Uncle Lee said so:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who leads the six-man Tanjong Pagar team, also plans to lend a helping hand to constituencies that are facing a battle. He, too, expressed regret at the lack of competition. “We are sorry to have disappointed Tanjong Pagar voters … but the work goes on,” he said in his speech after nominations closed at Bendemeer Primary and Secondary School.

And so did Uncle Goh

Addressing PAP supporters at the nomination centre, SM Goh said: “Dear friends and residents of Marine Parade GRC, we have been given a walkover. The Workers’ Party’s slogan is “You have a choice” but unfortunately they haven’t given you, our dear voters, a choice in the Marine Parade GRC.” Mr Goh added: “We have a fresh team in Marine Parade GRC. I shall give more time to them to speak to you. But I want to thank you for your support all these years. From 1976 to now, you have given me very strong support. I thank you very much for your support. I want to thank the supporters over here for turning up.”

And my electronic polling card shares the same sentiments…

Are Singaporeans ready for a referendum? Walkovers are a strong part of the local political landscape, with about half of Singapore in terms of land area being unaffected by the GE due to walkovers. How many 1st time potential voters are not able to vote as a result, how many ppl have not gotten a chance to vote in their adult lives?

Come to think of it, it’s pretty easy to get a walkover. Your grassroots, party and political machinery could be so strong that nobody, independent or political party dares to come and fight you, simply because it would be a fultile battle and may end up losing their deposits (Read: PAP). . You could be from a reputable party and fuck yourself when you botch up your nomination papers and don’t get to run, giving the other party a walkover (Read: WP in Aljunied, 2001). The ruling party can, for all you know, botch up their own papers and the ward ends up with an independent MP who is running for the sake of running and has no clearcut ideas on how to improve his ward.

We of course trust the PAP to not do the last item. However accidents do happen from time to time. Is there a mechanism to rectify this error? I would say most ppl would agree with the PAP’s policies, but should there be a more concrete and quantitative way of gauging the support a party’s team has in their ward? One of cos can argue that the number of grassroots people who made their way to the nomination stations, and the aunties who rush to shake hands with the minister during walkabouts are clear signs of support. Without trying to diss these ppl off, let’s just say that it would not be that hard to get a few hundred retirees from your ward to come support you, given the right encouragement.

A referendum serves to address a few issues. The main one is providing a quantitative check of the ward’s approval of the sole or incumbent candidates. Strength, real or perceived, may prevent other parties from competing in that ward. Perceived strength may be due to poor grassroots information on the sentiments of the ward’s residents. Hence it is important to provide residents with a Get Out of Jail card. It would allow voters to vote out the sole competing candidate or group of candidates with say, a 60% no-confidence vote. On the other hand, it could provide the resounding vote of confidence that residents place with the sole candidate.

A referendum would be a good chance for the rest of Singapore to experience polling, and for the Election Dept to test its full system across the whole of Singapore. It can be easily seen that having polls only in about half of Singapore makes it easier for the dept to gather resources and cluster them in order to make the whole process smoother. Many civil servants, including teachers are earmarked as helpers during elections, it would be a good chance to test them and the various resources, including polling centres that would be put into use.

A softer approach to the referendum system would be to make it voluntary, and non-commital. The candidate who receives the walkover has the freedom to call for and hold a referendum as a a gauge of the popular support, or to debunk the views of external parties including rival political parties. The fear of losing the seat in the referendum could be removed by making it into solely a survey of sorts. If the confidence level is low, the incumbent could be placed on probation for say, 2 years before a second referendum that is binding be called for. The second referendum would allow voters to assess the incumbent’s performance, and need be, remove him or her.

All these seems to make for a unstable government. However I would like to think that it is as much as a survival of the fittest as the current political system is. Given the fact that the current strength of the PAP makes it the only party that is likely to enjoy walkovers, the referendum system would serve as a method for voters to feedback on the performance of the incumbent MP. It is also highly unlikely that Government-in-power at that particular time could be displaced by multiple referendums.

End of crapping, all these due to a bottle of Long Island Tea