Skip to main content

PAP will continue to have Economic Profits in 2016

[Generic Competitive Position Analysis 2/2]

In this second part of Generic Competitive Position Analysis, the PAP has good chance to retain two-third majority in 2016.  However, their huge economic profits will be reduced, no more 90% parliament seats. 2016 will also see one big PAP circle, one mid-size WP circle and few small circles.      

Table 2 Performance of PAP and selected opposition parties in GE2011 (% of valid votes in contested wards)

GElection
PAP
WP
NSP
SDP
GE2011
60.14%
46.6%
39.3%
36.8%
GE2006
66.6%
38.4%
-
23.2%
 Source: Singapore-election.com

Table 3 Credibility of Selected Political Parties (IPS Post-GE Survey)

Mean
PAP
WP
NSP
SDP
2006
4.1
3.6
-
2.3
2011
3.9
3.6
3.0
2.9
 Source: Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore

Table 2 and Table 3 show that the main challenge for the PAP is WP. The average percentage votes that WP received in their contested wards in 2011 were quite close (46.6%) to the PAP and it is well ahead of other opposition parties.  In term of credibility, WP is also catching up (3.6 against 3.9 for the PAP).  Again, WP’s credibility is also ahead of other opposition parties.   

WP’s weakness is it is a regional party. It has yet to reach out to the whole of Singapore. It only contested 23 seats in the parliament in 2011.  By 2016 or 2017, it is very unlikely they will contest all the (87) parliament seats. The party has clearly stated that they are not ready to take over the government and wants to concentrate on building their power base in the eastern part of Singapore with plan to buy a space for its headquarters. WP seems to admit they have yet to realize the full benefits of learning curve. 

The generic competitive position for WP, strategically speaking, will be continued to be in focused low-cost and niche markets in 2016.

As a strategy consideration, as they don’t want to form the government, they will most likely not contesting more than 51% of the seats, i.e. 44 seat under the current 87- seat parliament. In 2016, WP will certainly contest more wards than 2011 but may purposely choose to contest less than 50% of the seats.  

The two recent by-elections (http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2012-be/ and http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-2013-be/) in 2012 and 2013 were won by WP.  This clearly shows the popularity of the party in the eastern side of Singapore. The 2013 by-election showed a swing of 10% towards WP making the party capturing one more parliament seat.

Besides WP, the other opposition parties will need to catch up in average percentage votes obtained, credibility and popularity. There is a wider gap between the PAP and these opposition parties. They may have some ‘wildcat’ breakthroughs but the impact will be limited. This is why freak election result may not happen in the next election.

The political strategic maps in Singapore in the next election in 2016 will look like the followings:
(Assuming the x- and y-axis as average percentage votes and credibility, and the third factor is number of seats contested)
    
PAP is the only big circle contesting all the seats, with high average percentage votes and credibility. They are adopting integrated strategies and want to maintain cost leader and differentiation competitive position. 

WP is the only mid-size circle contesting less than half of the seats, coming closer and matching the PAP in average percentage votes and credibility. But their competitive position will be different from the PAP. They will look for niche market and low-cost focused segment.

Other opposition parties will form different small circles with weaker positions in average percentage votes and credibility. Some may contest as many seats as WP and as a result, the election may see more multi-corner competitions.      

One thing to note, Singapore parliament election is “first pass the post’ system.  There is only one winner in the contested constituency.  Candidates backed by parties with lower average percentage votes and credibility will have disadvantages in winning a contest, no matter how many candidates they are sponsoring in the election.     

Assuming WP only contests in 40 seats in the next election and they manage to improve their average percentage votes to 50% in their contested seats, this will give WP 20 seats in the parliament.  In addition to some ‘wildcat’ breakthroughs by other opposition parties, the total seats lost to the oppositions may be 26.  

The PAP’s average percent votes will reduce to below 60%, say 55%. A 55% popular votes produces 70% seats in the parliament, the PAP is still enjoying economic profits. If WP contests fewer seats than 40 or bring in low quality candidates, then the seats lost to WP will be less.  The PAP will regain more economic profits, with less than 60% popular votes but enjoying 80% of the parliament seats.       

Table 4: Possible PAP majority and seats in the parliament

PAP Majority in parliament
Total seats
PAP MPs
PAP MPs %
Oppositions MPs
2011
87
81
93%
6
Two-third 
87
58
66.7%
29
70%
87
61
70%
26
75%
87
66
75%
21
80%
87
70
80%
17
85%
87
74
85%
13
# assuming there are no change in total seats in 2016

A win-win situation (?) may be the PAP having economic profits at 75%-80% level of parliament seats with slightly few than 60% popular votes. The PAP still has the two-third majority and the oppositions start to gain substantial seats in the parliament. From here, they can work out broader strategies to deny the PAP in the next election.

The evolving process for Singapore politics is incremental. Although it is marching towards normality, however, it is yet to achieve full open competition environment and so normal profits are still a distance away in 2016.        


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 ...

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...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...