GE2015 – What could the results be?

The landslide victory of the PAP with many GRCs and SMCs chalking more than 70% of popular votes is too good to believe. The overall popular vote rose from 60% to 70%, a plus of 10% over the last GE. Many opposition parties and analysts were trying to make sense of the big swing. How could it be possible and what were the main causes of the swing, albeit the swing could not be due to a single factor and many other factors must have come together to reach this ending.

Let me do a review based on a single factor that was very prominent in this election, the new citizens. A total of 280,000 or close to 300,000 new citizens were eligible to vote rising from 2.1m in 2011 to 2.4m in 2015. This works out to be an increase of 15% of voters coming from the new citizens. A 15% increase in voter strength is very significant. If all the new citizens were to vote for one party, it simply means the party’s vote share would go up by 15%. Any party that won the election by 15% or less, in the case of the PAP and assuming that they are the main beneficiary of the new citizen votes, is actually hovering around a 50% share of the popular votes if the new citizens were not in the equation. Any PAP team that had less than a 15% winning margin would actually lose and go to the opposition.

The following are the PAP teams and single members that won less than 15%. 

  1. Marine Parade GRC 64%
  2. Sengkang West 62%
  3. East Coast GRC 60.7%
  4. Fengshan 57.5%
  5. Punggol East 51.8%
These 13 seats could theoretically go to the opposition if the new citizens were not in play. No way would Li Lee Lian lose her seat in Punggol East.

The following GRCs and SMCs would be close calls.

  1. Marsiling Yew Tee GRC 68.7%
  2. Bukit Panjang 68.4%
  3. Jalan Besar GRC 67.7%
  4. Holland Bukit Timah 66.6%
  5. Potong Pasir 66.4%
As for the margins of Aljunied GRC (50.95%) and Hougang (57.7%), the winning margins could have been much higher if the 15% new citizen votes did not add up on the side of the PAP. PAP’s vote in Aljunied could fall by another 15% to 34% and Hougang to 27%.

Technically, all the 70 plus percent votes of PAP should be less 15% to bring them down to more humanly acceptable level, in the 60s. So would the popular votes, going down to 55% instead of the 70%. Given the downtrend and the negative sentiments, this is about right and was the expectation of most analysts and the most fear situation in the PAP camp. But all the above extrapolation were not meant to be with the new citizen coming in at full force.

PAP should know that this is the real situation and must take stock at their growing unpopularity and growing dissent among the true blue Singaporeans. The deception is temporary. If there was indeed a ground swell, there would be roaring from the HDB flats whenever a result was announced, like during a football match. There would be spontaneous celebrations and people running wild with excitement and congratulating themselves for supporting the PAP to such an unbelievable win. The HDB flats were silent, the streets were silent. Did these say anything about the win? Remember the wins in Hougang and Punggol East and the spontaneous celebrations with people in the streets in a joyous and celebratory mood? There was none in this PAP landslide win other than among the supporters in the stadiums.

How much of the above analysis is pure speculation and how much is the truth, only the PAP inner core members know, the strategists and planners behind the PAP success story in this GE.

PS. The above analyst is based on the assumption that there was an additional 300,000 new citizens/voters in this GE. Another blogger has pointed out that the number of electorate increased from 2.35m to 2.46m or an increase of 110,000. Which is the true number?

Let’s try to figure out which is which since we do not have the official data.

There were 200,000 Singaporeans outside Singapore and not allowed to vote this time. This is about 8% of the electorate. The turnout for this GE was about 94%.  This implies that the 200,000 Singaporeans would have been taken out from the eligible voters or else the turnout would be less than 92% or near to 18% as the turnout of 2011 was 90%.

The eligible voters this time should be 2.35m less 200k or 2.15m instead. Thus there was still an increase of 2.46m less 2.15m or 310,000 voters. How this number came about, I dunno.  My analysis is accurate only if there were 300,000 new citizen/voters. If the number varies somewhat, the findings would be proportional to the changes using the same parameter. 

Would anyone be able to provide the real numbers?

PS2. My assumption that overseas Singaporeans were not allowed to vote is wrong and I will be putting up another article to revise my data and findings.


Anonymous said...

Not really lah.

As WP Teochew Ah Hia already said, and now even Sylvia Lim also said, majority (aka 70% updated %) Sinkies are very scared to accidentally vote PAP out in a GE, but by being lagi (more) scared this time with 100% seats contested, they accidentally (this one I said) gave PAP a bigger mandate this election.

It's all an accident, 70% do not really meant to give PAP a bigger mandate, and I know some of them are even unhappy with the result. I hope PAP will also accept this as an accident and just shout heng ah!

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

There are many factors that led to this result. No single factor can cause such a big shift. Everyone is just trying to make sense of the result and has a view on it.

Don't expect any view to be the absolute truth or reason for the change. This is just a discussion.

Anonymous said...

I Salute You! Thank You Very Much!

Imo, the impact of new citizens and those overseas on the
GE results is marginal.

Based on the GE2015 results, it was 100% clear that the only
sustainable political model in Singapore is to have just ONE
dominant political party.

The voters have no appetite for many opposition parties or
a coalition government.

Yes! The GE2015 results must be very very very painful to the
opposition parties!

I m sure many opposition candidates had this question........
"Is it worth the struggles?"!

To opposition candidates.....I salute you! Thank you very much!

It is really not easy to be a opposition candidate. Not easy not easy!

Anyway, all the best.


Anonymous said...

The world has moved on away from monarchy and totalitarian state. You want a one party govt, as the only way for Singapore?

Anonymous said...

These new citizens(1st generation) replaced our dead fore-parents who are mostly pap loyalists. Their plan worked.

Anonymous said...

The real pull down of the percentage of opposition votes really comes from the too many cooks spoil the broth factor. Some of the opposition candidates garner very low percentages, with the independents doing even worse. This gives the impression that the PAP is doing much better than 2011. A landslide they claim.

Take away the new citizens factor and the pork barrel factor, then we can really know what level of support Singaporeans have for the PAP.

Anonymous said...

you have not accounted for the "Christian Wave" - Christians who feel strongly that the oppositions parties are too open to LGBT lifestyle. They are against this lifestyle ergo their votes swung to the PAP. Take the endorsement video for SDP - including Vincent W into that clip was a great GREAT mistake and having celebrities on its side not enough to save SDP.

Anonymous said...

I always thought that die hard opposition voters will even vote for lizards, cockcroaches and monkeys if these animal and insects were to stand against the PAP.

Now, I also believe that die hard PAP supporters will also even the odds by voting for 'parrots' to represent them in Parliament.

What a revelation!

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

One salient feature of the result is that the swing and the percentage changes are across the board and in the same pattern, or almost exactly the same percentage of swing that fit into the 13% increase in voters using the 60:40 formula. If the swing was due to different factors, the change would not be so uniform and proportional.

The swing was consistent and followed the same pattern across every constituency. Too much of a coincident.

Anonymous said...

Tiok RB. Everyone has his viewpoint to add to the discussion. Where is that cocksure cockle smelling shit who claimed to be always right and other people are always wrong?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Agree, all the political analysts got it wrong this time. There are two very clever ones that got the results right. Agongkia is one of them: )

ℳatilah_$ingapura said...


Keep on massaging those numbers and stretching your already poor standard of logic (damn shameful, you are Singaporean supposed to be good at STEM subjects) to make your "Unfair PAP win due to massive number of new citizens" work. (it won't because you are just plain wrong)

OK all the clever cunts (including redbean) who still cling to this (busted) theory need to prove:

THAT ALL THE NEW CITIZENS VOTED PAP. Did they? ***HOW*** do you ***KNOW*** ??

Don't be side tracked by that sore LOSER redbean, who is pretending to ask for "real numbers". Balls lah. Just PROVE that the NEW CITIZENS all voted, and then voted EXCLUSIVELY for the PAP.

Can or not?

Anonymous said...

Speculate no further.
It is certain that New Citizens have largely voted for PAP.
The exclusion of oversea Singaporeans adds to the advantage for the ruling PAP.
However, the most realistic of all must be the supports of the PG, low income segment and small scale business operators such as taxi drivers, hawkers and shopkeepers of the population who are attracted to the crumbs and meats thrown at them.

The rich and successful Singaporeans care much less about who runs Sg, as they are mostly professionals and successful people who are socially mobile.

From conversations heard, the indication appears to show the professional and intellectual are the most disgruntle against PAP.
On the other hand, those low income workers are looking forward eagerly for their workfare and gst rebate etc.

One can literally see the smiles on the faces of those entitle to the crumbs and sweets.
Those not entitle are either a little disappointed or are non-chalant.

In the final analyses, it is the support of the lower income that gave PAP the higher percentage gain. Period.

Sinkies deserve the Government they have chosen

Anonymous said...

The mother cockle smeller is here! You can smell his bad odour everywhere.
And he is saying he knows everything as usual.

Hey mother cockle smeller, we know you are only good in one thing lah. Stop making a fool of yourself here lah.

Tell us more about your smelly mother and daughter ok?

ℳatilah_$ingapura said...


You sore loser cunts are really showing the content of your character. And it is SHIT!

The weeks leading up to the election, you cocksuckers were full of bluster and shit talk. You blamed all manner of ill on the incumbent govt. No job, blame govt. No CPF (a sunk tax), blame govt. Train breakdown, blame govt. (kotek SMRT is private company lah). Get sick because don't fuck care about adopting healthy lifestyle, blame govt because no "free" doctor. Don't want pay doctor, but can go buy 4-D, cigarettes and beer (great that you have your priorities sorted out).

Go rally shout until hoarse....and then your team doesn't win.

Can accept loss GRACEFULLY or not? Apparently not. WOW! "Actually we should have won, but we didn't because: 1) blah blah 2) blah blah blah 3) blah blahdi blahdi blah blah 4) blah NEW blah blah CITIZENS blah blah fart fart fart blah blahdi blah blah

Did the numbers of new citizens have any significance in the PAP's percentage of the votes?

Possibly. I'm sure some voted PAP.

However the overwhelming support for the PAP came from LOCAL SINGAPOREANS---like you and your friends/ family. (Not me. I don't vote. It's against my religion)

Local Singaporeans chose their next government. Like it or not, that's what happened. A landslide victory.

So motherfuckers, do the gracious thing....no one gets to win everytime in life. The better team will beat you to a win. That doesn't mean you're a piece of shit because you came in 2nd.

You become a PIECE OF SHIT when you display poor sportsmanship in a contest.

Your behaviour reflects poorly on the opposition parties, and that could cause whatever appeal they have in the electorate to DIMINISH. You do them a great disservice.

Play the SMART game lah!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Matilda, Sir don't be so angry. It's bad for your health. Your points noted, quite valid. Let others speak also, lah. Btw there is no LGBT issue this election, 10:11. Please don't confuse.

Anonymous said...

@RedBean. Take a look at the figures I show, and see if it makes sense to you.

In 2015, out of the 2460977 available voters, 2304331 actually showed up at the polling stations to vote.

In 2011, it was about 2060373 voters who showed up at the polling stations.

2304331-2060373 = 243958

There are 243958 extra voters. But there is one key difference for 2015. Tanjong Pagar GRC is contested for the first time in many years. Tanjong Pagar has about 115000 voters.

So the remaining extra voters number about 129000 or so? And where do these voters come from? Certainly a portion will be new citizens, a portion will be from local Singaporeans who turned 21. How many of each we will need further digging up of numbers to know.

In any case I take it as more than half of those are new citizens? Say 70000. You will then see that it makes up about 3% of the valid vote.

What does this mean? It means that without these new citizens, or perhaps if the new citizen numbers were cut by half to only about 35000 these past years, PAP will still have about 67-67.5% of the popular vote. This is in fact better than LHL's first attempt of 66.6% in 2006 and still a major PAP swing.

It would have meant though that Aljunied would be less of a close fight, and that Lee Li Lian might have not lost in Punggol East.

Hope the numbers make sense.

Anonymous said...

It would have meant though that Aljunied would be less of a close fight, and that Lee Li Lian might have not lost in Punggol East.
Anon 1:00 p.m.

Not really lah. In fact Lee Li Lian herself said she suspected municipal (AHPETC) issues are behind her loss in Punggol East SMC. And I think so too.

And it is precisely the same for Aljunied with their reduced winning margins and that's why even East Coast GRC voters, the best hope for WP to win new GRC, were very scared the AHPETC issue will repeat in East Coast GRC if WP win. So they give WP less than 40% votes, not even anywhere near to winning.

And if WP could not even hold on to Punggol East, can forget about the rest lah, other opposition parties included.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 1:00.

I am not sure if the numbers of 2.35m(2011) and 2.46m(2015) were given by you, but these are easier figures to use as both were the numbers for eligible voters in the two GEs. The 2011 figure included every constituency, Tanjong Pagar and overseas Singaporeans. The overseas Singaporeans were something like 200,000. Unless this is wrong, The eligible voters inclusive of Tanjong Pagar but less overseas Singaporean should be 2.15m.

Your 2060373 included the overseas Singaporeans. The 2304331 excluded the overseas Singaporeans. So your final figure of 243958 is mismatched.

It is better to use the eligible voter figures than the voters that turned out to vote.

The number of eligible voters, both excluding overseas Singaporeans, were 2.350,000 -200,000 or 2.15m and 2.46m showing a difference of 310,000. I can't explain why 2.46m or why 2.35m.

Anonymous said...

I am a East Coast GRC voter. Indeed I am very scared that my Town Council will become another AHPETC case, and what for?

So I voted PAP lor, to save all the trouble. A lot to gain and nothing much to lose really, tio bo?

Anonymous said...

Do not be trapped in all the figures debated here.

The alternative parties lost bcos they are not in a position to offer crumbs and frozen meats to the starving sinkies. The PAP on the other hand is free to give back some crumb and bone when and as it sees advantageous to do so.

Singaporeans are pragmatic and also lack vision. To sone extent they are hapless, their lives are held in ransom with no recourse and they are brought up with penchant for freebies. As such the result of the general election was actually.concluded before it even started.

Right, new citizens help in the improved percentage of the PAP, but the defeats of the alternative parties were caused by the local Singaporeans.

Anonymous said...

@RedBean. For 2011 GE, I got the data from


You are right that 2060373 included the overseas Singaporeans who actually voted at the various embassies. But this figure definitely does not include Tanjong Pagar GRC.

You also said that 2304331 excluded the overseas Singaporeans, and you may be right on that. But already, 2304331 did the voting in Singapore. We should be waiting to see if the elections department adds in the overseas Singaporean vote to that figure of 2304331. I suspect it makes very small difference because many Singaporeans overseas were unlikely to travel to their embassy to vote. If it were a big difference, they could not have announced the results of Aljunied so soon just in case there were another 2000-3000 overseas voters that can tip the scale. The returning officer always states that the "votes cast in Singapore are conclusive of the result", meaning to say that he did not need to wait for the overseas count to decide the outcome.

I did not bother with 2.35m and 2.46m. I look at the number who actually voted over the number of eligible voters, simply because we are discussing the actual voting outcome. If so, why do we bother with those who are eligible but did not vote?


There is another estimate here. This author also does a rough calculation of how many local Singaporeans were among the new voters based on the birth and death rates.

He also has a rough figure of new citizens, and makes a very good point in that new citizen families also include the young below 21, who are not eligible to vote.

A further very good point was that between 2006 to 2011, a lot of new citizens were brought in, but the PAP vote still dropped from 66.6% to 60.1%.

Anonymous said...


All in all, I maintain that the numbers we should be concerned with are the below two:

1) 2060373 + Tanjong Pagar

2) 2304331 + any overseas votes not yet counted in

Take 2) - 1) will give you the number of extra votes cast.

Might be wrong.

Anonymous said...

The National Population and Talent Division in Prime Minister Office do survey and collect data on population in Singapore.Thus PM has the data to redesign election division for his benefit.There was a survey done prior the election by NPTD .
PM has played his cards in this round, he has reached his peak for his third term premership.
In today States Times Review website, a China website is asking PRC Chinese in Singapore to apply for PR status.It said after every election, more PR status are approved ,it even provide statistics on PR status granted.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 2:52, in this election, Singaporeans overseas not eligible to vote. Totally out of the computation.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

It is so ingenious to use 2.35m and 2.46m eligible voters for 2011 and 2015 respectively. The increase of 110k voters over 4 years appeared reasonable, a net increase of less than 5%.

The question, are the two numbers saying the same thing? In 2011, overseas Singaporeans were included as eligible voters. Were the overseas Singaporeans added in the 2015 eligible voters figure? If yes, how to account for only 6% did not cast their votes? If overseas Singaporeans were included in the 2.46m, the percentage of votes not casted should be very much higher.

Given this fact, the 2.46m seemed to exclude the eligible overseas voters. Thus the real increase is actually about 300,000(assuming 200,000 overseas were eligible) or about 13%. Is this high? What does it mean when the increase in population due to natural birth is about 1%?

Can anyone help me to explain this?

Anonymous said...

Actually RedBean, come to think of it where did you get the 200K overseas voters from? Also, where does it say that 2.46m excludes overseas voters? Because I just visited the elections department website and there are instructions for overseas voters as well. Was there a law passed to say that this year, overseas Singaporeans cannot vote?

You also still have not explained why it is more ingenious to use the number of eligible voters rather than the number of voters who actually turned up to vote. There is a WatsApp circulating around that claims there are 200K plus of new voters this time round, but even then, it uses those who turn up to vote, and uses different figures from you.

I have quoted you where I got the numbers from and listed my rationale why I did the calculation as such.

Rather than keep saying "it is better", "it is ingenious","if i am not wrong", "something like 200000", why not make use of the internet to show what the sources to what you claim are.

If not, its hardly a discussion, with you keep asking where 300K comes from but not debating on other's calculations.

Anonymous said...

Read what RB said. He explained very clearly where he got the 300,000 and he also said this year overseas sinkie cannot vote. You refused to read what he said or you pretend not to understand him?

Anonymous said...

The grains are now porridge and pudding.

Crunching the numbers serve no purpose.

Singaporeans will now have to depend on whether the porridge and pudding are cooked with conscience or avarice.

The former will provide some comfort and solace. The latter will put the peasants from the frying pan into the stove.

Let's see how it pans out.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 9:12pm

I understand what RedBean has said perfectly. But his argument hinges on 2 things.

That there are 200K overseas Singaporeans. I have asked him where he got this from. I share again the 2011 data:


It shows total electorate 2350873. Of this, 139711 did not vote as they were from Tanjong Pagar. 44737 spoilt their votes. 150729 did not vote. It could either due to being overseas, or maybe in hospital, or the old, being too weak to travel to the voting station due to being bedridden. This leaves as I mentioned before, 2060373 valid voters.

Fast forward to 2015, today, and the data is below


It shows an electorate size of 2462926, with a voter turnout of 2304331. This gives a record high turn out of 93.56%, but it mentions it excludes overseas voters. Crucially does this mean that the overseas voters were not yet added to the 2304331, or does it mean it is not factored in the overall electorate? RedBean seems to think so. Again, I have asked him to provide his source of it.


From the above link, there is no evidence to suggest that overseas voters were not allowed to vote, and who were not included in the electorate.

So really, RedBean's argument depends on two things:
1) That there are really 200000 overseas voters
2) That these people were excluded totally from the electorate this year

He has to back these statements up. I suspect he cannot, which is why he says

"PS. The above analyst is based on the assumption that there was an additional 300,000 new citizens/voters in this GE. Another blogger has pointed out that the number of electorate increased from 2.35m to 2.46m or an increase of 110,000. Which is the true number?

Let’s try to figure out which is which since we do not have the official data."

As for the rest, make of it what you will. Its the internet. If RedBean is picking up on this topic, there will be others who will. Look at their data and calculations.

You might doubt others arguments. In which case, use your own. I have based everything I wrote here not on "I think", "it is better", or "something like 200000", I have tried to find sources for it.

If you do not take a scientific approach to look at such matters, and pretend you know it all, well, I think its obvious that most of us do not know it all.

Last post on this thread.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

There is no need to write a book on this. The key question is the 2.46m eligible voters. Are the overseas Singaporeans included in this number? We know that the overseas Singaporeans are not eligible to vote this time.

Is my question simple enough? Does the 2.46m eligible voters include overseas Singaporeans?

Anonymous said...

POsted in TRE

'In 2011 – the combined opposition polled around 800,000 votes

In 2015 – they polled around 680,000 votes. A difference of 120,000 votes. (I’ll come to this later)

So in other words logically you’d expect a gain of around 120,000 votes for the PAP right?

Let’ see the figures:

In 2011, the PAP polled – 1.21 million votes
In 2015, they polled 1.57 million votes.

An increase of 360,000 votes. Where did that 240,000 (if we subtract the 120k the opposition lost) extra votes come from?

I submit it cannot be from the Singaporean core – birth rates in the 1980s were at its lowest, so the number of births replacing deaths is probably negative. Then we have another 5% who didn’t vote anymore. That 240,000 extra votes had to come from somewhere – yes – new citizens....'

Anonymous said...

I fear that we may never know the true figure of new citizens who voted this time.

Nonetheless, the army of new citizens has been invited to stay, and stay they will. And their
rank will swell, weakening and weakening our voices. GE2014 is the first of all future GEs where our representation has decreased.

The future is bleak.

Anonymous said...

@RedBean. Thought it would be my last post on this thread, but back here, just to answer your simple question.

"Does the 2.46m eligible voters include overseas Singaporeans?"

Answer is Yes. Overseas Singaporeans were not struck off the voting roll this time.


In fact, there was a new overseas voting station, Dubai, created this year.

Anonymous said...


Much ado about nothing.

Cut to the chase, Singaporeans
have trust and faith in the government
and they had abashly showed it with their votes.

Any doubt about that ?

Anonymous said...

Apology !

'unabashly' to replace abashly
in above post.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 1:12pm

Agreed agreed. We can take a lot of netizens word for it and remove 10% from the voting because they are pro-PAP. So PAP is left with 60% of the earlier number.

This is still 2 out of 3 voters voting for the PAP, in the new reduced total.

So no need talk so much cock. LHL may have gotten a 70% because of his new citizens, but he scored closed to 66% even when you take them out.

Sinkies help to swing easily 5-6% of the votes back to LHL. The new citizens make it look like a thrashing by adding their numbers.

This is what RB refuse to accept. As what I mentioned the day before, he spend so much time this past year praising Roy and saying how Roy will cause LHL to lose votes, it not only did not happen, but went the opposite way.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 1:12, yes checked it out. You are right that the overseas Singaporeans did vote. My numbers would have to be adjusted to take this into consideration. My earlier positions were influenced by the position of overseas citizens that was unclear and thus the assumption used was wrong.

I will put up another article to revise my data.


simple said...

Red Bean, for yr analysis, you should only use the incremental # of new citizens who are first-time voters in GE 2015. Your estimate of 300k includes those who are already voters in GE 2011.

Allow me to share my analysis instead. It goes like this:

Incremental total Votes won by PAP in 2015 over 2011: +365k

The areas which may account for the increase of 365k votes gained by PAP:
a) New immigrant citizens during the period, presumably therefore eligible to vote for the first time in GE2015, grew by about 30k per year in the period between GEs 2011 & 2015 (source: government published statistics) adding up to a estimated total of about 135k for 4.5 years up to mid-2015.
Assuming conservatively that about 90% (instead of 100%) of them voted for PAP (=120k), this leaves the balance of 245k (365k – 120k) attributed to other factors.

b) There are 450k of PGs who obviously benefit most from recent goodies. The older PGs (over 70-75 years old) who are not self-sufficient financially and want assurance of continuity of goodies from PAP G would vote for PAP due to the fear factor of it not forming the government. If you recall it was reported that PAP grassroots were visiting PGs to brief PGs of their goodies entitlement. It is highly conceivable that they also impressed on the fear factor on the aside.
Assume: 40 to 50% = 180k to 220k (avg 200k) of them switch votes to PAP

c) Some children of the PGs, as reported to have said by Minister Khaw Boon Guan, are relieved that they will have less financial burden in spending on their PG parents because of the PG package, Medishield Life premium and other subsidies and other goodies for senior citizens, and want assurance of continuity of goodies from PAP G.
Assume: 40% of 200k (avg) = 80k would also switch vote to PAP.

Together these 3 groups potentially account for a pool of 400k votes from which PAP’s vote gain of +364k votes came from which resulted in PAP’s landslide victory. These 3 groups are generally silent voters and hence fell outside the radar screens of Opposition parties and election watchers.

The above estimates are before taking into consideration more other sympathy votes due to the effects of the feel-good emotive pulls towards the PAP brand from SG 50 hype, the LKY legacy, fear factor and the visible efforts and programmes that the G had put in place to address the grouses of GE 2011.
In this regards, it also appears therefore that the AHPETC spat had minimal impact on voters’ voting choice.

This time round the impact of the votes of new citizens is a significant but not yet substantial factor by itself. But given another 2-3 terms and if the immigration-economic growth policy continues as envisioned by the G, new citizens as a group will become the dominant king-maker, and by then home-bred Singaporeans will increasingly be politically marginalised.

Anonymous said...

Simple deciphers the Result
simply but succinctly.

Anonymous said...


It is good to clarify. I await your next article on this, if you intend to calculate further.

Actually, Singapore has been granting citizenships since even before year 2000.

I know because I know such a family in Aljunied. But guess what, they voted WP. And these are people whose sons have performed their NS already.

Opposition parties need a new thinking. They might never win over those who just obtained citizenship for 2-3 years. Because these may be grateful and still vote PAP. But those who have been here for 10-20 years, there will be a portion who better understand the concerns, and it is not impossible for opposition parties to provide a better scenario for them.

A good example are Malaysians. They are a pragmatic people. Initially, they will find Singapore better than Malaysia in any way, but eventually, they also know how to see what problems there are. Even if they do not, their children will. There is an audience for opposition parties to capture, if they stop taking the easy option to blame new citizens.

In any case, the problems associated with 6.9 million population are not from the new citizens. It is from PMETs, S-pass, employment pass holders and PRs.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Thanks Simple and anon 5:04.

The numbers we have in the media can be rationalised. I can only caution to take them with a pinch of salt as they are presented to serve other people's agenda.

What is important is the future when the new citizens become a substantial force to be reckoned with and apathetic Singaporeans, like domesticated cats, no longer know how to fight and defend themselves.

Most new citizens who have been here long enough could see the problems facing Singaporeans, especially the Malaysians. Long enough they would think and behave like us. The problematic ones are those from outside Malaysia and here for less than 10 years.

My articles deliberately used only one single factor but we all know many other factors were just as important. My next article would try to clean up the confusion in the numbers.


Anonymous said...

The bottom of the barrel 3rd world new citizens & the rich will vote the whites. The PMET new citizens understand the importance if 2 party system and they also feel the heat of the high cost of living. That's why you see more and more 3rd world folks around. That is their winning strategy.

Anonymous said...

I pity your parents and children.

Anonymous said...

Let's just pray for their next generation. Ok, let's not pray for their next generation for they deserve what their parents' sow. Lol.

Anonymous said...

I had previously commented and provided you the data on eligible voters in GE2011 and GE2015, and the yearly population statistics. Just to help out to clear any confusion for you to move forward on your article.

Firstly, the precise figures for the eligible voters in the Electoral Register are as follows:
GE2015 - 2,462,926
GE2011 - 2,350,873

The Electoral Registers include overseas citizens. However, while the official figure for overseas Singaporeans (provided by periodic govt publication of statistics) is currently over 200,000, the actual number in the Electoral Register is normally much smaller. For GE2015, the published figure is 4,868 of which only 3,415 actually cast their votes. Why the huge disparity from 200,000? Because the normal statistics include all Singaporeans (i.e. all age groups) resident overseas as well as those who have stayed abroad for more than 6 months. Also, most do not register or vote because the overseas polling centres are restricted to only 10 embassies in major cities.

The increase of 112,053 eligible voters in GE2015 are in the majority "new citizens", but not all. The published statistics appear to suggest that native citizens are still continuing to increase although the replacement rate is currently at 1.19. This could be owing to people living longer resulting in death rate plus emigration rate being still lower than the birth rate currently at about 31,000 per year.

According to published statistics, the numbers of new citizens from year 2011 to 2014 (see figures below) is 77,000 (assuming 20,000 for year 2014)

2011 - 15,777
2012 - 20,693
2013 - 20572
2014 - NA (subject to 15,000 to 25,000 policy guideline)

No age breakdown is available, but from my reading I believe most of the 77,000 should be of voting age. Firstly, citizenship application is normally open to those 21 years and above. Secondly, although children of citizenship applicants can also be included, it is unlikely that the parents would renounce the citizenship of their minor children. The children would most likely remain as PR until they decide to take up citizenship on their own after coming of age. For your purpose, you could perhaps take all 77,000 new citizens as eligible voters in GE2015 since you are more interested in broad numbers.

From above, you will see that the new citizens in GE2015 is about 77,000 and nowhere near the 300,000 you had earlier adopted. If the official figures of new citizenships granted each year are not convincing to you, perhaps you can consider the increase of 112,053 eligible voters as a possible maximum.

Anonymous said...

Another point you may want to consider. This was raised by Matilla when he questioned the assumption that new citizen vote for PAP. The fact is that most new citizens are not really new in Singapore, since most were PRs before becoming citizens. 81% of new citizens have stayed in Singapore for 5 years. And 52% of new citizens have stayed in Singapore for 10 years. So, most of them have probably been here long enough to be aware of the political environment in Singapore to shape their choice in voting.

Anonymous said...


@RedBean. Overseas count is in.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Yep, read in the papers. Included in my recomputation article.
Just be careful with available statistics. You don't offend get the truth. Take them at face value.