Tharman’s presidential victory not a harbinger of next general election

MANY conclusions have been drawn about Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s impressive margin of victory in Singapore’s Sep 1 presidential election, with commentators seeing his 70.4 per cent vote share as both an affirmation of multiracialism, and a sign that voters view the role as non-partisan.

Yet, precisely because the electorate did not view the presidential race through a party lens, Friday’s results may not be too illuminating when it comes to the political calendar’s next major event: the next general election (GE), due by late 2025.

As attention turns slowly but inexorably towards the GE, commentators – and politicians themselves – will be scrutinising every political development for its implications for ground sentiment. Such judgments of sentiment could, in turn, influence decisions about timing.

While the GE does not have to be held until November 2025, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is unlikely to cut things too close to that deadline. This is particularly as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s passing of the baton is already overdue, after Covid-19 interrupted the timeline.

At the same time, near-term triggers for discontent – such as the recent string of political scandals, or next January’s goods and services tax hike – would seem to rule out an election early next year.

Could the presidential election results be taken as a sign that the ground is sweet enough for such a gamble?

Before Polling Day, a common assumption was that support for presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian might be a proxy for opposition support. Several opposition-party veterans – including his two fellow losers in the 2011 Presidential Election – had publicly supported Tan’s presidential bid.

Based on decades of general elections, it is widely assumed that some 20 per cent to 30 per cent of Singapore voters are staunch opposition supporters.

Tan’s eventual 13.88 per cent vote share falls far short of this range. This has been taken as one sign of how partisan preferences had a limited influence on this election.

Yet, this observation works both ways. Tharman’s vote share is well above the average People’s Action Party (PAP) share in a general election, comparable only to that of certain single-seat wards, or two outlier group representation constituencies: PM Lee’s and Tharman’s previous own.

The third presidential candidate, Ng Kok Song, explicitly positioned himself as having no affiliations to either the ruling party or the opposition – though his career is indisputably an establishment one, limiting his appeal to hardcore opposition voters.

If opposition loyalists had taken a partisan stance in the presidential election, one would arguably have expected more votes for Tan, or perhaps a significant rise in rejected votes.

There were 50,152 rejected votes, or 1.98 per cent of the total votes cast – a step up from the 37,849 or 1.76 per cent in the 2011 Presidential Election, but well within the usual range. In the last three general elections, rejected votes ranged from 1.8 per cent to 2.17 per cent of all votes cast.

As such, neither Tan’s poor showing nor Tharman’s exceptional one can be taken as reliable indicators of ground sentiment in the context of a general election.

The PAP should not be complacent about its prospects; nor should opposition parties be discouraged. Tharman’s personal popularity has long been an outlier, and his qualifications for the role of president were indisputable. The PAP’s vote shares across constituencies in GE 2024 or 2025 are unlikely to come close to what he has achieved.