It's another no-contest in the Presidental Election 2005. The newspaper can claim whatever they like about "Singaporean welcoming the re-election of Mr Nathan.... etc". All these are but claims!! At least I did not supported him so far. Neither did I have the chance to vote for or against him. So I have to dismiss all these nonsensical 'news'. They are not news to me, they are boastful claims! The only real evidence of a support base (or lack of it) for him is when he wins (loses) the election upright in a contested election!
It's no use complaining now since there won't be another elections, now or the immediate future! Of course, I don't think I need to wait another 6 years (the term of the Presidency) to have another look at the Presidental Elections! From statistics, the life expectancy at birth for male is about 77.4 years old in year 2004 <Link>. Mr Nathan was born in 3rd July 1924 <Link>. That mean he is already pass 81 and has already pass the average. Do you think he is able to last (through the Presidency) till 87? I have my serious doubts.
Perhaps we might be having another 2 public holidays afterall! We 'sacrified' 1 public holiday unwillingly in exchange for 2? Why not? Where does these 2 holidays come from? Of course, obviously, the 1st holiday resulted from a supposingly state funeral. It's also a chance where we get the rare chance to watch a grander burial (than late-President Wee) and at the Kranji War Memorial somemore! The 2nd holiday, without a guess, is from another round of Presidental Election of course!
Back to the real topic that I want to discuss today (read the title, dude!), in case Mr Andrew Kuan has been deemed 'qualified' by the 3-man PEC (yes, our President was SELECTED by 3 persons and not ELECTED by us), what will be the result like?
Looking at the grey area we are not sure of it, even the government can't be sure of it either! Mr Chua Kim Yeow contested the Presidental Elections in 1993 after so much urging from the government itself and garnered about 38% of the electoral vote. That coming from a government-endorsed candidate!
In any election, any opposition candidate that stood up to the government will supposingly be able to gather 25% of the vote, even if the candidate himself/herself is a major screw-up! For example, the SDP MP for Bukit Gombak who won in 1991 used words like "Don't talk cock" in Parliament and was subsequently defeated in the 1997 elections with only 26.6% of the vote <Link>!
Our demography in Singapore in 2004 shows that we have 2.65 millions Chinese (about 76%), 479.3 thousands Malays (about 13.7%), 293.1 thousands Indians (about 8.4%) and the rest from other ethnic races in a population of 3.486 million population <Link>.
Here I have to assume an even spread among the races for the 25% (preferring opposition) stated above, another 35% die-hard government-fan and another 5.0% voters who will spoilt their vote (there are 133,646 votes, which is about 7.6%, not going to the late-Mr Ong or Mr Chua in the 1993 elections <Link>!). Why 5% and not 7.6%? Because among the 7.6% are voters who refused to vote for any government-endorsed candidates and both the late-Mr Ong and Mr Chua are government-endorsed candidates!
What's left are 26.6% Chinese, 4.8% Malays and 2.9% Indians (total is about 34.3% with 0.7% as minority ethnic races). Elections do have a trend in voters voting along the ethnic line! The government 'promoted' it anyway - in any GRC there must be a Malay or minority race candidate! Why can't the best candidate wins on pure meritocracy? Okay, assuming the the Indian race voted entirely for the Indian candidate, it will be 25.00% for Kuan vs 37.90% for Nathan.
Usually the Chinese voters are split. However, with the ex-Cardinal of the Catholic religion with him in-tow for the election, Mr Kuan, does garner a certain voter base among the Christians, Catholic or otherwise! There are nearly 325 thousands Christian Chinese in Census 2000 survey <Link>. Minus the 65% die-hard voters (government, opposition and spoilt), we have 113.75 thousands Christian Chinese left, which is about 3.26% of the population. If they voted entirely for religion, then it will be 28.26% vs 37.90%.
The rest of the Chinese, not listed in the above, is about 23.34% of the population. Chinese will still support a Chinese candidate afterall (die-hard voters not included). Thereby I assume a 75% preference rate for the same race, Mr Kuan will garner another 17.51% vote making the ratio 45.77% (Kuan) vs 43.73% (Nathan).
All the stated voters above are fixed simply because they are able to relate with the candidates with regard to political-party preferences, races and religions. The neutral group here is the left-over Malay voters, which has about 4.8% (die-hard voters not included)! Here is a race that has been grumbling that it should be their turn to have a Malay President in Singapore! Also, the Malay voters have been complaining about their low-representation in the government (1 full Malay Minister out of 20 Full Ministers?). Not wanting to expect too much, let put a 55% preference for opposition against the government-endorsed candidate (for not choosing a candidate from their race). The Malay voters (left-over) will be splitted into 2.64% (Kuan) vs 2.16% (Nathan).
Assuming the minority races (out of the top 3 ethnic groups) voted for stability and continuity and preferred the incumbent entirely, which gives Mr Nathan another 0.7%.
Altogether, the percentage of the votes might become 48.41% for Mr Kuan, 46.59% for Mr Nathan and 5.00% spoilt votes! Congratulations, Mr Kuan! You are my hypothetical winner of the Presidental Elections 2005!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
its a shame that you may never, ever actually get to vote in your entire life.
Not so much a shame compared to having a lot of whiners bitching about how terrible the Tali-PAP is every now and then, but when they are given the chance to vote, those who can vote gave a 75.2% resounding victory to the Tali-PAP.
I have voted once in 1997 and I voted for the PAP. I make no bone in trying to hide, there is nothing to hide. Is that a shame? Why should I be when I know that I am earning at least 3 times (in real US dollars) as much as a similar position in Malaysia and at least 10 times (in real dollar) as much as an Indonesian. And these people are our neightbours.
What do we have? It all boiled down to a maigical word - "EFFICIENCY". Try to beat that elsewhere!
It's important to give fair judgement. When it is time to praise (e.g. whistler-blowing in water-dunking deaths), we do that. When we are upset (e.g. NKF saga), make it known!
Post a Comment