Dr Tony Tan was elected Singapore's 7th President yesterday even though he garnered only 35.19 per cent of the popular vote
By Shahril Mohd Talib
Contributor
65 per cent of Singaporeans woke up with a nasty hangover yesterday morning, as the nightmarish reality set in. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam is the new President-elect of the Republic of Singapore, even though nearly two-thirds of the electorate chose to reject him at the polls. He defeated Dr Tan Cheng Bock by just 7,200 votes, or a margin of 0.34 per cent.
The real surprise, however, was not that Dr Tony Tan won. The outcome had already been sealed on Nomination Day, when all of the four eligible candidates chose to throw their hats into the ring.
The surprise was that Dr Tony Tan’s share of the vote was lower than expected. Despite the plethora of endorsements, Singaporeans overwhelming rejected the notion of another six years of “business as usual” from the small cadre of inner circle elites who run this country – another six years of whitewashing and covering up, as well as another six years of grace-and-favour for those linked to the highest echelons of the establishment through their family and social ties.
Yet, even though a Tony Tan presidency had been expected, the manner in which it was served up was heartbreaking.
A large proportion of the more than 600,000 people who voted for Mr Tan Jee Say and Mr Tan Kin Lian would not have minded a Dr Tan Cheng Bock victory. The 37,000 who spoilt their votes probably did so because of their objections to the Presidential Election system in general. Had just slightly over 1 in 100 of these people voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock instead, Singapore would be a very different place today.
Those who did not vote for Dr Tony Tan would all have been vehemently opposed to him and everything that he stands for. Those who did not vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock simply did not know who to vote for. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone with a strong and visceral dislike for the kindly village doctor who treated patients for free. Yet, because the electorate allowed itself to be divided, it allowed itself to be conquered. The result is that Singapore has a head of state that two in three of its citizens cannot tolerate.
Far from being an election to unify the nation, the 2011 Presidential Election has created an even greater rift in Singapore society. The discord between the moderate middle-ground opposition elements and the hardcore anti-establishment elements has been made clear. While the majority agrees that the current status quo is unacceptable, it cannot agree on how to go about changing it – with some believing in evolution, while others insist on revolution.
For as long as the forces for change remain disunited and in conflict, the country’s current rulers will be able to maintain their vice-like grip on power, however unpopular they may be. The outcome of this election should serve as a stark reminder to those who are fighting for change. In order for success to be achieved, they will need to keep their own egos in check and be willing to take on a supporting role.
Mr Tan Kin Lian, for example, was advised by many to withdraw his candidacy, but he insisted on staying the course despite having no political power base and no organised machinery behind him. The result? He lost his $48,000 deposit, was thoroughly humiliated, and is now being blamed for Dr Tony Tan’s victory. At the end of the day, he lost, his supporters lost, and Singapore lost.
Mr Tan Jee Say claimed right until the very end that he represented a very different proposition to the two Dr Tans, because he had never been a member of the PAP. Campaigning on a platform that promised more radical change, he pledged to hold the government to account through “checks and balances”. The result? He was not able to garner more than the traditional core opposition vote of 25 per cent. He lost, his supporters lost, and Singapore lost.
With the country’s rulers no longer able to count on genuine popular support from the electorate, they will be forced to resort to Machiavellian political machinations to retain their grip on power. The only way for Singapore to see any change for the better is by putting behind aside all party affiliations and uniting behind a common cause. Anyone who supports the cause should be warmly embraced. Yes, even if he comes from the PAP.
–
The author is a self-employed professional. Aged 32, he was able to vote for the first time in the 2011 Presidential Election. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics from the University of Western Australia.
Only 35% Singaporeans want him! So whatever he says for the next 6 long years do not apply to the 65% Singaporeans who did not want him!
We the 65% should rejoice and tell ourselves that we are president-less!
Look on the bright side. Now we know that PAP has a hard core vote bank of 35% in the country, when we previously thought it was 60%. How the swing group of 25% can be wooed by the alternative parties will determine 2016. It’s time to get to work, alternative parties!
Yup, your analysis of the statistics makes more sense that the post by “Anonymous” !
It’s silly to think all the 35% for TCB are all swing votes. These are almost the same people who voted for him when he was PAP previously in the west ie Ayer Rajah. TCB is a maverick within PAP. He honestly believed and stayed with PAP for years. He is a true gentleman who commits himself to his party yet has the integrity to voice out opposition within it’s ranks and files. True to his principles, he ran this campaign with high principles and refuse to resort to partisan divisive tactics like TJS. I respect TCB’s integrity and honour. You guys are misrepresenting him to say he stands for the oppositions. He’s not. He was above that. The people who voted for him are not pro-oppositions. They were pro-TCB.
TCB drew votes from both TT and TJS. It’s not so clearcut. A sizeable chunk of his votes come from PAP and opposition. The swing votes are much less than what you think.
And it is silly of you to think that those who voted for Tan Cheng Bock are not from the opposition who wanted hedge their bets to ride out his popularity to edge out Tony Tan.
For those who voted for TT, question is do they actually know what they voted for?
Self interest, growth and stability?
If that is the case and they really believe in it, most on the net will rest their case.
Don’t be silly. PAP did not secure 70% of the vote. Dr Tan Cheng Bock had no endorsement from the PAP whatsoever and clearly campaigned for independence against the PAP. If anything, this shows that the PAP supporters are divided and do not necessarily support the policies of the ruling elites and the system of elitism.
The voters had spoken. Much as I hate to admit, the usual pattern of past elections was displayed again. 30% to opposition and 70% to PAP.
I cannot see any hope of a chance for the opposition in 2016. The 2011 GE was a fluke result that will not continue. Sad.
It’s naive to assume that 5%, 25%, 35%, 35% will vote in unison under different permutations of candidates. And it’s doubly silly to assume that 65% is vehemently against TT.
If TJS didn’t come in, the entire atmosphere of the election would’ve been different without the incumbent-opposition element. Without that element, people would’ve voted on credentials and charisma. The concept of party would be blurred, especially since TCB is an honourable man who did not campaign along pro-PAP anti-PAP lines. Both TCB and TT would’ve focused on their own strengths. It’d be a gentlemen’s campaign.
Personally, I suspect it’d still be 50-50, given that TCB has proven that he can run a very good and strategic campaign, on top of his years of sincere dedication in grassroots and parliament.
However, TJS imbued this PE with very partisan flavour. So, everyone needs to position himself differently in the atmosphere, though TKL failed to distinguish himself in comparison to both TCB and TJS. TCB performed well by appealing to the moderates from both camps. Effectively, TCB’s honourable stand drew votes from TJS’s strident partisan stand. TCB’s credential and charisma drew votes from TT’s traditional supporters. TT himself is tied by historical baggage to draw votes from opposition camps perpetuated by TJS-induced atmosphere. TJS himself limited his own reach right from the outset.
I applaud TCB. I congratulate TT. I’m glad for Singapore that TT and TCB are the two forerunners with TJS fizzling out.
It’s naive to assume that 5%, 25%, 35%, 35% will vote in unison under different permutations of candidates. And it’s doubly silly to assume that 65% is vehemently against TT.
If TJS didn’t come in, the entire atmosphere of the election would’ve been different without the incumbent-opposition element. Without that element, people would’ve voted on credentials and charisma. The concept of party would be blurred, especially since TCB is an honourable man who did not campaign along pro-PAP anti-PAP lines. Both TCB and TT would’ve focused on their own strengths. It’d be a gentlemen’s campaign.
Personally, I suspect it’d still be 50-50, given that TCB has proven that he can run a very good and strategic campaign, on top of his years of sincere dedication in grassroots and parliament.
However, TJS imbued this PE with very partisan flavour. So, everyone needs to position himself differently in the atmosphere, though TKL failed to distinguish himself in comparison to both TCB and TJS. TCB performed well by appealing to the moderates from both camps. Effectively, TCB’s honourable stand drew votes from TJS’s strident partisan stand. TCB’s credential and charisma drew votes from TT’s traditional supporters. TT himself is tied by historical baggage to draw votes from opposition camps perpetuated by TJS-induced atmosphere. TJS himself limited his own reach right from the outset.
I applaud TCB.
Instead of blaming TJS and TKL, the blame should go to those daft 35.19% who voted for TT. They need to wake up. I seriously do not understand what TT has to offer besides covering up any mistakes, giving privileges to friends and family, and continuing to pay themselves millions. I wonder how many of the daft 35.19% were coerced or forced to vote for TT by their union leaders and bosses?