Skip to main content

It May Take Another 50 Years, or longer, for a Two-Party System to Emerge in Singapore.


If we consider the historical records of past general elections, even at SG100, we will never see the possibility of two-party system.

Look at the table below:

Table: PAP valid votes (%)

1959
54.1
1963
46.9
1968
86.7
1972
70.4
1976
74.1
1980
77.7
1984
64.8
1988
63.2
1991
61.0
1997
65.0
2001
75.3
2011
66.6
2015
69.9
In the past 50 years, the percentage valid votes for the PAP has never gone down to 60%.  Even in 1963, it went down to 46.9% but the PAP still managed to maintain two-thirds majority in the house.

Oppositions will need at least two general elections to recover the loss ground and another two general elections to bring down the PAP percentage vote to below 60%. With current election system (GRCs, boundary redrawing), additional rounds of elections will be needed to get back to 60% level.
However, there are two possibilities that the two-party system may come earlier.

One is the performance of the 4th generation PAP leadership. When Lee Hsien Loong is gone after 2020, a new team of the PAP leaders will have to take over.  We have seen the lowering standard of the PAP new leadership. The PAP fails to get top guns from the business sectors, in particular, successful entrepreneurs.  Creating high value jobs will be very challenging in future.  Can the 4th PAP generation deliver a sustainable growth for Singapore? If they can’t, even they may be the best to solve economic problems, voters will want to make a change.
The other possibility is a sad story. It may happen when there are two groups of citizens: local born and new citizens fighting for each other interest in SG100 or SG75.
In SG100, there may be more foreign born citizens than local born citizens in Singapore. Both are fighting for their own interest and two political groups will emerge. The PAP may be on the central left and the other one central right (as they look for profit). The PAP will then have a different home ground, or a small home ground.

We are talking about a population of more than 6.9 million. And if we still want to maintain high growth, then we are talking about 10 million population.  There are certainly not enough local babies.  
The PAP may still control the state machinery. However, the other group will have foreign influence. Both are citizens of Singapore and can participate in elections.

Wealth creates in the past 50 years may not be in the hand of the PAP. Unless we are applying universal love and we really do not mind people take advantages of our system to enrich themselves. People can leave and go as they wish as far as universal love exists, our aim is to help the world to create more millionaires and super riches.    
These are two possibilities that will bring down the PAP.  The PAP has successfully created a political system to create a ‘sure win’ election for themselves. However, they fail to realise a poor 4th generation within their rank will bring two-party system forward. Externally, outside Singapore, a big non-local born citizen population will also create challenges to them - a foreign talented political force.

What do you think? Which outcome do you prefer?

Labels:

Comments

  1. market2garden12 September 2015 at 22:53

    Forget about SG100,
    History of Singapore as a nation-state will not last that long.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The14 September 2015 at 15:17

    You left out GE2006 - which was 66.6%
    GE2011 should be 60.1%

    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 ...
277 comments
Read more

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...
51 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more