Did opposition backing help or hurt Tan Kin Lian in the Presidential Election?
Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian campaigned on giving Singaporeans a chance to vote for an "independent" President, but received public support from various opposition figures.
- Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian received public support from various opposition figures during his campaign
- Political analysts have mixed views on whether this opposition support helped or hurt Mr Tan's election performance
- They pointed to lingering questions of how to ensure a non-partisan elected presidency, and whether the opposition will lose political points for their endorsement
SINGAPORE: Receiving the endorsement of opposition figures was a gamble that may not have helped – but did not necessarily hurt – Mr Tan Kin Lian in his quest for the presidency, political analysts said.
But they pointed to lingering questions on how to ensure the non-partisan nature of the elected presidency, and whether opposition figures will lose political points for endorsing the unsuccessful candidate.
Mr Tan took 13.88 per cent of vote share in the Presidential Election on Sep 1. While the second-time candidate improved on his showing in the 2011 Presidential Election, he was still the worst performer.
He was outperformed by former Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who swept to a landslide victory with more than 70 per cent of the votes, and former GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song, who was relatively unknown to the public before he announced his run but still managed to garner 15.72 per cent.
One of Mr Tan’s refrains during campaigning was that he wanted to give Singaporeans a chance to vote for a “truly independent” President.
From the start, the former NTUC Income CEO had the support of opposition figures. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) member Tan Jee Say was the proposer for his nomination, while Peoples Voice chief Lim Tean was his seconder.
Midway through the campaign, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) chairman Tan Cheng Bock announced his endorsement of Mr Tan in his “personal capacity”. SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan and People's Power Party leader Goh Meng Seng also advocated for him.
WAS HE AN “INDEPENDENT” CANDIDATE?
Analysts said the question of whether the opposition endorsements detracted from Mr Tan’s claim to be an “independent” candidate depends on what he meant by “independent”.
“Yes, it does detract from his claim, but on taking a second look, it can be understood that his claim is about (being) independent from the ruling party,” said Associate Professor of Sociology Tan Ern Ser of the National University of Singapore (NUS).
“The term means different things to different people. It could therefore be easily hijacked, whether intended or not,” he said.
“When we use the term ‘independent’, what we really need to ask is ‘independent’ from what? Politics or the PAP?” asked Dr Rebecca Grace Tan, referring to the People’s Action Party.
Mr Tan’s affiliation with opposition politicians made it clear he was less concerned about appearing non-partisan, said the lecturer in political science at NUS.
“That being said, given the significant share that Tharman won, it’s not apparent that non-partisanship was the primary deciding factor for many voters,” she said.
“My sense was that Tan Kin Lian was running on the second interpretation of independence – separation from the PAP. If we had to put it even more strongly, being the anti-thesis to the PAP.”
She questioned whether this worked, pointing out that the Workers’ Party (WP) – the only opposition party with elected parliamentarians – distanced itself from any of the presidential candidates.
“It’s not clear that that gamble to align himself as an ‘opposition’ candidate paid off since he could not get support from the most popular opposition party,” she said of Mr Tan.
The WP reiterated its objection to the elected presidency, arguing that it “undermines parliamentary democracy”.
Dr Felix Tan of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) said that among the opposition figures who backed Mr Tan, few have a strong following and some have “credibility issues”.
He added that many of the opposition figures have “a history of being antagonistic to the ruling establishment”, which has “negative consequences” for their level of public support.
But he also called attention to other factors, saying that much hinged on what Mr Tan said in public during the campaign and his old social media posts.
Mr Tan repeatedly spoke about issues that analysts said are beyond the responsibilities of Singapore’s President, once prompting an on-air intervention during a presidential forum that was televised live.
His past social media posts about “pretty girls” also caused many to question his suitability to be President.
WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF PARTISAN POLITICS?
Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Jee Say held a press conference to stump for the presidential candidate on Aug 27, more than halfway through campaigning.
NUS’ Dr Rebecca Grace Tan said their endorsement did not lead to a greater politicisation of the election as it occurred “quite late” into the campaign period.
For Assoc Prof Tan Ern Ser, it became clear during the second half of campaigning that the election had “morphed into party politics”. The election then “took on the character of a referendum”.
He initially thought the endorsement by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the close runner-up in the 2011 Presidential Election, could be a boost for Mr Tan.
“However, it wasn’t of much help, as most voters were probably turned off by their (the three Tans) seemingly posturing to introduce party politics into the presidency, which is expected to be unifying”, said Assoc Prof Tan.
“Nonetheless, one could argue that (Dr Tan Cheng Bock) may have helped (Mr Tan) to at least not lose his deposits,” he added, referring to the election deposit of S$40,500 (US$30,000).
But another analyst questioned whether voters really expect the elected presidency to be above partisan politics.
“I think it’s difficult to say that a lot of Singaporeans expect the institution to be completely dissociated from partisan politics when we’ve had Presidents who are mostly affiliated with the ruling party,” said Assistant Professor Walid Jumblatt Abdullah of NTU’s School of Social Sciences.
Legally, there is nothing to stop the opposition or ruling party from endorsing presidential candidates, he said.
He highlighted that the Constitution does not stipulate a minimum time period after an individual has quit a political party before he or she can run for the presidency.
“And that’s why we've also had presidents who have been affiliated with the ruling party. Exclusively,” stressed Asst Prof Walid.
“For me personally, I wouldn’t want opposition parties or even the ruling party to be endorsing candidates, especially if the position is supposed to be above partisan politics and is supposed to be unifying the country,” he added.
“If we are against the idea of partisan politics (in the Presidential Election), then I think we need to maybe look at this institution itself, and see how we can improve it to ensure that the institution is really above party politics.”
LESSONS FOR THE OPPOSITION
The question now is whether opposition politicians will be hurt by the endorsement they gave Mr Tan, said Asst Prof Walid, highlighting PSP’s Dr Tan Cheng Bock and SDP’s Dr Chee in particular.
The assistant professor said he was “agnostic” about this.
“I can see why people say it would hurt them, although what I would say is when we get to the General Elections, a lot of things can and will happen,” he said.
He added that the endorsement “may not be a significant thing later on” when voters assess the opposition figures.
Singapore's next General Election must be held by November 2025.
NTU’s Dr Felix Tan said that while the Presidential Election should not be conflated with a General Election, it is clear that these opposition forces are “viewed in the same way”.
“There is very little support for some of these opposition individuals who endorsed Mr Tan. One of the lessons for these opposition individuals is that they need to do much more to improve their public image.
“Secondly, understand the ground more instead of listening to the echo chambers of the disgruntled Singaporeans,” he said.