WelshGE2015 Survey: Post-Election Insights on Voting in Singapore
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WelshGE2015 Survey: Post-Election Insights on Voting in Singapore BRIDGET WELSH P RO F ES S O R , I P E K U N I V E RS I T Y/ S E N I O R R ES EA RC H A S S O C I AT E, C E N T E R FO R EA S T A S I A D E M O C R AT I C S T U D I ES , N AT I O N A L TA I WA N U N I V E RS I T Y/ S EN I O R A S S O C I AT E F E L LOW, T H E H A B I B I E C E N T E R / U N I V E RS I TY F E L LOW, C H A R L ES DA RW I N U N I V E RS I T Y
About the Welsh GE2015 Survey
This survey is an independent assessment of
factors explaining voting behavior in Singapore’s
GE2015.
The purpose of the Welsh GE2015 Survey is to
contribute to understanding and knowledge, to
complement and expand the existing research on
the political views of the Singaporean public.
Welsh GE2015 was privately funded by a
Singaporean citizen and implemented by a
research firm based in Singapore.
The survey questions and analysis were
developed by Professor Bridget Welsh, with
technical assistance provided by the Merdeka
Center. Questions regarding the survey can be
directed to bridgetwelsh1@gmail.com
Sampling of the Welsh GE2015 Survey The survey was conducted by telephone. A total sample size of 800 were interviewed, with the results weighted in line with the Singapore Department of Statistics 2010 Census of Population updated annually for gender, ethnicity and age distribution. The sample size is a nationally representative sample with a margin of error of +/- 3.46%. The survey had a refusal rate of 18%, indicating reluctance to participate in survey research on political issues.
Source(s) of Information: Findings
GE2015 was not an Internet/Social Media
Election
Mainstream media remains the dominant
source of information for political affairs,
especially television.
Social media and chat groups were less
influential as a source of information, although
chat groups were more important than in
GE2011.
Chat groups, such as WhatsApp, were the least
impactful as a news source.
Source(s) of Information
Main sources of information about domestic political and current affairs
80%
71%
70%
Mainstream media dominates
60% 57% information flow First
Second
50%
44%
Total
41%
40%
34%
30%
30% 26%
20% 19%
20%
14%
12%
10% 8%
7% 6%
2% 2%
1% 1% 1% 1%
0%
TV Channel Newspaper Internet Social media Radio Chat group Not following Others
news
Q: Please tell me TWO sources/channels you consider to be your main source of information about domestic political and current affairs?
Prioritization of Sources of Information
1 - Lowest 2 3 4 5 - Highest Unsure/Refuse
Newspaper 13% 13% 33% 21% 14% 6%
TV Channel 11% 11% 25% 26% 22% 5%
Facebook 21% 9% 18% 16% 11% 25%
WhatsApp
Group
38% 11% 14% 5% 3% 28%
Mainstream media most important information source in GE2015
Q: On a scale of 1-5 with 5 as the highest, how influenced were you by the following sources in the 2015 General Election?
Views of Current Political Conditions
. A large majority perceive the country moving
in the right direction, with nearly a third of
Singaporeans strongly holding this view.
There are only modest demographic
differences in public perceptions of the
direction of the country.
For those Singaporeans perceiving the country
moving in the right direction, stability,
government performance and economic
development are the main reasons provided.
For those Singaporeans perceiving the country
moving in the wrong direction, immigration
and cost of living issues were the most
important, followed by concerns with
government performance.
Very positive views
Direction of the Country on the direction of
Singapore
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Right Wrong Right Wrong
100 100
10%
80 80 89
2% 81 81 79 79 79 83
78 75
60 60 73
9% 30%
40 40
11 10 15 13 10
20 20 6 8 8
19 13
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
49% 100 Right Wrong
100 Right Wrong
80 80
81 86 85
60 77 76 60 74 78 77
40 40
Strongly right Strongly wrong 13 13 13 18
20 11 20 6 11 8
Somewhat right Somewhat wrong
0 0
Unsure Refuse < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Considering the conditions in the country today, how strongly would you say that things are heading in the right or wrong
direction?
Direction of the Country
79% 11%
RIGHT DIRECTION (n=633) WRONG DIRECTION (n=90)
Stability 24.60% Negative Impact Foreign Influx 25.60%
Good Government Performance 11.60% High Cost of Living/Inflation 14.30%
Favourable Economic Poor Government Performance 10.00%
9.00%
Development
Inadequate Political Change 9.90%
Government Doing Best 4.10%
Housing Prices and High Fees
Educational Opportunities and 4.40%
Education and Healthcare
3.80%
Policies
Poor Policies 3.90%
Leadership Quality and
3.50%
Engagement Social Differences and Problems 3.00%
Social Welfare Benefits 3.10%
Governance/Lack of Transparency 2.20%
Others 16.70%
Others 10.00%
Unsure 21.30% Refuse 1.00%
Refuse 1.40% Unsure 16.40%
Stability and Economy versus Foreigners/Jobs and Cost of Living
Q: And what would you say is the issue that is the main reason for you answering right/wrong direction?
High satisfaction
Satisfaction with the Government reported
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
100 100
3%4%
80 80 89
83 84 85 87 82 84
11% 78 80
73
28% 60 60
40 40
20 12 12 10 20 11 12 11
20 16 24 6
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
54% 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied
80 80
83 83 87 85 86 84
79 75
60 60
40 40
Strongly satisfied Strongly dissatisfied 20 11 20 9 10 12
19 22
Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied 14 14
0 0
Unsure/ Refuse < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with how the government is performing these days?Satisfaction with the Government
82% 13%
SATISFIED (n=661) DISSATISFIED (n=106)
Singapore is doing
12% High cost of living/inflation 20%
well/Stability
Peaceful conditions 10% Influx of Foreigners 17%
Social Welfare Benefits 7% Lack of transparency 7%
“Effective Administration 4% CPF issues/Wages issues 5%
Favorable Economic Inadequate Welfare for the
3% 5%
Conditions People
Inefficiency of transportation
Good policies 3% 3%
(poor services)
Unsure/ Don't know 13% Unsure/ Refuse 9%
Q: What would you say is the issue that is the main reason for your answer? (satisfied with performance)Participation in GE2015
Nearly two-thirds of Singaporeans followed
the GE2015 campaign, challenging the myth
that Singaporeans are politically apathetic.
Interest is high among younger Singaporeans.
Voting remains the main form of political
participation, with only small shares of
Singaporeans attending rallies or engaging in
campaigning.Follow the Election Campaign
High engagement with campaign, with modest variation
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Yes No Yes No
2% 80 80
60 67 66 60 67
64 61 65 63 62 61
58
40 40
34% 39 37 36
34 33 32 33 35 35 34
20 20
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
64% Others
Household income ($) Education Level
Yes No Yes No
80 80
60 72 60 69 68
62 66 65 65
58
40 40
Yes 40
20 35 33 33 33 30
No 27 20 27
Unsure/Refused 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Did you follow the 2015 Singapore General Election campaign?Forms of Participation in GE2015 Campaign
140%
First Second
120%
Political participation in campaigning low,
100%
with rally attendance and chatting among
highest forms outside of voting.
80% 74%
63%
60%
40%
20% 15% 16%
8% 7% 5%
4% 3% 4% 2%
1%
0%
Vote Attend Political Rally Participate in a chat Persuade someone to Post blog/ on Facebook Campaign worker
group vote
Q: Which of the following did you participate in during the GE campaign?Views of Leadership: Findings
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Emeritus Senior
Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman
Shanmugaratnam from the PAP have the most
favorable public assessments among the politicians
surveyed.
Around a quarter of Singaporeans are not familiar with
many leading Singaporean politicians.
Opposition politicians, in particular Chee Soon Juan
and Tan Jee Say, have the highest unfavorability ratings
by the public, although their favorability assessments
are higher than their negative views indicating
polarization of views of these leaders in the public.
Most Singaporeans are unsure who will be the future
prime minister of Singapore after Lee Hsien Loong.
Those that do answer primarily indicate Deputy Prime
Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.Perception towards Leadership
Very favourable Somewhat favourable Somewhat unfavourable Very unfavourable Do not know this party Unsure/Refuse
100% 2%
7% 7% 4%
11% 11% 14% 11%
90%
30% 24% 19%
80% 39% 25%
32%
52%
70% 38% 36% 13%
41% 39% 13%
60% 12%
12%
50%
47% 12% 35%
12% 34% 34%
12% 9% 27%
40%
27%
30% 32%
22% 22% 28%
23% 9%
20% 8% 19% 20%
21%
7% 2% 17%
10% 13% 11% 13%
1% 9% 10% 10%
6% 10% 7% 9%
2% 4% 3% 5% 2% 4% 5%
0% 1% 2%
Lee Hsien Loong Low Thia Khiang Yaacob Ibrahim Vivan Goh Chok Tong Tharman Tan Chuan-Jin Chee Soon Juan Lina Chiam Sylvia Lim Tan Jee Say
Balakrishnan Shanmugaratnam
Q: Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the following leaders?Future Prime Minister
70%
64%
60%
Uncertainty over future political leadership
50% Nearly a fifth of Singaporeans select Deputy
Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam
40%
30%
20% 19%
10%
4% 3% 4%
3% 3%
1%
0%
Tharman Chan Chun Sing Teo Chee Hean Tan Chuan Jin Heng Swee Keat Yaacob Ibrahim Others Unsure/ Refuse
Shanmugaratnam
Q: Who do you think will be the next prime minister after Lee Hsien Loong?Views of Political Parties
Among political parties, PAP has the most favorability
among Singaporeans, with limited unfavorability.
WP is the most popular opposition party with high levels
of favorability, especially when compared to other
opposition parties.
All of the opposition parties except WP have higher
unfavorable than favorable assessments among
Singaporeans. Reform Party, National Solidarity Party and
Singaporean Democratic Alliance has the most unfavorable
assessments. The favorable views of non-WP opposition
parties are less than a quarter of Singaporeans, with the
Singapore Democratic Party recording the most
favorability after WP.
A large majority of Singaporeans perceive the PAP as
engaging in party renewal.
Singaporeans are split on their views of the opposition’s
performance in parliament, but a majority of Singaporeans
want a stronger opposition.Perception towards Political Parties
Very favourable Somewhat favourable Somewhat unfavourable Very unfavourable Do not know this party Unsure/Refuse
100% 4% 2% 2% 1%
8% 7% 9% 7%
11% 8%
90% 14%
20%
17% 17% 18%
80%
19% 16%
43%
18%
70% 15%
18%
48% 19% 20% 21%
60% 24%
15%
14%
50%
31%
40% 33%
33% 30%
42% 11% 32% 28%
30% 32%
5%
20%
18%
6% 27% 23%
10% 21% 18% 22% 21%
1% 16%
5% 7%
0% 3%
PAP Workers' Party Singapore Singapore Reform Party Singapore National Singaporeans People's Power
Democractic Democractic People's Party Solidarity Party First Party
Party Alliance
Q: Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the following political parties?Perceptions towards PAP Party renewal perceived by a majority of the public.
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
100 100
9%
3% 80 80
77 78 81 81 79 83
27% 60 74 73 60 69 74
11% 40 40
20 10 8 20 12 11 8
18 20 14 24
14
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
50% 100 100
80 80
80 80 83
60 77 74 60 74 75
71
40 40
Strongly agree Strongly disagree 20 20 8 11
20 19 16
Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree 14 14 14
0 0
Don’t know No response < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Do you think PAP renewal (re-generating) as a party is progressing well?Effectiveness of Opposition In Parliament
Split views of opposition performance, with interesting demographic differences
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Effective Not effective Effective Not effective
80 80
7%
17% 60 60
40 50 40 54 52 49
49 45 42 41
41 42 38 38 41 38 39 39 40
20 34 32 36 20 33 31
19% 36% 0 0
Chinese Malay Indian Others Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Household income ($) Education Level
22% Effective Not effective Effective Not effective
80 80
60 60
40 50 40
47 44 48 44 48 45 45 47 48
36 40 40
20 35 35
Very effective Not effective at all 20
24
Somewhat effective Somewhat not effective 0 0
Unsure/ Refuse < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: How effective was the opposition in parliament before the election campaign?Perspectives on Strength of Opposition
Nearly two-thirds stated they wanted a stronger opposition, with variations
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Strong Adequately Strong Adequately
80 80
14% 77
60 71 60
62 64 61
56 56 59
40 54 40 48
11% 39% 35 40
20 20 34 31
29 27 29 28 28 28
17 20
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian Others Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
18%
Household income ($) Education Level
19% Strong Adequately Strong Adequately
80 80
60 66 60 67
65 62 64
Strong agreement with stronger opposition 55 53
40 40
Somewhat agreement with stronger opposition
20 31 31 31 20 34 32
29 28
Strong agreement with adequate opposition 24 24
Somewhat agreement with adequate opposition 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
Unsure/Refused $5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: In the recent election campaign, did you think that Singapore needed a stronger opposition or was strong enough?Election Issues in GE2015
Specific Issues were not as important as
perceptions of the political party and
candidate in GE2015.
Singaporeans identified a wide range of issues
in GE2015, with social welfare and future
benefits as well as cost of living/inflation and
immigration as among the most prominent.
When given a list of issues to prioritize, cost of
living and social welfare remained important,
with immigration less so and housing more so.
The LKY factor and Town Council governance
were not prioritized among Singaporeans.Citizen-Identified Campaign Issues
Refuse to Ansure 4.3%
Unsure 19.7%
Others 4.7%
None 1.2%
Ministerial Salaries 0.1%
Town Council Issue 0.3%
Race/Ethnic Relations 0.6% Nearly a third of Singaporeans could not identify an
Transparency 0.9% issue that was important to them, with around a fifth
CPF Issue 1.0% of Singaporeans pointing to non-specific issues such
Fairness for Singaporeans 1.1% as political party strength and candidate qualities.
Education 1.6%
Fulfillment of Promises 1.7%
Healthcare costs 2.0%
Job Opportunities 2.1%
National Policies 2.5%
Transportation Management 3.1%
Opposition Voice Parliament 3.4%
Affordable Housing/ HDB Prices 3.5%
Improving Economic Conditions 3.6%
Stability 4.3% Q: In the recent
Foreigner Influx election campaign,
4.8%
was there a
Social Welfare Benefits 5.0% particular issue
Cost of Living/ Inflation 5.2% that was most
Future Benefits 6.0% important to you?
Candidate Qualities 8.4%
Strength of Political Party 9.0%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%Perceptions of Election Issues
50%
43% First Second Total
40% 38%
30%
26%
24%
20%
19% 18%20% 18% 18% 18%
14% 13%
12% 11%
10%
10% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9%
7% 6% 6% 6%
5% 5%
3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
2% 1% 2%
0%
Inflation & Cost Social Welfare Affordable Economic Immigration/ Political Stability Retirement Appreciation for Political Increases in Discrimination Unsure/Refuse
of living Housing Growth Population Security Lee Kuan Yew Freedoms Government
Policy Benefits
Q: I am going to read you a list of issues people were seen as important in the past election, which two were the most important
issues for you?Voting in GE2015 Singaporeans prioritized party leadership and candidates in GE2015, followed by the political party. These factors worked together to influence voters. Issues were less important in shaping voting behavior in GE2015. Perceptions of government benefits were also an important factor. In self-identified reasons for voting, candidate qualities and government performance emerged as important. Only a small minority of voters changed their vote during the campaign period. Voters in Singapore had decided how to vote before the campaign started. A majority of Singaporeans did not perceive the opposition as having effective grassroots. This extended to WP in the areas they contested, which has traditionally been seen to have local grassroots.
57%
Voting Drivers
60%
First Second Total
50%
43% Important synergies between leadership, candidates
and parties
40% Issues less important in GE2015, with benefits
35%
emerging as important
31%
30% 28% 27%
26% 26%
23%
20% 17% 17% 17%
12% 11%
10%
10%
4% 6%
3%
2% 2% 1% 2%
0%
Party Leadership Candidate Party Issue Government Fear of voting Other, please Unsure/Refuse
Benefits against the specify
government
Q: In this general election, what would you say was your main consideration when voting?Campaign little impact on voting
Impact of Campaign on Changing Voting
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Yes No Yes No
5% 100 100
8%
80 88 93 88 80 90 90 88
86 84 84
60 75 60
40 40
16 11
20 7 5 8 7 20 10 7 6 4
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
Yes No Yes No
87% 100 100
80 87 90 80 89
86 86 87 86 87
60 60
Yes 40 40
No 20 7 8 10 8 20 6 7 10 8
Unsure/Refused 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Did you change your intention to vote for the PAP/Opposition during the campaign?Views of the Opposition Grassroots
Perceived weak opposition grassroots, with only third favorable
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Effective Not effective Effective Not effective
80 80
8%
15%
60 60
62 63 60 59 60 61
54 55 55
40 49 40
18%
39
20 32 20 32 31
25 26 27
22 18 19
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
41% 18%
Household income ($) Education Level
Effective Not effective Effective Not effective
80 80
60 70 69 60 70
Very effective 59 61
40 51 55
40
Somewhat effective 39
20 30 29 20 26 29 29
Not effective at all 25 23 19
0 0
Somewhat not effective < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
Unsure/Refused $5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: How effective were the opposition grassroots in your area during the election campaign?Views of Opposition Grassroots of Specific Parties
1. 2.
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Workers’ Party (WP)
7% 1%
14% 9% 2%6%
20%
32%
26%
47% 17%
Effective, 40% Effective, 26%
20%
Very effective Not effective at all Unsure
Somewhat effective Somewhat not effective Refuse In areas where specific opposition parties
contested, there were different views of
Q: How effective were the opposition grassroots in your area during the election campaign? opposition grassroots effectiveness.Institutional Impact on GE2015
Nearly two-thirds of Singaporeans reported
receiving government benefits in the year before
the election. This finding has surprisingly few
demographic differences.
People’s Associations were perceived as
prominent in the GE2015 campaign, but there
were greater demographic differences in
perceptions.
People’s Associations were seen to boost the
performance of the PAP in GE2015 by a majority
with a third disagreeing.
A majority of Singaporeans did not report
receiving benefits at the local level through the
PAs, with nearly a fifth reporting they did receive
local benefits.Received Government Pre-Election Funds
Nearly two-thirds reported receiving government funds
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Yes No Yes No
4% 80 80
60 66 60 66
64 64 62 62 63 64 65 62
40 40
32% 20 32 33 34 31 33 20 34 35 31 32 29
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
64%
Household income ($) Education Level
Yes No Yes No
80 80
60 69 67 68 60 68
65 61 62 62
40 40
Yes 36
20 29 32 33 20 30 29 34
No 27
Unsure/Refused 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Did you receive government funds in the year before the election, e.g. tax rebate, subsidy etc.?People’s Association Organizations
PAs were prominent in the GE2015 campaign, but views varied across Singaporeans.
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Prominent Not Prominent Prominent Not Prominent
80 80
16% 20% 60 60
62 64
57 58 57
40 49 52 53 40 52 52
45
33 34 32 33 36
20 29 28 20 28
23 19 24
17% 0 0
Chinese Malay Indian Others Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
32% Household income ($) Education Level
14%
Prominent Not Prominent Prominent Not Prominent
80 80
60 60
59 62
Very prominent 52 55 57 55
40 47 46 40
45 46
Somewhat prominent 36
20 26 20 30
Not prominent at all 20 24
11
0 0
Somewhat prominent
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
Unsure/Refused $5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: How prominent were the People's Association organizations such as Residential Committees in your area during the election
campaign?Perception of PA impact on PAP
Majority believe PA’s boost PAP, but a third think PAs are not important
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Yes No Yes No
80 80
11%
60 60
61 60 61 60
56 54 56 54
40 50 40 50
33 35 34 34 33 35
20 31 29 20 29 31
0 0
32% 56% Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
Yes No Yes No
100 100
80 80
60 67 60
62 59 60 60
40 56 40 54
Yes
42 39
No 20 35 35 20 30 30 34
26 28
Unsure/Refused 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Do you think that these organization's benefits influenced people to support the PAP?Local Benefits: People’s Associations/Grassroots Orgs.
Low level of perceived PA benefits, but socio-economic variation in benefit received
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Yes No Yes No
80 80
6% 80
78 77 79 79
18% 60 72 74
60 71 69
68
40 40
20 27 20
15 21 16 19 14 18 15 20 21
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian& Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Others
Household income ($) Education Level
76% 100
Yes No
100
Yes No
80 80
86 85
60 76 79
70 72 60 70
66
Yes 40 40
No 20 9 20 10
24 22 19 23 23 15
Unsure/Refused 0 0
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Did you receive any benefits from the People's Association or Grassroots Organisations (RCs etc) before the elections?Post-Election Reflections
Most Singaporeans were either happy or
relieved with the election results after GE2015,
with a small minority regretful or angry.
A majority of Singaporeans do not believe the
opposition is adequately strong post-election,
with a third believing it is adequately strong.
A majority of Singaporeans expressed support
for some form of electoral reform. The main
reform areas involved the rights of new citizens
and independence of the electoral commission.
A fifth of Singaporeans believed there was no
need for electoral reform.Perceptions of Post-Election High levels of happiness or relief after
the elections.
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Happy/Relief Regretful/Angry Happy/Relief Regretful/Angry
5% 100 100
11% 80 89 80 88 88 89
84 82 80 79
60 78 73
60
40 40
41% 20 20
16 18 20 22 21 27
0 11 12 12 11
0
Chinese Malay Indian Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
43% Household income ($) Education Level
Happy/Relief Regretful/Angry Happy/Relief Regretful/Angry
100 100
80 87 80 90 89
83 80 80
60 76 60 76
Happy Regretful 40 40
Relief Angry 20 20
17 24 20 24 20
0 13 0 10 11
< $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: Which of the following emotions best describes your perception after the general elections?Post-Election Perspective of Strength Opposition
Majority believe opposition is not strong enough post-election, especially wealthier, more educated and youth
Ethnicity / Gender Age Group
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
80 80
10% 11%
60 60 66
55 55 57 59 56 57
40 52 52 40 51 47
41 38
35 35 34 35 35 36 34
22% 20 31 20 30
24%
0 0
Chinese Malay Indian Others Male Female 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 60
Household income ($) Education Level
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
34% 80 80
60 71 60 66
59 58
40 55 50
40
40 45 39 36 36 37 39 37
Strongly agree Strongly disagree 20 29 20 27
Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree 0 0
Unsure/ Refuse < $2,500 $2,501 – $5,001 - > $7,501 No formal/ Lower/ Diploma & Deg. &
$5,000 $7,500 Primary Secondary equivalent above
Q: In light of the election results, do you think the political opposition is strong enough?Diverse views of electoral reform,
but majority want changes.
Perpectives on Electoral Reforms
60%
55% First
Second
50% Total
44%
40%
32%
30% 29%
30% 27%
25% 26%
21%
19% 18%
20% 18%
13% 12%
8% 9%
10%
0%
New citizens only An independent No need for any Removal restrictions on Measures to increase Unsure/Refuse
eligible to vote after five electoral commission. modifications. media voting secrecy during
years as a citizen or polling
after national service
Q: Which one the following do you think would be most important to ensure that elections in Singapore are more free and fair?
Please give Top 2 reasonsRespondent Profile
Ethnicity Gender
Occupation
Senior/Managers/Professional 23%
Associate
Malay Chinese Indian & Others Male Female professional/Clerical
15%
13% 13% Service/Operators/Related
17%
worker
Business/Self-emp 7%
49% 51%
Homemaker 15%
74%
Other 21%
Born in Singapore Age Group Monthly Household Income ($)
Yes No < $2,500 per
21-29 17% 18%
month
13% $2,501 – $5,000
30-39 23% 24%
per month
$5,001 - $7,500
40-49 22% 15%
per month
> $7,501 per
50-59 19% 23%
88% month
> 60 20% DK/NR 20%Conclusions
Findings of Welsh GE2015 Survey echo many of the
findings of the Institute of Policy Studies post-election
survey and pre-election Blackbox Quad Research,
especially with regard to the importance of party
leadership, candidates and the party in voting decision-
making and with regards to the timing of decisions on
voting.
The Welsh poll does deepen understanding of public
views surrounding the election.
While Singaporeans want a stronger opposition, they
are divided on the opposition’s performance in
parliament and perceive weak opposition grassroots.
The role of government at the national and local level
was important in shaping voting behavior through the
perception of social welfare benefits and the role of
government-linked local institutions.
Singaporeans are looking for reforms in the electoral
process and a stronger opposition, suggesting that the
political situation remains fluid in Singapore.For Further Reading For more detail on the analysis of the poll, please see the following academic publications: Bridget Welsh, “Political Identities, Engagement and Voting in Singapore’s 2015 Election,” in Terence Lee and Kevin YL Tan, Change in Voting: Singapore’s 2015 General Election. (Singapore, Ethos), pp. 191-219. Bridget Welsh, “Clientelism and Control: PAP’s Fight for Safety in GE2015,” The Round Table, 2016, April, Forthcoming. Future work will analyze the role of religious differences in voting.
You can also read
