Connect with us

Opinion

Election surprises and certainties: Dissecting Tharman’s presidential win

In the 2023 Presidential Election, Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam secured a stunning 70.4% landslide victory, surprising many, including himself.

Despite expectations that TKL would win the opposition votes, voters from both camps showed a preference for Tharman’s charisma and perceived competency.

As Singapore reflects on the outcome, questions arise about the election’s fairness and the real implications of Tharman’s dominant win.

Published

on

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam will be Singapore’s next President after securing a landslide victory with 70.4 per cent of the vote in the Presidential Election 2023.

The final result, announced by the returning officer shortly after midnight on Saturday (Sep 2), placed Mr Ng Kok Song (NKS) in second place with 15.72 per cent, followed by Mr Tan Kin Lian (TKL), who received 13.88 per cent.

There were 50,152 rejected votes, representing 1.98 per cent of the total votes cast.

Many expressed shock over the landslide results, including President-elect Tharman Shanmugaratnam. On Saturday (2 Sep), he expressed his surprise at the margin of victory, remarking that he “hadn’t expected such remarkable unity.”

Many observers believed that TKL would absorb votes from the opposition and middle-ground voters, as PE2011 demonstrated. In that election, former president Tony Tan received just over 35 per cent of votes, with the remainder split between Dr Tan Cheng Bock (TCB), Tan Jee Say, and TKL.

The former Senior Minister, who served for 22 years with the People’s Action Party, commented that the results indicate voters don’t believe a Cabinet background diminishes one’s ability to be non-partisan.

While Mr Tharman attributed his win to his non-partisan stance, online comments and feedback from a non-partisan group covering polling day revealed different insights.

On top of hard-core PAP supporters, commenters online, such as on Facebook and Reddit, shared that the support of opposition figures intensified fears that TKL might win due to a “freak election” outcome.

Consequently, some opposition supporters, initially considering spoiling their vote, decided to back Tharman, whom they saw as a charismatic figure, to prevent such an outcome.

As for those resistant to voting for a PAP minister, especially young voters, NKS became their preferred choice given how much exposure he had over the past couple of days on social media.

Over the course of less than two weeks, NKS’ newly created Instagram page has grown from zero to over 140k followers through a well-run digital campaign with influencers and social media advertising.

TKL’s perceived unelectability became evident as his campaign suffered.

He attributed controversial Facebook posts about “pretty girls” to a smear campaign rather than owning up to them.

This, combined with further questionable actions, such as preventing his wife from speaking to the media, didn’t sit well with many voters. Although TKL did eventually apologize, for many, the damage was irreversible.

Besides his actions and antics, some aspects of his campaign were also poorly conceived. For instance, he used his personal blog as his campaign website, which contained his questionable past rants.

Additionally, he chose a logo so intricate that it’s hard to identify—was it a flower, a ball? In contrast, Tharman’s straightforward fruit logo was easy for people to associate with.

For example, Tharman’s supporters would simply say, “Vote for the pineapple,” while TKL’s supporters might struggle to find an apt descriptor, and resorting to “Vote for Tan Kin Lian,” with some possibly not recognizing the face on the ballot paper.

Even NKS’ logo, which depicted a heart in a hand, was easy to articulate and recognize.

Some staunch opposition supporters criticized Singaporean voters over the results, but the election results underscored the priorities of the populace: they value competency and appropriate representation over mere partisanship and checks and balances on the ruling government.

Furthermore, the government has consistently stated that the President’s role isn’t executive. Many voters felt TKL didn’t understand this, especially during the debate among the three candidates on Monday, where the moderator chimed in to remind voters that what TKL said he wanted to do is not within the powers of the President.

While some conspiracy theorists hinted at vote tampering, the non-partisan group monitoring the election found no substantial evidence to support these claims. Notably, some polling agents observed that some senior voters seemed confused about the nature of the election, mistakenly believing they were voting for the PAP or asking to vote for the PAP’s candidate.

Although some might argue that endorsements from opposition figures, such as TCB and Dr Chee Soon Juan, hurt TKL’s chances, it’s more likely that their support prevented him from losing his deposit, as he did in PE2011. TKL’s result was just 1.38% above the minimum 12.5% required to avoid forfeiting the deposit.

Comparing voter turnout, PE2023 (93.41%) saw a slight dip from PE2011 (94.80%) and GE2020 (95.81%), which might suggest a larger number of voters were disillusioned with the presidential election.

One might speculate that even if TKL had not contested, the outcome wouldn’t have changed significantly. There might have been more rejected votes, but Tharman’s victory was almost a given.

In summary, instead of Tharman being more popular than expected as the results suggest, it was TKL’s participation in the election that likely boosted Tharman’s votes higher than anticipated.

It is also apparent that NKS, who refrained from using campaign materials and did not field any polling or counting agents, ran merely to legitimize Tharman’s presidency and avoid a repeat of the embarrassing uncontested win of Madam Halimah Yacob in the reserved race election of 2017.

Post-election, NKS is likely to return to run his investment fund company in which Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, Temasek, invested S$4 billion.

Under the current stringent criteria for private sector Presidential candidates, it’s challenging to envision anyone seriously rivalling Tharman to partake in the presidential election, other than rich-entitled old men like what we see in this time round.

The way Singapore conducts its presidential election seems to mock the concept of a fair election. The criteria restrict participation to a select few, often favoring the establishment, giving the impression that voters are merely participating in a charade instead of genuinely selecting the best candidate for the job from the entire country.

Perhaps, as the Workers’ Party has consistently advocated in Parliament, we should consider reverting to an appointed ceremonial presidency where the government chooses the best person to represent the country. This system could be on a rotational basis for different races, as intended by the reserved race elections.

Nevertheless, what we must acknowledge from the election results is that there’s a unified opinion among Singaporeans: Tharman is best suited to represent Singapore on the international stage. In a way, Tharman is correct in stating that he is a unifying figure.

The implications of Tharman’s landslide win are manifold. We can identify three key takeaways:

  1. The PAP may find it challenging to suggest in the upcoming General Election, which must be held by 2025, that Singapore might witness a ‘freak election’. This is because the Presidential Election has demonstrated that voters make rational decisions.
  2. Voters need not fear a non-PAP government raiding the reserves, especially with a President like Tharman overseeing appointments and the reserves for the next six years—or 12 if he decides to stand again in the election.
  3. Most crucially, can the PAP still justify a reserved race election, as was done in 2016 with the amendments to the Singapore constitution?

Only time will determine if Tharman will align closely with the PAP, as his predecessors did, or if he will emulate the late Ong Teng Cheong, who was widely admired for standing his ground for the betterment of Singaporeans because he had a job to do.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending