Spend more to win election

On 28 Mar, the ST ran an article ‘Lee Li Lian is by election’s top spender’. It was reported that she spent $65,227 against Koh Poh Koon’s $62,991. The details of what is included in these numbers and what are not would be another area of contention. And she held three rallies instead of the latter’s two. No wonder she won the by election. She must have worked harder and willing to spend more money, altogether $2,236 more than Koh. And her votes won were 16,045 while Koh got 12,875.

Just analysing the statistics will simply say that spending more and working harder is the formula for success. Can we expect all the political parties to be spending more and working harder in the next GE? I think many parties would have problem achieving both as they may be able to work harder, but many would not have the money to do so. Fortunately Li Lian was able to come up with more money on the table. This is quite strange as the PAP was never short of money. Or is it that they thought spending nearly $63k would be hard to beat as the WP, being a workers’ party, would not be able to match the rich elitist party with many millionaires and multi millionaires in their ranks.

This must be WP’s secret weapon, got plenty of money to campaign for election, and must be a big surprise to the PAP. Maybe it was because it was only a by election and its resources were focused on one event. If the WP would to contest in a GE then they may not have enough money to spread around. Fielding so many candidates and running so many rallies would be very very costly. No wonder in GE the PAP always sure win.

If the PAP thinks that the WP only got enough money for a by election by putting all in, then it should not present much problem with $63k per candidate in the GE. With 87 seats, this will cost the PAP at least $5.5m on the average to fight the next GE. If the WP were to contest half the seats, it will be 43 x $65k or $2.8m. Can the WP afford this kind of money?

What if both want to up the stake by adding another $10k or so per candidate, it will be very much more to put on the table. The rest of the smaller parties would have to think twice whether to follow or to fold their cards. Very likely they would only be able to do well by concentrating their limited resources to a few candidates. Winning an election definitely cost money and the stake is getting higher and higher. Do not rule out higher deposits for the candidates.

The higher cost of fielding a candidate is expected as the rewards are also quite handsome. For $63k to $65k, the return at $16k per month for 5 years is $960k, quite close to a million. And then there is the big bonus of becoming an office holder, with a top prize of several millions annually. Spending $60+k is really cheap when compare to the returns. Not a bad investment looking at the odds and the monetary winnings.