Do casinos cause Singaporeans to gamble away more money?

According to the following report, prior to 2010 when the casinos opened, the Singapore government (i.e. the Tote Board) collected S$500 million annually  in gambling surplus (which I take to be gambling revenue (after subtracting payouts) less operating and other expenses). In the absence of financial statements from the Tote Board, this serves as an indicator of the magnitude of the pre-casino gambling economy in Singapore.

The reductioin in the Tote Board's gambling surplus due to the newly opened casinos was more than made up for by the casino entry levy. This implies that the money that the locals saved through the reduced playing of 4D, Toto, etc, went to the casino entry levy (and not to their gambling losses at the casinos).

Therefore the gambling revenue (estimated at US$3.06 billion, or S$4.3 billion, in 2010; here) that the casinos collected from the locals is money that, in the absence of the casinos, would not have gone into gambling. Casinos cause Singaporeans to gamble away a great deal more money (S$4.3 billion).

Contrary to the following report, the casinos and the Tote Board are not in a zero-sum game, competing for a greater share of a fixed-size local gambling pie. The local gambling pie has in fact been growing at a furious pace since the casinos opened.

The casinos serve to significantly expand Singapore's local gambling economy.

*******************
I have previously tried to estimate the magnitude of local casino gambling (here). The following report provided some data for further analysis.

My estimate is that 26% (1 in 4) of the local adults gambled at the casinos in 2010. On average, each of them lost S$6000 at the casinos, and S$195 in entry levy, in 2010.


How I estimated

The casino entry levy (S$100 a day, S$2000 a year) in 2010 amounted to S$140 million.

[ps.
According to the government, casino entry levy amounted to about S$70 million as of May 10, 2010 (after the operation for 3 months of one casino, and 2 weeks of the other) (source). The figure of S$140 million for 10.5 months (in 2010) of casino operation is therefore suspiciously low. ]

If every local gambler paid the daily levy (and none paid the yearly levy), then 1.4 million locals gambled in 2010.

However, let's assume that, of the local gamblers, 5% are serious gamblers and paid the yearly levy, and the remaining 95% paid the daily levy once in 2010.

Thus, on average, each local gambler paid S$195 in entry levy (5%x2000+95%x100=$195).

Therefore, there were 720,000 local casino gamblers in 2010. (To verify: 717950x$195=$140,000,250) This amounts to 26% of the 2.8 million local residents (citizens and PR) aged 21 and above.

(Since there are gamblers who paid the daily levy more than once, 720,000 is an overestimate. For simplicity, I did not further refine this estimate.)

The locals account for US$3.06 billion in casino gambling revenue, and 15.6 million casino visits in 2010 (here).

Thus, on average, each of the 720,000 local gamblers made 21.7 casino visits and lost US$4250 (S$6000, or S$570 a month, for 10.5 months) at the casinos, and S$195 in entry levy, in 2010.

The very high number (21.7) of casino visits is explained by the fact that, even with a daily levy (valid for 24 hours), a local can account for multiple casino visits, with each re-entry counted as a separate visit.

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

Casino levies boost Tote Board’s surplus
  –Angela Lim, Yahoo Fit to Post, February 11th, 2011 (source)

The Singapore Tote Board will be giving away S$625 million to beneficiaries.

It seems gamblers in Singapore have left their old favourites behind for the latest game in town.

Toto, 4D and horse-racing have seen a drop in takings since the opening of the two integrated resorts (IRs) in February and April last year.

Takings from the Singapore Turf Club were the hardest hit, suffering a 30 per cent drop while Singapore Pools’ takings dipped by 3 to 5 per cent, according to the chairman of the Singapore Totalisator Board (Tote Board), Bobby Chin.

And yet, this has not stopped the Tote Board from doubling its financial commitment to charities.

Its collections from casino levies more than made up for the shortfall, prompting it to announce on Thursday that it will be giving away S$625 million, according to a Straits Times report.

Two of the Tote Board’s major beneficiaries — the Tote Board Community Healthcare Fund and the Community Chest – received S$100 million and S$50 million respectively. The cheque presentation ceremony was held at the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) auditorium on Thursday.

“We have been affected in some ways by the casinos, but nevertheless, because the Government has directed the levy to the Tote Board, it means additional quantum and additional ability and capability to help fund-worthy projects,” Mr Chin said.

Collections from casino levies made up around S$140 million of the Tote Board’s gaming surpluses between April and December last year. This amount is expected to rise at the end of the financial year 2010 in March 31.

The entry levy is what Singapore citizens and permanent residents have to pay to enter the two casinos — S$100 a day or S$2,000 a year.

Ministers of Parliament (MPs) and industry watchers have since raised concerns about the effectiveness of the current levy and are proposing a review of current casino levies.

Before the casinos opened, the Tote Board made about S$500 million on average in annual gambling surpluses. The surplus was used to fund community projects.

But industry experts say the drop in forms of gambling like horse betting, 4D and lotteries was not unexpected.

Dr Derek da Cunha, author of Singapore Places Its Bets, a book about the two IRs and their economic and social impact, said,”I’ve always said that it’s a . The casinos will inevitably affect and cannibalise some other forms of gambling.”

He added that, in comparison to games like 4D and Toto, casino table games offer gamblers better odds.

“Some casino table games offer better odds. This explains why a proportion of people have migrated from the turf club to the table games at the two IRsda Cunha explained.

Mr Carey Wong, an analyst with OCBC Investment Research, said, “The integrated resorts are meant for foreigners — and the Government has said so many times — but the numbers show that Singaporeans have been going to the casinos.”

Although the surplus last year was boosted by the casino levies, Mr Chin said it is too early to tell if the trend will continue.

“We hope to maintain the same level of commitment, but you have to assess the quantum at a steady state. The initial six months to a year, there is a novelty effect. It is not reflective of what is going to happen in the future,” he said.

NCSS, which will receive an undisclosed sum from Community Chest’s S$50 million kitty, plans to increase the number of family service centres (FSC) from 37 to 42 by 2015, and improving the human aspects of the FSCs to provide the same standard of service across its centres.

The organisation’s chief executive officer, Ang Bee Lian, said,”We are quite clear that we want to position FSCs as, what I sometimes call, social polyclinics. We want FSCs to be your first stop, a convenient stop, for social issues that families face.”

Stressing the importance of the quality of intervention, Ms Ang said, “It’s intervention that counts. It’s not about the facility but really the quality of the interaction with the social worker, the counsellor, even the receptionists.”

How much money are Singaporeans gambling away at the casinos?

According to CNBC (see below), the gross gaming revenue of the two Singapore casinos is US$5.1 billion in 2010. Projected 2011 gaming revenue range from $6.4 billion (25% rise from 2010) to an astounding $8.1 billion (60% rise from 2010).

[Resorts World Sentosa casino opened on Feb 14, 2010. Marina Bay Sands casino opened on April 27, 2010. Therefore the 2010 gaming revenue was collected in 10.5 months.]

Locals account for 60% of the gamblers. Assuming that they also account for 60% of the money lost to the casinos, then locals gambled away US$3.06 billion (=5.1bn x 60%) in 2010.

There are 2,802,269 adult residents (citizens and PR) aged 21 or older (2010 Census).

Thus, on average, each adult resident gambled away US$1090 (S$1500, at 2010 conversion rate) at the casinos in 2010.

There were 26 million visitors to the casinos in 10.5 months in 2010. (Equivalently, 81,000 visitors every day; or 56 visitors every minute, day and night.) About 60%, or 15.6 million, are locals. So, on average, each adult resident made 5.6 casino visits.

In summary, on average, each local made 5.6 casino visits and lost S$1500  in 2010.

Of course, only a fraction of Singapore residents actually gambled at the casinos. Therefore an average local gambler lost much more than $1500 at the casinos.

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

[ps. A 2008 Survey on Gambling Participation Among Singapore Residents (conducted by the government, here) shows that 54% of Singapore residents aged 18 and above gambled.

Let's assume that besides these 54%, another 11% of adult residents also gambled at the casinos, out of curiosity, in 2010. Therefore 65% (nearly 2 in 3) of adult Singapore residents (1,821,500) accounted for the casino visits and gaming revenues stated earlier.

Thus, each local gambler, on average, made 8.6 casino visits, and lost US$1680 (S$2350, or $225 a month, for 10.5 months) in 2010.]

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

[pps. Further data (here) suggest that only 26% (and not 65%, as I guessed above) of the 2.8 million adult local residents gambled at the casinos.

Consequently, on average, each local gambler made 21.7 casino visits and lost US$4250 (S$6000, or S$570 a month, for 10.5 months) in 2010.]

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

The answer to the related question of how much Singapore gamblers lose annually to Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club, i.e. to the government, is not made public (see here).

Singapore On Track to Overtake Vegas as Second-Largest Gaming Center

CNBC, May 7, 2011 (source)

(extract)

Twelve months into business and Singapore’s first two casino resorts Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa have already won the jackpot for the island country. The two generated gross gaming revenue of $5.1 billion dollars in 2010.

This year Royal Bank of Scotland forecasts revenue is set to rise by 25 percent to $6.4 billion, placing Singapore on track to overtake the Las Vegas Strip, which is forecast to earn $6.2 billion. That would make the island nation, the world's second biggest gaming center behind Macau.

Analysts say the voracious appetite for gambling among Asians and their growing wealth will drive momentum in Singapore's casino sector for years to come. This is a stark contrast from the Strip, which has seen a slump in revenues for four consecutive months.

The 2,561-room luxury hotel Marina Bay Sands, which has a 200-meter-tall, boat-shaped SkyPark and a lavish casino equipped with 500 gaming tables, attracted more than 11 million visitors over the past year — 885,000 guests walked through its doors over just four days of the Chinese New Year holiday in February.

Marina Bay Sands reported net revenue of $560 million in the three months to December, $457 million (82%) of this amount was generated by the casino alone. “Our recent financial results show that Marina Bay Sands is on track on all fronts, even surpassing our original expectations,” commented Mr. Leven, President and COO of parent company Las Vegas Sands.

The success of the casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson’s Singapore venture has helped put Las Vegas Sands back on track after a bankruptcy scare three years ago.

Its rival, Resorts World Sentosa, has seen measurable success welcoming 15 million visitors last year. The family focused casino-resort generated revenue of $623 million in the fourth quarter, over 80 percent came from gaming alone.

While the success of Resorts World Sentosa has been positive for Malaysian-based parent company Genting Group, it has stolen the limelight from the corporation’s own Resorts World Genting, located outside Kuala Lumpur, which was one of the first casinos to open in the Southeast Asian market. Resorts World Genting saw a notable fall in foreign visitors last year, causing its net profit to decline by 3.6 percent in 2010.

Gaming analyst Jonathan Galaviz of Galaviz & Company believes that Singapore’s reputation as a safe and corruption-free global city has been key in boosting its competitive advantage in Asia’s casino industry.

The blazing performance of the Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa is also in large part due to the patronage of local Singaporeans, who made up about 60 percent of the casino customers last year, despite a S$100 ($79) entrance fee imposed by the government to act as a deterrent. “I don’t mind the $100 fee because I just go in and win it back,” says 24-year old Singaporean civil servant who frequents the casino once or twice a week.

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

However, both Fischer and Hung believe that junkets will eventually get licensed given the very significant business opportunity. “We estimate Singapore gaming revenues of $8.1 billion next year — we see up to 50 percent upside to these estimates should a number of high quality junkets operate in Singapore,” Fischer concluded.


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

The Marina Bay Sands reported earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of $284.5 million for the three months ended March 2011, down from $391.3 million in the September-December 2010 period.     (source)

Comparing influence of alternative and main stream media in Singapore

Using the web traffic data from Alexa (here), I examine the relative influence of the alternative media (AM, reporting Opposition political views) vs the main stream media (MSM) in Singapore.

My conclusion is that the relative online influence of MSM to AM is somewhere between 4:3 (MSM at weakest) and 7:3 (MSM at strongest).

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

Speculation on the Netizens

After mulling over the numbers, I offer here a speculative breakdown of the electorate into Netizens (referring to netizens who are interested in socio-political issues; they are overwhelmingly pro-Alternatives) and non-Netizens.

Though the internet penetration rate in Singapore is 77.82% (here), I think only 30% of the electorate read English language MSM/AM online. Of these, 1/3 read AM. We define Netizens to be these AM readers, who constitute 10% of the electorate.

(There are thus 235,000 Netizens. Of relevance is the fact that Nicole Seah has 103,800 likes at 6:30 pm on May 21, 2011.)

85% of the Netizens (10% of the electorate) and 35% of the non-Netizens (90% of the electorate) voted for the Alternatives.  Thus 40% of the entire electorate voted for the Alternatives. (0.1x0.85+0.9x0.35=0.4)

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



The two graphs (above) show the global daily reach (user numbers) and pageviews over the last month (April 18-May 19) of :

• the most popular main stream media site: Channel News Asia (CNA),
• the main alternative news-and-opinions sites: The Temasek Review (TR) and The Online Citizen (TOC), 
• the most popular Alternative Parties online: The Workers' Party (WP) and the SDP.

The following table gives the Alexa data for the last month.

PV=pageviews. The percentages are global percentages. CNA has a greater presence outside Singapore than the other four sites, and its Singapore percentages should be somewhat lower (but not significantly, I suspect) than its global percentages.  Reach* and PV* are reach(%) and PV(%) scaled to make the CNA figures 100.

	reach (%)	reach*	PV (%)	PV*
CNA	0.03590	100.00	0.00139	100.00
TR	0.01530	42.62	0.00046	33.09
TOC	0.01114	31.03	0.00028	20.14
WP	0.00570	15.88	0.00015	10.79
SDP	0.00400	11.14	0.00010	7.19

If the main stream media (MSM, represented by CNA) reaches 100 people online, then the alternative media (AM, represented by TR)  reaches 42.62 people.

Scenario 1

If all 42.64 people who read TR also read CNA, then only 57.36 (=100-42.62) people out of 100 are exclusive MSM readers.

In this case, the relative influence of MSM to AM can be crudely estimated to be 57.36% : 42.64%, or about 4:3.  In other words, among the online Singaporeans, 4/7 are exclusively MSM readers, and 3/7 read AM as well as MSM.

Scenario 2

In the other extreme, if no CNA reader reads TR, and no TR reader reads CNA, then the relative influence of MSM to AM can be estimated to be 100.00 : 42.64, or 70.11%:29.89%,  i.e. 7:3.

In conclusion, the relative online influence of MSM to AM is somewhere between 4:3 (MSM at weakest) and 7:3 (MSM at strongest).

Internet reach by age groups: Singapore politics and demographics

Given the importance of the internet-savvy voters, who are likely to be overwhelmingly pro-Alternative Parties, in Singapore politics, I tried to gauge the internet reach (in the area of news and political opinions, as distinct from social networking, gaming, etc) in Singapore by age groups.

In the following Tables 2a, 2b, "Citizens" is the number of Singapore citizens, as obtained from the 2010 Census (here). "Respondents" is the sum of the numbers of respondents to two recent online political surveys (by Yawning Bread (here) and Stephan Ortmann (here)).

[Excursus

Reinforcing the reliability of the surveys is the fact that they agree remarkably well in the age distribution of their respondents (see Table 1).

Table 1

Age	Yawning Bread	Ortmann	combined
21-30	47.54%	47.48%	47.52%
31-40	34.89%	34.43%	34.70%
41-50	12.25%	11.77%	12.05%
51-60	4.22%	5.44%	4.73%
61-70	0.87%	0.80%	0.84%
>70	0.23%	0.08%	0.17%

end of Excursus]

Dividing "Respondents" by "Citizens" is a measure of the internet reach (in the area of news and political opinions). All the other numbers in Tables 2a and 2b are obtained by proportional scaling of this measure.

The next four columns (A, B, C, D) in Tables 2a and 2b show the internet reach (in percentage), assuming that the internet reach of the 21-30 age group is 100.0%, 90.0%, 80.0%, and 70.0% respectively.

For example, if we assume that the internet reaches 90.0% of the 21-30 age group (Column B), then it reaches 64.6% of the 31-40 age group, and 18.6% of the 41-50 age group.

However, if we assume that the internet reaches 80.0% of the 21-30 age group (Column C), then it reaches 57.4% of the 31-40 age group, and 16.6% of the 41-50 age group.

Internet penetration rate

According to this, as of June 2010, Singapore has 3,658,400 Internet users, 77.82% of the population of 4.701,069.

[On Mar 31, 2011, there were 2,478,720 Singapore Facebook users, 52.3% of the population.]

However, for the purpose of assessing internet reach in the area of news and political opinions, this figure of 77.82% is far too high, and misleading.

Assuming a rather high figure of 90.0% internet reach for the 21-30 age group (Column B), the internet reach for the entire citizenry (aged 21 and above) is only 33.7%, or about 1 in 3 (last row of Column B).

Examples of my calculation:

Internet reach for 21-30 group is 1416/429861= 0.003294

Internet reach for 31-40 group is 1034/437136= 0.002365

71.8% in Column A is obtained by 0.002365/0.003294=0.7180

64.6% in Column B is obtained by 0.7180x0.9=0.6462

Table 2a: Internet Reach by Age Group

Age (Year born)	Citizens	Respondents	A
21-30(1980-89)	429,861	1,416	100.0%
31-40(1970-79)	437,136	1,034	71.8%
41-50(1960-69)	526,075	359	20.7%
51-60(1950-59)	515,963	141	8.3%
61-70(1940-49)	289,668	25	2.6%
>70 (<1940)	219,182	5	0.7%
Total (>20 y.o.)	2,417,885	2,980	37.4%

Table 2b: Internet Reach by Age Group

Age (Year born)	B	C	D
21-30 (1980-89)	90.0%	80.0%	70.0%
31-40 (1970-79)	64.6%	57.4%	50.3%
41-50 (1960-69)	18.6%	16.6%	14.5%
51-60 (1950-59)	7.5%	6.6%	5.8%
61-70 (1940-49)	2.4%	2.1%	1.8%
>70 (<1940)	0.6%	0.6%	0.5%
Total (>20 y.o.)	33.7%	29.9%	26.2%

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)

Vote for change: What is PAP's vision for Singapore?

by Helluo Librorum

I believe that the long-term vision of the PAP for Singapore is to make Singapore into an open city, serving as the service and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing hub of the entire East Asian (China, Taiwan), South Asian (Indian subcontinent) and Southeast Asian super-region.

This vision entails the free flow, in and out of Singapore, of capital, goods, and, crucially, people of all skill levels, from the Nobel laureates to the domestic helps and construction workers, from the entire super-region.

This allows Singapore to secure its economic eminence by exploiting its unique pivotal position between the emerging economic giants of India and China.

In its headlong pursuit of this vision, the PAP government has allowed the uncontrolled free flow of people into Singapore to overwhelm almost every aspect of life, and the infrastructures, on the island.

It has been caught by surprise and has remained inept in dealing with the multitude of woes arising from the massive influx of immigrants.

If the PAP is elected with the same overwhelming majority in the next parliament, its vision for Singapore will be brought much, much closer to realization during the next five years.

And the character of Singapore will be radically and irrevocably transformed --- into an open city of the super-region of East. South, and Southeast Asia.

Such radical transformation of Singapore must be very thoroughly debated in and out of parliament. It cannot be surreptitiously implemented by the PAP government behind a smokescreen.

We must vote in a strong opposition in the next parliament to ensure that the PAP engages in a thorough debate with Singaporeans on the future of Singapore.

There is no time to lose. The hour for change is at hand.

Vote for change. Vote for the future of Singapore.

*Related: Is it in your interest to vote for PAP (on the impact of massive immigration)

          --- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

New Citizens boost PAP votes by 2.3% (crucial to PAP wins in Potong Pasir and Joo Chiat)

by Helluo Librorum

April 28, 2011

Intrigued by the popular speculation that PAP intends to vastly increase new citizen numbers in the next five years, in order to boost its voter base, I was interested in how much impact the new citizens might have in the current election.

My estimate is that new citizens (naturalized since the beginning of 2006) will boost the PAP's share of votes by 2.3%.

Suppose that among the original 2006 electors, PAP has 48.85%, and the opposition has 51.15% of the votes.

Then the new citizens (naturalized since the last election in 2006) would serve to boost the PAP share to 50%, and reduce the opposition share to 50%, in this election.

Therefore, with the help of the new citizens, PAP needs only 48.85% (instead of the usual 50.001%) of the 2006 electoral votes to win an electoral contest.

I will now explain my estimate.

Given that I am aiming at a rough-and-ready estimate, I probably have not used the best available data. I welcome your input in this regard.

There are 2,350,873 (as of April 27, 2011) electors in the 2011 election. The number of citizens in 2010 is  3,230,700 (here).

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

How many of the electors are new citizens (naturalized since 2006 election)?

-------------------------- Unused data -------------------------------


[20000 new citizens are needed yearly, according to the government in 2010 (source).]

[There were 13200 and 14600 (estimated) new citizens in 2006 and 2007 (here).]


[ "(Baaskaran Nair) thought new citizens would be more likely to support the PAP. There are a 'few hundred thousand' new citizens, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said in February this year. Those who became citizens last year (2010) totalled 18,758, compared with 19,928 in 2009."
                - Straits Times, 6 May 2011]

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

According to figures from the Home Affairs Ministry, nearly 90,000 foreigners became new citizens between 2006 and last year (2010) with the electoral rolls being updated twice in a year to add them to the electorate.


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

NCE comprises 2.79% (=65500/2350873), about 1 in 40, of the 2011 electors.

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

Under what circumstances would the NCE votes be crucial?

Considering that opposition sentiments are strongly against influx of foreigners, it is reasonable to assume that 90% of  the NCEs are PAP voters.

Of the 65500 NCE votes, 58950 (90%) are for PAP. 6550 (10%) are for the opposition. So the net advantage to PAP is 52400 votes (=58950-6550).

There are 2285400 (=2350900-65500)  original (2006) electors (OE).  This net advantage of 52400 votes is 2.29% of OE, and 2.23% (=52400/2350900) of the 2011 electorate.

In this sense, NCE boosts the PAP votes by 2.3%, based on OE.

So, if the PAP's share of OE votes is 48.85%, and the opposition share is 51.15%  (51.15-48.85=2.3), then the NCE votes would equalize the numbers.

Suppose that among the original 2006 electors, PAP has 48.85%, and the opposition has 51.15% of the votes.

Then the new citizens (naturalized since the last election in 2006) would serve to boost the PAP share to 50%, and reduce the opposition share to 50%, in this election.

ps. Post-election comment

The net advantage to PAP of 52400 votes is 2.23% of the 2011 electorate.

Therefore, any PAP winning margin of less than 2.23% would have been a PAP loss without the new citizens' votes.

There are two close PAP wins in the 2011 elections: Potong Pasir (winning margin of 0.72%=50.36%-49.64%) and Joo Chiat (winning margin of 2.04%=51.02%-48.98%).

PAP would have lost these two seats but for the new citizens. Of course, my conclusion is tentative, and subject to the validity of the assumptions.

Vivian B, YOG and the destitute

by Helluo Librorum

The government behaved like a profligate trust fund playboy, with an inexhaustible flow of money that he has not earned with his own labor,  lavishing all manner of expensive gifts on a beautiful damsel. To no avail.

The damsel was not impressed. She spurned him.

And Singaporeans are left with a bill of $387 million for all his extravagant ways.

The government spent $387 million on the Youth Olympic Games (YOG), exceeding the budgeted $104 millions by an astounding $283 millions. The world hardly gave YOG a second glance (here).

Vivian B has so far resisted all attempts to open the YOG accounts for public scrutiny. Clearly he has something to hide. What?

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


The cabinet annually pays itself $63 million (here). And it has $283 million of spare public money to splurge on YOG.

At a time when the public coffers are clearly brimming over, Vivian B, the minister in charge of both the YOG and public assistance to the destitute, strenuously resisted the repeated pleas by Dr Lily Neo, a rare PAP MP who dares to confront the minister and speak her mind, to raise the allowance to the destitute to ease their plight somewhat (here).

The entire public assistance program costs perhaps $27 million, or a mere 43% of the ministers' salary (here), or 9.4% of the YOG budget.

I think the PAP government's priorities are dangerously misguided, not least because they stoke the fire of public anger.

The advantage of the public fury, from my perspective, is that it helps the cause of building up a strong opposition to the complacent "deaf frogs" (Lim Swee Say's phrase, here) in the cabinet.

PAP maintained high housing cost as policy

by Helluo Librorum

Dividing total population growth by residential unit growth (A+B) in the table (above), we get a ratio that is  the average number of new residents that must be housed in a new residential unit, if existing accommodation pattern (who live where) does not change in the course of a given year.

It indicates the scarcity of housing supply, relative to demand. The larger the number, the scarcer housing is.

In 2007, the ratio is an astonishing 88.64.  Assuming that there were no vacant units at the end of 2006, and no one living in Singapore at the end of 2006 moved house throughout 2007, then 88.64 people would have had to squeeze into each new unit completed in 2007.

Of course, that did not happen. Nevertheless, this ratio is a rough-and-ready indication of the housing supply and demand.

For the years 2005 to 2010, the ratios are 8.04,  25.49, 88.64, 23.12, 21.31, and 6.03.


For the entire six-year period, the population growth is 910000, and the residential unit growth is 52345. The ratio of the two is 17.385.

Except for 6.03 (in 2010), all the figures indicate an under supply of housing, and therefore a strong pressure for housing cost to rise. (On average, each household in Singapore has 3.5 persons [here]).

Both private and public residential supplies are closely monitored and managed by the government. 

It must therefore be the PAP's policy to under-supply housing, relative to demand, to drive up housing costs.

PAP=beautiful town, Opposition=slum: indefensible misuse of national revenue

In connection with my previous post (here) on PAP's repugnant, implicit but clearly understood, threat to allow opposition wards to degenerate into slums, I quote Yawning Bread (here):

Instead of engaging with voters’ intelligence by presenting policy proposals for consideration, the PAP prefers to go with the politics of kiasuism. ‘Kiasu’ is a Singapore colloquialism for being afraid to lose out.

The PAP has been busy rolling out — with the mainstream media beating the drum for them — glitzy plans for “upgrading” whole constituencies.

Holland-Bukit Timah will get a new food market, a few neighbourhood parks and a new metro line — never mind that this metro line was announced years ago and is already under construction. To drive the point home that this constituency will be “beautiful” , the current PAP members of parliament organised a photo op wherein they held up toy watering cans to water what looks like plastic sunflowers.




Similarly grand-sounding plans have also been announced for Aljunied, Jurong and elsewhere, with the less-than-subtle hint that if voters do not return PAP candidates to parliament, they can kiss all these “brilliant” ideas good-bye. I’m curious though:  What are they going to do with the metro line if Holland-Bukit Timah falls to the opposition — stop work and the leave giant holes in the ground?

Such threats of "PAP=beautiful town, Opposition=slum" are very effective in dissuading most voters from voting for the opposition.

But such a tactic is a blatant and cynical manipulation of the civil service, which properly should serve the people independently of the political masters of the moment.

It is so morally indefensible, and so outrages most people's sense of a fair fight, that it tarnishes the image of PAP irreparably.

If PAP is really appealing to the people on its track record, it should cease such blatant dangling of upgrading carrots, and focus on national issues.

Singapore Election: Vote for the PAP, or your ward will become a slum

"Vote for the PAP, or your ward will become a slum." This is the undisguised, clearly understood, and despicable threat of the PAP.

PAP has been cynically claiming housing estate upgrading as a ward-by-ward policy that  it, and it alone, advocates -- as if any opposition party would advocate to have its ward degenerate into a slum. (And the Workers' Party has to assert the contrary.) How ridiculous.

And so if you don't elect a PAP MP, you are deemed to have rejected PAP's upgrading plan, and your ward will surely degenerate into a slum.

Estate upgrading is a national housing policy, approved by the parliament for the whole nation. 

The parliament annually allocates the budget for estate upgrading (for the whole nation), as proposed by the Finance Minister.

Once the broad upgrading policy guidelines are in place, scheduling of estates for upgrading, and all implementation details, should be in the hands of the civil service, free from any political interference.

It should be completely akin to the maintenance of roads, totally divorced from party interference.

This blurring of distinction between the government and the civil service is an evil that comes with one-party rule.

Even amidst widespread discontent with the government, voters fear the reprisal of the PAP through withholding of national resources for their wards, and therefore fear voting for the opposition.

This fear has been the single most powerful weapon in PAP's hand. Voters are intimidated into voting for the PAP.

It is high time that we establish the independence of the HDB from the cabinet in its routine implementation of housing estate upgrading.

Such independence is essential for us to create a level playing field for free and fair elections.

Cut ministers' pay, double public assistance

Who benefits from Singapore's impressive growth in GDP and its very high per capita GDP(PPP)?  In short, the rich and the powerful. The median income has stagnated. Income inequality increases. Cost of living soars.

The government revenue grows, the cabinet rewards itself, the President, and and the upper echelon of the civil service with phenomenal amounts of taxpayer money, while refusing to allocate the ample pool of taxpayer money to help the destitute, preaching the evil of public welfare, which the cabinet receives without shame.

The PM pays himself  S$4.23 millions annually ($11600 daily, assuming 365 work days; $16200 daily, assuming 261 work days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays). His pay is 8 times President Obama's.

The ceremonial President is paid $4.27 millions annually.

The cabinet of 21 ministers collectively pay themselves $63 millions annually. (source)

There are approximately 3000 destitute households on public assistance ($360 for a household of one, max $1150 for a household of five, monthly).  The maximum annual cost of public assistance is $41.4 millions (3000x1150x12), about 66% (two thirds) of ministerial salaries. Assuming an average payout of $750, the annual public assistance cost is $27 millions (3000x750x12), about 43% of the ministerial salaries.

In other words, if we, the people of Singapore, have the power  to cut the astronomical ministerial pay by 43%, we could painlessly double the assistance to the destitute.

It's the people's money, after all. And the government is the servant, not the master, of the people.

Would the people of Singapore rather see its taxes be used to relieve the plight of the poor, or to further enrich the avaricious PM, MM, SM, Ministers without portfolio (manipulating the trade union), and sundry ministers? Why don't we conduct an opinion poll?

For the economically minded, I quote Furry Brown Dog (here):

Putting Singapore’s GDP in perspective

Supporters of the ruling party and status quo are fond of citing Singapore’s GDP per capita, one of the highest in the world as evidence that its government has done well. Measuring economic success by GDP has many disadvantages as various other netizens have elaborated. I don’t intend to add to those, but in this post I will endeavour to show how this metric is flawed even without disputing that GXP (where ‘X’ refers to any of various national income accounting measures) measures the economic well-being a country’s people.

In 1959, when the PAP first took power in Singapore, Singapore’s GDP per capita (US$2186) in constant 1990 USD (hence adjusted for inflation and PPP) was second only to Hong Kong’s (US$3027) and Japan (US$3554) in East Asia.  In this respect, Singapore was already ahead of all the countries in East Asia including China and Taiwan, and South Korea. This did not change when Singapore split from Malaysia in 1965, GDP per capita at US$2667 was highest in the region excluding Hong Kong (US$4825)  and Japan (US$5934). These figures are a far cry from the nominal US$500 GDP per capita in 1959 often cited by PAP supporters which ignores both PPP and inflation adjustment. Fast forward to 2008, Singapore’s GDP per capita has overtaken Japan (which was mired for a decade and has yet to recover) but still trails Hong Kong.

Secondly, it is misleading to use GDP per capita when comparing between countries because Singapore only comprises of a single city whereas larger nations have rural areas and smaller towns. A fairer standard of measurement would instead be between cities rather than countries adjusted for purchasing power. This gives rise to the measurement of gross metropolitan product (GMP) per capita , PPP. This measurement compares between cities and towns instead of between countries where the relative poverty of rural inhabitants would distort the measure of GDP per capita. Because PPP involves a routine measurement of a country’s consumer price levels, data is much harder to come by compared to nominal GDP.

The latest data I could find dates back to 2005. Singapore’s GMP per capita PPP when measured against other cities worldwide ranks only at 53rd out of 100 (many other cities above belong to the same country), whilst not a bad showing is far from its spectacular perch of 9th ranking if one considers ranking by country only. This is certainly nothing to crow about.

Lastly, GDP (per capita) suffers from the fatal flaw as a economic indicator because it does not subtract profits earned in Singapore but which is remitted back to foreign shareholders and foreign investors. It also ignores incomes sent back by Singaporean corporations overseas. A more appropriate measure would be gross national product (GNP), which measures national income and profits held by Singaporean firms and residents (citizens + PRs) only. The latest figures for 2009, show that Singapore’s GNP for that year was S$182.536 bn, compared to its GDP of S$265.057bn. In other words, total income and profits for 2009 earned by Singapore residents and firms is only a mere 69% of GDP; the remaining 31% is repatriated overseas.

(more data and analysis here)

Singapore General Election 2011: The arrogance of PAP

I remember being incredulous when told in 1994 by a friend that George Yeo (then Minister for Information and the Arts in Singapore), whom I respect, said this:

Remember your place in society before you engage in political debate... Debate cannot (de)generate into a free-for-all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior party... You must make distinctions - What is high, what is low, what is above, what is below, and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion... people should not take on those in authority as 'equals'.              

                                       -- George Yeo, Straits Times 20 Feb 1994
                                                      (see here and readers' comments here)

As I was then far away from Singapore, I knew only the gist of his remark without verification. I was left with a sense of deep disappointment at the PAP's despicable attitude of condescension and hubris.

Recently I found his exact words (as cited above) and they are more appalling and repulsive than I had expected.

Although such blatantly offensive remark has probably not been repeated by the PAP since, the arrogance of the cabinet, perpetuating the LKY legacy, is surely still dominant.

It is high time that PAP be taught a lesson that the government is not the master, but the servant of the people.

And that's why I will vote for any opposition candidate, no matter how impressive the PAP candidate is (be he the Chief of Defence Force, or the Commissioner of Police).