Daniel Yuan/

It was interesting to see the numbers for the elected candidates placed right beside the share of valid votes in http://www.ge.sg/tallyseats/ now that the results are out.

Share of valid votes from the various parties:

  • PAP: 60.1%
  • WP: 12.8%
  • NSP: 12.0%
  • SDP: 4.8%
  • RP: 4.3%
  • SPP: 3.1%
  • SDA: 2.8%

I’m going to assume that in a ‘normal’ outcome, the number of parliamentary seats won by the respective parties should be equal in proportion to valid votes. Given the 87 seats available in parliament, we should expect to see the following distribution based on my assumption of a ‘normal’ outcome (% of votes multiplied by total number of seats):

  • PAP: 52 seats
  • WP: 11 seats
  • NSP: 11 seats
  • SDP: 4 seats
  • RP: 4 seats
  • SPP: 3 seats
  • SDA: 2 seats

However, the actual number of seats won are as follows:

  • PAP: 81 (93%)
  • WP: 6 (7%)
  • NSP: 0
  • RP: 0
  • SDA: 0
  • SDP: 0
  • SPP: 0

The difference:

  • PAP: +29
  • WP: -5
  • NSP: -11
  • SDP: -4
  • RP: -4
  • SPP: -3
  • SDA: -2

 

Winning 93% of the seats with 60% of the votes is quite an accomplishment. The controversial walkover of course had a part to play in this.

Some may even argue that this 60% is an overestimation considering how it probably comprises of those who have been threatened (illegitimate fears around implications of voting secrecy) or bribed (housing upgrades/ HDB bidding) into contributing their vote to this statistic.

If this is any indicator of PAP’s gerrymandering tactics, then I would say that it has once again done an incredibly successful job at redrawing the electoral boundaries to its advantage.

If this tells us anything about the opposition’s character, then it suggests that they are either very foolish to be stacking themselves up against such odds, or convicted of their calling enough to be taking such risks.

If this is a reflection of public sentiment vis-a-vis election outcome, then it represents the disparity between which party the people want in power, and which is actually in power.

 

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

SG High Commissioner rebuts The Economist on freedom of speech in Singapore

By TREmeritus The Economist writing about the media situation in Singapore last…

【选举】尚穆根:政治人物应专注就业、疫情后复苏议题

内政暨律政部长尚穆根表示,政客们应专注于解决诸如就业和冠状病毒19疫情之类的课题,因为这些都是国人希望获得解决的课题。 尚穆根周二(6月23日)在接受《海峡时报》采访时指出,国人关心遏制冠毒疫情再次爆发的措施,以及国家经济在疫情后的复苏情况。“对政府而言,另一个问题不仅是我国要度过,而是当全世界都度过这个难关时,我们要如何取得领先他人的位置?” 他指出,冠毒疫情已经让人们有了一种思考方式,即冠毒直接影响了他们的经济,包括他们的工作和孩子们的工作,以及政府将如何在不引起第二波冠毒袭击下,重启经济开放。 他引述李显龙总理的话说道,我们正处于历史的关键点之一,“我认为这是政客应该专注的焦点,并在大选期间处理这些问题”。 新加坡人意识到政府所提供的四个预算案,不足以帮助企业生存,因此他们开始考量,“谁能在疫情后保障他们的公司或工作”。“这对他们来说至关重要,这也是我们自冠毒疫情爆发后就开始关注的焦点……我们(政府)所有人都专注于这一点上,而这也是选民们在选举期间希望听到的事项。” 他指出,政客的任务是诚实地指出国人所面临的课题,以及提供最佳解决方案。 疯狂政客将借课题吸引选民 尚穆根续指出,冠毒疫情可能会“分裂社会”,因为它为许多国家带来了巨大压力,而当国家面临如此巨大压力时,“疯狂的政客”将试图以“非常民粹主义”的方式做出呼吁,并使用解决方案来吸引选民。“每到此时,疯狂的政客就会脱颖而出,以非常民粹的方式,向民众表示已拥有解决方案,而且解决方案非常简单,来吸引选民支持。” 他指出,这总是和确定的不同群体有关,他们或是外国人、或社区内的不同种族、或是特定的宗教信仰、或具有宗教说服力的人们。 然而,尚穆根表示,政府为所有的种族提供了机会,但这并不意味着没有种族主义。“我们以截然不同的方式处理种族课题,我们融入社会,但是不允许贫民区增加。” 他披露,大部分国人透过其他国家的经历有了正面了解,并支持我国政府的做法,让国家更文明、安全和巩固。 “当你说要50万人上街游行示威时,我认为很多国人并不会同意这么做。”…

确诊破10万医疗体系近崩溃 菲律宾首都再“封城”

菲律宾疫情在本周日新增5032例冠状病毒19确诊,过去四天新增病例屡创新高,累计病例突破10万,达10万3185例,病故人数攀升至2059人。 有鉴于当前疫情严峻,菲律宾总统杜特蒂宣布,马尼拉大都会地区,于8月4日至18日,恢复实施更严格防疫限制规定。首都和周边地区人口多达1千200万人。 8月1日,菲律宾医学界联署呼吁,指医疗体系濒临崩溃,呼吁当地政府在首都地区重新落实更严格社区隔离措施。 杜特蒂在2日晚的电视讲话称“已经尽最大努力”,对马尼拉市民道歉,也表示医疗人员身心俱疲,在前线面对抗疫压力,以及对冠病的不确定感到担忧,但却没能获得任何回报。 大马尼拉再次“封城”下,教堂被令关闭,非关键商业活动如理发店、发廊等,也可能被令关闭。民众只能去购买食物和必需品、上班可离开住所,但重新采用外出隔离通行证。

Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council Chairman unaware of systemic issues, says blogger Phillip Ang

Blogger Phillip Ang recently raised the issue of maintenance in estates under…