Do People Really Trust PAP During Crisis Years?

[xingguy]

Source: TR EMERITUS

Do people really trust PAP during crisis years?
June 24th, 2014 | Author: Contributions

I refer to the 17 Jun 2014 Straits Times letter “Don’t take good govt for granted” by Mr Eugene Tan.

Mr Tan ridiculed Ms Catherine Lim for her silence on Singapore’s supposed near top ranking in Gallup’s 2013 Most Emotional Society survey when in the previous year Ms Lim attributed Singapore’s bottommost ranking in the 2012 edition of the same survey to authoritarian government policies. Mr Tan is wrong. Singapore came in 67th of 143 nations in the 2013 survey, putting Singapore at the 47th percentile, hardly the so called “appearing near the top of the list” as claimed by Mr Tan. Let’s repeat this to Mr Tan: 67th of 143 is far from, not near the top.

• Singapore came in 67th out of 143 countries in the “positive experience” index in the latest survey, which was carried out last year. The findings were released yesterday.
In the 2011 study, it was the least positive of 148 countries – its worst ranking since 2007, when it first took part in the study.
[Straits Times, Method behind the survey, 1 Oct 2013]

Mr Tan contrasted PAP’s low percentage votes of 61% and 65% respectively during the non-crisis years of 1992 and 1997 with its high percentage votes of 75.3% during the crisis year of 2001 to show that when it comes to the crunch, people trust PAP.

The following table shows that 2001 was the only year when a crisis year was also an election year. Hence, Mr Tan’s theory that crisis years means good election years for PAP has a miserable sample size of just one only, hardly sufficient for making anything out of.

[table="width: 800, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]PAP election vote percentage[/td]
[td]PAP leader[/td]
[td]Year[/td]
[td]Recession events[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1968[/td]
[td]86.7%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1972[/td]
[td]70.4%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1976[/td]
[td]74.1%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1980[/td]
[td]77.7%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1984[/td]
[td]64.8%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td]1985[/td]
[td]Singapore’s first ever recession[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1988[/td]
[td]63.2%[/td]
[td]Lee Kuan Yew[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1991[/td]
[td]61.0%[/td]
[td]Goh Chok Tong[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1997[/td]
[td]65.0%[/td]
[td]Goh Chok Tong[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Goh Chok Tong[/td]
[td]1998[/td]
[td]Asian Financial Crisis[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2001[/td]
[td]75.3%[/td]
[td]Goh Chok Tong[/td]
[td]2001[/td]
[td]Sept 11 Terrorist attacks[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2006[/td]
[td]66.6%[/td]
[td]Lee Hsien Loong[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Lee Hsien Loong[/td]
[td]2009[/td]
[td]Global Financial Crisis[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2011[/td]
[td]60.1%[/td]
[td]Lee Hsien Loong[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

While having the cheek to wax lyrical about the need to avoid sampling bias when quoting the opinion poll taken before the 1948 United States presidential election, Mr Tan ended up making a statement out of a sample size of just one only. Does Mr Tan not realize that using a sample size of just 1 is hardly any better than using biased samples?

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Straits Times, Don’t take good govt for granted, 17 Jun 2014, Eugene Tan

I am not sure how Ms Catherine Lim would know how most Singaporeans feel about the Government (“Govt refutes author’s claims over public trust”; June 14).

It was not too long ago that Ms Lim told the BBC that Singaporeans’ lack of emotions was due to “authoritarian” government policies. The following year, Singapore appeared near the top of the list. There was no comment from Ms Lim.

It is critical that we do not extrapolate one’s own opinion to encompass a wider population. There is the danger of a biased sample reinforced by a confirmation bias.

The classic case of such a faulty methodology is an opinion poll taken before the 1948 United States presidential election. It showed Mr Harry Truman’s rival leading by an insurmountable margin. The survey was done via telephone, a luxury item at the time. Mr Truman won the election.

Ms Lim’s claim that the Government does not care about regaining the trust of the people is astonishing as it clearly flies in the face of the many policies that have been and are being implemented since the 2011 election.

Indeed, over a few months, both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam have spoken about the importance of trust between the Government and the people. The Government cannot be led by opinion polls. Not doing what the people want is not the same as not wanting to gain the trust of the people. We need strong leadership, especially for a country as vulnerable as Singapore.

It may be fashionable to be seen as anti-government, but when it comes to the crunch, the present government is the one people trust.

Take the election figures.

In the 1992 election, the People’s Action Party secured 61 per cent of the votes cast, less than what it won in 2011 (62 per cent). In 1997, it won 65 per cent, less than two-thirds of the votes. In 1998, the Asian financial crisis took its toll.

In September 2001, the Twin Towers came down in the US. In November that year, the PAP returned to power with 75.3 per cent of the votes.

Singaporeans know who to trust in difficult times. The danger is we may take a good and trustworthy government for granted.​

---

End of article​

---

 

[virus]

who the fark is this 有精蛋。 what mean by take good for granted. good for nothing need not be taken for granted.

 

[frenchbriefs]

so how did trust in PAP go from 75% in 2001 down to 60.1% in 2011?

 

[virus]

someone decided to downturn the upturn

 

[songsongjurong]

Ask xp lim
http://therealsingapore.com/content/serving-my-country-faithfully-2-years-has-cost-me-my-dream-job

 

[dr.wailing]

No need to take a sampling of crisis years.

Crisis months will do too.

Beginning from this month on, there might be very lousy hazy days.

Let's see how much Sinkies trust LEEgime to tackle the haze problem effectively. Talk is cheap.

 

[frenchbriefs]

by the way if someone go to wikipedia and look at the past election results,they will notice the number of voters in each election varied greatly.....the largest number of voters voted in 2011....i notice the more people that voted,the lower PAP's percentage is.

2001 only 600,000 people voted,PAP won by 75%.....2011 2.3 million people voted,PAP only had 60.1% margin.

i suspect if workers party and opposition party go all out and field more candidates in 2016,and leave no grc uncontested,PAP could jolly well see their electoral votes drop below 55%.

 

[xingguy]

by the way if someone go to wikipedia and look at the past election results,they will notice the number of voters in each election varied greatly.....the largest number of voters voted in 2011....i notice the more people that voted,the lower PAP's percentage is.

2001 only 600,000 people voted,PAP won by 75%.....2011 2.3 million people voted,PAP only had 60.1% margin.

i suspect if workers party and opposition party go all out and field more candidates in 2016,and leave no grc uncontested,PAP could jolly well see their electoral votes drop below 55%.

In next GE, it is pertinent that PAP MUST BE DENY ONE THIRD MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT.

Anything less, it will business as usual for the scums in white to shaft their damaging policies down our throats.

 

[TheWhiteHorse]

The trend is looking good.

 

[chonburifc]

In next GE, it is pertinent that PAP MUST BE DENY ONE THIRD MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT.

Anything less, it will business as usual for the scums in white to shaft their damaging policies down our throats.

Stop Dreaming! The famiLEE have enough money and power to stop this from happening.

 

[Dragonhead]

by the way if someone go to wikipedia and look at the past election results,they will notice the number of voters in each election varied greatly.....the largest number of voters voted in 2011....i notice the more people that voted,the lower PAP's percentage is.

2001 only 600,000 people voted,PAP won by 75%.....2011 2.3 million people voted,PAP only had 60.1% margin.

i suspect if workers party and opposition party go all out and field more candidates in 2016,and leave no grc uncontested,PAP could jolly well see their electoral votes drop below 55%.

When you have 17 yo sinkies scrawling graffiti to screw papo, and there are more youngsters eligible to vote in GE2016, papo can expect their electoral vote share to drop drastically. If papo Ministers are still alienating themselves from the people, some of them will get kick out like GRC Aljunied. Surely papo is no longer as popular as it used to be. Even the ah peks are cursing them, similar to the good old days in 1950s when people were cursing Lim Yew Hock Govt.

 

[Dragonhead]

Stop Dreaming! The famiLEE have enough money and power to stop this from happening.

The dreamers are the papo por-lum-pars.

 

[mojito]

Notice how GCT's tenure is characterised by higher support for the PAP. Loong has squandered this hard earned advantage and proven himself to be a dud. I think the time is ripe for another regency. What do you think?

 

[Dragonhead]

Notice how GCT's tenure is characterised by higher support for the PAP. Loong has squandered this hard earned advantage and proven himself to be a dud. I think the time is ripe for another regency. What do you think?

During the time of GCT, sinkies were blissfully snoozing away, did not see that many foreigners around in sinkapoo, economy going well, no one kicked up fuss about CPF, he promised more good years. All changed when LHL pulled out his White Paper on Population and sinkies started to wake up. Roy then fired it up further with his CPF slogan.