Statement from Tan Kin Lian on the Presidential Election

The outcome of the Presidential elections was obviously a shock to me. I expected a much better result and the prospect of polling less than the 12.5% of the votes (and losing the deposit) was felt to be remote.

Some commentators said that I should have known the ground feel on nomination day and withdrawn my candidacy then. This would have given the other “non-establishment” candidates the vital additional votes needed to win the elections and save me from the dismal disappointment of receiving only 4.9 per cent of the votes as well as a substantial financial loss.

As always, the wisdom of hindsight never fails but the truth was that on nomination day, the voters were still largely undecided on whom they would be voting, if at all.

My private surveys as well as information from a third party survey pointed to a credible level of support for me. I had also expected strong support from the heartlanders and the over 1 million policyholders of NTUC Income (where I had served for 30 years) as well as many people who remembered my advocacy of public causes and the plight of those who suffered investment losses during the last financial crisis.

Stacked against these positive indications was an on-line poll on Yahoo which showed a low level of support for me. However, I felt that the online poll was not representative of the entire voting population, as proven in the recent general election, and there were indications that this particular poll had been manipulated.

Anyway, it would have been difficult for me to drop out of the contest at nomination date. I would have disappointed the people who wanted to vote for me and also my supporters, who had put in a lot of work during the previous six weeks and my donors.

There was also the risk that I would be considered a coward or a quitter or someone who was never serious about the election. Most importantly, I felt that I could offer a choice of a different platform for Singaporeans to decide,

Some people asked if I would have withdrawn if I had reliable information that my support was less than 10%. The answer is that this is a moot point as we did not have that information. As already shared, we believed that on Nomination Day, the voters were still largely uncommitted.

I decided to contest the election on my platform to be the voice of the people, to use the influence of the President to make life better for Singaporeans and to be a truly non-partisan candidate. I worked hard to bring this message across in the TV broadcasts and the forums among the four candidates. Regrettably, I failed to convince the voters and became the candidate with the least votes.

I also suffered considerable damage from some mis-reporting by the mainstream media. My proposal on giving better recognition to male citizens who served national service was wrongly reported as advocating that females should also serve national service. Although the media reported my correction on this point, the damage had already been done and was irreparable. I also suffered from negative slant in the reporting on some other issues – which I shall not dwell on.

My post mortem should that there were a few weaknesses in my campaign strategy, my image and messaging. I shall not go into them in detail.

The clear and positive message, sent in by many people after the results including those who did not vote for me, was that I was seen to be “sincere, courageous and spoke for Singaporeans”. I like to thank them for their support, understanding and encouraging words.

I was accused by my detractors of being the person responsible for letting Dr. Tony Tan become elected as President. They argued that I should have withdrawn, so that a “non-establishment” candidate could have been voted in. I had already explained why I could not take this approach.

I would also make the point that it was really up to the last candidate to withdraw as his platform was similar to mine in several respects. In the arena of natural justice, it is really only fair that the last one in should bear the responsibility for the outcome of the changed situation

My approach was to let the people of Singapore decide on the best person to be President. I do not have any preference for any particular candidate – not even for myself. I had congratulated Dr. Tony Tan for winning a hard fought contest. Time will tell if he can deliver the promise that he will act independently of the Government and protect the interest of

Singaporeans. I feel that we should give him that chance.

The election had cost me and my donors a total of $120,000, including the loss of the deposit and also a dent to my reputation. However, I have already managed the disappointment and will take a positive attitude towards this outcome. I did receive slightly more than 100,000 votes from people who believed in my platform and looked positively towards me. Their trust and regard are worth the price that I have to pay.

I had also given a choice to the people of Singapore of a truly non-partisan platform. I respect their decision at this time but hope that the non-partisan concept embodied in my platform will find their support in the future.

I am willing to continue the work of being “the voice of the people”. If there is sufficient interest and support from other interested people, I will create a new website and mechanism to implement this role. If not, I will try to play this role in a smaller way.

I would like to thank the small team of about 50 people that had worked hard with me throughout the campaign and to the generous donors. They had put in time, dedication, support and care. I thank them very much for sharing the passion with me. My thanks also go to the 100,000 over people who voted for me.

What are my plans for the future? Will I take part in a future general or presidential election? I will keep an open mind on this question. It will be decided at the right time in the future.

In the meantime, I will continue to serve the people of Singapore by communicating with them through the social media and also assist them to the best of my limited ability.

To conclude, I would like to leave everyone with the following quote from

Marilyn Vos Savant –

“Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.”

I have not given up.

Tan Kin Lian

Candidate for the Presidential Election, 2011

31 August 2011


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

暂无计划调整最低七天法定年假 杨莉明:续监督我国就业趋势

人力部长杨莉明日前表示,近期内暂无调整七天法定年假的计划,而人力将持续针监督我国就业趋势,并结合国外情况以及检视法律与政策。 据《雅虎新闻》报道,义顺集选区议员黄国光于国会中质询,人力部是否有意检讨法定最低七天年假,让我国国民与其他发达国家相比,享有更好的年假待遇。 而杨莉明则认为,每个经济发达的国家对年假的制定并不相同,例如英国与澳洲两国均对年假有“相对慷慨的规定”,但美国则没有相应的联邦法律来规范带薪年假。 杨莉明续指,我国的法定最低年假则与台湾和香港司法管辖区较为相似。 目前以我国《就业法》为例,员工年资3个月以上,不超过一年,将获得法定最低年假7天,而员工若满一年以上者,其法定最低年假将增加到最多14天。 杨莉明也指出,新加坡的法定最低年假,还应与其他法定例假如带薪病假、育儿假和其他形式的休假加以看待考量。 年假待遇与香港相似,但仍显不足 日前一份报告显示,新加坡在40个城市中的“工作与生活平衡”指数排名第32位,仅次邻国之下,显示新加坡人花在工作的时间是世界城市中最长之一。 调查结果显示,新加坡在“工作过度“栏目中,以每周工作44.6个小时排名第二,仅次于吉隆坡的46个小时。 报告续指有23巴仙的新加坡全职员工,更是每周工作超过48小时,该比率竟在40个城市中排名第一,紧跟在后的吉隆坡比率为22巴仙,香港和东京同为20巴仙。 而针对年假,新加坡员工每年年假仅14天,排名第19。那其他发达国家的年假又该如何计算?部分发达国家如澳洲与新西兰的年假,是一年20天;而韩国则获得15-25天的年假。 而新加坡年假是否与香港和台湾相似?…

Philippine military aircraft crashed after ‘unrecoverable stall’: armed forces

A Philippine aircraft carrying soldiers crashed in July after an “unrecoverable stall”,…

PSP’s introduces third slate of new candidates including two former SAF officers

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) announced five more of its candidates who…

骑电动脚踏车老妇遭黄色休旅车碾惨死,司机仍在逃

早前广东民路发生跑车逆向撞69岁老妇,再被黄色休旅车碾压造成老妇惨死一事,据悉黄色休旅车在碾压老妇后,肇事逃逸,目前车子已被拖走,但司机仍在逃。 据了解,涉案司机共有两名,其中一名是当场遭逮捕的25岁跑车司机,另一名司机则在意外发生后,警方抵达前离开现场。 昨日(6日),SG Road Vigilante – SRV脸书专页将一张黄色休旅车被警方拖走的照片上传至网络,疑似是未被寻获的涉案车子。 据《今日报》报导,警方证实有关涉案车辆,司机仍在潜逃,目前案件仍在侦办中。 1月5日,丹绒巴葛广东民路(Cantonment Road),达士岭摩天组屋(The Pinnacle@Duxton)于清晨5点左右发生一起车祸,一辆玛莎拉蒂疑似逆向行驶撞上一辆电动脚踏车,将69岁老妇撞死。警方根据调查现场监控,发现除了玛莎拉蒂以外,还有一辆黄色的本田休旅车将死者碾压过去,并且在警方抵达前逃离现场。 该视频也在案发后被放上网络。 死者靠自己双手抚养女儿长大,退休后仍兼职清洁工和洗衣店工作…