Predictability is the name of the game in Singapore’s elections. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and its candidates always win handsomely. And while their margin of success is the envy of political parties and politicians the world over, for the PAP every single point counts. It is a sign of just how satisfied Singapore’s 3.5 million or so citizens are with the ruling party. And a signal of whether longevity and legitimacy amount to the same thing.
But whoever gets to be the island’s president is meant to be above politics, and not hold any political affiliation. In fact, one of the rules is that you can’t be a member of any political party on Nomination Day. Yet some Singaporeans are seeing this election as a referendum on the ruling party — because many of them are increasingly fed up with the way candidates have been selected.
It’s not really a choice when an unelected body sets the rules for who gets to run, says Kirsten Han, activist, and author of the book, The Singapore I Recognise: Essays on home, community and hope, referring to the government appointed Presidential Election Committee, which has been criticized for the way it selects candidates. This is why Han, writing in her blog, says she’s planning to “nope out.” “Spoiling my vote is as much a political choice as picking a candidate,” she writes. “It signals disillusionment and displeasure with the status quo. It’s a rejection not just of the establishment candidates but the entire, stupid, infuriating process.”
Han’s sentiments are not reflective of the norm. Voting is compulsory in Singapore and most people generally play by the rules. The number of spoiled votes in Singapore’s elections is historically low, accounting for only an average of 2.3% of all votes over the course of general elections from 1972 to 2015. Still, taken in the context of the island state’s voting population, that can amount to tens of thousands of people who are trying to tell the government they’re unhappy.
The president’s role is supposed to be a unifying position, non-partisan and someone who can bring people together. Many of the responsibilities are ceremonial: receiving foreign dignitaries, attending state functions, and performing other community duties. Their real power, though, comes from being the person who has the final say on whether Singapore’s past reserves are used — the checks and balances on whether parliament is misusing its power. He or she can also instruct the anti-corruption agency to conduct an investigation, even if the prime minister objects.
So it is no small role, and it is something Singaporeans care about. In a YouGov survey released on Aug. 30, more than two in five Singapore residents think integrity is the most important attribute to be possessed by a president. Amongst the strict qualifying criteria, citizens have to be at least 45 years old, be a person of integrity, good character, and reputation, and either have held a senior role in the civil service or government for at least three years or run a company that has had on average at least S$500 million shareholder equity during the three years they’ve been in charge.
In the end, only three candidates made it:
75-year-old Ng Kok Song, a former investment officer for Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC, who has spent more than four decades in public service until he retired in 2013.
75-year-old Tan Kin Lian, a former head of NTUC Income, is trying his luck again.
66-year-old Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who spent more than two decades in office with the PAP, where he rose to deputy premier and senior minister. He resigned from his government posts to run in this election.
The problem is that none of them really qualify as anti-establishment. And what Singaporeans are most concerned about, according to Kevin Tan of the National University of Singapore and Cherian George of Hong Kong Baptist University, “is an overly dominant and unaccountable PAP government that is insensitive to people’s needs; they want a more empathetic and responsive President.” The recent scandals within the ruling party have got many worried, and they see the president’s role as someone who can remind ministers that they are public servants, elected to serve their citizens.
But the behavior of some of the candidates — namely Tan Kin Liam — has also raised more questions about their suitability. A series of his social media posts from years gone by have resurfaced recently, including one from 2021 when he shared a shot — a close-up — of a woman’s bottom in denim shorts, saying he had seen “pretty girls” on his walk. Another from 2015, which has now been taken down, shows a photo on a bus, ostensibly taken to show the number of Indians. “I boarded SMRT 857 and found that I was in Mumbai,” he wrote at the time. He has since apologized — but only to his “local Indian friends,” and not to the “foreigners who now think they own Singapore.”
It is tempting indeed then, to register a protest vote by spoiling one’s ballot. The process is indeed flawed — as Sudhir Vadaketh, founder and editor in chief of Jom, a Singapore weekly digital magazine points out, “the presidential election has, for many Singaporeans, devolved into political charade.”
Even so, people should vote. In this city-state, it is a privilege. In fact, in the general elections of 1991, 1997, 2001 and 2006, the percentages of eligible voters who lived in walkover constituencies were 49.9%, 59.3%, 66.8% and 43.4% respectively — meaning that on average almost half of the population was never required to cast a single vote. There was no one contesting the seat in their district.
Citizens of a certain age will remember what it feels like to not have a choice. As a Singaporean based overseas for most of my life, and as a journalist, I have covered more elections around the world than I have voted in. It is a privilege that we must exercise, and cannot afford to lose.
Comments