Screenshots

So...the "Tong" that suggest economic union with Malaysia won?

Let's see what the other "Tong" will say...

Generally, 30% of Singaporean voted for opposition, But still not enough. Hope they will do better next time.

posting this comment right after covering the elections in Potong Pasir. You can't believe how big the support Mr Chiam has over here. I'm astounded by the amount of residents who are steadfastly standing behind this opposition ward. The passion for them to defend this last of the two opposition strongholds is certainly not something that you will expect to see. Whatever the situation is like in elsewhere of Singapore, I can definitely say that the opposition is fighting on and the sentiments there from the ground is that people do want to see more of this.

Folks

PAP won the election.

So, what's new?

Snooze.. snooze...can somebody please wake me wake up when there is something less boring happens or if there is a newsbreak that Singapore is going to have a hereditary monarchy starting with a Lee Hwang Ti dynasty

"Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts "

This statement may be very true but the way the Singapore government handles the absolute power is truly impressive. They have proven to be uncorruptable although there are still cases of corruption which are severely dealt with when discovered. In bolehland, everything even the most obvious can be swept under the ever growing carpet. Between the two Government, which would you honestly choose or prefer?

Which govt we prefer?

Our leaders have a more unique way of staying in power.

1) Let the poor remain poor so that they do not have access to information about the govt's wrongdoings. Not "tutup satu mata", "tutup dua mata dan dua telinga".

2) Let the elitist/cronies continue to amass wealth and power. Those who cannot "tutup satu mata", please resign. No one will appeal on your behalf.

3) The one that got screwed are U and I --- the middle-class.

Enough said?

//

"Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts "

This statement may be very true but the way the Singapore government handles the absolute power is truly impressive. They have proven to be uncorruptable although there are still cases of corruption which are severely dealt with when discovered. In bolehland, everything even the most obvious can be swept under the ever growing carpet. Between the two Government, which would you honestly choose or prefer?//

Very good point, benign dictatorship, or corrupt inept democracy?

A nation full of scholars aka degree, master and PHD holders have voted for benign dictatorship (or if I can push this further, it's really a dynasty). Yes, very impressive indeed. Guess the Lees really know how to fulfill most of Maslow's needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow .

This is democracy, like it or not. One Party rule so what? If under one party rule, the country is administered well why not? There are many shapes of democracy. We cannot have a democracy where each time a meeting session is held, chairs start flying and dirnking glasses are flung. We must not succumb to the western type of democracy and accept it as perfect. The populace is asking for a honest and incorruptible government to administer the affairs of the country. If one party rule can bring all the benefits? who cares.
No country should lecture on how democracy is developed. Look at the some of the more matured democracies, what do you see? Corruption here and corruption there, abuse here and there and all seeking to cover up. Such clear examples are the USA and Britain. Do not lecture us on democracy.
Bravo, the PAP has won, it must do a good job for the party to be returned with such large majority.

Peterpan: Its hardly a "democracy" if the Opposition are not given a chance to send their message to the people, are denied access to the media for campaigning and all sorts of other limitations imposed upon them. They don't even allow podcasting for the Opposition during campaigning, now how fair is that?

And this is sounding familiar. Its like 2004 all over again.

- MENJ

Only 47 seats of 84 seats are contested. PAP got almost 67% of votes.

If you factor in the reminding uncontested 37 seats which are APA stronghold were the opposition will be lucky to get their deposits back,
PAP should have the support of 70-75 % of poppular votes as an indicatin of support among Singaporeans.

But, it is better to have a 2 party system for an advance contry where the peope are well educated and connected to the western world.

LHL got 66.6% of the votes... what a nice number... 666

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/free/story/0,6418,392033,00.html?

STI Home > Free News Headlines > Story

May 10, 2006

Why 'people's hero' lost the hearts of 33% of voters

SINGAPORE'S history of nation-building is nothing short of spectacular. The PAP should be the people's hero, yet it lost the hearts of 33 per cent of voters, even in the Prime Minister's own GRC. Why?

The PM inadvertently revealed the dark side of the PAP when he said his focus would be to 'fix' the opposition and figure out how to 'buy' his support if the opposition won 10 or more seats, though he did subsequently say that his choice of the word 'fix' might have been too strong, and offered his apology if it had offended anyone.

However, it affirmed for many their uneasiness over the political tactics of the PAP over the years:

- The morphing of the original GRCs from three MPs intended to guarantee minority representation to super-GRCs of up to six MPs (perceived as creating a barrier to entry for the opposition with their cartographical contortions and as a means of bringing in new, untested PAP candidates under the air cover of ministerial heavyweights).

- The lawsuit (intended to safeguard the integrity of debate) seemed to have become extended into an ever-ready weapon of political dare-and-do. The PAP-Workers' Party dare-you-to exchange was especially grating to voters hungry for higher political discourse.

- The conversion of HDB upgrading (one of our secrets for social stability) into the spectacle of which PAP MP can offer more money to their voters ($80 million here, $300 million there but to the almost-total exclusion of the candidate's own positions on national issues).

It is not that the voters take the good work of the PAP for granted. Travel the world and you will know how much the PAP has done and is still doing for Singapore. The PAP deserves better. But only if it tears itself away from its dark electoral insecurities and rises to its historical role of nation-building.

The PAP, as a political party, is not obliged to hand over its seats to the opposition. However, the PAP, as the Government, is a steward of our political process and it owes itself and Singapore, as the founding party and only governing party, to shepherd the political development to greater and more open political participation and not to political atrophy.

Some suggestions for the PAP Government:

- Eliminate super-GRCs and return to the original three-MP GRCs, not all of which need to be minority-represented if the 'minimal quota' is already reached. Smaller GRCs reduce the charge that GRCs are a means of letting in 'backdoor' MPs.

- Maintain greater stability in electoral boundaries. While population shifts may necessitate changes, the PAP should stop the practice of moving wards around as jigsaw pieces to reconfigure weak GRCs/ SMCs and carve out new SMCs. With greater electoral stability, the opposition has a better chance to nurture their chosen constituencies with their more limited resources.

- Stop focusing on individual-constituency HDB upgrading as the primary election platform of MPs. Today it seems we conduct town-council elections and get a national parliament as a by-product.

It is the national policies of the PAP that have raised resource-scarce Singapore to First World standards. Let them be the PAP electoral showcase instead.

- Lawsuits should be served when slander or libel is committed. They should not be part of the political lexicon of campaigning thrust-and-parry.

The PAP has done so much for Singapore. It should be more confident of itself that it will continue to win the support of voters on its track record even when it loosens its grip on the political process. Indeed it will be more heartily supported.

Jacob Tan Teck Lee

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,392024,00.html?

STI Home > Forum > Story

May 10, 2006

GENERAL ELECTION 2006
Winning the hearts of voters just as important

THE People's Action Party (PAP)'s victory in General Election (GE) 2006 was somewhat less resounding, given that it failed to win back the opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir despite Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong throwing his weight behind the PAP candidates.

Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang's increased victory margins also served to further dampen the mood of the ruling party.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in the post-GE press conference that voters had gone for the opposition party that presented the most credibility - the Workers' Party (WP), in this instance.

But was the WP really so credible that it deserved 43.9 per cent of the valid votes in Aljunied GRC? Also, how did its relatively inexperienced team in Ang Mo Kio GRC manage to win a sizeable 33.9 per cent of the votes against a very strong PAP team helmed by the Prime Minister?

PM Lee asserted that 'not all who vote for the opposition reject the PAP programme or the PAP Government'. Nevertheless, in order for the ruling party to maintain or better its showing in the next GE, it needs to find out how to win back this group of voters who are essentially pro-PAP but have somehow been swayed over to the opposition camp.

Political analysts felt that the PAP needs to try to appeal to a voter's heart rather than just the mind. Its election campaign was very high in logic but low in positive emotion.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister revealed that his son preferred to attend a WP rally (for the fun of it) instead of a PAP one because the latter was 'so boring and logical'.

Fielding a political team of honest and highly educated individuals with impressive corporate portfolios is undoubtedly good for Singapore. However, to heartlanders or the man in the street, such qualities may not carry that much weight.

What they truly want are MPs who can bond and empathise with them. Many voters find it hard to identify with candidates belonging to the elite class. To bridge this gap, all PAP candidates and MPs should make a conscious effort to display more of their human and compassionate side.

In its eagerness to put across its stand using hard facts and logic, the PAP had inadvertently forgotten to woo the feelings and emotions of voters. One voter said: 'There is no issue in particular that is important to me. What's more important is choosing whichever candidate is genuine, earnest and not too arrogant.' Many other voters could also be using this same, albeit superficial and emotion-based, litmus test when deciding who to vote for.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's challenge to the WP to sue the Government, and PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng's comment that the Ang Mo Kio GRC team was targeting a percentage win in the high 80s could have been misconstrued as arrogance and put some voters off.

Also controversial was Mr George Yeo's comment on the James Gomez episode. He said: 'Some of my grassroots (in Aljunied GRC) say you should not talk about this because it will lose me votes. So be it. It's important enough.' Could voters have perceived this as blatant defiance?

The opposition may also have received a considerable number of sympathy votes. As another voter put it: 'I feel that Mr Chiam is old and does not have any more future. But he is such a nice man that I cannot bring myself to vote against him.' For such voters, the comment by SM Goh that 71-year-old Mr Chiam would not have the stamina to continue as an MP only boosted their support for the latter.

PM Lee's comment that the WP team challenging him in Ang Mo Kio GRC was a gan si dui (a suicide squad) may also have generated sympathy votes.

Judging from issues raised in online discussion forums, many people are actually affected and influenced by these seemingly trivial comments.

Perhaps, then, winning votes is not just about convincing people about the big issues. Political parties need to employ the right words, showmanship and theatrics, coupled with a dose of positive emotion. Political firmness must be distinguished from political overkill.

The PAP prides itself for being able to adapt, react and move in tandem with the times. This same philosophy should be applied to its election campaign.

The PAP brushed off the fact that large crowds turned up at opposition rallies, saying that the majority went just to be entertained. But entertainment can quickly turn into seduction, conversion and allegiance.

The PAP has the basic ingredients to win votes. What it needs is a generous dash of flamboyance topped off with a sprinkling of graciousness.

The recipe for garnering more votes may very well lie within a voter's heart.

Victor Ng Beng Li