It seems to me that the PAP is playing a dangerous game. I am pretty certain that any political action taken by the PAP is very calculated, to much depth, by some of the brightest minds in Singapore. It seems to me too simplistic, then, to think that the PAP is just being stupid and/or out of touch with the ground. I don't mean to say that they are not stupid and/or out of touch with the ground, but I don't that explains their actions anywhere near satisfactorily. I would like to explore several possibilities before making a conclusion, if any.

I assume that the PAP made a decision that they think would be best for themselves, and secondarily (perhaps consequentially, they might think), best for Singapore.

Regarding the malay-only reserved election, it is couched as ensuring minority representation. Yet several points (oft repeated) seem to suggest that minority representation is not the final aim. For example, Halimah Yacob was already minority-representing in her role as speaker and member of parliament. Her leaving these roles, without a by-election being called to fill up the void in minority representation seems to suggest that minority representation isn't actually that important. (Basically do you add minority representation by making the president a minority and the speaker a non-minority) This shall not be the main focus of this post, if you are not convinced on this point you can do some other reading elsewhere (insert some link here). 

I do not believe that the PAP is so out of touch and expects all Singaporeans to buy this minority representation line of reasoning. Yet I wonder whether the PAP has overestimated the percentage of people that buys this reasoning since this will have political ramifications that are compounded.

Now I shall attempt to calculate the expected cost/value of this move w.r.t Presidential election (or lack thereof) 2017 with quite some Ceteris Paribus assumptions.

I think it is safe to say that hardly anyone against the PAP will, due to this, start supporting the PAP. One group that I think might swing over to PAP (due to this) will be opposition supporters who believes PAP's line of reasoning AND thinks that minority representation is important AND thinks that the opposition minority represents less than the PAP due to this move (lets call this group O1). The many ANDs make it almost certainly a low number. Another group might perhaps be those who think that a female leader (head of state) is a good thing in itself and should be commended/supported AND is a member of the opposition AND thinks the opposition does not have (lets call this group O2. Let group O2 also include all other peoples who). 

The political price to be paid will be in terms of PAP's own supporters (or voters) away from PAP (even if not enough, by itself, to swing a vote, support might be eroded such that the vote becomes shakier).

For PAP supporters, there are multiple scenarios (they will be groups P1-4). 

1. PAP supporters that buy PAP's line of reasoning and hence increase in support for PAP. 

2. PAP supporters that do not buy PAP's line of reasoning but thinks what it did is politically astute or politically justified and hence, remain in support for PAP (for this group, it is possible that they increase slightly, remain, or decrease slightly in support. Let me just assume that taken as a whole, they remain in support for PAP).

3. PAP supporters that do not buy PAP's line of reasoning and views it as a strike (but not conclusive) against the PAP and hence, decreases in support for PAP slightly.

4. PAP supporters that are displeased with PAP's handling of the entire situation and either thinks the opposition is better or wants to punish the PAP politically (for being smug or whatever) and hence, decreases in support for PAP drastically. 

*Math Part*

Now let me plug in some numbers that I guesstimate. Let me assume that support for PAP is at about 65% (They won 69.86% of popular vote in the previous general election but some degree of it surely is due to LKY's death. Why I didn't drop the value is because I assume that the uncontested areas lean more towards PAP due to lack of viable opposition). I am also assuming that more areas will be contested in the next general election (by not so incredible opposition).

Let me assume that the number of people that buy PAP's line of reasoning is 5% (this is arbitrary and, I think a generous estimate, at least around the circles I am in). Let me assume that there are 9 times more PAP supporters who buy PAP's line of reasoning than opposition supporters (again arbitrary).

Given this, group O1 will be .5% and group P1 will be 4.5%. Let me dictate group O2 (very generously) to be around 0.5%. The swing to PAP from this action, hence, is 1% out of 35% which is ~2.86% of opposition voters swing to support PAP (which seems way too generous).

Now, group P2 would technically be PAP's core group of supporters who are, um, discerning. Let me set it at 50% of PAP's supporters not including P1. They would be 60.5 x .5 = 30.25%. Together with P1, PAP would have a "guaranteed" 30.25+4.5+1 = 35.75% of the popular vote out of this action.

Out of the remaining 50% of PAP's supporters not including P1, let us assume that 90% of the people are not entirely impulsive so as to instantly swing a vote and are in P3 while P4 contains 10% of the remaining 50%. P4 would then be 60.5 x .5 x.1 = 3.025%. This means that P3 contains 30.25 - 3.025 = 27.225 % of the populace. Lets assume that this decrease in support causes 25% of this group to swing. This would be ~6.8 % of the populace swinging while ~20.4% remains with the PAP.

In total, under these assumptions, PAP would get  35.75 + 20.4 = 56.25% of the popular vote representing an almost 9% drop in support, which is alot. Of course the PAP might choose to balance it with some other action such as bigger GST vouchers / reduction in NS / whatever other populist move close to the election but this 9% drop is an expected cost for this action alone.

Of course there are some factors that I didn't account for such a spoilt votes and whatnot. I have also tried to be charitable towards the PAP in choosing figures. 

Additionally, on the cost side:

What I am most concerned is the PAP's increasing use of racial issues for political gain. What seemed to set apart Singapore from its neighbours was non-racial politics. In exploiting racial issues (employing affirmative action for political gain, even though in a manner quite different from our neighbours), Singapore (and especially PAP) is kinda losing its once vaunted "moral high ground" and in spectacularly hypocritical action. This really leaves a disgusting taste in everyone that is concerned, perhaps more so because they did it so badly e.g changing "first elected president", requiring ridiculous requirements that don't seem to be equivalent to serving 3 years as speaker .etc. This loss of trust in the party doing what is right rather than seeking political gain is a change from previously where perhaps political gain was sought ruthlessly but in a "not wrong" manner (or at the very least, un-hypocritical manner). This is also most dangerous because the core group supporting PAP are supposedly better educated and more discerning and this point is not lost on them.

Opens up a can of worms regarding race, especially what is counted as a malay and/or can you change your race and/or is the government only seeking affirmative action where convenient (I would think no affirmative action would be most justified as a of principle).

Also the idea that the president is a figurehead: whatever Halimah does will be seen to be less since she was not independently elected, even if they turn out to be very sound, her presidency will be remembered as PAP-instigated or even controlled. This might incentivise future challenges to the presidency (since they will be seen in a far better light) or presidential criteria.

Now on the value side, what does the PAP gain? The PAP manages to block TCB and indeed, anyone who might disagree with them from the public role of head of state for at least the next 4 years (well I'm assuming that Halimah doesn't suddenly break ranks with them).

Is this worth a 9% drop in popular vote and perhaps more opposition members in parliament? Is this worth delaying some of their promising young talents and/or another minister? Perhaps on the PAP calculus, they were even more generous (or maybe I was too pessimistic) than I was with the figures and the drop was only about 4%, would it be justified then?

I'm not even sure that what the PAP did is best for themselves, if they were acting selfishly.

One alternative is that this is just a short term gain thing at long term loss. Who are those that might have this interest though? Surely not next-generation leaders eh?