The PAP will win the election. The question is, how will the opposition do?
And by "opposition" we realistically mean, Workers Party. All the other political parties are jokes at worst, and delusions at best.
Maybe Progress Singapore Party and Tan Cheng Bock can pull off a surprise. But even that may be a miracle. I'll explain later.
If you subscribe to the "pendulum" theory of political fortunes, that voters vote one way, then swing over to the other side, in 2011, the PAP got 60% of the vote. Then in 2015, it got 70% of the votes. In this blog, I predicted in 2015 that the PAP vote share for the next election (GE 2020) would fall. based simply on this "pedulum" theory.
But this year, it would seem that there is another factor. As WP's Pritam Singh puts it (in the video below) there is the very real possibility of a "flight to safety". (A.k.a. Flight to Quality. But that would infer that the WP has no quality. So, "safety" has less pejorative reflections.)
Experienced and educated politician understands this inclination. Which is why Tan Cheng Bock proposed delaying the GE. He knew an election during a crisis would not bode well for the opposition.
But while the PAP have to be intellectually honest and accept that a "Flight to Safety" is a real possibility, they still have to campaign as if they have a real possibility of losing:
PM Lee had to make the case that people could be unhappy, and unhappiness with the PAP could translate to voting against the PAP at the polls.
In other words. he's doing what the PAP does at every GE - try to paint themselves as underdogs or under fire.
Which is technically true. Technically, there is a chance that PAP could lose the GE, or lose enough seats to fail to be able to form the government.
That is a possibility.
Not very probable. At least not in 2020.
But the other extreme - a clean sweep by the PAP with WP losing all their incumbent seats is also possible. And would be more probable than the PAP failing to form the govt.
And so the opposition paint themselves, realistically, as underdogs. Not that this is strategically wrong.
Even the WP, the winningest opposition, has to raise the spectre of failure and try to take the role of underdog. And the usual underdog complaints are offered - that the PAP is not playing fair.
But of course the PAP assures the voters that opposition parties would not be shut out of parliament, because of the NCMP Scheme.
And of course, because this scheme is intended to satisfy the voter's desire for opposition presence in parliament, while ensuring the PAP wins the election, opposition candidates have to call the NCMP a "poisoned chalice", swear on their mother's grave that they will NEVER take up the NCMP seat if offered. (Note that Sylvia Lim was an NCMP based on her performance in GE2006 at Aljunied, and subsequently, in GE 2011, WP took Aljunied, and Sylvia Lim became an elected MP of Aljunied GRC.)
[As an aside, perhaps the opposition candidates are doing things wrong. Currently, they are swearing that the NCMP is a poisoned chalice and that they would NEVER take an NCMP seat if offered. It's ALL or NOTHING for them. BUT... What if they SAY that they appreciate the NCMP scheme and if offered they would gladly take the seat, BUT that would mean that they have to poll as the "best loser". So they can appeal to voters to vote for him enough that he can be an NCMP... and when too many people vote for him, he gets to be MP. How do you gauge that enough votes have been cast for him to be the best loser?]
And then there was the debate. Where 5 representatives of the largest political parties (by the number of seats contested) debated each other. PAP was represented by Vivian Balakrishnan, a formidable and trained debater.
And the opposition cried foul! Or rather, they said, "PAP should send in their 4G leaders, not Vivian!"
Sure.
Imagine you have a sports club of 90+ athletes. Some are great at basketball, some soccer, some table tennis, and some at rugby, and your sports club is challenged to a basketball game, do you send your table tennis squad?
And if you are a small club with just 5 members, then whether you are challenged to a basketball game or a table tennis tournament, you have just FIVE members. If you want to play, ALL of them have to play...
How to beat Man U? Challenge them to a ping pong match.
[Also] WP has apologised for not sending a rep for the Mandarin debate because “the proficiency required to participate in a live debate is of a higher order”.
... I don't blame them. I'm not in Aljunied or Hougang, and they are not contesting where I live, so their political strategy is irrelevant to me.
I just wonder how Hougang feels when almost 30 years ago, Low Thia Khiang "wa si teochew nang!" wrestled Hougang from PAP, and now, 30 years later, WP can't even field a candidate in a Mandarin debate.
WP can still win. Get Low Thia Khiang to challenge the PAP to a Teochew debate.
The advantage of the PAP, having depth and breadth of resources, is that they have many talented people with a variety of skills, knowledge, and aptitude. The opposition does not. Is that fair?
Complaining that things are unfair for the less endowed opposition is... childish? immature? naive?
Life's not fair?
Grow up.
For Lee Kuan Yew, governing Singapore is not a game. The rules, if there are in fact rules, are not fair. It's life or death, and when survival is on the line, and you're not willing to bend if not break the rules, you don't really want to survive do you?
"Believe you, me, I say everybody had better start off on that major premise that it is not our intention to let this country go down the drain. And anybody who wants to play ducks and drakes better go back to his little back garden and he can make a speech to himself..."Of course, the cynical (and Singaporeans are rightly cynical) will ask, "whose survival? Singapore's? Or the PAP's?"
And yes, some will answer that the PAP is being unfair because THEIR survival (not Singapore's) is on the line.
And that's why we have elections periodically. That's what democracy is about.
The political parties present themselves as the best people (or party) to represent the will of Singaporeans and as being the best able to lead Singapore to a brighter future.
And the people decide who they believe. Are the candidates all about themselves, or about Singapore and Singaporeans. Are their arguments grounded in reality or in some (as LKY would say) 'high falutin' airy-fairy philosophical idealism?
And the people vote. Don't believe in the sincerity of the PAP? Vote them out.
The PAP will (most probably) win GE2020.
Because they are contesting all 93 seats, whereas PSP is contesting 24, WP is contesting 21, and SDP is challenging 11 seats.
So even if any of the opposition wins all the seats they are challenging, NONE of them would be in the position to form the government by themselves.
The only way the opposition could form a government, would be a coalition government if these three largest (or most hopeful) opposition parties actually win ALL the seats they are challenging for (i.e. 24+21+11 = 56 of 93 seats). That is, the voters MUST believe that WP, PSP, and SDP are all MORE credible than PAP, and vote ALL of their candidates in. So these 3 largest opposition can form a coalition government. But coalition governments are weak compromises. Look at Pakatan Harapan across the causeway.
In the above scenario, PAP would have about 37 seats (93 - 56, assuming PAP does not lose any seats to the other smaller, or less confident, parties). This means that either PSP or WP could choose to form a coalition government with the PAP (PSP + PAP = 24 + 37 = 61 seats, or WP + PAP = 21 + 37 = 58 seats).
SDP with just 11 wins would be irrelevant except in a non-PAP coalition (in a coalition with PSP and WP).
But why would PSP or WP choose to form a coalition with PAP? Because the PAP is the most experienced. Also WP, and maybe PSP, are (maybe) not philosophically opposed to PAP's approach. Most of the time.
Why would PAP agree to a coalition with either party? Because this would let PAP still have a role in government. And possibly because the other parties might break something.
So what are the chance of a coalition government, with or without the PAP?
In 2015, when PAP got 69.9% of the votes, it turned out that before nomination day, a survey had already found that 70% would vote PAP.
In other words, all the campaigning had no effect. People had already made up their minds. Was 2015 a once-off phenomenon? Or do people (or Singaporeans) tend to go into a GE campaign with their minds already made up?
If so, this means that the election is for the incumbent government to LOSE, and not for the opposition to win. So heading into this GE, do voters feel that on the whole the PAP has done well and is the best choice for Singapore?
Well, some Singaporeans might not agree.
But would there be more than 50% unhappy with the PAP?
I do not know, but my guess is, no. I believe most Singaporeans still trust and believe in the PAP.
Sure, about 25% of voters (by my estimate) will vote opposition just because. For reasons. Whatev.
And sure, about 45% will vote PAP no matter what.
But the rest of the voters are either more inclined to opposition, or more inclined to PAP, and they make up their mind (I believe) well before nomination day. And yes, all they have to go on is whether the PAP is doing well for Singapore, and if they are, they will give PAP their vote.
And with a "core" base of 45%, the PAP has a relatively low bar to win.
And if the Flight to Safety in a crisis is a pertinent factor (as it should be) the PAP should be able to retain a high percentage of support. Maybe as high as 2015 - 70%.
WP is right to be worried about being wiped out. Aljunied was a narrow squeak in 2015. Now with the pandemic, would voters "rally around the flag" and support the PAP again?
Hougang was WP's stronghold for decades. Even when Low Thia Khiang moved from Hougang to Aljunied, the Hougang voters kept faith with the WP. They kept faith with their "teochew nang".
But this year, Low is not standing for elections. After 29 years.
The "teochew nang" is stepping down, giving way to the younger ones.
And the WP had to apologise for not being able to participate in the Mandarin debate.
I'm not Teochew, and I'm barely able speak Mandarin. So I KNOW how important language can be to some people (because I have been told I "jiak kentang" or that I am a banana). So losing Low, and failing to participate in a Mandarin debate? Could be a factor. For some people.
But I think after almost 30 years, Hougang is in the habit of voting WP. So I think WP will hold onto their stronghold.
Aljunied, they may lose. The 'habit' of voting WP may not have been formed yet. But I may be wrong. I do not know how well the WP team has worked the ground to gain the trust and support of Aljuniens. That is ground knowledge that I do not have.
Tan Cheng Bock is returning to his stronghold, except his stronghold was Ayer Rajah SMC, which has been absorbed by West Coast GRC. I was in his SMC, until I move out of my parent's flat. I like him. He was a good MP. But it has been 14 years since he stepped down as MP. Would there be enough voters to remember him and would the goodwill he had with them last this long? And his ward is now part of a GRC. The rest of West Coast has NO personal memories of him. I seriously doubt his standing in Ayer Rajah still holds sway. Moreover the West is PAP stronghold. They typically get over 70% of the votes. Are the voters loyalty to the party, or the MP? Of course, we are more likely to have a bond with a person, than an institution.
AND, maybe enough voters will feel that Tan Cheng Bock was first cheated of the presidency in 2011, and then denied again in 2017, and give him a victory now.
Maybe.
Singaporeans can be a sentimental bunch.
Then there is the East Coast. Which the media is playing up as the clash between the PM-designate, and Nicole Seah.
I think this is all media, no substance.
But hey, I could be wrong. Nicole Seah might defeat PAP in East Coast.
Would that be a tragedy for PAP? For Singapore?
Well, we lost George Yeo in 2011 when Aljunied went to WP. We survived.
So did George Yeo.
If we lose Heng Swee Keat, we'd lose a Finance Minister. And a future PM. But we'll survive. Chan Chun Sing would probably be the next PM. PAP will go on. PM Lee may have to delay his retirement while he brings Chan Chun Sing up to speed. PM Lee looks quite tired. Pity.
The point is, the PAP is not a party of personalities. They have depth, and contingency plans.
That said, I don't think PAP will lose East Coast GRC.
WP is currently waning, I believe (or hope) it's only temporary. They can't fight the flight to safety.
So here's my prediction for GE 2020: WP holds Hougang. PAP takes every other seat.
If that is too pro-PAP, best case scenario for the Opposition, WP holds Hougang and Aljunied, and takes East Coast. PSP takes West Coast because of Tan Cheng Bock. Total, 16 opposition MPs.
PAP still forms the government, but needs a new PM-designate (most likely Chan Chun Sing), and 3 or more new ministers
But that best case scenario for the opposition? Not likely.
If WP can hold Hougang AND Aljunied, I think they should take it that they dodged a bullet, and count themselves lucky.
As for Tan Cheng Bock, he has achieved many things as a simple MP, not a political appointee (Minister or Parl Sec). In fact, he may have accomplished more than some political appointees. But his time may be over. He still has credibility. His performance at PE2011 is evidence of that. BUT, winning a GRC is a different matter. The quality of the rest of his team matters. And I have to say, ,I have no impression of any of them.
At 80, what he's trying to do is a "Mahathir". And that is not a good role model.
No comments:
Post a Comment