PE2023 results - President Tharman

 

The anti-climatic result of Presidential Election 2023 was a resounding mandate for Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

Ng Kok Song was a distant runner-up with 15.72% of the votes (against Tharman's 70.4%)

Not far behind Ng was Tan Kin Lian with 13.88% of the votes. This was more than the 12.5% of votes that Tan needed to NOT lose his deposit. So this was a better result for him than in 2011 when he forfeited his deposit. 

So what does the result mean?

[Video: CNA delves into what it means:]

It is "conventional wisdom" that there is "core" 30% of Singaporeans that are Anti-Establishment, or more bluntly, "Anti-PAP". 

For this 30%, they would basically vote for "anybody except PAP" regardless of the quality, manifesto, or ideals of the opposing candidate. 

Tharman, being from the PAP and a Minister prior to his run for the Presidency, would clearly be seen and identified as "PAP". As such, the core 30% (Anti-PAP) would never vote for him.

Then George Goh threw in his hat for consideration. As the CEO of Harvey Norman, he was clearly not PAP, and was an immediate contender to take the "anti-establishment" 30%.

Then Ng Kok Song threw in his name for consideration,

Then Tan Kin Lian.

However, George Goh was ruled ineligible, and the pool of candidates were reduced to 3. 

So the simple expectation is that Tharman would draw the votes of the PAP supporters, and Ng and Tan (and Goh if he had qualified) would get the "Anti-PAP" votes. 

Although Ng claims to be unaffiliated to the govt, the fact that he was formerly the Chief Investment Officer of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), and was famously mentioned by Lee Kuan Yew for teaching him meditation, meant that many would see him as "quasi-govt", and not completely "independent" (Where "independent" is broadly defined as anti-establishment/anti-government/anti-PAP.)

But where George Goh in a one-on-one matchup with Tharman would have picked up the 30% anti-PAP vote, in a three-way fight, with Ng Kok Song as a candidate, the 30% would be split.

And in the final match-up, Tharman would get most if not all of the pro-PAP votes. The "anybody-but-PAP" bloc would have two candidates to choose from. The extreme anti-PAP would go for Tan as Ng would be considered "tainted" by his association with the govt, and not truly independent.

But some of the more "conservative" anti-PAP would be leery of Tan, even with the endorsement of former PAP MP Tan Cheng Bock. 

It is clear that those who were going to vote for Tharman would vote for him regardless of who stands against him. He is the establishment choice, the stable choice, and he is quite popular. Many Singaporeans have asked if it were possible for him to be the next PM.

And the fact that 70% of voters chose him says that most Singaporeans chose stability over delusional faux politics.

Tan's candidacy did not draw voters from Tharman. He drew voters from Ng. Quite likely, any number of alternative candidates would be splitting the share of 30% of votes. The govt (PAP) would have an implicit candidate. The Candidate would be seen to be pro-establishment, and would have risen from the ranks of the PAP or the Civil Service. And certainly the govt would not present two likely candidates that could split the votes of the majority. Politics in Singapore must be predictable and stable. 

So having Tharman as the candidate, there would be no other "govt endorsed", or "pro-establishment" candidate.

In a One-on-One match-up between Tharman and Ng (or any other candidate), Tharman would be seen as the "establishment" candidate, and Ng would be the "non-PAP" candidate, and would take the Anti-PAP bloc's votes. He would be seen as associated with the govt, but maybe not. And the anti-PAP voters would go, "no fish, prawns also can". 

So when Tan entered the race, he drew votes away from Ng, not Tharman. In other words, his candidacy was not significant... sort of. Well, we can see from the results, that of the 30% about half (almost 14%) are hard-core anti-PAP who would chose a (now) two-time loser like Tan over the "establishment" candidate.

And another half (almost 16%) while anti-establishment still wanted someone with the wherewithal to actually BE PRESIDENTIAL. Or at least be able to exercise the role and responsibility of the President.

In the 2011 Presidential Election, A.K.A. the "Four Tans" Election, Tony Tan (PAP), Tan Cheng Bock (ex-PAP, now Independent), Tan Jee Say (Opposition politician), and Tan Kin Lian (not affiliated to any political party), stood for elections. And you could see that the people were a little confused, and voted (IIRC) 35% for Tony Tan, 34% for Tan Cheng Bock, 20% for Tan Jee Say, and 10% for Tan Kin Lian.

The difference between Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock were VERY CLOSE (a few hundred votes, definitely close enough to require a recount). Because BOTH were PAP politicians or ex-PAP. Tony Tan had been (IIRC) Deputy PM at one time, while Tan Cheng Bock was a long-serving PAP MP. And in this it was clear that even within the pro-PAP voters, about half of them were willing to drift from the Establishment, IF they were given a viable option (like Tan Cheng Bock). 

[Correction: I just checked. Tony Tan got 35.2%, Tan Cheng Bock 34.85%, Tan Jee Say 25.04%, and Tan Kin Lian got 4.91%.]

In that PE, Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock vote share totalled... 70%! Which means that the pro-PAP vote was split!

And the anti-PAP vote totalled... 30%! Almost the same as this election.

So in 12 years, the Anti-PAP voting bloc remained unchanged.

So the conventional wisdom is still... wise.