No matter how you see it, the swing was substantial - 12 percentage points, a margin of 23.42% vs 46.6%. What happened that halved the winning margin for the PAP. It was a safe PAP seat, it was in the West where opposition parties and quality candidates traditionally ignore the geography. It was not a good night for the PAP.
I don't think that it was David Ong's affair that had an impact. Adultery is not a crime and an everyday affair. The Chinese as a society with a firm and established history of concubines and mistresses are not going to bat any eyelid over it. Look at Yaw's affair and the Press going to town with it. It has absolutely no impact as Png Eng Huat showed with his resounding victory of 62.1%. And we all remember how the press worked extra hard on this issue.
It also cannot be that Murali was an Indian and therefore a minority. The guy has been in Bukit Batok for 16 years working the ground. He is also a lawyer with one of the big four. He has good academic records. So I am ruling this out. He and the team did credibl well in Aljunied and he only worked in Paya Lebar for 4 years.
That leaves 4 factors on the table -
1) The by-elections effect:
This does have an impact that has proven itself. In the 5 by-elections since 1980s, the Opposition has won 3, all by Workers Party - JBJ, Png Eng Huat and Lee Lian. The PAP won 2 - Marine Parade GRC By elections helmed by the PM and now Bukit Batok By-elections. Both coincidently had Chee in it. In addition in 1991, SDP under Chiam successfully convinced Singapore voters that the 1991 GE was indeed a By-election as the numbers of walk-overs given to PAP assured that it will form government and voters need not fear discontinuity or disruption. And voters responded. So it is indeed a proven phenomenon, to punish the PAP with little or nor disruption.
2) The PAP Candidate
Murali as a candidate and a litigation lawyer did not come across as a politician or a forceful character. He came across more as a dedicated Party worker. He got himself in a massive bind by misleading the voters over the $1.9m upgrade. And thereafter took a lower profile. His rallies were noted for better performance of his colleagues rather than him.
3) The PAP Performance
The economy was sliding, the PAP including its ministers were giving unconvincing answers and throwing out strawman arguments. MOM and it clarification created more confusion and they still could not explain that dramatic falls in numbers by many fold no matter what the definition refers to. Unemployment Insurance also caused a lots of angst and the PAP could not address this despite throwing out a less than convincing package of up-skilling programme.
The PAP election machinery was also clearly divided as evidenced by Tharman and Murali refusing go down the path of the PM and some of his cabinet colleagues. I expect more to come out on this as I got the impression this election was handled differently.
4) SDP Performance
SDP worked hard on the ground and had a 2 month start. They used this to maximum effect. They were also captured the social media bandwidth overwhelming the PAP. They took to the estate on bicycles to extend reach and penetration and were present at MRT station to raise profile. In terms of logistics, they did very well.
I had the sense however that for every step that SDP took forward it also took a step back thus cancelling out any substantial improvement. Here are 3 incidents
- It opened the door on character with Dhamanhuri and Sadasivam. To make matters worse Chee did the age old tactics of supposedly refusing to talk about sensitive issues but ended up raising them on the pretext of making a point of avoiding gutter politics. He did that twice, one on David Ong and the second on Lee Wei Ling. He therefore came across as a hypocrite. If he had kept quiet, the PAP could not touch him. He therefore showed himself to the voters as a recalcitrant.
- Quality of supporting speakers and content at rallies. Rallies are now broadcast live to homes. So the reach is much wider and therefore should have more an effect than in the past. The media is no longer trusted and rallies are an excellent opportunity to hear from both sides. SDP was let down by both content and quality of speakers. It became quite suicidal when you have someone like John Tan speak. There is a major difference between speaking with an Ang Mo accent acquired while spending time working, studying or staying for an extended period overseas and a completely fake made-up extent. John's was the latter. Nobody even an Ang Mo speaks like that. His content was really poor and no relations to electioneering. His was the obvious. Paul Thambyah came across surprisingly as a bureaucrat and not a politician. Stark contrast to Vincent Wijeysinghe and therefore could not deliver the attacks on the PAP on issues that are close to voters. Chee has excellent delivery style - forceful and compelling but let down by content and focus.
- The Chiam matter. Again it was started by SDP. Totally unnecessary.
The other factors that maybe in play whether right or wrong with time telling us which is which. The use of his children to get sympathy votes and his full-time MP role are 2.
I don't think that it was David Ong's affair that had an impact. Adultery is not a crime and an everyday affair. The Chinese as a society with a firm and established history of concubines and mistresses are not going to bat any eyelid over it. Look at Yaw's affair and the Press going to town with it. It has absolutely no impact as Png Eng Huat showed with his resounding victory of 62.1%. And we all remember how the press worked extra hard on this issue.
It also cannot be that Murali was an Indian and therefore a minority. The guy has been in Bukit Batok for 16 years working the ground. He is also a lawyer with one of the big four. He has good academic records. So I am ruling this out. He and the team did credibl well in Aljunied and he only worked in Paya Lebar for 4 years.
That leaves 4 factors on the table -
1) The by-elections effect:
This does have an impact that has proven itself. In the 5 by-elections since 1980s, the Opposition has won 3, all by Workers Party - JBJ, Png Eng Huat and Lee Lian. The PAP won 2 - Marine Parade GRC By elections helmed by the PM and now Bukit Batok By-elections. Both coincidently had Chee in it. In addition in 1991, SDP under Chiam successfully convinced Singapore voters that the 1991 GE was indeed a By-election as the numbers of walk-overs given to PAP assured that it will form government and voters need not fear discontinuity or disruption. And voters responded. So it is indeed a proven phenomenon, to punish the PAP with little or nor disruption.
2) The PAP Candidate
Murali as a candidate and a litigation lawyer did not come across as a politician or a forceful character. He came across more as a dedicated Party worker. He got himself in a massive bind by misleading the voters over the $1.9m upgrade. And thereafter took a lower profile. His rallies were noted for better performance of his colleagues rather than him.
3) The PAP Performance
The economy was sliding, the PAP including its ministers were giving unconvincing answers and throwing out strawman arguments. MOM and it clarification created more confusion and they still could not explain that dramatic falls in numbers by many fold no matter what the definition refers to. Unemployment Insurance also caused a lots of angst and the PAP could not address this despite throwing out a less than convincing package of up-skilling programme.
The PAP election machinery was also clearly divided as evidenced by Tharman and Murali refusing go down the path of the PM and some of his cabinet colleagues. I expect more to come out on this as I got the impression this election was handled differently.
4) SDP Performance
SDP worked hard on the ground and had a 2 month start. They used this to maximum effect. They were also captured the social media bandwidth overwhelming the PAP. They took to the estate on bicycles to extend reach and penetration and were present at MRT station to raise profile. In terms of logistics, they did very well.
I had the sense however that for every step that SDP took forward it also took a step back thus cancelling out any substantial improvement. Here are 3 incidents
- It opened the door on character with Dhamanhuri and Sadasivam. To make matters worse Chee did the age old tactics of supposedly refusing to talk about sensitive issues but ended up raising them on the pretext of making a point of avoiding gutter politics. He did that twice, one on David Ong and the second on Lee Wei Ling. He therefore came across as a hypocrite. If he had kept quiet, the PAP could not touch him. He therefore showed himself to the voters as a recalcitrant.
- Quality of supporting speakers and content at rallies. Rallies are now broadcast live to homes. So the reach is much wider and therefore should have more an effect than in the past. The media is no longer trusted and rallies are an excellent opportunity to hear from both sides. SDP was let down by both content and quality of speakers. It became quite suicidal when you have someone like John Tan speak. There is a major difference between speaking with an Ang Mo accent acquired while spending time working, studying or staying for an extended period overseas and a completely fake made-up extent. John's was the latter. Nobody even an Ang Mo speaks like that. His content was really poor and no relations to electioneering. His was the obvious. Paul Thambyah came across surprisingly as a bureaucrat and not a politician. Stark contrast to Vincent Wijeysinghe and therefore could not deliver the attacks on the PAP on issues that are close to voters. Chee has excellent delivery style - forceful and compelling but let down by content and focus.
- The Chiam matter. Again it was started by SDP. Totally unnecessary.
The other factors that maybe in play whether right or wrong with time telling us which is which. The use of his children to get sympathy votes and his full-time MP role are 2.
