Not GE, but result shows political divide
Voters back moderates, yet 65 per cent spurn PAP's implicit choice
THE biggest effect of Presidential Election 2011 may be on General Election 2016, not just on the institution of the elected president.
Although the concerns of the electorate in a presidential election are different from those in a general election, PE 2011 does paint a broad picture of people's political inclinations for different types of candidates.
And the picture it paints is not pretty for the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). If GE2011 unveiled the new mood of the Singapore electorate, PE2011 confirmed it was no mere flash in the pan, and that the so-called new normal is here upon us.
What do the results tell us?
First, they speak volumes about voters' preference for the kind of presidency they want. Before the Aug 27 polls, the president's role was hotly debated by candidates, and in the mainstream and online media. In the end, Singapore voters gave 70 per cent of their vote to the two candidates who had no problems with the limited custodial role of the presidency, rejecting the other two candidates who had promised a more active presidency.
Second, the result speaks once more of the stability of the Singapore electorate, putting paid to fears of a freak election result, which is when protest votes against the PAP result in a less than ideal candidate being voted in.
The two candidates who made spending promises did not gain traction with voters. Mr Tan Kin Lian promised to work for higher allowances for full-time national servicemen and to press for an allowance for the elderly. Mr Tan Jee Say promised to press for any spending on reserves to go to things like schools and hospitals. He did not dwell on the matter for his presidential campaign, but many voters would remember him as the opposition candidate in the May General Election who considered his $60 billion economic regeneration plan 'small change'.
There was always an irony in a candidate, who wants to become Chief Protector of Past Reserves, making it a campaign promise to draw from the national purse he is meant to protect from profligacy. Voters obviously did not buy into those promises, giving Mr Tan Jee Say 25 per cent and Mr Tan Kin Lian just 4.9 per cent of the 2.1 million votes respectively.
In the end, the race was won by Dr Tony Tan with 35.19 per cent, a mere 7,269 or 0.34 per cent more than Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who got 34.85 per cent.
Despite talk of voters feeling sour with the PAP, a remarkable 70 per cent plumped for the two candidates with the strongest PAP links, who were PAP MPs for 27 and 26 years respectively.
This is higher than the 60.1 per cent who supported the PAP in GE2011. This shows that the anti-PAP voters are not reflexively anti-PAP. Voters look at the candidates. Dr Tan Cheng Bock said he had always put nation above party and promised to work with different political parties as part of his 'unifying Singapore' campaign promise. These resonated with many, both PAP and opposition.
This election result shows the Singapore voting core as being eminently stable and sensible. It puts paid to two myths often advanced by democracy sceptics in Singapore: the myth of the self-interested voter swayed by spending promises; and the myth of the irresponsible voter prepared to risk the nation's stability with an emotional protest vote.
When it came to the crunch, faced with a slate of four credible candidates, Singapore voters were neither self-interested nor irresponsible.
The third, and to me most significant, outcome lies in the fact that 65 per cent no longer automatically accepts the PAP's preferred choice for president.
Although PAP leaders were careful not to be too effusive in their comments, it was clear to voters just who the Government thought would be the best choice. Dr Tony Tan also received endorsements from unions and business groups. Still, two-thirds of voters chose someone else. This does not undermine Dr Tony Tan's mandate to be president. He intends to work hard to be every Singaporean's president, not just those who chose him. This is correct.
But politically, the result shows a fragmented society. Singapore is not yet divided along deep-seated ideological lines akin to those in America, where Republicans and Democrats are in gridlock. In Singapore, there is still a broad political consensus among the majority. But there is increasing fragmentation.
In the past, the political consensus was centred on the PAP, with the PAP defining what is good for Singapore and voters buying into its vision. That PAP centre no longer holds. This was seen in past general elections and most notably in May in Aljunied GRC, when PAP leaders' attempts to sway voters there backfired.
Indeed, it can be argued that the PAP and what it stands for has become a key axis of fragmentation in Singapore politics, with voters defining themselves on the basis of whether they support or do not support the PAP (and its candidates by proxy).
In the last election, 55 per cent - five in nine voters - spurned a high-flying PAP team for the opposition in Aljunied GRC. That was widely seen as a watershed result; but it showed the mood in only one constituency.
This presidential election was on a national scale. And fully two in three spurned a high-flying PAP-approved candidate for rivals with less impressive financial experience.
However you parse it, the sobering reality is that two-thirds of voters did not support the PAP's implicit choice of national leader.
What does PE2011 portend for the next election? To be sure, the contest for a custodial president is different from that for the government of the day. Voters on Saturday made their choice for president in full assurance that the PAP held 81 out of 87 seats in Parliament. But to the extent that a national election reflects the will of the people, this much can be said of the result: The voting core respects candidates for national office who are politically moderate - thus 70 per cent voted for the two Dr Tans; and two-thirds are no longer prepared to accept the PAP's choice as a fait accompli.
The first should be consoling to all right-minded citizens. The second should give the PAP pause for thought and serve as motivation - if any more were needed after May 7 - for serious reform.
But five years is a very long time.
Meanwhile, the hope is that the losing candidates continue to stay engaged politically and find ways to harness the considerable energies of their supporters to positive ends. And that Singaporeans - regardless of their vote this election - do the sensible, mature thing and accord to the new president Tony Tan the respect the office deserves.
Where voting gaps were wider
Narrow victory margin, but voting patterns in different areas show more marked support for one candidate or the other
THE final tally in the presidential election gave Dr Tony Tan a narrow victory over Dr Tan Cheng Bock, but their support across the island was spread more unevenly. Different areas showed a marked preference for one candidate or the other.
Although his winning margin was just 0.34 percentage point, the gap in favour of Dr Tony Tan was much larger in many areas.
But Dr Tan Cheng Bock also had a clear lead in other parts whose votes were tallied earlier in the night, giving supporters hope that he was heading for a stunning victory.
The Elections Department did not release the breakdown of votes by electoral divisions, but unofficial indications of how the candidates fared - obtained from various sources - showed a significant disparity in voting patterns.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who was MP for Ayer Rajah for 26 years and still runs a clinic in Jurong West, won handsomely in large parts of the west like Ayer Rajah, Jurong and Choa Chu Kang, as well as the north-eastern new towns like Punggol and Sengkang.
Dr Tony Tan, who was MP for Sembawang for 27 years, won consistently in areas in the north, centre and east like Sembawang, Nee Soon and East Coast.
In many of these areas, the front runner was often a clear 3 to 6 percentage points ahead of the second-placed candidate, according to campaign sources.
Sources on both sides pin the geographic disparity down to the fact that both Dr Tans have established reputations for being good, long-serving MPs who had an ear to the ground. They also have loyal grassroots workers there. Their strong performance at these so-called local levels should affirm once again the importance of local politics and engagement.
There may also be demographic reasons for the differences across the island.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock led the count in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC's Punggol and Sengkang estates, and in parts of Hougang new town and Hougang single-member constituency (SMC).
Punggol and Sengkang have a disproportionate number of younger residents, many of whom have young children, and this demographic appears to be more likely to support him and his campaign platform.
He also appeared to have favourable support from traditional Workers' Party (WP) supporters in the party's Hougang stronghold, where WP candidate Yaw Shin Leong got 64.8 per cent of the vote in the May General Election.
In Aljunied GRC, which the WP won with 54.7 per cent of the vote in May, both Dr Tans obtained around 30 per cent of valid votes - a share similar to that obtained by Mr Tan Jee Say there.
As for Dr Tony Tan, he pulled ahead in older estates like Bedok and Pasir Ris that have traditionally been supportive of the People's Action Party (PAP).
His lead was however even greater in areas like East Coast GRC's Siglap ward and Joo Chiat SMC, where 85 per cent and 99 per cent of voters respectively live in private housing. He pulled in some 39 per cent of the vote in Siglap and 41 per cent in Joo Chiat, some 4 and 7 percentage points ahead of Dr Tan Cheng Bock respectively.
Dr Tony Tan's strong background in finance and economics and the uncertain global economic climate are likely to have drawn the more upper-middle-class residents to back him given his appeal as a steady and stable hand, activists said.
While this pool may have been more inclined to root for the opposition at a general election, they clearly had different benchmarks for the presidency.
By comparison, Mr Tan Jee Say drew some 20 per cent of the vote here.
Dr Tony Tan also led by several percentage points in many landed housing areas such as Tanglin in Tanjong Pagar GRC.
But a couple of percentage points in a smaller area, projected on a nationwide canvas, can be almost negligible.
It so happened that the votes separating Dr Tony Tan from Dr Tan Cheng Bock at many counting centres were in the double- or triple-digits, one way or the other.
They also matched Mr Tan Kin Lian's consistently low votes, which earned him the tag 'Mr 100Plus' after he received a paltry 100-plus votes at several counting centres - and 103,931 nationwide. These votes might have gone to either of the three other candidates, narrowing or widening the 7,269 gap depending on how they went.
But as Dr Tan Cheng Bock mused about the vote margin on his campaign bus early yesterday morning: It is fewer than the number of voters in the smallest SMC. But it made all the difference in deciding who got the keys to the Istana.
Comments