In the up and coming General Elections, the opposition parties cannot hope for a better time than the situations these days. They had the bad luck in the previous General Elections, held in 3rd Nov 2001, whereby the voters generally throw their lots for security and stability. Such is the (unfortunate) situation after the 9-11 terrorist incident in the USA.
Generally in the elections since the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) concept was formed, in my opinions, the younger voters preferred to have the one of the opposition parties wins one of the GRC but were hoping that the win do not occur in his/her GRC!
Looking at the current map of the electoral division [1] in Singapore, and assuming that the electoral boundaries do not change much (where my belief is there will be changes in Sembawang and Holland-Bukit Panjang GRCs [2] at least!), where can we find a GRC that the PAP is weak in?
The answer can be found from the history of the General Elections in Singapore! In 1988, the weakest GRC was Enuos GRC [3] with the PAP (comprising of Chew Heng Ching, Tay Eng Soon and Zulkifli Mohammed) won the GRC with 36,500 votes (48.2%) against the WP (Lee Siew Choh, Mohd Khalit B Md Baboo, Francis Seow) with 35,221 votes (46.5%). [Key members are in bold italic]
In 1991, the same expanded Enuos GRC [4] was again won by the PAP (comprising of Chew Heng Ching, Charles Chong You Fook, Sidek B Saniff, Tay Eng Soon) with 45,833 votes (49.4%) against the WP (Lee Siew-Choh, Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood, Neo Choon Aik, Wee Han Kim) with 41,673 votes (44.9%). Note that in this election campaign, much of the attacks were directed at Mohd Jufrie and his fiery Malay-centered idealogy. This cost the WP the crucial Chinese votes.
In 1997, after the death of Dr Tay (a full Minister), the Enuos GRC was disbanded and was absorbed by Aljunied, East Coast and Marine Parade GRCs. The attention turned to Cheng Shan GRC [5]. The PAP (comprising of Heng Chiang Meng, Lee Yock Suan, Michael Lim Chun Leng, Yeo Guat Kwang, Zainul Abidin Rasheed) won with 53,553 votes (51.8%) against the WP (Abdul Rahim Bin Osman, Huang Seow Kwang, J B Jeyaretnam, Tan Bin Seng, Tang Liang Hong) with 44,132 votes (42.75%). The man under attack was, of course, Tang Liang Hong and his so-called Chinese chauvinist comments made during one of those TV programmes. This cost the Malay votes and put off much of the Chinese voters (my guess are the Christian-/Catholic-related voters) as well.
In 2001, Cheng Shan GRC was dissolved and was absorbed by Aljunied, AMK and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRCs. And in this election, all the opposition parties contesting the few GRCs fared badly, partly because of the lack of prominent campaigners (the better ones were in the Single Member Constituency contests) and partly because of 9-11 events.
Well, where is the next 'weak' GRC in the coming election? My guess is Aljunied GRC! They have the following - portions of the weak Enuos GRC (Enuos ward), portions of the weak Cheng Shan GRC (Punggol ward) and the weak Paya Lebar ward (PAP's Philip Tan won 12,352 votes against SDP's David Chew's 11,240 votes in 1988 [6]).
Therefore, no other GRC is weaker than the Aljunied GRC at the moment. What the WP (they are campaigning in this GRC) can do is to stay focus and actively do their parts on groundworks. And there is no better base to launch the strategy than from their Hougang SMC (which is surrounded by the Aljunied GRC)!
Are they able to win the GRC in 2006? Well, we must look at 2 factors - (a) the political atmosphere during the election period; and (b) the quality of the candidates (of both parties). I shall elaborate on these 2 points in my next blog. That's a promise and a promise is meant to be kept!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Haha... I Aljunied GRC leh. I also hope WP can come contest. Last time they shoot themselves in the foot by filling in the forms wrongly, so stupid.
But BG Yeo is our foreign minister woh. He like doing alrite leh. Maybe kinda hard to persuade ppl for vote a foreign minister haha...
Maybe kinda hard to persuade ppl to vote out a foreign minister...
sorri typo.
Actually it is perfectly alright to vote out a foreign mini$ter, because in elections, only domestic matters count. Foreign affairs doesn't.
nelson
Going by that I think Hong Kah GRC got chance leh. Our transport minister sucks. He also dun have other heavy weight to back him up.
Is BG Yeo the worst Minister? In my opinion, he is one of the better ones you can find in the Cabinet.
Whether his progress was slowed down for a particular reason (as rumoured) that I couldn't write about is up to our imagination.
Nonetheless, the worst (just to be fair, worst could mean the least best, isn't it?) Minister, in my opinion, is that someone whom everyone like to curse and swear at whenever he moved from one ministry to another. Make the guess yourself.
Should BG Yeo be unseated? Just blame his own luck to be in the GRC with the least support among them.
In reality, I have nothing against BG Yeo. BG Yeo showed great restraint when Taiwan called us a pee-sai country.
OTOH, I do have a bigger prob with Mabok Tongue and Lam Che.. oops... Yeo Cheow Tong... I think these two deserves the boot. I am not going to talk about specifics here, but anytime you discuss Mabok it is probably accompanied with a string of vulgarities.
Yeo Cheow Tong, I seem to recall him saying this, "5% unemployment rate what's the issue? 95% still employed what!" or something to that effect.
And good thing Cedric the Fool has resigned as Mini$ter. There's no greater joke than: "The White Horse policy is to ensure no one gets special treatment."
When he said that my friend exclaimed: "我念的书不多，但是你不要骗我。" (Meaning: I don't have a very high education but don't bluff me.)
First thing first - let us be "gentlemen" enough to criticize other people with facts. And if we are to poke fun at some people, it's better not to name them. Rationale is, if they are bad enough, the whole world will know about them, so there is not need for us to name them.
Let face it, the days of the "full-employment" periods are over. Whether the unemployment rate is 0%, 1%, 5% or whatever %, I do no bite. The way to calculation is tricky. If a man is jobless, he is put in the unemployment category. After 3 months, if he is still unemployed, status quo remains.
How about 6 months later? Unfortunately I do not think, in personal opinion, he is still part of that statistic. More likely, he is deemed too lazy or too picky and put under the house-maker category. All these are tricks and means to have a nice figure for unemployment rate.
Is the Ministry of Manpower practising this methology? The general public does not know and how I wish the MOM can enlighten us further instead of regularly update the unemployment figure without explaining <- look nice but no substance!
Dear K.S.,
You got an interesting analysis here but I think there is something missing.
It is difficult for opposition to win in a HDB dominated GRC for the simple reason of:
1) HDB upgrading
2) NSS, ERS and all goodies skewed towards HDB heartlanders
Eunos used to be a hot spot basically due to the unhappiness of the HDB dwellers and Malay voters there. But PAP has since won over Malay voters via various schemes, mainly through Merdeka.
The weakest point of PAP GRC is actually a place full of middle-upper class voters. Many people thought that middle class always support PAP, but this is not totally true.
There are simple reasons why the middle upper class voters would rather vote for a DECENT candidate than other voters. (One fine example is from Changi 1988 where Dr. Tan BS from WP won about 47% of votes cast)
1) They are not affected by HDB upgrading
2) They are not affected by NSS or ESS
3) The so called "goodies" given out by PAP govt is just too insignificant to them
4) They are more intellectually enlighten and politically awared to the need of checks and balances
5) They are not that easily swayed by the various "threats"
But these voters are also very pragmatic in their approach. When there is no "better alternatives" as you have stated in my blog, they will vote PAP. What "better" means? They would identify with somebody of their own "perceived calibre". This is the main "weakness" of superficial identity.
Goh Meng Seng
GMS:
Going by what you said then shouldn't Joo Chiat SMC be the place to go?
However what you said about the upper-middle class is true to a certain extend.
BTW GMS are you gg to contest in Aljunied GRC?
You are right. If it is not for the "slipper" image, Joo Chiat is actually a place for good battle.
My first preference is actually AMK GRC. ;) Basically because that's my home base. And I believe Cheng San as well as Yishun South residents will always remember how they were "moved around" when there is a close fight.
For deployment details, I am not supposed to reveal; but I could only say the Straits Time could only "speculate" and there is nothing "insider information" to start with. My presence in Aljunied GRC is to help adminstrate the ground movement.
The more interesting GRCs are Holland Bukit Panjang GRC as well as East Coast GRC. Both have substantial private estates to start with.
Goh Meng Seng
You do not win elections by winning the votes of the "upper-class" who lived on land that may occupied on 25% of the GRC but make up 5% of the voters! I have to demystify what Mr Goh has written about AMK, East Coast, Holland-Bukit Panjang GRCs, etc.
I do not bite what Mr Goh has written. In Art of War chapter 1 on Planning: "...All warefare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, pretend to be incapable; when active, inactive; when near, make the enemy believe that you are far away; when far away, that you are near....".
Mr Goh presence in Aljunied GRC is not to help, but to prepare himself for the time to be nominated as one of the candidates!
I see through this easily (of course Mr Goh may deny it) but I am sure the PAP thinkers have a similar line of thoughts. The battleground will alway be Aljunied GRC unless of course the boundaries shift again.
Dear Mr Goh,
(1) I need to correct your mistake. Your party Dr Tan BS contested in Changi SMC in the 1991 elections (not 1988!).
(2) Whether obtaining 47% is VERY GOOD or not, we must look at the year of the elections! Remember we should be talking about 1991 elections! That's the year Mr Chiam ST successfully pulled off the "by-election" effects which resulted in 3 SDP wins and 1 WP win (4 seats for opposition).
So is 47.0% good? I don't think so! Other than the 4 over-50% wins, there are closer SMC than Changi SMC! In Bukit Batok SMC, Mr Kwan of SDP obtained 48.1% of the valid votes. In Nee Soon South SMC, Mr Low of SDP got 47.2%. Changi SMC only ranked 7th best in 2001! In the context of the General Elections in 1991, how can that be good. Of course 47% in 2001 is extremely good and would have won you the NCMP position!
Dear Mr Goh,
I disagree with you that the "middle-upper" class is where the opposition should concentrate. Of course, you might have written to put the PAP off-guard and I really HOPE so that you are doing that!
If you are really thinking about winning them, my gosh, there goes the representation in parliament again for the opposition!
I will rebuke you in my Part 4 of this topic. I have finished Part 3 and it is about the PAP lineup (in Aljunied GRC of course). Stay tuned.
GMS aka Madcow,
I agree with you on this observation:
The weakest point of PAP GRC is actually a place full of middle-upper class voters. Many people thought that middle class always support PAP, but this is not totally true.
Potong Pasir being the case in point. And my friend is a resident who stays in Senette Estate, and rabidly pro-Chiam, if not pro-SPP.
I have suspected that the WP has decided that they no longer wanted to compete on the lowest 2 levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs but have moved to a level above that which the TaliPAP obviously falls short.
Well done, WP. And I wish you all the best in the coming elections, no matter how much I have disagreed with you in the past.
Dear Nelson,
In the 2001 elections, if I am not wrong, both Mr Chiam ST and Mr Goh CT already admitted that the Senette Estate voted towards the PAP and NOT the SDA! That's what I remember I read about. Need to search the ST archive to confirm this. Therefore, this will rebuke you on the concept that the "middle-upper" voted more for the opposition!
Dear Mr Goh,
Please don't mislead us again! Do that to the PAP :). What is the Constitution of the Worker's Party? One of the points is "To promote the political, social and economic and emancipation of the people of Singapore and particularly of the workers who depend directly on the exertion for their livelihood". These you are referring to the 'middle-lower" all the way down.
And by the way, the formation of WP was through the labour union in the past so your support base is the last level of the Maslow's hierarchy, not those on the self-esteem level!
However to say the truth there is nothing tat WP can promise to the lower-middle class except checking PAP or maybe calling them to show their displeasure over their economic well-being.
One has to remember that during the last few year alot of the former upper-middle class had suffer a drop in wage and become unemployed. Especially those between 45-55, who had the most burdens. So while these ppl may still live in condo or exe-flats, many might be actually struggling. I believe there is a large amt of latent discontent within this grp of ppl.
Hi k.s.,
First of all, let me just say that Senette Estate alone isn't representative of the entirety of the upper-middle / upper-class of the voters in Potong Pasir alone. Or for the matter, it also isn't representation of all voters of that social strata in Singapore.
I brought up Senette because my friend lives in Senette and is a supporter of Chiam. While I maybe in error to use this as an example to suggest that Madcow is right, the possibility that Senette may have voted otherwise still does not go to suggest that I am or Madcow is in error in the assertion to be 'rebuked'.
Also, I am always more open to hard facts compared to "I think's".
If you can find the article pertaining to the comments on the voting patterns of the Sennette Estate by both Chiam and Goh CT, then I will humbly take accept this 'rebuke'. Otherwise consider this ao rebuke to the rebuke which at this moment apparently is standing on shaky ground. Hahaha.. :D
To Anonymous,
Going by Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, the lowest 2 levels are Physiological and Safety. It is hard (or perhaps even absurd to any Singaporean) for any opposition to even SUGGEST that the ruling party has failed to provide on these levels. The fact being that a majority of Singaporeans are indeed well-fed, have a roof over their heads (physiological) and they are generally secured financially and socially and employed (safety). The opposition may attempt to argue that the ability in providing these needs have fallen but they would be hard pressed to show if they have a plan to do better. DemocraZy isn't the elixir to all solutions as shown by Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Therefore, it appears to me that the WP fits into a niche whereby the ruling party has generally fallen short in providing. On the social level there are those who felt they don't quite belong (or else where do the quitters come from?).
Social participation, the want to make Singapore better other than just the mundane "I need a secured job, a home and money to retire" is what the WP can work on, and that's where the upper-middle/upper class comes in.
Dear Nelson,
Generally I do write "in my opinion" in discussions which are not supported by facts.
Back to the Sennett Estate challenge :) (I love challenges!). "Rebuke" is too strong a word to use. It means "reprimand" generally. I should say "I am going to point out your mistake".
Here I am - the speech by Mr Chiam ST requesting the government to upgrade the Sennett Estate on 13th May 2002 will be the FACTS to justify my MEMORY! I quote point 13 of the passage of the parliamentry session on that day "13. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development when will the residents of Sennett Estate and the other blocks in the same precinct get the upgrading of their precinct since they make up more than 50 per cent of the votes for the People’s Action Party candidate at the last General Election." [Link].
Oh ya, the link was from the Singapore Parliament website, so you can't say they are wrong ok? Otherwise you might ended up getting sued by them! :)
Well, I don't require you to "humbly" accept THE rebuke. (When you wrote it in that context, you weren't humble anyway) People make mistakes and I accept that by clarifying your mistake with FACTS.
It is clear we aren't talking about the same Senette 'Estate'. In short, I don't know what is the Senette Estate being defined as in the exchange here between Chiam and whatever.
To clarify, when I said Senette Estate, I am referring to the general region between Serangoon Road and MacPherson Road. (That's where my friend stays.) I don't recall any HDB flats in the area, nor can I find any shown on the map on streetdirectory.com so I don't know what upgrading is Chiam asking for.
In conclusion, I was making a comment based on the context of GMS' comment about upper-middle/upper class voters (i.e. dwellers of private housing). If the Senette Estate you are talking about also includes HDB dwellers, they you used a wrong 'fact' to reprimand, rebuke, clarify or correct whatever comments made so far regarding the voting patterns of this social strata.
Dear Nelson,
Don't change a game of tennis to a game of badminton! We are referring to the same Sennett (correct spelling) that you referred as Sennette! That's the area between Serangoon Road, PIE, MacPherson Road - where the industrial area is! It is a small area with only landed properties! How many other Sennett can you find in Singapore that Mr Chiam ST is having control over!!! There is only 1 Potong Pasir SMC. I don't know if you are referring to some Potong Pasir in Malaysia! So please don't change the game rules. YOU ARE A SORE LOSER! I show you where Sennett Estate is and its surrounding precinct! [Link]. There is no such thing as stupid computer, there are only stupid users.
The upgrading is for the surrounding (if I remember correctly) around the PRIVATE estates. There is no HDB there.
Only a sore loser will be defiant. That's the attitude I hate and that's what I am seeing within some of the opposition parties! Hence, my new topic on soccer to ask them to shutup and play by the game rules. Otherwise, quit politics or migrate!
Singapore has no room for destructive changes with sore losers and with candidates who self-destruct - I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for highly educated people, including 1 doctorate politician, talking like a hooligan on a truck. Only constructive changes through modifications to the process can Singapore still maintain as it is.
I won't go into spelling mistakes on the word Sennett because that's missing the damned point. I have told you that my definition of Sennett refers to only this exact region you provided in the link, when I confirmed GMS' comments on the voting pattern of upper-middle / upper-class social strata.
When you refute my assertion, I had to point out that my definition is probably not the same as the Sennett precint spoken by Chiam in the quote in Parliament you sent me.
Comprendez?
Next, shrink the map in the link you have given by clicking on 5 at the right side of the map and you can see the Potong Pasir MRT station (originally intended to be left CLOSED when the N-E Line opens, and called Sennett Station), along with a whole bunch of HDB flats across Upp Serangoon Road.
All along I am saying in my previous comment is that the entirety of the Sennett precint Chiam is talking about in Parliament includes these flats, which does not go to disprove what GMS has said and my assertion that he is right. Is someone being defiant and a sore loser for making this distinction and pointing this out?
Have you been to this area to look at these flats? I invite you to do so.
Now let me pose to you this question again, can you sincerely tell me, that Chiam isn't also referting to the upgrading of these HDB flats when he also said this in his question to the minister, ".. and the other blocks in the same precinct get the upgrading of their precinct..., because there clearly isn't any flats in the link you are showing me.
Please, cut your emotinally charged comments and strong words, K.S. If you do not like what my comments, I will stop commenting here. It doesn't mean you have won the argument. It simply meant I agree to disagree, forever.
Dear Nelson,
I apologize for the stronger tone used against you..:) we are here to debate, not to demean other people. Sometimes emotion do run high and do us in.
I can confirm (100% guarantee + chop) that Mr Goh CT (ex-PM) promised upgrading to the private properties of that estate during the 2001 election. They were deemed (it seems to me) to be the bloc which might tilt the balance.
Luckily for us, Mr Chiam CT triumphed! The effect is there - he won with a much reduced vote, from 55.0% to 52.4% of the valid votes. The PAP does its homework before enticing peopl with a carrot.
Dear Nelson, K.S. and all,
I really mean that I am helping out in Aljunied GRC only. There are two new assistant organizing secretary, one is Tilik, the other is me. Since Tilik is the team leader of another GRC, so it is natural for the other assistant organizing secretary to be sent to NEAC.
As for K.S. comments about 5% middle upper class in a GRC, I just like to say that if we are talking about 5% to 10% of the population in private estates. This is important as whether a team win or not, that's basically the margin.
One example I could quote ("not so nice" one), is Chia Shi Teck advantage in Pasir Panjang. Chia Shi Teck would have lost his deposit if it is not for the strong support from Diary Farm voters. Why? They are middle upper class and see Chia, a CEO of a listed company, as someone "acceptable" to them. But Chia, of course lost the HDB heartlanders' vote due to the lack of ground work.
Dr. Tan would have performed worse if it is not due to the private estate voters.
That's all I can say. In the GRC game, the mix of people is important and it may become one advantage for opposition parties to capitalize, if we did it right.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear Mr Goh,
You already said that yourself. Mr Chia ST nearly lost his deposit if not for the middle-upper class. Why? He already lost the ground in the first place. If you are still trying to win over this middle-upper class, you are going to lose the elections.
The ground is always about the middle-middle, middle-lower, lower, lower-lower. If you fail the win here, you lose the elections straight away. Otherwise why would the government offers NSS, ERS, upgrading so jealously to us? 300 is alot of money to these categories (of course dust as compared to peanuts of others).
Are you saying that since you cannot beat the government on $$$ issues, so you are giving up these categories? Then I say you will lose the elections straight away.
You don't have to offer $$$, which you don't have also. Always remember how did Mr Low won the Hougang SMC again and again? Did Mr Low TK offers goodies and candies? No. He offered sincerity on groundwork and seriousness on national platform.
Remember, not everyone in these classes are about $$$. They are those who have already given up on the ruling party for one reason or another. Do you still go for the middle-upper class and lose your ground here? Then I suggest you should join the Elite's Party that you are against in your very own blog!
Worker's Party constitutions are there to guide you. Follow it! You should believe in it. Otherwise why are you in this party?
Dear Nelson,
I see that you have removed my link inside your blog :)
Don't you see a very familar situation happening between us and the parties?
You issued me a challenge to prove something and I took it up and show you the facts. The next thing you did was to refuse to accept the truth and quickly change the rules of engagement, which of course is the ammunition I am waiting for to fire at you to make you look bad (to the rest watching the show).
The worst thing you could do is to declare that you will always be going to disagree on everything that I said.
If I was the "PAP" of the argument (because I owned this blog), then I am afraid you are the "SDP". Made to look bad irregardless of whether they have actually some good people inside or not.
Dear K.S.,
The case of Chia ST shows that it is relatively "easier" to win the middle upper class votes, even without groundwork. ;)
Too bad, Chia did not do his ground work, else his performance would be better.
What does that mean? Especially in the context of GRC? If you have more than 10% voters from middle upper class voters, you are on the head start already. What you need to do is to put someone of the same class to attract this sector of voters. As for the HDB heartlanders, we will need more grassroot people on the ground. This is working according to the environment and people, targeting on their votes.
Chia ST was a "mismatch" for HDB heartlanders. You must understand that not every middle upper class candidates could possibly empathize and connect with the HDB voters. This is from ground experiences. GRC actually provides a good platform of combination for sector targeting. I shall stop here as I have revealed too much tactical stuff already.
Goh Meng Seng
Hi KS,
Please, in the futue, you might want to clarify with the other person what is going on first. There's always email, alright?
First off, let me say what a person put on his blog is his perogative. You can delete my comments if you wish on yours and I can remove a link to anybody as I wish on mine, correct?
Now, I have removed very old friends, some having known them for 10 years) from my own mailing lists not because I hated or despise them for their disagreement with my views, or after a hot argument, but because of the understanding that we should remain friends without letting our own POV come in between us.
Don't be so petty as to ascribe intentions to something being done without clarifying with the person.
That being said, let me say that I have recently updated the links on my blog using an older template which I saved in a text file in the office. I didn't even notice it until now. (The reason I used templates is because I have fouled it up so badly before that it became unreadable and the text actually got reversed like a mirror image. I must admit I do not truly understand the coding being used - it's not really HTML -in the theme file as I downloaded it from another Xanga user.)
Finally, I was having a bad day trying to deal with some stock speculation losses on NASDAQ and I certainly wasn't really paying attention to what's going on to my blog.
You should really quit labelling or calling people something all the time. Even if you are right, is that even necessary? It makes you look childish and insecure.
Now I will go and look at the blasted skin and put the link back... * mumble mumble about myself being not smart enough to understand the coding *
Have a good day.
Dear Nelson,
Dont' be mistaken. I labelled you once and only once. And I already said that people can tend to get overboard when emotions run high.
I merely used you (as a guinea pig) to prove a point to Mr Goh how easy it is to use facts and logic to win a debate and causing the other person to lose his initiatives.
And this is exactly what the PAP is using against the rest! SDP was a once a good and responsible opposition party. After their internal conflicts and etc, didn't you see that the government zoomed down to Dr Chee and used him as a target man to destroy the whole party reputation?
Since you are so hot on the matter of facts, perhaps you would present the details pertaining to the promised upgrading of the private estate in Sennett as promised by the ex-PM (now SM).
Hi,
Good points.
A question I have is, are there any reason(s) why you feel there cannot be a better time for the opposition than these days? As you said, the political atmosphere during the election period will remain a part to play.
Regards
Dear Nelson,
I know you are HUNGRY for information. I cannot be constantly FEEDING you! What I can do is to TEACH you how to fish or farm.
I can SHOW you where to find the information. But you have to read it yourself. All information are from government websites. So you cannot say that they are wrong!
Pertaining to what Mr Goh CT (ex-PM) promised during the GE 2001, read Mr Chiam speech in 2003 (after he pursued the upgrading issue further) [Link]. In case you are too lazy to read it, turn to page 85!
I quote a part of Mr Chiam speech in the parliamentry passage "... Later on, during the heat of the election, the Prime Minister himself came to visit Potong Pasir and made a promise that the majority of the residents at Potong Pasir need not vote for the PAP candidate in order for them to get upgrading. Any one of the five precincts in Potong Pasir need only to give the PAP candidate more than 50% and that precinct would be entitled to upgrading. The private estate, ie, the Sennett Estate, would not normally be entitled to the Government upgrading. But if they voted for the PAP candidate, they would have got the upgrading. As it turned out, the residents there gave the PAP candidate about 51% of the votes. Thus, the Sennett Estate was entitled to be upgraded by the Government....".
At the end of the day, Sennett was selected for upgrading. Read the link [Link]. Check out the map too [Link]. You should by now realised that there is NO HDB in that area! You can see that clearly from the map too!
Quote of the Night "Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, may I clarify with the Minister? When a Minister makes an election promise at a general election, does he make that promise personally, or is the promise binding on the Government?" [Link]
Dear sgloyalist,
Everybody has their own good and valid points! We learn from each other, me from Nelson, Mr Goh, anonymous, etc and vice versa.
Why is these days better times (for the opposition) than before?
(a) PAP is facing the fatigue of election promises.
-Every election they promised something, e.g. upgrading, etc. After 1 big promise (upgrading), what is going to be bigger than that? Once you reduce the "value" of the promise in the next election, there goes your vote too. It's a matter of supply and demand theory. Also an election promise bubble.
(b) The voters exhibt the mindset of "The Great Expectation" (read the book yourself) when looking at the PAP.
- When they listen to the PAP, they tuned their minds to listen for goodies. The question they ask is "What's in for me?" <- inward looking concept. They "circumvent" the fact about the role of the government (on the national platform) conveniently.
(c) (Marketing theory) Quality & value balance of the brand names (PAP and Opposition)
- After so long, PAP is viewed by the layman as a party with elite scholars and the Opposition is a group of working-class. When the quality of a PAP candidate "drops" (good but not a elite scholar), his/her perceived value actually drops (so does his/her votes). When the Opposition put up a PhD candidate (normal but non-scholar; may not even be better than the PAP candidate), the public goes "WOW" and his/her percieved value increase dramatically (reflected on his/her votes received).
(d) Quality of the opposition candidates
- The quality has actually improved over the years. The PAP is facing a saturation limit. They have already transformed the party from a party of union leaders to a party of elites/scholars. What's next? Party of genuis?
(e) 80-20 rule applies
- 80% of the swing votes (not inclusive of the die-hard voters for PAP and the opposition) are controlled by 20% of the voters. Ask these people. What are their focus now? In 2001, they were worried about security. In 1997, they were worried economy. What is now?
(f) The age and freshness of the waiting-to-be-elected opposition candidates
- In the past, the 2 next-in-line candidates are Lee Siew Choh (Dr) and JB Jeyaratnam. Both are around since 1965 and are old faces. Now? We have Steve Chia and Poh Lee Guan (Dr) - both are new and young and fresh.
6 reasons should be good enough to answer your question? 満足するか?
WAAHHAHAHAHAH... This is soo hilarious.
Now everyone can have the evidence that public works are held hostage against the voters in an opposition ward and the only way to 'ransom' the public works is to vote for the PAP. Otherwise, they will turn the place into a literal slump (if not a ghetto), such as ignoring the maintenance of drains and not putting signs to indicate it's existence as if Area 51.
This is really educating and while it's not something I do not already know, I prefer to have someone do the dirty job of proving it. Thank you very much for showing us the information.
However, that still does not go to rebuke (erhem!) GMS' point on the matter that the upper-middle/upper class social strata will tend not to be threatened by the PAP in terms of upgrading. The fact is, Potong Pasir (IIRC) has been an opposition ward for 3 terms and can you imagine no public works there for 15 years? I would vote PAP too for that to get things turned around first, unless I can pay out of my own pocket and get approval to get the public works in my immediate vicinity sprunced up! It remains to be seen if the Sennett voters would not turn around and vote Chiam again the next round once everything is settled.
Anyway, it begs the question, what right does a govt has to deny PUBLIC WORKS for its citizens, simply because they voted for the opposition? Should opposition ward residents be then exempted from tax as well if public works are denied them?
Dear Nelson,
Perhaps I used the wrong word :) For yours, I already changed it to "..point out your mistake" remember? For Mr Goh's, maybe the right term should be "I beg to differ".
Actual fact is - who can prove (with facts of course) that the middle-upper class voted more for the oppositon party than the ruling party, even for Mr Chia ST's case? Who can breakdown the demography of the SMC into the different classes? I would like to learn from him/her HUMBLY.
An employed voter can still be living in a landed properties, isn't it? So which category does he/she belongs to? Still middle-upper? Remember, that landed property could have been inherited!
Dear Mr Goh,
What is your take on the 6-point? What are your views on the current situation as compared to the past?
Isn't the question on who can prove that the middle-upper class voted more for the opposition than the ruling party answered in Potong Pasir alone? Why was Sennett, a private estate in Potong Pasir singled out? And isn't a fact that with more than half of Sennett voting for against Chiam, it resulted in a vote swing of 2.6% in Potong Pasir?
As for which category an 'employed worker' who inherited the house belongs to, it is clearly subjective. The fact that you asked proves it.
But as far as I am concerned, what really matters is not if the resident of the place takes a bus or even rides a bicycle to work or is a boss or an employed worker but the standard of living the person enjoys.
Now, I am not contradicting myself here by saying that a HDB dweller who drives a Mercedes is better than a private property inheritor who takes bus to work. In fact, there's really no comparison between an employed worker who has inherited a property with another employed worker of similar station who is still paying his ass off for even the most expensive HDB flat.
Dear Nelson,
What is your definitions of middle-upper class people? Based on his/her earning power? Or based on the land that he/she is living on?
I make a small mistake in my last comment. It should be "unemployed voter"!
IF you say that Sennett Estate is mostly middle-upper class, then I request that you prove it. Seeing is not believing!
How are you going to prove that someone living in a landed properties in Sennett Estate is better off (in living standards) than someone who live in HDB?
You already contradict yourself with the Mercedes case! You already said that there is no comparision between someone living on landed and someone living on HDB.
What matters is the LIVING STANDARD that person enjoys right?
So is someone who is unemployed, living through payout from his/her sibilings, and is living on Sennett Estate still a middle-upper class or a lower-lower class? Remember, he/she is not enjoying his/her life even though he/she is physically living on a landed properties.
How about someone who CHOOSE to live in HDB simply because he/she want to enjoy the rebate benefits from the government but who is driving a Mercedes and goes on expensive faraway holiday with the family every year? Which class is he/she in? Still middle-middle and below?
Why was Sennett Estate singled out? Simple - the majority of the residents wanted the upgrading from the government and so voted overwhelming for the PAP.
If they are really middle-upper class, that rich, then they would have dismiss the offer from the government as gimmicks etc.
Mr Goh himself already stated that the reason why Mr Chia ST won the middle-upper class in CCK was the fact that these people are not swayed by goodies from the government.
In the end, I say, who can really show the demography of the Sennett Estate? My guess - only IRAS!
Post a Comment