Skip to main content

LKY Effect, General Election and Presidential Election

Epsom john key act national banks NZ Politics Daily - Bryce Edwards Otago University liberation blog - www.liberation.org.nz
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2011/11/nz-politics-daily-16-november.html


Same voters, different response, different result. Why?

LKY is a key factor for GE2015, even for GE2011. However, LKY has little effect or perhaps, negative effect in the coming Presidential Election if there is one.

Why do Singapore voters react so differently in these two elections?

We may call it certainty vs. uncertainty.


Political background
Result
GE
Voting under uncertainty  
Vote for PAP
PE
Voting under certainty
Vote against PAP proxy

In the GE market, the PAP creates an uncertain political background, for example, the PAP may not return to power. This uncertainty, or fear, or LKY effect, will always give the PAP the benefit of doubt.

In the PE market, the PAP, however, creates a certain background. With supermajority in the Parliament, the PAP can even remove an Elected President.  The fear or the LKY effect has lost its role. When the PAP designed the EP system, they did not play particular attention to the certainty issue.

This is like generals without practical experience. Only when they faced the real challenge: Ong Teng Cheong vs. C Chua Kim Yeow in the first EP election, they realised some things were wrong in the system. As usual practice, they created walk-overs to avoid election, until PE2011.

Now, PE2016, the PAP has to face a real challenge again. However, they cannot remove the built-in certainty in the EP system. Singapore voters know the PAP has more than 90% of seats in the Parliament. The limitation and limited powers of the Elected President even further ensures this certainty.

Who are these voters?

The certainty makes 25% to 35% of Singapore voters free riders.  They had tried it in 1990 and 2011.

In a simple calculation:

% of PAP votes in GE2011 - % of PAP proxy votes in PE2011 = 60%- 35% = 25%
 
% of PAP votes in GE2015 - % of PAP proxy votes in PE2011 = 70%- 35% = 35%

Even we look back in PE1990, the PAP proxy obtained only 58% of the votes.  However, this percentage cannot be a good indicator anymore.

This is a very uncomfortable position for the PAP. They hope to create some uncertainties in the EP system. They even set up a Constitutional Commission to look into this matter.

No matter the proposals, the changes, if there is a free EP election, the PAP will have to face the challenge. Perhaps, this time they will be the victims of their very own success. They always invent and design the political game in Singapore.
They also create a game suitable for 'kiasu' Singaporeans to try a change - a ‘kiasu’ design making ‘kiasu’ Singaporeans to vote against the PAP.   

Comments

  1. you may be interested in this article
    The 2015 Singapore Swing: Depoliticised polity and the Kiasi/Kiasu voter

    https://www.academia.edu/22666466/James_Chin_The_2015_Singapore_Swing_Depoliticised_polity_and_the_Kiasi_Kiasu_voter

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...