Presidential Election 2011

[limlim]

phtthp:

is this the first time in SG history that president won, but < 50% ?

35% is far away ...

Yes. Nathan won with 0 votes.

[Strparent]

limlim:

phtthp:

is this the first time in SG history that president won, but < 50% ?

35% is far away ...

Yes. Nathan won with 0 votes.

limlim,

Twice ! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
but technically, there was ONE vote, the PAP's choice.

phtthp,

this is only the 2nd PE. The first one - Ong Teng Cheong won by about 54%, I think ?

[daisyt]

I am very disappointed with the result and worry what is going to happen to our reserve. I am looking forward to the first parliament in October, the first after GE.


This morning, while I was still in bed, dd ran in and shouted \"We are doom! Singapore is doom!\" (she slept before knowing the result last night). I told her \"my CPF is doom!\" :faint:

[Way2GO]

limlim:

Don't agree with this. The other 3 have different things/styles, why should they compromise? If it is possible to compromise, there would not be so many Opp parties existing already. It is precisely bcoz they have different views/vision, on what is best for SG, that's why there is so many different parties.. OF coz, some maybe are for personal agenda.. that, is different story and not in the context of this discussion. We assume the candidates has the best interest of SG.

The PE is different from GE, where, the Opp can cooperate and compromise such that A contest in X ward while B contest in Y ward. The PE has only 1 seat, there is no room for compromise.

d ultimate aim of any oppo party must be to form an alternative gahmen,
there is no compromise on dis final objective.
But as u agree, d PE is not a GE.
Wat in ur view is d most important role of d President-elect at a time when d nation is divisive?

[MandyMummy]

Strparent:

limlim:

[quote=\"phtthp\"]is this the first time in SG history that president won, but < 50% ?

35% is far away ...

Yes. Nathan won with 0 votes.

limlim,

Twice ! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
but technically, there was ONE vote, the PAP's choice.

phtthp,

this is only the 2nd PE. The first one - Ong Teng Cheong won by about 54%, I think ?[/quote]In the first presidential election of 1993, Ong Teng Cheong got 59% while Chua Kim Yeow got 41% of the votes.

[tankee]

phtthp:

is this the first time in SG history that president won, but < 50% ?

35% is far away ...

This is only the second PE

[corneyAmber]

Way2GO:

D results r indicative dat there r cracks within d PAP ranks, bwt d PAP leadership n grassroots.
It also shows up d self-centric n self-interests of candidates willing to sacrifice
a common cause of denying a pro-PAP man in d Istana for their own agendas.
D PAP understood dis human foible better than most n exploited it in their
divide n conquer strategy to win d Presidency for TT.

I too see a divide and conquer strategy so campaigning was not the most crucial for TT(hence all the low media profile), in a Chinese saying...玉蚌相争,鱼翁得利...this is precisely the case here. Well, this is politics.

[sparks]

35% voted for TT means 65% voted against him? :roll:


I think we should refrain from making sweeping statements like that. It only goes to show own bias.

[tankee]

daisyt:

I am very disappointed with the result and worry what is going to happen to our reserve. I am looking forward to the first parliament in October, the first after GE.


This morning, while I was still in bed, dd ran in and shouted \"We are doom! Singapore is doom!\" (she slept before knowing the result last night). I told her \"my CPF is doom!\" :faint:

:?

With the other three, there will probably be more differences between Govnt and President. with TT, it will just be like the past 18 yrs. Status quo, no major changes ...... Anyway President has very little role in our system.

[tankee]

sparks:

35% voted for TT means 65% voted against him? :roll:


I think we should refrain from making sweeping statements like that. It only goes to show own bias.

Not against , just not vote for him.