After more than a year of waiting, Singaporeans hit the ballot boxes yesterday. The significance of the 2006 elections lay in the fact that it was Mr Lee Hsien Loong's first as Prime Minister, leaving the People's Action Party (PAP) to duly design its campaign around the call for a strong mandate for the PM and his inclusive vision for Singapore. Singaporeans responded by giving the PAP 66.6 per cent of the popular vote.

While the 66.6 per cent is a clear national mandate, the mood was tempered by the PM's own showing at his Ang Mo Kio GRC. Many had expected the PM to win resoundingly given the fresh and untested slate of the Workers' Party's (WP) candidates.

Initial figures bandied about ranged from 70 per cent to 80 per cent, but the eventual 66 per cent — identical to the national average — is not as high as it is traditionally expected to be. In 1991 for example, although only winning 61 per cent of the national vote, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong garnered a resounding 77.25 per cent at his Marine Parade GRC.

The results from early this morning not only returned the PAP to power, but also revealed the way in which the electorate felt about the various issues and controversies that emerged from the 2006 campaign.

One recurring criticism of the PAP's campaign was its tendency to dangle estate upgrading and lift-upgrading programmes as election carrots. This criticism arose back in 1997 when PM Goh linked estate upgrading to votes. Many feared that the increasing reliance on this brand of "money politics" would turn local elections into a straightforward exchange of votes for public funds, thus blinding the electorate to broader issues.

While it's believed that PM Goh made this explicit upgrading for vote link because of the PAP's relatively weak national showing in 1991, it will be difficult for PM Lee to repeat the strategy at the next elections, given the strong message sent by Hougang and Potong Pasir.

The convincing wins by the Opposition in both single-seat wards have effectively demonstrated the limits of "money politics". Both Messrs Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong actually improved on their previous results, with 62.7 per cent and 55.8 per cent of the vote respectively.

Initial fears of whether Hougang and Potong Pasir would tire from carrying the national burden of putting Opposition in Parliament at the expense of estate upgrading were laid to rest. The victories can also be seen as a personal blow to Senior Minister Goh who was tasked with wrestling back the two wards. The significance of this rejection on SM Goh's political standing will unfold in time to come.

The Opposition also made headway in other constituencies. Steve Chia improved on his previous election results of 35 per cent by garnering 39 per cent of the vote this time. WP's Lian Chin Way cut down PAP's Ong Ah Heng's 2001 78.5 per cent to 65.37 per cent. Meanwhile at Jalan Besar GRC, the PAP's nearly-75 per cent share in 2001 was trimmed to 69.26 per cent.

Another hotly contested ward was Aljunied GRC where the PAP slate led by George Yeo won by 56 per cent, somewhat low for a 5-member GRC. A key factor for this was the James Gomez saga. WP candidate James Gomez was accused by the PAP of attempting to "fix" the elections department over the matter of a minority candidate certificate. If it had not been for CCTV footage and phone recordings, the PAP argued, Mr Gomez would have exploited the matter for political capital and, more importantly, undermined an institution of the democratic process.

The public, however, soon tired of this strategy to attack and discredit an individual and use him as a metonym for the larger party. It demanded a return to serious issues. Some argued that the PAP's case against Mr Gomez was based on big "what ifs". (What if Mr Gomez had besmirched the reputation of the elections department? What if Mr Gomez had used the incident to reap political dividends?) For many, this just did not sound like a water-tight case.

The WP's response to the PAP barrage was calm and collected, demonstrating impressive party discipline. Its call to return to serious debate also allowed the WP to re-capture the moral ground.

If any debate captured the character of the 2006 elections, it was the one that took place between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Workers' Party chief Low. When MM Lee lamented the lack of a First World Opposition, Mr Low countered by accusing the PAP of not behaving like a First World government. MM Lee's response was that Singapore would not enjoy high standards of living without a First World government.

Both men were talking on different wavelengths. Mr Low was probably referring to a First World style of governance where the banning of podcasts and other restrictions on expression would not be tolerated, while MM Lee was probably referring to an efficient, incorrupt and capable civil service that delivered public services promptly.

This inability to agree on the role of government is symptomatic of Singapore's changing expectations and aspirations. There is no doubt that good governance is about delivering the material goods, but Singaporeans have come to desire more.

The 66.6 per cent of the national vote is an affirmation of the PAP's sterling work in the past decades. PM Lee's 66 per cent win at Ang Mo Kio GRC is a signal that we want to go beyond the material.