No More 'Choping' of House Seats

By: Anyhow Hantam

From the beginning of our fledgling democracy, there has always been a tacit agreement between opposition parties to avoid 3 cornered fights. The logic being simple, there is a fixed pie of votes for both the opposition and ruling parties, plus a crucial percentage of 'swing voters'.

Having such contests would result in the opposition votes (usually around 25-35% depending on the seat) being split, and whatever swing votes garnered, even if distributed equally between opposition and PAP, would almost certainly see the latter win, as there pie is always around 35% or higher.

However it's not to say multi-cornered contests cannot end up with an upset. JBJ won in 1981 despite the presence of a 3rd party. And even in non-successful campaigns like the 1992 Marine Parade by-election, the votes of the 2 other parties (besides the SDP) was so negligible, it hardly created a dent.

So voters actually know how to choose between candidates in multi-cornered fights, and are quick to punish those who they feel run frivolous campaigns by rejecting them outright, causing them to lose their deposits. Only if the 'extra' candidate has some credibility like Chia Shi Teck in 1997 in Chua Chu Kang, was a loss of deposit averted, although the 4th candidate, DPP's Tan was given a real black eye with around 400 votes.

And in the very seat up for grabs now, voters again rejected the 3rd party comprehensively. So a clear message has always gone out, that if parties wanna contest just to make up the numbers, or on some illusions of grandeur like Desmond Lim in 2011, a humiliating defeat is on the cards.

Of course if the SDP sends one of its' big guns like Vincent Wijeysingha or Paul Thmbyah, even Ang Y G, there is a real chance they will be able to avoid a loss of deposit, and maybe gain up to a quarter of valid votes, eating into the WP's 41% (and Desmond's 5%), effectively splitting vote and allow the PAP to win even with under 50% of the votes.

Unless of course we have a strange twist of fate, and it's actually the PAP that loses most votes in a 3 way split allowing 1 of the 2 parties to sneak home under the FPTP system. Only the voters there know how much they feel obligated to vote PAP again, or whether 1 or more opposition parties really appeal to them, to give them a chance. The parties task now is to prove their capability at least on paper.

But my point is that, people have gotta wake up to the notion that choping of seats, or leaving 1 particular party as the only choice they have besides the PAP, is not a good way to vote. In order words a vote for anyone except the PAP, and if elected, stuck with a MP they didn't actually want in the first place. Or have an MP who would be clearly out of his/her league. It's also very selfish for parties to demand to contest the seat on 1st come 1st contest basis. Is it the party or the individual candidate's interests that must be placed first, above the resident's needs or choice?

I took great exception with Steve Chia's decision to re-contest Pioneer (after 2 failed attempts in CCK SMC) in 2011. He had never crossed 40% and there he was demanding to stand again for a 3rd time, why? Just because he came to contest there first! And as expected, he again failed, thus depriving perhaps a more 'capable' candidate from contesting. The same in Whampoa, where after failing there over 20 years ago, Ken Sun was adamant on running again, losing again to a seat that was winnable or capable of a better showing than his meagre 1/3 of the votes. And this was repeated over and over again elsewhere. That wise political analyst, pundit and opposition veteran Goh Meng Seng ran the most inept campaign possible in a GRC where the PAP was very vulnerable (Tampines), especially against Mah Bow Tan. He fielded a real weak team and hardly campaigned there. Do we deserve such bumbling fools to be given first choice every time a seat is vacant?

So we gotta stop all this pretense and seat 'choping', voters deserve a better choice than some on offer simply on the basis of opposition unity, a 'never mind us - just vote anti-PA strategy', to fulfill the ego of some opposition figures or to 'repay the sacrifises made by some and give them a seat to contest all alone'.

And the only way the voters can show, exercise their preference and desire for good elected MPs, is to punish all those who aren't contesting for the right reasons. If you think opposition party A (and it's candidate) is the one you have most confidence in, vote him/her. Don't worry what happens about opposition party B. Thank them for their kind donation of $15,000,

In straight fights it's easy (you simply choose PAP or the other party), in multi cornered ones, it's the same thing, ignore the 3rd or 4th party and choose between PAP and the 1 party you would have voted for in a straight fight.