Tag Archives: NSP

Opposition flaws in the SMCs

SMCs results

GE 2011 was an exceptionally bumper year for the opposition, as they fielded several strong candidates in as many wards as they could. But while the average vote share for the PAP in GRCs alone is around 60 percent, similar to the national vote share (due to the law of large numbers), the PAP vote share in the SMCs was different, roughly 58 percent. One reason it is lower is that Hougang was won by the WP, and Potong Pasir and Joo Chiat were marginally won by the PAP.

But I believe in this year, it could have been lower. After all, discontent against the PAP is at an all-time high, due to rising cost of living, cost of housing and a liberal immigrant policy. Why did results in SMCs turn out slightly different? Yes, SMCs tend to produce results of greater deviation from the national popular vote share. With so many GRCs won by the PAP in the 50-odd percentage points, if they had been SMCs, a few would have fallen to the opposition. I was puzzled why some SMCs did not follow this trend, especially in the SMC scoring the only 7o percent point (considered a norm in older days).

When I look at the PAP candidates in the top-scoring SMCs, they were indeed high-profile. Hong Kah North was won by Amy Khor, long-time office-holder; Radin Mas was won by Sam Tan, another office-holder; Yuhua was won by Grace Fu, a junior minister; Bukit Panjang by Dr Teo Ho Ping, who is personally popular in the ward; Whampoa by Heng Chee How, a junior minister.

The PAP candidates in the rest of the SMCs were not as high-profile, but that doesn’t mean less capable. Pioneer, won by Cedric Foo, a former junior minister, reflected the national trend (60 percent scored by Cedric Foo). What’s more interesting is that, though the bottom-scoring PAP candidates were less low-profile, all of them had been the incumbent MPs (or for Sitoh, the ‘grassroots advisor’) of their wards for at least 5 years (exclude Charles Chong in Joo Chiat, who is a veteran MP but parachuted into the ward; Desmond Choo in Hougang). And against them, the opposition fielded newcomers, each of them clinching more than 40 percent of the votes.

But against the high-profile PAP candidates in the top-scoring SMCs, the opposition fielded veterans, who lost big. It was a strategic error by the NSP and SPP to put those whom they considered ‘strong’ against the high-profile PAP candidates. Ironically, those who seemed strong had lost consecutive elections (Sin Kek Tong, Yip Yew Weng, Ken Sun, Steve Chia), compared to the WP’s newcomers, who polled more than 40 percent each, as they depended on the party reputation. In Yuhua and Bukit Panjang, it seems the SDP also committed a flaw in parachuting in Teo Soh Lung and Alec Tok respectively. Teo was a former ISA detainee…and that’s all everyone in Yuhua probably knows. For Tok, his switch to the SDP from the Reform Party, and his campaign in Bukit Panjang, seems a little too late and insincere to win the ward from the genuinely popular Dr Teo.

Hence it boils down to individuality of candidates, age and party brand in the SMCs. If younger and new opposition candidates (perhaps Nicole Seah?) had stood against the high-profile PAP candidates in the SMCs, they might have done better, so following the national trend. In any case, the next elections might not present similar opportunities of discontent which the opposition could tap on in GE 2011. And of course, SMCs could appear and disappear, like magic.


1 Comment

Filed under Analysis

Battleground Tampines

It seems that the 5-member ward of Tampines GRC will be a key ‘battleground’ ward in the upcoming elections. One reason is that as early as 2009, NSP secretary-general Goh Meng Seng was hammering the anchor minister, Mah Bow Tan, for his ‘failed’ HDB policies. This is part of their minister-specific strategy, in which they will zoom in on ministers and their policies, besides raising municipal and national issues.

The assumption of the strategy is that 1) S’poreans link their GRC to the anchor minister (they don’t care about the rest of the MPs), and 2) they identity the minister by the portfolio which he is holding, 3) if policies e.g. housing fails, that means the minister-in-charge is at fault, 4) so the minister with his team should be voted out. I’d believe that govt policies are not made by specific ministers, but crafted by consensus in the Cabinet with the Prime Minister setting the direction and holding the veto on issues. Hence the minister of transport can object to policy-making regarding housing etc. This is because ministers can and are rotated anyway; and some also hold dual portfolios. To be in the Cabinet means they should be able to handle everything, by virtue of their leadership or EQ etc. Furthermore, in a parliamentary system (and perhaps others too), the Cabinet is bounded as a collective leadership, so even if some ministers personally disagree with the policies, ALL of them have to stand united in public.

So if one policy fails, by right the whole govt should change, and not just the minister-in-charge. The govt can simply replace the minister and continue its policy. Hence I don’t really understand NSP’s minister-specific strategy of whacking the minister just because he’s in charge of housing. But then again, Mah Bow Tan has been the minister for national development for a VERY long time, such that housing issues are easily linked to him. According to the S’pore Cabinet Office website, he’s ranked No. 8 out of 21, so if he’s voted out, that would be a symbolic hit on the PAP.

If everything goes accordingly, Goh Meng Seng and his best candidates will be fielded in Tampines to take on Mah Bow Tan and his team. On the top of the table will be housing, housing and housing. Again, this leads us to the question of what voters are looking for. Are they voting for the party to form the govt or a group of candidates to take care of their municipal needs? Are they concerned about national policy-making and its intricacies, or do they put their confidence in people whom they can relate to, trusting they would act in their best interests? It’s likely to be a combination of everything. Whether Goh can use his minister-specific strategy effectively depends on how correctly he reads voters’ moods in Tampines.

Results of Tampines GRC since 1988:

1988: PAP vs. NSP (61 to 39 percent)

1991: PAP vs. NSP (59.48 to 40.52 percent)

1997: Walkover

2001: PAP vs. NSP-SDA (73.34 to 26.66 percent)

2006: PAP vs. NSP-SDA (68.51 to 31.49 percent)

As you can see, the PAP has won Tampines consistently, with margins between 19 to 47 percent. One reason is that Tampines has an above-average percentage of Malays, and as a community, they have thrown their support behind the PAP. However, the NSP inaugurated its Malay Bureau last year to attract potential Malay candidates, and if they don’t disappoint, a candidate who can allow the Malays to relate to him or her will be fielded, so that the team can draw more votes. But it might not be a vote-winner, of course.

Since NSP has attacked Mah Bow Tan since 2009 and probably done several walkabouts in Tampines, that means they are entering the elections with greater expectations to do well. Furthermore, if Mah Bow Tan is voted out, the NSP could claim their minister-specific strategy works, and the PAP probably will have to change its HDB policies (for good or ill, no one knows). But in any case, a win for the NSP is likely to be marginal, given that this is a GRC, and that Mah Bow Tan has been in politics and a minister for more than two decades. If the NSP loses, it should ideally lose marginally too i.e. garnering more than 40 percent of the votes to have one of its candidates qualify as a NCMP. A worse defeat means that their minister-specific strategy is not working or simply because S’poreans agree with the housing policies, and think they are fine.

For the reasons above, Tampines GRC is likely to be a battleground GRC, because the NSP has set the stakes high by assaulting a minister’s policies, and indirectly, the entire PAP. The WP didn’t fight like this in Aljunied by accusing George Yeo of mismanaging foreign affairs, and they probably won’t. That brings us back to the list of priorities which voters have, and if Goh Meng Seng can interpret them correctly during the campaigning period (probably 9 days) to sway most of them.

Lastly…the PAP might just shift Mah Bow Tan out of Tampines, if they feel they have a chance of losing at all 🙂 So no more minister-specific strategy huh.

Leave a comment

Filed under Battleground, GE 2011