Singapore September 11th 2015 elections

[ag]

Is this not more of an electoral-type event?

Probably not. The PAP enjoys genuine support of a clear majority and won't need to stuff any ballot boxes to win a landslide. It's more an election than event.

Yeah, but they turn off the electricity in areas that don't support them.

The PAP is too suave to do that. The Party provides scholarships to the highest achievers in school, to study at the world's best universities so that they would return to Singapore and enter the civil service. Hence, it can legitimately claim to be the most competent choice. Its vast patronage network also means, of course, that only by joining the PAP can anyone realistically effect change.

On the other hand, it uses its courts to disqualify opposition candidates on technicalities, harass critics with libel suits, and uses the media to highlight the opposition's unreadiness to assume power.

Once it's safely in power, it's surprisingly open to debate on actual policy matters. As long as you don't threaten their hegemony of course.

One of my strongest impressions from Singapore was how identical different anglophone papers were (given, that almost all of them share ownership, I presume the same is true in other languages). They were bland, of course: but the business paper and the Straights Times could have almost been accused of plagiarism.  And, of course, book costs: they practice censorship through pricing, it seems.

[ag]

When I was lthere they had just called a by-election - eventually won by the opposition. But, anyway, it is one of those electoral systems which gives opposition a chance to come to power only within a week or two of what otherwise would be a revolution. Anything short of a complete disgust of the overwhelming majority of the population leaves opposition´s task hopeless.

[ag]

The swings in PAP strongholds seems to be far larger than marginal seats.  It seems the sentiment is for PAP to win but a desire for opposition to have some token representation.

More like, general satisfaction: voters in opposition districts may be also  happy about their MPs. One should not give "centralized" explanations to such voter behavior: it is not as if some social planner decided to give opposition some token representation. Though, of course, this being Singapore, one always may suspect that, in fact, it is.

[ag]

Latest.  A recount is now underway for Aljunied GRC.  It seems the results must be very very close.

WP holds Aljunied.

[ag]

The swings in PAP strongholds seems to be far larger than marginal seats.  It seems the sentiment is for PAP to win but a desire for opposition to have some token representation.

More like, general satisfaction: voters in opposition districts may be also  happy about their MPs. One should not give "centralized" explanations to such voter behavior: it is not as if some social planner decided to give opposition some token representation. Though, of course, this being Singapore, one always may suspect that, in fact, it is.

You are right of course.  Part of it is also the incumbency affect.    One of the reasons the PAP swing in ALJUNIED GRC is relatively small also could have to do with the relative satisfaction with the opposition MPs running for re-election.  Of course various anecdotal surveys of voters in ALJUNIED GRC during the campaign did have a theme of some desire for opposition presence in parliament even if from a cost-benefit point of view having a PAP list of MP might benefit the district more.

Remove incumbency effects, and it seems elections would be contested. One relatively bad election, and PAP would have hard time restoring its dominance. This is one reason their campaigns are so pathetically short: they do not want anything to happen between the declaration and election day. An accidentally lost district is a potentially long-term headache.

[ag]

So did the PAP really shift to the left to retain power, or are they stealing the Liberal Party of Canada's tried and tested method of campaigning on the left and governing as catch-all centrists?

PAP is a strange beast - like Singapore itself. The fact that Singapore is "business-friendly" is often misinterpreted to mean it is a free market place. In fact, it is almost a Soviet-style planned economy, with the government heavily interfering into even minute business and private decisions. In that sense, the regime has always been true to its socialist roots. So, how are you going to be defining "left" and "right" for Singapore?

[ag]

This election ended up being the McGovern 1972 redux.  During the election campaign the opposition had massive and unprecedented attendance at rallies and dominated social media.  The PAP rallies were tiny by comparison.    But in the end the scale of the PAP victory indicated that they most have won the youth vote as well.

It was a 9-day campaign. Political activity is nearly blocked outside the campaigining period. This, may, actually, account for the unusual strength of incumbent effects: at least the incumbents have a chance to be seen and heard. Vast majority of people never think of politics for long enough to think of voting for the opposition. Comparing it to anything in the US is meaningless.

I would agree with you, though, that basing its campaigning on anti-immigrant sentiment is self-destructive for the opposition. It turns off exactly the sort of people who they should attract.

[ag]

What's the seat count right now?

83:6. Besides PAP only WP got any seats.

This is, basically, the final count, except for NCMP. All 3 NCMPs are WP as well. Boring.

[ag]

PAP is a strange beast - like Singapore itself. The fact that Singapore is "business-friendly" is often misinterpreted to mean it is a free market place. In fact, it is almost a Soviet-style planned economy, with the government heavily interfering into even minute business and private decisions. In that sense, the regime has always been true to its socialist roots. So, how are you going to be defining "left" and "right" for Singapore?

That's rather like Hong Kong too. Hong Kong has never been, contrary to what libertarians keep claiming, a free market paradise. The government doesn't intervene with Soviet-style Five Year Plans, but its cozy relations with business tycoons means it does their bidding. It *does* throw bones when the proles get too uppity, like introducing a pitifully low minimum wage and regulating the price of basic food items.

Ironically, "leftist" in Hong Kong typically means "pro-China", which often means "pro-business tycoons"!

I believe Hong Kong is a lot less heavy-handed and controlled. It may be crony capitalism, but, at least, it is capitalism. Singapore, actually, is demonstrating that central planning does not need to lead to penury.