Now that President Tharman has been inaugurated, I think it is timely to look beyond the 70.41% who voted for him, and further scrutinise the voters at the margins, in order to figure out what lessons we should draw from how the votes ended up being split. What are we to make of the 344,584 Singaporeans who voted for Mr Tan Kin Lian? Why did Mr Tan not poll higher? Why not lower?

Mr Tan generated significant buzz during the campaign. On separate occasions, he had:

1. questioned “the honesty and integrity of the media”;

2. posted about “pretty girls” and migrant workers on Facebook;

3. expressed his view that “Singapore would be better if half of the female population [chose] to be homemakers”;

4. announced that he would use the non-partisan office of the President to tackle “cost of living” issues faced by Singaporeans;

5. faulted PAP ministers for “not [being] in touch with ordinary people” and being “quite arrogant”;

6. asserted that the total size of Singapore’s reserves need not be kept a secret;

7. argued that the GST should be scrapped;

8. suggested that Singapore “bring down our costs of property, of wages”, to become more competitive;

9. conjectured that “deep down, our locals would prefer at least a chance to have the President and the First Lady to be true Singaporeans, from birth”; and

10. toyed with the possibility of nominating opposition politicians Mr Tan Jee Say and Dr Tan Cheng Bock to the Council of Presidential Advisors, were he to be elected.

Mr Tan was promptly called out whenever he articulated factual inaccuracies. During Channel NewsAsia’s Presidential Forum, many dubbed news anchor Otelli Edwards’s correction of Mr Tan’s claims as “live POFMA”. Straits Times Deputy News Editor Grace Ho also offered a factual correction to Mr Tan’s claim that the government’s Covid-19 support grants were inappropriately used to boost the profits of banks.

I think the criticism and contestation of ideas that came to pass was fair game in Singapore’s maturing democracy - this is to be expected in any political contest. The majority of political pundits were also nuanced in their analysis of Mr Tan, resisting the urge to oversimplify him, or vilify his entire being.

However, I fear that some criticism stray into the territory of identity politics, and encourage disrespect of the people who voted for Mr Tan.

Two examples come to mind: Straits Times Opinion Editor Lin Suling said that Mr Tan “ran a divisive campaign… brazening out the misogynistic comments he made about pretty girls.” Jom’s editor-in-chief Sudhir Vadaketh remarked that Mr Tan’s “candidacy has, however, been tarnished by his troubling history of xenophobic and misogynistic posts.”

Would readers of The Straits Times and Jom emerge thinking that Mr Tan is a misogynist, or a xenophobe? Would that be a fair and nuanced characterisation? How true is it that Mr Tan was “brazen”, or “troubling”? Mr Tan himself also objected to AWARE’s criticism of him “objectifying women”.

In the era of instant online communication, we are more likely to see quick and snarky TikTok comments (e.g. “TKL is sexist”), rather than fleshed-out opinions like “Though Mr Tan may not have made that Facebook post with ill intentions, it risks perpetuating misogyny.” However, what we gain in speed, we lose in nuance.

Imagine a short comment like “TKL is sexist”, which you may find in the comments section of a YouTube video or an Instagram post. A reader casually scrolling on the other side of the screen will be hard-pressed to discern nuance and formulate a fair opinion of Mr Tan.

In the same vein, rather than critique Mr Tan’s “nativist comments”, he instead becomes “the nativist”. Rather than assess his campaign promises for the degree to which they pander to populism, we may instead be tempted to conveniently brand him a “populist” or “demagogue”.

Finally, we may fail to see “people who voted for Mr Tan Kin Lian”, instead clumping them together as “Tan Kin Lian voters”, as if they are a self-evident, monolithic and backwards coalition, worthy of disparagement.

I think America’s experience with identity politics should scare us into action - to proactively strengthen our democratic safeguards and norms. In the US, one’s political identity has swallowed up and superseded all other identities - your race, religion, region, class, age, gender, occupation, role in the family - they all come second to whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. Ezra Klein eloquently expounds on this concept of the political “super-identity” in his book Why We’re Polarized.

A simple test to uncover just how strong of a grip identity politics has on our current discourse: when I mention “Trump voters”, what policy positions do you think of? Anti-vaccine? Anti-abortion? Anti-immigration? We instantly associate one particular identity with a whole slew of stereotypes and assumptions, leaving little room for nuance and idiosyncrasy, and even obfuscating reality - President Trump claims credit for Operation Warp Speed which accelerated the development of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and thus cannot be neatly placed into the anti-vaccine camp.

The danger of simplistic labels like “Trump voters” illustrates why I am adamant about political pundits using the phrase “people who voted for Mr Tan Kin Lian”, rather than the identity label of “Tan Kin Lian voter”. The former opens up the possibility of follow-up questions like “What were your considerations in deciding to vote for him?”, while the latter exacerbates the tendency to hunker down on a narrow identity and suck the oxygen out of nuanced and empathetic discussion. It is easier to dismiss the stereotypical “Tan Kin Lian voter” as an aberration, when you do not foreground the “people” they are, worthy of respect and consideration.

This is not to say that irresponsible conduct in the political sphere should go unpunished. Admittedly, there were three moments when I feared that this Presidential Election would take a Trumpian turn.

Firstly, when, on Nomination Day, Mr Tan criticised the news outlets in Singapore with the following words, which reminded me of President Trump lambasting "fake news" and snubbing the tradition of hosting the White House Correspondents' Dinner: "Later on I realised, it is a concerted effort to smear me. And I also realised, that the media, the editors are part of this arrangement… I want to say something to the media. The people trust you to be honest and fair. Now, how can you just smear me, based upon something which is quite frivolous, and you make it into a big issue. So I think I will have to say about [sic] the honesty and integrity of the media…"

Secondly, when Mr Tan’s supporters were encouraged to volunteer as counting agents, and keep their own records of how many votes were cast for each of the candidates. Yes, this is fair game in a transparent election. Yet, I could not help drawing parallels with the 2020 US Presidential Election, where Republicans had casted aspersions on mail-in ballots and Dominion voting machines, and were paradoxically chanting "stop the count" in one state and "count the votes" in another.

Thirdly, when M Ravi and Iris Koh painted Mr Tharman as an unconstitutional candidate. Akin to how President Trump casted doubt on the integrity of the 2020 US Presidential Election and instigated the January 6 US Capitol attack, I had feared that this loose end could have been exploited to subvert the election results. Thankfully, Mr Tan acted responsibly and conceded defeat. However, I wonder if Mr Tan had the obligation to publicly denounce M Ravi and Iris Koh’s actions.

Luckily, all three situations came to pass, and I was simply a worrywart this time round. Nevertheless, I echo Dr Gillian Koh’s op-ed for The Straits Times, and agree that there are pressing improvements we must make to the procedures governing the Elected Presidency, in order to shore up our defences against opportunistic demagogues who may want to hijack our Presidency in the future.

We cannot be sure that future candidates will not “pull a Trump”, cast doubt on the integrity of Singapore’s voting processes, and subvert an election. Are our current defences like POFMA and the judicial system sufficient? Or should we prevent such instances from emerging in the first place?

Circling back to identity politics, even as we await new procedural safeguards to be introduced, it is incumbent upon all of us to start work on bolstering our social safeguards. We can reach out, across our political differences, to better empathise with our fellow Singaporeans’ perspectives. We can also resist simplistic labels that play into the hands of identity politics. Finally, as President Tharman said repeatedly during his campaign, “No one should be a nobody in Singapore”. We would do well to ensure Respect For All.

Written by Adriale Pang

Edited by Lauren Tan

Bibliography

Ang, M. (2023, September 1). High Court dismisses M Ravi's application to disqualify Tharman from PE2023, orders him to pay S$6,000 costs. Mothership. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://mothership.sg/2023/09/m-ravi-disqualify/.

AWARE Singapore. (2023, August 21). We share the public’s concerns that a candidate, who has a history of objectifying women, has been cleared to participate… [Facebook post]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/awaresg/posts/674835381344539.

CNA. (2023, August 11). Tan Kin Lian launches bid for Singapore's presidency [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/wOAbY0DeA-k?si=kHQI8cVf2Pe7V0n9&t=92.

CNA. (2023, August 22). Singapore Presidential Election: Tan Kin Lian speaks to media | Full video [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/lOpNgoH-cQ8?si=r4l0chp8d211nrNe&t=526.

CNA. (2023, August 28). [LIVE] Presidential Forum with candidates Ng Kok Song, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Tan Kin Lian [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/live/oIyQ3oH8rEg?si=QESpkaOFtyDP9ZsF&t=2530.

Ganesan, N. (2023, August 29). PE 2023: PSP says it won't endorse any presidential candidate after volunteers receive email to sign up as counting agents. TODAY. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pe-2023-psp-says-it-wont-endorse-any-presidential-candidate-after-volunteers-receive-email-sign-counting-agents-2242756.

Ho, G. (2023, September 2). Tharman rises above the fray despite a politically charged election. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/tharman-rises-above-the-fray-despite-a-politically-charged-election.

Koh, G. (2023, September 3). PE 2023 and brewing questions over the elected presidency system. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://nus.edu.sg/newshub/news/2023/2023-09/2023-09-03/PE2023-st-3sep-pA17.pdf.

Lee, L. (2023, August 22). PE 2023: Ng Kok Song, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Tan Kin Lian confirmed as candidates on Nomination Day. TODAY. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pe-2023-ng-kok-song-tharman-shanmugaratnam-and-tan-kin-lian-confirmed-candidates-nomination-day-2237741.

Lin, S. (2023, September 4). Ng Kok Song lost. But he did Singapore a favour running for president. The Straits Times. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/ng-kok-song-lost-but-he-did-singapore-a-favour-running-for-president.

muddywatersg. (2023, August 22). Iris Koh raises objection to Tharman’s candidacy at nomination centre [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/SingaporeRaw/comments/15xuov2/iris_koh_raises_objection_to_tharmans_candidacy/.

Quek, H. (2023, September 5). Tan Kin Lian Concedes Graciously. His Supporters? Not So Much. RICE. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.ricemedia.co/tan-kin-lian-concedes-graciously-his-supporters-not-so-much/.

‘Stop the vote’ and ‘count the votes’, say protesting Trump supporters – video. (2020, November 5). The Guardian. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/nov/05/stop-the-vote-count-the-vote-trump-supporters.

Tan, A. (2023, August 29). CNA moderator cuts in to remind viewers on role of president after Tan Kin Lian’s closing statement at live presidential forum. Mothership. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://mothership.sg/2023/08/cna-moderator-remind-tan-kin-lian-forum/.

The Daily Ketchup Podcast. (2023, August 25). Tan Kin Lian’s FAMILY Didn’t Want Him To Run For President??? | #DailyKetchup EP 236 [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/qZa4ClayLoY?si=vxSUvkPbNS1nAtNq&t=1270.

The Online Citizen. (2023, August 28). Press conference of Tan Kin Lian with Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Jee Say [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/jv_1dto14bA?si=aluUDH6513vljd1o&t=1195.

TODAYonline. (2023, August 25). Tan Kin Lian says voters 'prefer chance to have' S'pore-born President and spouse [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/-fHf6bK0rwY?si=H-5YsRB9OcdK3uNw.

Vadaketh, S. (2023, August 30). Nobody’s independent: Singapore’s presidential election. Jom. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.jom.media/nobodys-independent-singapores-presidential-election/.

Yftian. (2023, August 18). Collection of Tan Kin Lian shitposting [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/15uebh3/collection_of_tan_kin_lian_shitposting/.