Category: Politik

Many have reflected in the GE2015 outcome, I am sharing my views here,

GE 2015 Analysis

Introduction

The GE2015 results are finally out. Were the results expected? Should we be surprised with the outcome? Given that GE2015 was called at a time when the ground could not have been any “sweeter”, are the results a good reflection of the PAP’s real support from voters? Ordinarily, given the timing and the fact that the previous government did many things to ensure the ground was as “sweet” as it can get, we should have expected that the PAP should have done significantly better than GE2011 with GE2015 perhaps delivering a score of around 64% to 65% of overall national vote, with the same number of 6 seats lost as in 2011. But the PAP did much better than what was expected by the party leaders and any of us, swinging the votes by 10% compared to GE2011.

I have been involved in politics since 1984, starting off by helping the new candidate at Siglap at that time, and thereafter contesting in 4 elections as a candidate myself. Through these years, I have managed to gather, to a certain extent, a good feel of the ground. For instance, at GE2011, I predicted accurately that the PAP will not gain more than 60% of the vote share and may lose up to 6 seats, which was the exact outcome.

This time round though, the ground had become a lot more difficult to read. I was surprised to see that Singaporeans are divided on their support for the PAP, at every strata of society. Be they Singaporeans living in the 1-room rental flat, middle-aged and middle-income residents living in the heartlands or the private estates, or professionals and the intellectuals.
I found 2 distinct groups at each strata of society – one group that felt that the PAP did many things to respond and address the problems, created in the past 10 years, thru many policy initiatives and schemes to a cross-section of Singaporeans. But there was another group that felt that the PAP had not done enough as some of their confidence in the PAP’s ability to meet their aspirations declining.

While the PAP government has made quite a lot of policy changes since GE2011, the question that some had is whether these were done sincerely to address the plights of Singaporeans or done for political mileage alone. If done sincerely, this will in any case produce political mileage, but if it was done to win votes, this may not have been enough for the PAP to win back the eroded confidence among voters.

From the onset, the WP went on the offensive to persuade voters that the PAP changed because of the political pressure from the last GE and because having them as opposition in parliament made a difference. The PAP had invested a lot more time and effort in the last 2 years to show that they really cared and did things sincerely. The PAP government showed that they had addressed all the “bug bear” issues that had upset Singaporeans that had caused a terrible outcome for the PAP in GE2011.

What was going against the PAP was that the Population White paper debated in parliament in February 2013 seemed to indicate that the PAP did not listen and learn from the GE2011 and pressed on, even if this may not be so. Many felt that the subsequent changes in policies that came fast and furious after the public outcry were a knee jerk reaction to political pressure.

My prediction made before nomination day

I will be frank that before nomination day, based on the mixed feelings and sentiments I was getting from the ground, I did not expect the PAP to do any better than in GE2011, scoring at best 60% of the popular vote and to lose the same seats they had lost in GE2011 with perhaps having a 50-50 chance of winning Fengshan.

Prediction made on Cooling off day

As in GE2011, the 9 days of campaigning made a difference and shifted the swing voters. A “gentlemanly” campaign would have been much more effective than trying to discredit individuals and I am sure that’s how the party leaders set it out to be. But initially they got distracted by the opposition strategies. Simply put, the PAP spent too much time in the first half of the campaign focusing on the WP AHPETC issues as well as trying to discredit some of the opposition manifestos and plans instead of having a systematic campaign to elaborate on its own manifesto and plans for the coming years. The PAP had not only fixed some things in the last four years, it also has some great plans and vision and it would have been useful to go into greater details and to explain the plans in a way that would resonate with the hearts of the voters. The PAP should have planned this even before the 9-day campaign started with its leaders sticking to this strategy and perhaps leaving a small group within the party to attack opposition arguments.

Voters would have liked a more calculated, calm and gentlemanly approach from the PAP and even if the opposition got aggressive, the PAP would have done better by taking the higher moral ground. Unfortunately, some leaders also went on an offensive but some of the opposition reacted more calmly than the PAP did. The PAP lost some ground because of this.

Instead, some of the opposition focused on their plans more than attacking the PAP. In my opinion, many of their plans, while looking good on the surface, had serious flaws that will not be good for Singapore in the long-run, while they even failed to elaborate how they were going to finance some of these populist plans. But they managed to speak to the hearts of voters, which matters most in an election. In an election, quite often it is not what you say but how you say it and that is the PAP’s perennial problem. As bureaucrats and technocrats, they make good policies and have Singaporeans well-being at heart, but just lack that political acumen to convey these messages effectively to the people.

What became obvious during the 9 days of campaigning is that voters will reward incumbent MPs and new candidates who have invested significant time walking the ground, interacting with residents over the past 5 years and those who have built a bond with residents. In areas where candidates had built the relationship with voters over a long period of time, the support would come naturally. So we could tell that the 9 days of campaigning was not so effective for candidates who did not invest time on the ground and this was reflected in the final vote. This showed very clearly for the opposition candidates to and for the PAP, the strategy to send candidates to the ground very early (instead of last minute “parachuting” like the past) worked well too.
So after campaigning ended, I reassessed the ground sentiments and noted a slight improvement for the PAP and expect the PAP to gain another 2% votes for the following reasons.

In my view, one of the reasons for this was that PM’s personal popularity increased by 1% to 2%, especially after his lunch-time rally speech at Raffles Place. The same goes for DPM Tharman whose speech at Bukit Panjang reinforced among voters that he is one of the top Finance Ministers in the world. Also, many of the other opposition parties, other than the WP and SDP, were not supported well by voters. So I expected to see a big difference in votes between what WP and SDP would win versus the rest of the parties. Singaporeans have become very discerning and will not vote blindly for any party or any candidate and I expected to see a big difference in votes going to the other parties, other than WP and SDP.

However, based on the ground feel after 9 days of campaigning, I felt that although the PAP’s overall score may have improved slightly, in constituencies where they were going against the popular opposition parties, particularly WP and SDP, there was enough shift for the PAP to lose more constituencies and I expected the PAP to lost between 13 to 15 seats. My overall assessment was still a 60%, +/- 2% outcome for the overall vote for the PAP.

What Went Right for the PAP

In my opinion even getting a 2% increase over GE2011, while good for the PAP, is also something the PAP would have had to worry about because this GE2015 was done at a time when the ground was as sweet as it could be for the PAP for the following reasons:

1. SG50 and the country celebrated in a very good mood and the government gave away good things to all Singaporeans

2. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s passing was sad, but did rally Singaporeans together and many would have reinforced their support for the PAP and realized the vulnerability we faced and continue to face as an unlikely nation

3. PGP of $8b would have won over most pioneer citizens above the age of 65. The PAP should have gotten a votes boost from this group

4. The government started its term after the 2011 election by making many changes, starting with the reduction of ministerial salaries and shifted its policies to be more inclusive and also addressed all the issues that Singaporeans were upset with before GE2011;

a. Housing availability and cost (has improved tremendously but there is still room for improvement)

b. Transport infrastructure (which people can see the efforts made but the true impact of these efforts will only be felt around 2020)

c. Building more hospitals (full effect yet to be felt)

d. Tightened the intake of foreigners (which had a double edged effect – making SMEs upset that they cannot get enough workers while trying to please Singaporeans). But the effect of this was also not fully felt as many foreigners are still here and people are more upset with the increase of PRs and citizens more than the lower level foreign workers. Also, PMETs continue to worry about their jobs

e. Medishield life to take away worries of medical bills in the future.n

5. The government changed its position from a “growth at all cost” economic policy to an “inclusive growth” economic policy, therefore shifting more to the left to implement many schemes to rebalance income equality

6. There was also the instability factor in the region and the global economy which may have made some voters more still wanting a more stable political environment in Singapore. This is especially with the governance and racial politics issues just across the Causeway.
All these 6 factors were unique and many will be onetime factors that may not appear again at GE2020.

So if we look at the overall result, we must note the following;

1. Points 1, 2, 3 and 6 were unique and perhaps a once in 50 years phenomenon and will not appear again in GE2020 but I believe these gave the PAP a positive swing of around 2% to 3%.

2. The PAP government did well as points 4 and 5 suggest and Singaporeans gave the PAP the benefit of doubt and were willing to trust the PAP more than they did in GE2011. PM’s personal popularity and his excellent speeches at the National Day rally and during the campaign rally, as well as DPM Tharman’s likeability helped too. This would have given the PAP another 1% to 2% gain of votes.

3. About 2% to 3% swing towards the PAP was, thanks to the composition of the opposition in all areas where the WP and the SDP did not stand for elections. So while WP and SDP areas saw a 5% to 6% swing for the PAP which can be attributed to the above 2 points, the other parties scored terribly, much worse than GE2011, when at that time Singaporeans were giving their PAP protest votes to any opposition party that stood against the PAP. The electorate will no longer blindly vote for opposition candidates especially those from opposition parties that don’t have enough creditability and that cannot display an ability to become a constructive opposition or even able to form government one day.

4. As the campaign came to the end by cooling off day, pundits had predicted big losses for the PAP. One such forecast (someone told me this was a bookie bet) I got on the morning of polling day showed PAP losing 24 seats to the opposition. This, coupled with the huge turnouts at the opposition rallies, gave Singaporeans “cold feet” that we may see a “freak” result when votes are counted. I live in Marine Parade GRC and my neighbour came running to my house on the last day of campaigning to share that she “heard” that PAP will likely lose Marine Parade to the WP. They were worried and said they will call all their friends and relatives to be careful with their vote.

I believe this resulted in another 1% to 2% swing back to the PAP at the national level as voters, despite seeking diversity of voices in parliament, still wanted a strong PAP government and did not want to disrupt leadership transition plans for the government. If true it reflects the maturity of Singapore voters.

5. It is anyone’s guess what caused such a huge national swing but we must give the PAP leadership credit for selecting the timing of the election when the ground was as “sweet” as it could be, which I think helped PAP with about 4% to 5% – credit to the PAP. (There are some who attribute a significant part of the swing to new Singaporeans, but this is debatable and probably was not significant enough to account for the 105 swing)

Underlying Issues the PAP should not ignore

The worry among some Singaporeans is that with a stronger than expected mandate, the PAP my feel there is no need to change itself. But the general feeling among insiders and observers is that the PAP needs to continue to change to become more inclusive, listen more to people, add more political judgement in policy making (a point I raised many times before that we must be prepared to give up some efficiency in policy formulation by making the process more bottoms up instead of the old way of being top driven and also letting the civil service drive changes and not the political leaders). The PAP must continue to have more conversations to understand the problems and aspirations of Singaporeans of all backgrounds.

While GE2015 delivered an outstanding result for the PAP, it was a national swing that may never be repeated for the reasons I mentioned above. The PAP needs to realize that these are fundamental issues that they cannot ignore. Here are some of the issues which I hope the PAP will not lose sight of.

1. Trust of the PAP today vs that with the pioneer generations – in the past people developed the social compact with the PAP and fully trusted the PAP to improve their lives and even though they have been unhappy with some policies, they trusted the PAP to make life better for them. It was almost a ‘blind trust’ of the people but today Singaporeans are not willing to blindly trust the PAP based on what happened over recent years up to the point the Population White Paper was debated in parliament in 2013. In GE2015, Singaporeans signalled to the PAP that they are giving the PAP another chance based on the changes the PAP government has made, key ones being a shift towards the left, focusing on an inclusive growth strategy (versus a ‘growth at all cost’ economic policy). The PAP should strengthen and deepen this trust the people have given to them by listening more and putting in place the right policies. If the PAP can do so, then I am sure Singaporeans will develop a stronger bond with the PAP and will be willing to accept even unpopular policies for the good of Singapore as a whole, as was the case with the first generation PAP leaders.

2. Middle aged Singaporeans were the main swing voters in GE2015. They were angry with the PAP because of cost of living issues. Wages went up but cost of living went up faster and they could not keep up with the pace. They worry about their children’s future. While the PAP kept assuring life will be good for future generations, people could not see clearly how – we communicated the vision for Singapore, which is a very good vision with a good plan, but many could not see how this will actually address their fears of cost of living, cost of housing and secure well-paying jobs for their children. We all know the PAP is capable of delivering but people could not see and did not fully believe based on what they had experienced. The PAP must focus more on the middle aged and I dare say middle income Singaporeans who will continue to be the swing voters again in GE2020. The cost of living issues must be addressed effectively over the next 5 years to win more of this group of voters over.

3. Arrogance vs humility – leaders must take this victory in humility. Singaporeans expect greater humility and personal touch from their leaders and this will be even more in the coming years as the electorate matures and get more educated and informed. The government’s past “We know best” attitude will not work among Singaporeans in the future. Elitism is also something the PAP government should be concerned about especially since the party continues to choose the elites to become key appointment holders. I don’t think Singaporeans will want to see a “natural aristocracy” develop. Leaders must come from a diverse background and servant leadership is what will work for the future. (On arrogance, I believe the WP leaders’ arrogance also contributed to their decline this time as clearly seen by the erosion of votes the WP got in Aljunied, against a relatively new team from the PAP).

4. Connecting with the ground – speaking to the heart. PM Lee and DPM Tharman contributed greatly this time but I don’t think many others of the senior PAP leaders could connect well with voters. In fact a number of the younger opposition candidates did very well in connecting with voters, particularly the younger voters. It was a pity that not many of the PAP new candidates, especially those slated to take on ministerial positions stood out during GE2015. It was an opportunity for some of them to show their mantle to get the support of Singaporeans. They will now have to catch up quickly to show their strengths and capabilities as they take on political office.

5. The PAP had great plans and what was needed was communicating these plans clearly to inspire the voters. The leaders must be able to resonate with the voters to build a better and longer lasting relationship of trust and when trust strengthens, the leaders will be able to convince Singaporeans when they have to push through some tough policies that are for the longer term good of the nation. Prime Minister did well and has got his politics right this time. So did DPM Tharman. Now the rest of the PAP leaders need to get their politics right too.

6. The minorities’ needs have to be better understood. Indians are generally upset that their concerns are not well addressed and also are impacted by the immigration policy. Integration between Singapore born Indians and new immigrants has not taken place successfully. Cultures also don’t quite match. This is an urgent issue that needs to be better addressed. Going into the GE2015, the Malays’ support was also eroded somewhat although not significantly, and issues like the tudung matter and the CPF money being made available for them to travel on Haj remained as sore points. The PAP’s strength in the past had always been a good understanding of the minorities and this must be rebuilt again for greater trust and confidence.

7. Involving more Singaporeans – In a letter to all Singaporeans after the results were announced (I’ve saved a seat for you), the Prime Minister called on more Singaporeans to be involved in shaping the future for Singapore. The government must convert this to action by being more and more consultative. The stakes are now very high as the Prime Minister has raised everyone’s expectation through this letter. The PAP must deliver to make this a reality – getting many more Singaporeans, civil society groups, etc., involved in crafting policies.

Conclusion

Singaporeans have spoken and they have given a strong mandate to the PAP. The PAP has 5 years to consolidate its position and should use this opportunity to strengthen the bond with Singaporeans so that the PAP can get greater trust and confidence of the people. After the lesson learnt in GE2011 and also the reaction to the Population White Paper in 2013, the PAP leadership has been handed a 2nd chance to change it approach to build greater trust from Singaporeans. Failure to change and sticking to the old ways will be disastrous and the PAP should not betray the trust Singaporeans have placed in them as shown by this resounding victory in GE2015. The past is not an indication of the future but should be used as a guide. The current PAP leadership needs to develop a new social compact with Singaporeans, the strength of a compact can give the current PAP leadership the same strength as the compact the pioneer PAP leaders developed, which gave the PAP leaders 40 years of trust of the people.
We still have some underlying issues that need to be addressed. Some of these would be policy changes that are still needed, some might be policies that need to be better implemented, while some are related to better communication of polices, so that we speak to the ‘man on the street’ and not in abstract terms.

I will separately share some of my thoughts on the underlying issues and policies that still need to be addressed if the PAP leadership wants to strengthen the social compact with Singaporeans.

For now, I urge all Singaporeans to come together and work towards Singapore’s progress for the well-being of all Singaporeans. The elections are over, let’s all stand together as one united people for our country.

Majulah Singapura!

 

Source: Inderjit Singh