Skip to main content

上限70% 下限60% 永远的一党专政?



2015大选显示选民支持人民行动党的上限大约在70%的水平。要做到这个地步,行动党已经动用所有的资源,这当然包括选区划分,集选区,政府资源,人民协会,工会,等等不公平的选举制度和策略。

利用同样的不公平选举制度,即使在没有李光耀,SG50等因素的背景下,行动党的得票率,依然可以保持在60%的下限,甚至(出现贪污舞弊管理失误等情形下,行动党还是比反对党行)即使下限下降到55%,行动党依然是一党独大,可以继续专制统治新加坡,合理的在大多数选民支持下,以“一人一票的民主”方式中选连任。

上限论可以从陈庆珠#1和杨荣文#2的观点看出来。

陈庆珠称中间的选民为“strategic voter”。这些策略选民,将以本身的利益出发,哪一个政党做出对他有利的事情、政策,他就投选哪个政党。现在,行动党做出对符合他们利益的事,他们就选择行动党。反之,他们就投反对党。陈庆珠认为选民是理性,务实和公平的(rational, pragmatic and fair)。

杨荣文则提出他的道家理论,物极必反,70%是一个极端,它是会反弹,而转向另一个极端发展。因此,他希望选民走中间中庸的路线。他不希望看到太大的变化。

不论是策略选民还是中庸选民,他们已经给行动党定下一个上限:70%。 行动党想要回到以前80%的水平,是不太可能的。对于行动党来说,他们也不认为自己的上限在70%,这个成绩有点出乎意料。

下限论的一个指标就是2011年的60%。当然,在2015大选的选前预测55%也是可能的。不论,55%还是60%,只要新加坡的选举制度没有做出重大的改变,(事实上,如果你是行动党,你会愿意改变吗?)对于新加坡反对党来说,将是致命的一击,除了工人党外,几乎没有其他反对党能够再次逃过一劫。

反对党的上下限

从2011和2015两次大选结果看来,反对党的得票上下限应该介于:

工人党
40%-50%
民主党
30%-40%
其他反对党
20%-30%

除了工人党,没有一个反对党的上限接近50%。没有50%的上限,就几乎没有中选的机会。

选民如果没有办法看清楚这个现实,一直被行动党愚弄,把反对党当成是都是无法中选,或者,全部都可能中选,把没有希望中选的人,误认有机会中选,造成变天,那就是大错特错了。工人党候选人才是唯一有希望中选的候选人,其他反对党候选人,中选机会接近零。

反思行动党拥有超过90%国会议席

不论上限还是下限,新加坡国会将会有超过90%的议员来自行动党。未来几届选举,如果游戏规矩没有改变,行动党一党专政的情形是不可能改变的。

这个10%的上下限距离,导致除了工人党以外,几乎所有的反对党都不可能有所突破。国会里将继续上演一个大党欺负一个小党的画面。选民过去50年已经看惯了这样的场景,所以,继续看到这样的局面也见怪不怪。

工人党主席林瑞莲认为,选民或许不希望看到工人党强大起来。 从选民继续同意让行动党拥有90%以上议席看来,这个说法有一定的道理。不论策略还是中庸选民,他们和行动党一样都希望国会里,只要有一点反对的声音就可以了。这样就足够代表新加坡的民主了,象征新加坡的民主了。

加强民间对话管道?

在国会缺少民间,反对意见的情形下,有人建议加强政府和民间的对话,加强民间组织的力量,沟通的管道。王少妍#3就是其中的一个,她认为应该加强现有的机制(如,公民组织,总统,媒体,司法),或者,设立新的机制让替代意见有适合的管道发声。事实上,许通美在几年前已经提出类似的建议。

行动党如果接受这些建议,就表示自己监督自己失效。行动党根本就不需要其他的机制来监督行动党。

另立沟通管道,事实上是侮辱民主,明明有一个选举制度,现在因为不公平的制度,导致国会失去平衡,然后,通过国会外的机制来弥补这个缺点,这看起来也像另一套国王的外衣。这只不过是自由者的理想罢了。

我们看到了新加坡选举制度的不公,也看到了行动党的60%-70%上下限,以及国会90%归行动党的现实,也听到自由主义者的呼声。但是,作为行动党的领导,你会想到改变吗?即使像尚达曼这样的温和派行动党领袖,他能够改变行动党的横行霸道,走向公平的竞争吗?

新加坡选民选择了陈庆珠式新加坡式的“合理,务实,公平”思考方式,为2015大选做出了新的定义,在旧常态里产生新常态,让行动党的不公平竞选方式合理化。甚至把2011年的新常态#4推翻,把“选民就是老板”的理论推出,因为老板是可以把工人(政党)炒鱿鱼。但是,不是所有的老板都有最新最准确的消息来判断员工的表现,尤其是职场上,战场到处都有秦侩这样的人物,作为选民的老板如何能够做出正确的选择呢?

看清楚了这个政治现实,新加坡选民又能做什么呢?更何况看不出真相的老板,策略和中庸选民呢?

#1
Singaporeans are today better educated, well-informed and much travelled. The electorate is sophisticated and discerning. We are rational, pragmatic and fair.
All this produces a strategic voter. There are party loyalists in any country, of course, and they will vote for their party, no matter rain or shine. But the bulk of the Singapore voters will use their vote strategically to push for the outcome they wish for.
If the PAP is responsive and going in the direction they want, they will support the governing party. If the PAP does not listen or heed their voices, support will be withdrawn.
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-strategic-voter-in-the-new-normal

#2
针对本报提问,如果行动党胜出,国会将只剩下一个反对党议员,对新加坡的政治环境会造成怎样的影响,杨荣文没有直接回应。他说:“我相信道家哲学,当钟摆被拉到一个极端时,它一般就会往另一个极端摆渡,所以中庸之道还是比较好的,最好不要有太大的摇摆波幅。”  http://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20150919-528246#sthash.7H06nv79.dpuf

#3
I believe we must seriously explore how to generate these conditions in some other way. Either by strengthening existing institutions (such as civil society, the presidency, the media, the judiciary) or by creating new ones (such as an ombudsman or other mechanisms that don't yet exist elsewhere).
Crucially, whatever means we choose, we must insist that these institutions be given legal and political teeth; they must be independent from the political aristocracy, be empowered to work openly, and have direct access to the public, such that we have the benefit of their guidance whenever we head to the polls. If we then choose, in our own unique way, to endorse our aristocracy, we do so on a free and informed basis.
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/liberal-reflections-on-loss-and-acceptance-in-ge2015

#4
Yet, that is precisely the point about every election. Each time voters go to the polls is different, and anything can, and often does, happen. There are no straight lines to the future in politics, with all its surprising ebbs and flows, and if nothing else, GE2015 has debunked the idea that a "new normal" was set after 2011. The next election will be no different, with its own set of issues to be addressed, and electoral battles to be won, rather than a simple extrapolation of trends from GE2015.
In the end, voters made clear on Friday that they retain the right to judge at each election just who has understood their concerns best, and acted in their interests, and give their support accordingly.
What voters give, they can just as readily take away. They are in charge, they "are the bosses", to borrow from one of PM Lee's rallies, and that is precisely the way they like it. It is a message that politicians ,whether in red, white or blue, should never forget, in both victory and defeat.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-end-of-the-new-normal

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...