Tag: GE2015

  • Digital Consultants Helped Six MPs Shine Online In GE2015

    Digital Consultants Helped Six MPs Shine Online In GE2015

    It is a job which may not have existed a decade ago, but one now finding increasing currency, particularly among those in the public eye.

    Meet digital consultants Natasha Zhao, 29, and Freda Kwok, 27. Among their clients are six People’s Action Party MPs – three of them holding ministerial portfolios including one Senior Minister of State.

    This month’s election results were a culmination of a year’s hard work for the MPs who hired them. All six clients were elected. “We worked on their online reputation,” says Ms Zhao. “A good digital engagement plan is best implemented early, during times of peace.”

    The MPs identify and recruit residents who support them early on. The digital consultants then advise these advocates on the dos and don’ts of online campaigning.

    They use social media monitoring tools to “listen” in on online conversations, then let them know when action is needed. “Part of the battle involves picking the right battlefield. It may not make sense to have supporters go into overly hostile territory,” says Ms Kwok.

    Guidelines include having these supporters post replies from a genuine account, maintaining an objective tone, sharing personal experiences and refraining from personal attacks on other netizens.

    The tools also determine what type of content resonates with netizens. For instance, posts containing personal thoughts and insights into a candidate’s personal life get up to three times more likes, comments or shares on social media compared to ones on policies.

    The consultant might also suggest responses to issues or a cause.

    Ultimately, however, the client decides what information goes out.

    One candidate, who declines to be named, says residents of all ages follow her on Facebook: “Amid rising expectation from voters and the fact that many may not have time for face-to-face engagement, social media becomes a more important platform for reaching out to these residents.”

    Ms Zhao and Ms Kwok, both from QED consulting, decline to reveal how much the MPs paid. Digital consultants can charge up to $150 an hour.

    Professor Ang Peng Hwa, an adviser at the Singapore Internet Research Centre, says social media matters can get out of hand: “That some candidates are using consultants shows they are playing it safe. You can’t respond to everything, so you’ll need to be smart about what you reply to, and what you say.”

    So how do the other parties handle their social media?

    The Workers’ Party declined to be interviewed, while questions sent to the Singapore Democratic Party went unanswered.

    People’s Power Party founder Goh Meng Seng says his party does most things on its own. “Our time and resources are limited and our supporters understand that. Our content also feels more authentic.”

    Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) chairman Desmond Lim says his party’s efforts include actively monitoring comments on its Facebook page, which is regularly updated. “It is important that comments do not steer mindsets in the wrong direction and dilute the essence of what SDA stands for,” he says.

    Some politicians, says Ms Kwok, also rely on help from volunteers, who are not digital professionals but are enthusiastic and savvy about social media use.

    “The danger is that sometimes they might not fully understand the complexities and sensitivities involved in digital communications,” she adds.

    That is one reason Prof Ang thinks the political dimension on social media here has space to grow, compared to campaigns like US President Barack Obama’s in 2008.

    “There was more social media buzz this time round compared to the last election, but nothing really stood out,” he says.

    The consultants, however, are optimistic.  Says Ms Kwok: “How an item trends on social media will continue to be an important marker in tracking how critical it is.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • What Next, Workers’ Party?

    What Next, Workers’ Party?

    WP did not do as well in GE2015 as they would hope to. They were looking to increase the number of WP MPs to 20. Before polling day, judging by the comments online and the massive turn out at their rallies, one would be forgiven for thinking that WP did have a decent chance of achieving their goal. Instead, on polling day, they lost one MP and the number of WP MPs was reduced to six. They saw their vote share drop from GE2011.

    While the reasons for WP losing ground was probably due to a nationwide swing toward PAP, this loss of ground does have very real practical implications about the future for WP. It cannot keep depending on Hougangto send its members into parliament. What can WP do to keep it a viable opposition party? I suggest the following seven ways

    Be good town councillors

    AHPETC-logo

    While it is true that the primary duty of MPs in most other countries is to make laws, the reality in Singapore is that MPs are also expected to manage municipal issues. WP may hope that this is not the reality, but, for whatever reasons, that is what Singaporean voters have come to expect. No point trying to argue against this reality. Better to accept it and perform the tasks of being town councilors well.

    This means that WP will have to sort out the accounts of the town council as best as possible. I think most Singaporeans do understand that there may have been some issues during the handing over in 2011 and may forgive the WP for not being able to sort out the accounts because of those handing over issues.

    That said, I think Singaporeans expect WP to be completely above reproach regarding related party transactions. I think Singaporeans expect WP to have proper systems in place to handle cheques, get the best value for money when awarding contracts, and transfer money to the sinking funds promptly. Other than the opening statements of the accounts, which, as Low ThiaKhiang pointed out in his rally speech, I think Singaporeans expect every other aspect of the accounts to be clear and beyond question.

    Bread and butter issues matter to Singaporeans. And one of the bread and butter issues is precisely the condition of the estate we live in. Therefore, for municipal issues (e.g. estate cleanliness, corridor lights, lifts), WP must ensure that things are working well. If possible, bring about some estate upgrading. Keep the residents in the area they are MPs of happy with the estate.

    Be master social workers

    In addition to being good town councilors, Singaporeans expect our MPs to be master social workers. I cannot emphasize enough that most of us do not care much for abstract notions of democracy and human rights. What we do care about are tangible bread and butter issues.

    When we face issues such as having bills that we cannot pay, having difficulty finding jobs, not being able to get into the schools of our choice, we expect our MPs to be able to put up credible effort to help us. We expect our MPs to sort out our issues with our neighbours, and even our families. When we see elderly or less advantaged people in our neighbourhood facing whatever difficulties, we expect our MPs to extend a warm, gentle helping hand.

    It does not matter that PAP, with its control over various government institutions (e.g. PA, grassroots organisations), may have put numerous obstacles in the way of WP. Singaporeans still expect WP MPs to be master social workers and help solve their bread and butter issues.

    Do a great job in Parliament

    low-thia-khiang-02

    In parliament, the WP MPs should ask hard questions. It is not enough to have high attendance rates. It is not enough to have spoken up a lot. Quality does indeed matter more than quantity. WP will need to  get together teams of people to research and draft speeches. Ensure that speeches are consistent and cannot be perceived as flip-flopping. Anticipate the reactions and questions from PAP MPs and work out reasonable responses.

    More than just asking questions, WP MPs should move motions for debate on important issues. Even then-NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan has done so. His motion got a heated discussion in Parliament, getting even the late Mr LeeKuan Yew to speak in Parliament. In so doing, Mr Viswa Sadasivan gained much respect from Singaporeans.

    Lastly, WP MPs should introduce a (few) Private Member’s Bill. Ideally, these bills should benefit Singaporeans in a tangible way. If that is not possible, at least these bills should be seen to be beneficial for the long-term interests of Singapore. These could include bills for electoral reforms (e.g. getting rid of the GRC system). Even if the chances of these bills passing are slim, it shows that at least WP MPs are willing and capable of introducing bills.

    Focus on one more GRC and a few SMCs

    I believe that WP was too ambitious in GE2015. It overstretched itself by aiming for Marine Parade GRC and East Coast GRC at the same time. By doing so, it had spread its talents too thinly. It also reflected what some people think to be arrogance.

    In the next GE, unless for whatever reasons, there is palpable anger against the PAP that is stronger than those in the lead up to GE2011, WP should focus keeping Hougang and Aljunied and aim for one more GRC and perhaps a couple of SMCs. This concentrates the talent and resources of WP. Also, it avoids a “by-stander” effect, where voters in one GRC think that it is ok for them not to vote WP because voters in another GRC can do it to send WP candidates into parliament. In fact, I believed that this is precisely the strategy that helped WP win Aljunied – voters then believed that if they had not voted for WP, then there really may not be any opposition MPs.

    Walk the ground early

    Png walk

    For the areas that the WP wants to make some headway in, their potential candidates need to start walking the ground early. Yes, there is a possibility that the electoral boundaries may be redrawn, SMCs disappear and GRCsbroken up, and all the hard work of walking the ground early may go down the drain. But it is wishful thinking to expect Singaporeans to accept someone they have not seen, have not gotten to know, have not gotten to like as a person, as their MP.

    So WP should go out and knock on doors starting from now. WP should start talking to people in other constituencies. WP should find creative ways to organize events that benefit people in the constituencies that it wants to make headways in. Get to know the people in those constituencies. Let the people get to know and like WP and WP’s potential candidates as early as possible.

    Retain and continue to attract good members to put up as candidates

    WP has managed to attract great candidates so far. He Ting Ru, LeonPerera and Daniel Goh have gained much traction amongst Singaporeans. I hope these candidates will continue to stay in WP and keep working the ground.

    In addition to these very capable candidates, I would hope to see WP attract two other groups of people to be candidates.

    Firstly, I hope to see WP attract candidates who have significant NGO/VWObackground. PAP did well in attracting Louis Ng as a candidate. It breaks the stereotype of PAP candidates. That really helped PAP improve its image. Having a candidate of this sort of background would be helpful because this person should have the track record of galvanizing people to help out certain segments of society in different ways that could inspire trust in people.

    Secondly, I hope to see WP attract candidates who are not well-educated but are successful businessmen nonetheless. It seems that our parliament is short of such people to represent a segment of Singapore who took an alternative route to success. I believe that this type of candidate can offer very useful perspectives on policy making.

    Be humble and gracious

    For whatever reasons, Singaporeans have come to perceive WP to be arrogant. In 2011, people voted for WP because they felt that the PAP was getting too big for its britches. In 2015, it seems that people felt that WP was suffering from the very syndrome that turned them away from the PAP. I know of voters who voted for WP in 2011 and voted for PAP precisely because they wanted to send a signal to WP to not be arrogant. WP should think of why people consider this way and how it can rectify this issue.

    WP and its supporters also need to learn to be gracious. The jeering at the nomination centres and the vitriol hurled at PAP at the WP rallies turn swing voters off. To win over swing voters, WP will need to stop appearing to be divisive and fear mongering. Daniel Goh’s post GE Facebook post was a prime example of what needs to be done.

    Conclusion

    WP has its task cut out. It faces considerable headwinds. But for the long-term interests and viability of Singapore, I hope that WP will rise to the challenge and come back even stronger in the next GE.

    Source: https://crazyrandomchatter.wordpress.com

  • Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

    Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

    To:

    United Nations Bangkok

    12th Floor, United Nations Building,
    Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Pranakorn
    Bangkok 10200, Thailand

    Dear Sir/Mdm,

    I want to formally lodge a complaint to the United Nations for our country’s recently-held general election.

    For the record, I also stood for general election twice – Tampines GRC in 2011 and Ang Mo Kio GRC this year.

    For the recent election, the ruling party PAP won by a landslide majority percentage of 70% – a huge increase of 10% over the previous GE 2011 result of 60%.

    Many opposition parties suffered from bad losses – right down to the unprecedented 20s percentile mark.

    My fear is that if the following unfair unethical practices are to go unchecked, it will be the accepted norm and we may see a one-party rule for a very long time – something which many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with.

    Many are willing to accept the mandate of the majority but if the ruling party won it unfairly then the international community such as the United nations needs to step in so that future elections can be conducted ethically and above board.

    We hope that independent assessors be sent in by the UN so that the population is ensured of a fair and ethical election from now on.

    Moreover, Singapore is a  internationally-renowned economic powerhouse with a huge multi-national presence but it is seriously lacking in democratic rights and freedom of speech.

    Those who spoke out against the authorities were frequently questioned by the police with some facing lawsuits and jail sentence.

    I have listed down the following unfair unethical ways in which our government has won the recent election:-

    1. Injection of new citizen voters

    New citizens were injected yearly so that they can usher in to vote for the ruling party out of loyalty.

    They were mostly hailed from third world countries such as Philippines, Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia and know no other party besides PAP.

    An average of 25,000 new voters are added in annually since 2006 and by this election, more than 200,000 new citizens are eligible to vote – mostly for the first-time.

    Though we acknowledged that voters are swayed by the SG 50 jubilee celebration and the death of patriach Lee Kuan Yew to vote for the ruling party, new voters from third world countries will be the new force to be reckoned with.

    New-citizen voters is the main reason why our government allows in so many foreigners on the pretext of economic expansion but behind there lies a more sinister motive to stay in power forever as they are loyal to the ruling party.

    We urge the government to consider that new citizens can only vote after staying with us for 5 years and beyond so their votes can never be manipulated at the onset to help the ruling party.

    2. Boundary changes

    Boundary changes is the norm of every election but for this recent election it is more pressing as the ruling party faces some unresolvable national issues such as transportation and over-crowding.

    It’s share of the crucial majority votes have been slipping since two elections ago.

    For this election, boundary changes is also more critical as it allows the government to flood certain opposition-held wards with new citizen voters. It is almost a sure-win way to ensure that they can hold on to their own constituencies and yet able to possibly remove a opposition-held ward or reduce its winning margin.

    WP’s Aljunied GRC is one such ward as it saw the winning margin reduced from a five-figure majority victory in 2011 to a narrow 1900 votes (50.95). There is a 3.7% swing against the opposition giant.

    In 2011, Aljunied had 143,000 voters whereas for the recent election it has 148,000 voters – an increase of almost 5000 voters.

    In 2015, it polled 70,000 votes against the 2011 election’s 72,000 causing it to slip 3.7% to 50.9% of majority votes or 12,000 winning votes in 2011 to the current 1900 votes after counting in the PAP’s share of the votes.

    The PAP’s share of the votes, on the other hand, jumped from 59,000 to 67,000 – probably a combination of new citizen voters (5000)  and swing voters (3000).

    There is thus this fear that WP may not be able to hold on to Aljunied GRC in 2020 when the ruling party pours in more loyal new citizen votes with all things remaining equal.

    The government roughly knows whether certain precinct is pro-government or pro-opposition according to the polling station and this is public knowledge by now.

    By removing or adding certain precinct from a constituency, it can ensure that the area has a majority of government voters with the awful unfair boundary change that comes with every election.

    We urge that any boundary changes in future be effected in consultation with the opposition to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

    3. Demarcation of PA from PAP

    The heavily-funded People’s Association (PA) is the arm and leg of the ruling party and its reach into the masses is one main reason why it won so handsomely.

    It is also unfair as PA is a statutory board which is supposed to be non-partisan but its activities is all along very pro-PAP.

    It has a yearly funding of $500 million and its budget is going to be ballooned to $1 billion soon. Its accounting practice is also suspect and is one of the many statutory board that is flagged by our Auditor-General’s office for malpractices.

    This is unfair to the opposition as the government is using our tax payer money to fuel it’s own campaign by using unethical means.

    Moreover, the chairman of PA is none other than the Prime Minister himself.

    We urge that the PA be disbanded or distance itself from the ruling party in everything that it does to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

    4. Election Department falls under the Prime Minister Office (PMO)

    The Election Department now falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister Office (PMO).

    This is most unfair as it gives the ruling party a huge advantage especially when the ED can influence significant boundary changes and when it can call for a election after consulting the PM giving little time for the opposition to prepare it’s ground.

    We urge that the ED will be independent of the PMO so that it is impartial and just.

    5. Control of mainsteam media during election

    Our press rankings have been slipping down yearly with the latest rating at a historic low of 153 out of 180, according to Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders.

    The government has controlled our press and TV so that it can influence the masses especially during the crucial general election. Information is mostly slanted to benefit the ruling party and this press behaviour is not unlike that of communist bloc countries like China or Russia.

    Propaganda messages were played and re-played again during the recent election so that the large middle ground is influenced to vote for the ruling party.

    We urge that the government frees up our mainstream media so that the population has a balanced access to information on a impartial basis.

    Let the public decide what kind of government they want without improper propaganda through unfair means.

    Conclusion

    I am willing to speak with the United Nations personally on all the above mentioned matters so that our country can have a fair and ethical election in GE 2020.

    We also welcome independent assessors into our country for the next general election to ensure that the best political party wins – on its own merits!

    Thanks & Warmest Regards,

    Gilbert Goh

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • Singapore: Popcorn Democracy?

    Singapore: Popcorn Democracy?

    Confrontational politics, social media and political apathy — some of the issues raised during MARUAH’s post-election forum What’s at Stake?

    After the unexpected landslide victory of 69.9% of the popular votes by the People’s Action Party (PAP) in this year’s Election, pundits, academics and other politically-minded individuals shared their analyses of the result and its implication for Singapore.

    Against this backdrop, MARUAH, a human rights group, held a forum called What’s at Stake? on Saturday, 19 September. It comes eight days after polling day

    Speaker Alex Au who was one of six speakers at the forum, avoided giving a mere explanation of the result. Instead he posed “provocative” questions for people to consider,among which was the state of opposition politics. Speaking directly to Workers’ Party’s dip in performance — he touched on their reluctance to “boast” of their performance in Parliament and questioning PAP on a number of issues. He felt their inability to score on such matters may have backfired.

    Confrontational politics

    The writer behind the blog Yawning Bread spoke about the importance of party branding. To differentiate themselves from each other, opposition parties should not just criticise the PAP, but each other, he said.

    According to him, in people’s minds, the opposition parties are all the same. Hence, opposition parties should “forget about opposition unity” and be unafraid of contesting each other.

    When an audience member questioned the need for “confrontational politics,” Au said, this is “unavoidable”.

    Disputing this point, political analyst Dr Derek da Cunha pointed out that the Workers’ Party (WP) had actually performed well over the years because it took a moderate stance.

    Role of social media

    Dr da Cunha also took to task social media’s role in determining election outcomes. He said it had “zero impact” and that he has been saying this “forcefully for six years.”

    Terry Xu, Chief Editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), said that prior to this year’s Election, he would not have agreed with Dr da Cunha, but now does. He noted that despite the satires of PAP politicians his publication put out, voters were hardly swayed by them — presumably to vote for the opposition.

    Xu took issue with new sites like SIX-SIX.COM, Mothership and The Middle Ground, urging the audience to ask where funding for these sites comes from, even implying, without any proof, that they may be backed by the Government.

    Author and blogger, Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh pointed out the question of funding and the need to moderate one’s content is an issue all media outlets deal with. He added that readers should decide for themselves the credibility of a news site.

    Dr da Cunha questioned TOC’s credibility after putting out articles from anonymous sources. He said that while he used to think the site was good, it has over the years become “more extreme.”

    In reply, Xu said the people who write the anonymous articles are teachers and academics who are afraid their positions in the workplace might be compromised when they are associated withTOC.

    Death of the new normal

    Au said that the one point all the speakers could probably agree with is that “the new normal” of higher political engagement after the WP won a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2011 election “was a figment of our imagination.”

    In the same vein, Thomas said the 2011 result might have just been a “blip” and the presumed “death of the apathetic Singaporean” was false.

    Singaporeans might be interested only in “popcorn democracy” where they engage with politics once in every four or five years during election season, instead of actively engaging with politics every day, he said.

    “Maybe Singaporeans just want the veneer of democracy.”

    Going forward?

    As per its discussion theme, What’s at Stake?, MARUAH’s forum laid out issues of concern for Singaporeans after the recent election.

    Braema Mathi, President of MARUAH, had asked the speakers to provide some ideas for electoral reform as well. Dr da Cunha suggested that GRCs be of “uniform size,” following the practice in 1991 where there were four-members each for every ward.

    He also said that the EBRC should publish its report on boundary shifts no less than four months before polling day and that policy changes like the introduction of sample count this election should not be announced “just days before polling day.”

    Besides Dr da Cunha, Au seems to have been the only other person to have sketched out some steps forward, with his suggestion that opposition parties brand themselves better and that opposition parties collaborate more with civil society.

     

    Source: http://six-six.com

  • Chee Soon Juan: GE2015 – Could There Have Been Any Other Result?

    Chee Soon Juan: GE2015 – Could There Have Been Any Other Result?

    I wrote in this blog a couple of weeks prior to the last GE that come day-after-polling, the PAP will declare victory and, thereafter, it will be one-party-rule-as-usual. I also pointed out, which I have done countless of times before, that the electoral process in Singapore facilitates one and only one outcome: PAP victory. There can be no other.

    The factors that contributed to the outcome of this past general election have been discussed ad nauseum, but we are no closer to coming to a definitive conclusion of what really made the populace vote the way it did. I do not wish to add to the speculation other than to state the obvious: it was a combination of all of them.

    Rather, I think it would be much more helpful to identify the root motivator, or motivators, of the voting behaviour of the majority of Singaporeans.

    To do that, let me first cite the work of Ellen Lust of Yale University. Essentially, Professor Lust says that “Elections in authoritarian regimes not only fail to push the transition process forward, but tend to strengthen the incumbent regime.”

    She observes that in hegemonic authoritarian systems:

    • “Elections tend to weaken political parties…Parties come to be seen as personalistic cliques, focused on their own interests.
    • Political parties tend to splinter into even weaker offshoots.
    • Elections provide an efficient mechanism for distributing patronage.
    • Opposition elites who win seats become part of the patronage network, providing selective benefits to their constituents.
    • Elections also can help the party in power to co-opt potential counterelites.

    So what does Lust see as a viable option for those who want to bring about a more democratic state? She writes: “Supporters of democracy should thus focus on changing the overall playing field rather than just the electoral process.”

    What playing field, in the Singapore context, are we talking about ? As it turns out, there are not so many things that stack the system in favour of the PAP. No matter how you slice it, three factors emerge:

    • Control of the print and broadcast media
    • Use of state organs for party-political purposes
    • Subjugation of the body charged with the conduct of elections

    The combination of the three will – regardless of the efficacy of the political opposition and the potency of our message – result in the overwhelming electoral victory of the PAP each and every election. For purposes of this essay, I wish to focus on the first factor: media control.

    Democracy isn’t just about voting once every 5 years, it is about having a free media where views of all sides are openly aired and support for them canvassed. In Singapore, however, opposition parties are excluded from meaningful coverage in the period between elections, save for perhaps whenever the PAP decides to criticise us.

    This is a powerful drug that anaesthetises the electorate to the pain that PAP policies inflict and acts as a stimulant for its message especially during elections. Conversely, the obscurantism turns most things the opposition has to offer into inconsequential drivel.

    Pundits and commentators, in their haste to provide “answers” for the PAP’s sterling results, draw conclusions ranging from the PAP’s superior communication skills to the one speech that DPM Tharman made during the hustings to the lack of opposition unity.

    These observations ignore the overarching role that the control of information plays in driving voting behaviour of the majority of Singaporeans. After more than 50 years of the PAP-good, opposition-bad dichotomy, it would indeed be surprising that the national vote turned out any other way.

    Perhaps media consultant Alan Soon, amidst all the faux analyses of the results, came closest to the nub of the matter when he noted: “If journalism is meant to be a service in which we inform and educate society, we’re failing. This country has real issues to contend with and we’re not going to get very far if the media doesn’t appreciate its role in explaining, dissecting and challenging policies.”

    If any good is going to come from the dismal results of this elections, let it be a renewed effort to revamp the way our national media operate in order to level the playing field and provide the Singaporean electorate a proper forum to debate politics and policies and when elections come, the wherewithal to cast an intelligent vote.

    At the heart of this complex issue is the Newspaper Presses and Printing Act (NPPA) which, for all intents and purposes, allows the PAP monopoly of the political narrative in Singapore. Section 11 of the Act, for instance, says that “No person shall…become a substantial shareholder of a newspaper company without first obtaining the approval of the Minister.” This surely cannot be the way the media in Singapore function in the knowledge-driven era.

    We have been working hard, very hard. Now let us start working smart. As long as we do not address the fundamentals that drive the political system – fundamentals that have produced the same ineluctable results even after half-a-century of elections in Singapore – the opposition will be forever consigned to the inane exercise of chasing our tails.

    This is an excerpt of my presentation at the SDP Post-GE2015 Forum: The Way Forward held on 19 September 2015.

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com