let lemons be angry

I was at the Jurong East Stadium on Saturday night, waiting for Dr Tan Cheng Bock to appear. K was there, my parents were there--my parents are never awake past midnight, and here we all were in dress and tie from my cousin's wedding dinner, holding the fort for the president we wanted.

There was no agenda, no certainty. The growing multitude was not there because we were sure TCB would win, nor was there any speech to entertain us as we waited. I had the feeling we were proud to be there in numbers, that every one of us seated beside each other made our hero bigger. And that night, we just wanted to make TCB our hero.

Indeed it appeared that he would win, up to the 80% mark of the votes counted. But in a gutting reverse of expectations, the West constituencies let us down.

I went home to sleep when the recount began, like many supporters. I woke up to the news I expected, that a recount couldn't salvage the 8000-vote difference. That somebody I had no conviction for was now our President.


So the blame game has begun. Pointless if done for the sake of venting angst, but useful if we can learn something from this. 65% of Singaporeans must be wondering what happened.

Tony Tan's supporters can't be blamed--they are the expected percentage (in fact, lower than expected), the "lost cause" of PAP diehards, and I didn't expect faithfulness to change in nine days. Neither should Tan Kin Lian be blamed for daring to run for Presidency. TKL is a sincere man faulted all too superficially for his facial ticks and wife's appearance, and is worth more than all his detractors put together. If he had dropped out wisely after looking at his competitors, his 5% might have been sprinkled across the three candidates in an unpredictable pattern. Yes, that slight difference might have pushed TCB just above TT. But we could have done better than a marginal difference.

I think the real reason Singapore's most unfavoured candidate won was that Singaporeans remained irreparably divided, at a time when we should have looked towards unification.

For many Opposition voters, the PE was a reaction against the ruling party. And who better to champion such a movement than Tan Jee Say? Fiery, confrontational and daring, TJS was their hero who had the best shot at stirring up debate with the prime minister. He made his stand with the Opposition clear by using a familiar opposition phrase, "checks and balances", as his oft-quoted slogan. His star-studded rally lineup was a promise that he had the endorsement of popular opposition candidates. And so opposition voters rallied each other via alternative media to make Tan Jee Say their best bet against TT.They chose TJS over the seemingly losing-fire TCB, and believed that TJS was most popular and so most able to topple the stronghold that was TT. They chose TJS because his campaign rang soundly with Opposition ideals, whereas TCB, they mused, seemed to not straddle either side clearly, and so how could they know what he stood for?

Their beliefs were the very loopholes that failed them. In their pursuit of confrontation, they did not recognize that TCB made a more tactical choice. Taking a balanced, non-partisan approach, he attracted both PAP and Opposition supporters, supposedly also winning the quiet support of a certain Worker's Party hero, who had put aside their party differences to vote for the best candidate. TCB was endearing enough as a doctor and MP to win the votes of the simplest citizens; he was dignified and independent enough as a minister to win the votes of those who demanded vigilance in a president. When the opposition voters prioritized Confrontationalism in their search for a president, they underestimated traits like gentlemanliness, graciousness, honesty and compassion. Traits that appeal to citizens regardless of age, status, or political affiliation. Traits that don't attract attention in campaigns where you have to shout to be remembered, but which are the most important foundation for a leader. Traits that will pull in swing votes.

It must have come as a shock, then, when TJS's votes stalemated at 25%. And perhaps a disappointment when TJS put his losses down to "being portrayed as too confrontational" and that he wished he could go back in time to reverse that perception. The very thing his voters had betted on him for was the first thing he regretted at his loss.

To topple a PAP giant, it is not enough to remain partisanal in thinking. I was an Opposition supporter in the GE, and I still strongly believe in having more alternative voices in Parliament. But when it came down to choosing a President, it was much more important to me to choose a compassionate man of good character who unites Singaporeans, not reinforces their differences.

So we still sit and look numbly at the headlines these days. What-ifs won't change the results. Now we have a president who reminds us everyday that we are ideologically divided. If TJS were president, we would be reminded of our differences too, just from a different angle. Instead, with TCB, we could have had a president who united us all.