon Juan from bankruptcy and allowing him to contest in elections once again. After all, Dr Chee’s creditors are none other than Mr Lee and Mr Goh Chok Tong themselves. If the PM has managed to persuade them to stand aside, convincing them to write off Dr Chee’s outstanding debts will be a relatively simple task.

Next, he can do the same for Mr Tang Liang Hong and Mr Francis Seow, and give them assurances that they will not face further persecution if they choose to return to Singapore. Both men are already well into their seventies and are unlikely to participate in politics any further than they already have, so by allowing them to return, PM Lee has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Apart from this, he should discontinue his father’s policy of linking municipal upgrading to votes.

This approach has been roundly criticised by voters as being unfair and unconstitutional, and quite frankly the people of Hougang and Potong Pasir have already suffered enough in order for the PAP to make its point.

The policy is roundly detested by all Singaporeans, and has actually done more damage than good to the image of the party. Aljunied MP Pritam Singh said that his friends had previously asked him to serve the country by joining the PAP; he refused because he believed that “no self-respecting Singaporean could possibly join a party that is so morally reprehensible” as to link upgrading to votes. (Hear! Hear!)

Even without any fancy titles or million dollar salary, Mr Lee Kuan Yew – at the ripe old age of 87 – can still continue to play a role in Singapore politics. He continues to enjoy a stature that is unparalleled both within the country and beyond. But if Singapore is to progress into a more mature and sophisticated society, his hatchet needs to be well and truly buried, and buried for good.

Only then will Singaporeans be completely convinced that the PAP is serious about transformation, and that all this talk is not merely a knee-jerk response to its poorest electoral performance in nearly 50 years.
.
Nigel Tan

* Nigel is the chief editor of the Satay Club and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) from Cambridge University, and worked in the UK for three years prior to returning to Singapore in early 2009. He is currently a professional in the financial services industry.

Great political speeches (from Malaysia) in Mandarin

I stumbled across the fascinating political speeches (in Mandarin) of Nga Kor Ming (Wikipedia), a Malaysian opposition politician. His passion and eloquence are exemplary.  I hope our opposition politicians in Singapore might learn something from him. 

Background: Malaysian General Election 2008 (Wikipedia).

PAP's unready recruit in battle: Goh Chok Tong's analogy

The Temasek Review (source)

(extract)

One of the more interesting things about GE 2011 is how old school PAP politicians like Goh Chok Tong found the Internet like the way a sinner found religion. In scanning the various blogs, I came across the following from Mr Miyagi (http://miyagi.sg/2011/05/goh-chok-tong-analogy-contest )
of the Mr Brown Show fame. Apparently, the former SM had posted the following analogy about Tin Pei Ling:

Dear Yvonne Chia,

Think of this analogy. I was given a recruit who was assessed to have the potential to be a good soldier. The platoon had to capture a hill. The recruit came under a hail of bullets. As platoon leader, I had to protect him, even at the risk of my own life.

Am I being stubborn or deaf? Or did I not do the honorable thing expected of a platoon leader?

That the recruit could have been better prepared for the mission or be an older, more experienced recruit is a separate point. I am aware of the widespread unhappiness at sending this recruit to the platoon. But I would say, now that the recruit has survived the ordeal of battle, let him prove that he can be a good soldier…


Goh Chok Tong

I was stumped when I read what Goh Chok Tong had posted. I had never expected him to be so open about his frustration and his distaste for Tin Pei Ling.

*******

After the results of Marine Parade GRC were announced, Goh Chok Tong planted the blame for the poor election results directly and firmly on Tin Pei Ling.

“Rightly or wrongly, she has been given that negative image from the very start — but maybe because of her youth as well. I mean, she was a factor.”

He then went on to say how her youth and inexperience made many people unhappy that she had been elected an MP.

“And the main thing is she has got through. And that’s the reason why people are unhappy – that such a young and inexperienced person has got through.”

On the future, Goh Chok Tong was blunt in saying that if she did not buck up, she would be a negative factor that could perhaps cost the PAP Marine Parade GRC next time round. He gave her 3 years to show substantive improvement.

“In politics, it’s transcient. We have five years. If after five years, Tin Pei Ling remains what she is, then of course, she would still be a factor at the next election.

“But at this stage, looking at her action, in three years time, she would be a different Tin Pei Ling”.



I seriously doubt if Tin Pei Ling can make the necessary improvements within the next 3 years. Being the iconic symbol of everything that is wrong with the PAP, she is likely to continue to be the object of derision and ridicule. Given her track record of causing such a large swing in a supposedly safe GRC anchored by perhaps the most popular senior PAP politician, which Minister will dare have her on his GRC team in 2016?


Thoughts of a Singapore Statistician