Cognitive dissonance at the voting booth

This was an article which I have written some time ago, but I have not published it.

Dr Catherine Lim famously made the following statement in her article ‘PAP and the people: A great affective divide’: “the disaffection remains largely coffee-house and cocktail party rhetoric only. Singaporeans continue to prefer the cover of anonymity. One reason may be the fear that the outspoken person will be marked out and victimised; another may be the sheer presence of so much proof of concrete well-being, such as a good job, a good bank account, a comfortable lifestyle. Whatever the reason, the negative feelings go underground. Now subterranean hostility is all the more insidious for being that, and has a way of surfacing in the most trenchant way, for example, applauding any rambunctious opposition party member in pre-election rallies. A once-in-five-years occurrence, it shows all the intensity of unbottled resentment. The most serious consequences, as the Government is very well aware, is the giving of the vote to the opposition, simply to deny the Government majority that would presumably make it more arrogant than ever.”

As far as popularity polls go, one example of which comes into mind is the Gallup poll, the ruling PAP isn’t the most popular party to begin with. Even rally attendences tell the same story, with opposition rallies far outnumbering that of the PAP rallies. Yet comes election day, two-thirds of the voters go on to vote for PAP. This leads one to ask if there is a form of cognitive dissonance among voters at the voting booth?

What causes the hearts and heads of such voters to say different things? This can be pinpointed to a number of possible explanations.

The first possible explanation is that some Singaporean voters are easily bought over by titbits or what you call electoral handouts. It is believed that such sweeteners have a temporary “narcotic” effect that will dispel any negative sentiments towards the ruling party. However, the fact remains that no one really knows if such goodies are really sufficient enough to win the voters over although the fact that the government can dish out handouts gives the appearance that it is doing a good job where fiscal management is concerned. However, as far as the real story of our government’s fiscal management goes, no one really knows due to the paucity of data. In addition, there is a prevailing sentiment that the government will ultimately get back more than what it dishes out in the first place albeit through a number of means. Thus, there is a doubt whether electoral handouts can really win voters.

There is also speculation that voters may have been held ransom by their HDB assets. In what ways are they held ransom? In the past few elections, one thing that always get mentioned is the promise of upgrading to those who vote in the PAP. Upgrading may seem very mundane, but in actual fact is not for those who are concerned over the value of their HDB assets. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure that an upgrading work that adds useful amenities to a HDB estate will boost the value of the asset. Such upgrading promises have also been made to wards that have voted for opposition in the past few elections. For instance, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the current losing candidate for Potong Pasir indicated to voters in the past that the PAP had made an election promise to upgrade those precincts that favoured the ruling party.

Concerns are also raised over the fact that the voting slip contains serial numbers, and this has been a disconcerting issue for some voters. There is a fear that one’s vote is not secret. Although our votes are secret, the presence of the serial number presents a form of psychological barrier that plays on the voters’ fears. One would suspect that if a better system that does away with serial numbers or other forms of voting slip-tagging is in practice, we will see a significant number of voters exercising their true choice.

Perhaps, another thing that is holding back the voters is their adversity to risks that makes them hesitant over what the future would hold when the PAP government is no longer in control. This is something that many dare not contemplate on. Yes, their heart says that they prefer the opposition but their heads hesitate at the thought of the day when the PAP government is no longer in control. It is this uncertainty that they fear most, especially if this concerns their own future. These are the voters who willingly vote for status quo, not out of support for the PAP, whilst being happy to let the others vote for a token opposition presence in parliament. It appears that the PAP will continue to form our government until the day comes when the electorate is willing to face the prospect of a government without the PAP. That means doing away with their risk adversity.

It is indeed intriguing to observe the possible cognitive dissonance exhibited by our voters at the voting booth. Their heart says “don’t vote for the PAP!”, but their head says otherwise. Such a dissonance can be explained by a number of reasons, and it could be any one such reason or a combination thereof that ultimately influence the outcome of the voter’s choice on the voting slip.