General Election 2025

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Inside the PAP’s GE2025 playbook – and why rivals should take notes​

Seeking to salve the sting of defeat is understandable, but opposition-leaning voices should closely study why the PAP’s GE2025 strategy worked.​

Bhavan Jaipragas

PAP supporters cheering at Bukit Gombak Stadium after the results were out on May 4.ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY
UPDATED May 08, 2025, 12:06 PM

Victory has a thousand fathers, as they say, while defeat is an orphan.

Yet for Singapore’s ruling PAP, one of the world’s most successful political parties, such is its reality that even when a strong win materialises, there is every chance it is dismissed as not that big a deal. Why praise the political equivalent of a serial championship-winning team for securing another trophy?

Hence the curious commentary among pockets of the political intelligentsia over the past week suggesting that the 65.57 per cent mandate Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and his party secured, while stemming further Workers’ Party inroads, was somehow overhyped – merely to be expected, a “status quo result”.

Commentators advancing this argument claim the vote share increase stemmed mainly from the weakness of most opposition parties bar the WP, rather than any genuine fillip for the PAP – let alone constituting a landslide.

But this reasoning rings peculiarly inconsistent: Wasn’t the 2015 election, unanimously accepted as the last major PAP landslide, also contested against similarly weak political parties across the board, bar the WP?

Those high barometers of recent electoral success that such analysis typically venerates – including the regular high-margin victories of former PAP stalwart and current President Tharman Shanmugaratnam – were likewise secured against weak opponents. Are these, too, suddenly unimpressive?

This is all the more notable considering the PAP entered GE2025 carrying substantial baggage: widespread concerns about living costs and a troubled electoral term marked by unprecedented incidents – the first-ever imprisonment of a former Cabinet minister and the dual resignations of both the House Speaker and an MP following revelations of their extramarital affair.


The issue here is that, amid the flood of post-election analysis, some commentary appears self-serving, deliberately downplaying the results. Yet if the intention is to advance the opposition’s cause or salve the sting of defeat, such an approach is counterproductive. Study, instead, why the PAP won so handily: lessons from an opponent’s success remain valuable lessons nonetheless.

This isn’t about declaring the behemoth is indeed a behemoth, and certainly the PAP does not need external validation – that is not the point here. Rather, it’s about the opposition and their adjacent commentators developing a clear-eyed assessment of voter priorities and effective campaign strategies demonstrated in this election.

Building goodwill​

At this stage, two factors behind the PAP’s strong mandate are familiar: global jitters – read: Hurricane Trump – and a year-round ground game.

The ground game aspect is somewhat downplayed in commentaries, written off as mere “machine politics” that comes with the PAP’s size, access to resources and 66-year incumbency.

But this misses a crucial insight: day-to-day work helping residents, treating municipal issues not as mundane or trivial parts of an MP’s job but as important priorities, and building strong connections with constituents creates electoral support. MPs who establish themselves as familiar faces rather than distant figures requiring deference accumulate the goodwill that translates into votes at the ballot box.

The PAP has long understood this, with present-day MPs like Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Baey Yam Keng and Ms Denise Phua, among others, making their names as grassroots MPs through such service.

WP MPs clearly recognise this too, evident in how frequently they highlighted municipal-level work and estate upgrading plans in their rallies, even while pressing home their primary message about offering a balance to PAP dominance in parliament.


Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh tells me he saw conscientious and consistent grassroots work, as well as efforts to upgrade estate environment, as crucial to maintaining voter support.

Singaporeans essentially want problem-solvers as their MPs, whether at the municipal level or for those with more granular personal issues.

“It goes a long way in building goodwill and support... grassroots work is an important issue that many ignore,” Mr Singh told me. He emphasised that it is not just national issues that matter to voters.

One of the first polls on the elections, released this week by Blackbox Research, confirms this view, noting that respondents indicated that the PAP had a “decisive advantage” when it came to ground campaigning and policies.

This poll, conducted on April 29 and 30 with 500 Singaporeans representative of national demographics, revealed that the PAP enjoyed a 16 percentage-point advantage over the WP in local campaigning effectiveness.

Blackbox’s founder, Mr David Black, told me the ground game proved “all important” for the PAP this time – especially since the ruling party hadn’t fully deployed its well-oiled machinery during the 2020 pandemic-restricted polls.

This time, the PAP made that advantage count. Municipal and national upgrading programmes, like the long-running Estate Upgrading Programme, designed to enhance older private estates, resonated significantly with voters.

As Mr Black, a long-time observer of Singapore elections, noted: “You see MPs talking about these constantly in their outreach to residents.”

Leaving nothing to chance​

Beyond year-round grassroots work, the nine-day hustings showed that one slogan will not carry a campaign. You need a supporting storyline to plug the gaps – and both the delivery and the messenger matter.

The Blackbox poll offers some insight into how this played out, and how the PAP achieved its objectives despite certain chinks in its armour.

The poll showed that the opposition’s central message that Singapore needed checks and balances in Parliament actually struck a chord with voters, and 56 per cent of respondents said they agreed with it compared with the 44 per cent who supported the PAP’s central message that voters needed to keep the ruling party strong amid uncertainty in a changing world.

But the PAP, seeming to recognise this vulnerability, shrewdly augmented its primary message with another: that voters should stick with the ruling party, whose track record they knew so well. That Brand PAP was tried and tested. This leave-nothing-to-chance approach was then coupled with the strategic deployment of politicians with the deepest political capital, PM Wong and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in the at-risk constituencies of Punggol and Tampines GRCs.

While the extent of SM Lee’s involvement in campaigning, especially in the second half of the nine-day period, raised eyebrows – with some questioning why a former prime minister was so extensively involved – Mr Black noted that the use of “heavy artillery” in marginal seat campaigns around the world was commonplace.

Mr Lee and Mr Wong conducted walkabouts in both constituencies and held rallies there on the last day – Mr Wong at Punggol and Mr Lee in Tampines – pressing home the PAP’s central messages.

Mr Black said the polling clearly showed that SM Lee “was pivotal during the last days, and he impressed voters during the campaign”.

There is an argument to be made here, then, that having the superior narrative alone is not enough. Good arguments also need heavy hitters to land their punch – a lesson the PAP clearly understood in its strategic deployment of its most formidable campaigners.

As Mr Black put it to me, the opposition’s political balance message was “highly salient and registering, especially with male voters. But this did not impact voting intention”. He likened the trend to store browsing without buying.

Said the veteran pollster: “Ultimately, you have to make it meaningful and give people a compelling reason to switch. Either you find the current model no longer any good, or you show how much better your product is. Neither was the case this time.”

GE2025’s resounding message​

None of this is to say that the PAP’s strategy was flawless, or that the opposition, principally the WP, was fundamentally flawed.

It would be remiss here not to acknowledge opposition parties’ consistent assertions about structural impediments they face: among them, the short lead time between Electoral Boundaries Review Committee reports and election writs, perceived opacity in the EBRC’s deliberations, and the People’s Association’s role bolstering the PAP’s retail politics advantage.

The PAP naturally rejects any notion of an uneven playing field. Yet while navigating these challenges, opposition parties might benefit from studying what resonates with Singaporean voters.

Looking at how the PAP succeeds, rather than attributing the ruling party’s wins solely to structural advantages, could offer valuable insights. And the commentariat? For the most cynical elements, a touch more curiosity about the mechanics of victory would serve better than predictable dismissals of the PAP’s electoral strength.

The evidence suggests consistent grassroots engagement throughout the electoral cycle yields dividends for any political entity. Those who can demonstrate tangible problem-solving abilities and articulate compelling visions will see voters value them. That is this election’s most resounding message.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

GE2025: With a more discerning electorate, smaller opposition parties face an uncertain future​

Analysts said the road ahead is increasingly challenging for smaller players striving for a slice of the electoral pie. PHOTO: ST FILE
Lee Li Ying, Wong Pei Ting, David Sun, Kok Yufeng and Ng Wei Kai
UPDATED May 10, 2025, 06:05 AM


SINGAPORE – Fiery speeches and calls for change galvanised crowds at election rallies during the hustings, with opposition parties and their supporters eager for a breakthrough in the 2025 General Election.

But as rain fell in the pre-dawn hours after Polling Day on May 3, those flames were dampened by a swing in votes to the PAP.

The ruling party won 87 out of 97 parliamentary seats, and increased its popular vote share to 65.57 per cent.

On the opposition front, the WP retained its 10 seats and gained two Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) seats. The party’s vote share also held steady at 50.04 per cent, just shy of the 50.49 per cent it garnered in 2020.

Other opposition parties struggled to gain traction – their popular vote share ranged from 1.19 per cent to 36.25 per cent.

The PSP lost in all six constituencies it contested, including West Coast-Jurong West GRC, where it narrowly lost in the 2020 election and in so doing, secured two NCMP seats.

This means the PSP will no longer have a parliamentary presence – an outcome that appeared to have stunned the party, which cancelled its post-results press conference.

Over at MOE (Evans) Stadium where Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) supporters were gathered, the party extended its 28-year wait to return to Parliament as secretary-general Chee Soon Juan was narrowly pipped to an NCMP seat – by less than 1 percentage point.

As Dr Chee’s head hung heavy, over his shoulder, volunteers quietly deflated a giant red balloon that had been a jubilant feature at the party’s night rallies during the campaign period.

For four opposition parties – the National Solidarity Party (NSP), People’s Power Party (PPP), People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR) and Singapore United Party (SUP) – the sting of defeat cut deeper with financial losses.

All candidates from NSP, PPP and SUP and two from PAR each lost their $13,500 deposit for not garnering at least 12.5 per cent of the votes contested.

The total damage was $364,500.

Analysts said that with Singapore gradually moving towards a two-party system with the PAP and WP, the road ahead is increasingly challenging for smaller players striving for a slice of the electoral pie.

In the days after May 3, there was much anguish, tears, and soul-searching by various opposition parties as they grappled with their losses.

PPP chief Goh Meng Seng was dispirited. Asked what’s next for him, he told The Straits Times: “I don’t think I have the desire any more. The fire is not there any more.

“Good luck to Singapore, there’s nothing else we can say.”

Mr Goh, who sold his property to fund his party’s campaign, said: “For now, I have no plans at all until I can earn enough money.”

Singapore People’s Party’s (SPP) secretary-general Steve Chia even mulled over deregistering the party after it garnered 24.79 per cent of the votes in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and 22.47 in Potong Pasir SMC.

He said: “The result is very bleak. The future is PAP versus WP. We can only contest where WP chooses not to go, scraping the leftovers.”

Why Singapore voted the way it did​

The disparity in vote share among the various opposition parties has demonstrated that Singaporeans are becoming a more sophisticated and discerning electorate, said analysts.

IPS Social Lab adjunct principal research fellow and academic adviser Tan Ern Ser said it is clear that the WP has consolidated its position and distinguished itself from the rest of the opposition parties.

Political analyst Loke Hoe Yeong said the WP has benefited from a form of incumbency effect.

“Voters have come to recognise it as the most credible opposition party in Singapore, going by their performance in Parliament, and in how the town councils they run now score as well as PAP-run ones,” said Mr Loke.

Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh said the calibre of the WP’s candidates, which were “of the same or better quality as PAP in some cases”, have made a difference.

With Singapore’s democracy maturing, voters know which parties are serious and therefore deserve their support, he added.

Mr Singh said he was surprised that the SDP and PSP had scored lower than they did in the 2020 General Election.

A racist slur uttered by one of the SDP’s candidates during the campaigning period could have affected the party overall, said Mr Singh.

Another reason could be that the PAP’s argument that voter support for the opposition could result in the loss of key ministers worked.

In West Coast-Jurong West GRC, the PSP was up against a team led by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who was identified as a key minister.

Mr Singh posited that the PSP had garnered the votes it did in 2020 due to the branding of founder and former PAP veteran Tan Cheng Bock.

“Among the young voters in GE2025, (Dr Tan) is not really known. PSP is also not well recognised by the heartland voters, and may be more known by the more informed ones who are active on social media,” he said.

Associate Professor Eugene Tan, a political analyst and SMU law don, said that while the PSP may have emphasised the parliamentary performance of its two NCMPs – in particular leader Leong Mun Wai – their operating style “which generated more heat than light” may not have won them more support.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who is 85, has declared that the 2025 election would be his last outing.

The PSP’s hiatus from the new term of Parliament may well be a “blessing in disguise” as the party regroups and charts a future without its founder, said Prof Tan.

But even as the WP has pulled away from the other opposition parties, analysts said these parties should not be written off.

Independent political observer Felix Tan said he would not discount the support that the SDP, PSP and even Red Dot United (RDU) have garnered.

“These other parties still have a role to play, especially when it makes every election something that the PAP would have to work hard to earn,” said Dr Felix Tan.

Pointing to Dr Chee’s performance in Sembawang West SMC where he garnered 46.81 per cent of the vote, Dr Alan Chong from NTU attributed the opposition veteran’s performance to his years of campaigning and building his political profile.

“All these years of patient visibility and consistency in voicing opposition in government policy has paid off. So when Dr Chee stands in any constituency, there is some degree of name and brand recognition,” said Dr Chong, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

Unlike parties like the PAP and WP which can conduct talent recruitment and party renewal through inviting aspirants to take part in grassroots activities, other opposition parties without elected MPs have to take a different path to build their candidates’ credibility and attract talent, Dr Chong said.

This means parties should put candidates up for elections, even if it means losing some contests.

“Then they can become known thereafter as having actually experienced some degree of hustings, public speaking and meeting residents. It’s a different way to burnish one’s credentials,” he added.

For smaller parties to be relevant and find a space for themselves in Singapore’s political system, they would have to walk the ground between elections, and meaningfully weigh in on issues of the day, said analysts.

Groundwork and retail politics are essential, said former SPP chairman Jose Raymond, who is the managing director of a strategy and communications firm.

Mr Jose pointed to the results of Bukit Panjang SMC as a case study for how dedicated groundwork led to a swing of over 7 percentage points towards incumbent MP Liang Eng Hwa.

In 2020, the ward saw a nail-biting race with SDP chairman Paul Tambyah, with Mr Liang prevailing with 53.73 per cent of the vote. Both candidates were new to the constituency then.

But in the past five years, Mr Liang had rolled out popular initiatives like $1 deals to help residents cope with cost-of-living pressures, and stepped up efforts to engage residents.

“He’s on the ground and that matters, because people then began to recognise him and shifted towards him. Political parties that don’t do this – the battle is theirs to lose,” said Mr Jose.

Fading appeal of ‘pie in the sky’ proposals​

Succession planning is also critical for opposition parties to remain viable.

Associate Professor Walter Theseira of the Singapore University of Social Sciences highlighted the SDP and PSP, which both face similar issues of having an ageing core leadership and no clear pathway for renewal.

“They face a huge challenge in renewal because with the performance gap between the WP and everyone else, it’s not surprising that high-quality candidates would prefer to join the WP unless their philosophies are much more strongly aligned with the SDP and PSP,” said Prof Theseira.

He said the PSP is in a worse situation than the SDP, as the latter has developed a consistent policy platform that is left of centre and coherent politically.

“Who is the next generation of the PSP, and what policies or political differentiation will they seek? I don’t think the voters know that,” said Prof Theseira.

Adding to the renewal woes for smaller opposition parties is the increased difficulty of attracting strong candidates, given competition from the WP.

In addition, the robust performance of independent candidates this election might inspire more to strike out on their own in single-member constituencies.

“There would certainly be little point to them joining a marginal party instead of going it alone, if their desire is more to have a platform and give voters a choice, rather than actually get elected,” said Prof Theseira.

He added: “Personally, I don’t see any realistic hope for smaller parties to attract high-quality candidates unless they have a particular distinct policy differentiation.”

Some key policy proposals put forth by opposition parties this election include reversing the goods and services tax hike, implementing a universal minimum wage and making housing more affordable by removing land costs.

Analysts said the election results suggest the electorate did not view such alternative policies as feasible, and that they recognise the need to be prudent, think long-term and consider trade-offs.

SMU’s Prof Tan said voters want viable alternative suggestions that are sustainable fiscally.

“Voters don’t want to be infantalised by pie in the sky policy proposals, and expect parties and candidates to show that the sums will add up,” said Prof Tan.

Given the magnitude of the task ahead, some analysts predict that some of the smallest opposition parties may fade away.

Parties like the SUP, SPP, Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and PPP would need to re-strategise and reassess the value they have to add in Singapore’s political landscape, said Dr Felix Tan.

Prof Theseira said the smallest parties have their own motivations, which are highly personal and specific to party leaders and their cadres.

“Without a radical rethinking of these motivations, I do not believe there will be any change, and there is no need to dispense any advice as their personal motivations are stronger than anything else, as shown by their persistence in the face of repeated poor showings,” he added.

Fresh reckoning, new resolve​

While it is still early days post-election, the forced reflection in some quarters suggests that the dismal results could be the jolt needed to push the opposition towards its next stage of maturity.

A detailed post-mortem is still under way for the PSP, but its leader, Mr Leong, told ST the party would take a hard look at its gaps in ground outreach, media and policy work.

“In the past days, the party leadership has humbly reflected and acknowledged many learning points from this GE,” he said.

The tweaks his party made from its first electoral outing in 2020 – such as concentrating the fights on fewer constituencies and crafting a manifesto that addresses real issues Singaporeans face – were not enough, Mr Leong added.

Parties such as the PSP, SDP, RDU, SDA and PAR are regrouping to consider their game plans for the next election.

SUP declined comment when approached, and NSP did not respond to repeated attempts to reach them.

SDA chairman Desmond Lim took his party’s near 9 percentage point improvement in Pasir Ris-Changi GRC to 32.34 per cent of the vote as an “encouraging endorsement”.

Mr Lim, who had earlier spoken of retirement, said he will stay on as party leader to lead it through the next phase, which includes a rebranding of the alliance.

He will go back to the drawing board to focus on boosting the SDA’s social media outreach to engage younger voters and recruiting candidates earlier to build stronger community ties.

His youngest candidate this round, 32-year-old Chia Yun Kai, joined the SDA just days before Nomination Day.

On the policy front, he is keen to place greater focus on the themes of transparency and accountability, he said, noting that voters respond better to “clear, relatable policies” on key issues.

Mr Lim brushed off talk of smaller parties’ growing irrelevance. Making the point that voters see “value in diversity” even if their support across opposition parties varies, he said: “Despite challenges, smaller parties remain crucial for representation.”

Still, party renewal might prove to be a challenge. Mr Chia, a restaurant owner, separately told ST that he intends to leave SDA once his party, named Most Valuable Party (MVP), is formally registered.

Over at RDU, its secretary-general Ravi Philemon plans to engage residents of the four constituencies the party contested in. He said he is working on a series of programmes to take the party forward into its third electoral run in 2030.

“The welcome we received during campaigning, our vote share, and the many heartfelt messages of condolence and support we received after results night, have renewed our commitment to stay with these constituencies,” he said.

Mr Philemon chose to see the RDU’s 23.35 per cent popular vote share in a positive light.

“Our vote share indicates that RDU remains recognised as a small but formidable force that punches above its weight,” he said.

PAR secretary-general Lim Tean said the party, which contested 13 seats this round, will take the next five years to build up its numbers and “come back stronger” as it is confident that its core principles and policies are sound.

“We will work the ground relentlessly. We will not abandon any of the constituencies we contested in, and we intend to move into new areas,” he added.

SDP believes its “northern strategy” – where it contested Sembawang GRC and Sembawang West SMC while giving up Holland-Bukit Timah GRC – averted bigger losses, despite the party incurring a dent to its popular vote share, which fell from 37.04 per cent in 2020 to 30.89 per cent.

While it has not reviewed its campaign in full, SDP said it will not stop touching base with residents through ground engagements and initiatives.

But while it could paint only a vague outline of its future strategy – that this will “take shape in line with developments” – SDP said Singapore needs electoral reform.

Its suggestions include the convening of an independent electoral commission that would do the work of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee.

Some parties struck a more pessimistic tone about their future.

SPP’s Mr Chia said: “I really don’t know the answers. Singaporeans complain and say they want opposition but when it comes time to cast their ballot paper, they choose familiarity over uncertainty.”

He also said the results showed that voters with moderate views here are “very, very conservative”, and that the hard-core opposition voters probably constitute only about 18 per cent.

He would not comment on SPP’s next steps, saying no such discussion had happened yet.

Asked if SPP had tried ways to target new voters and candidates this time round, he noted that the party had done it all.

“It is not easy to get candidates,” he said. “Nobody qualified is queueing up to join or sign up to contest under SPP’s banner. I have advertised heavily, and reached out on social media too. But basically there is no traction.”

Asked what the future holds for PPP and the opposition in Singapore, Mr Goh said: “I will let the youngsters and new members and next generation of candidates decide.”

“The politics of fear by the PAP has been very successfully applied, and Singaporeans will go for only big brand-name parties without actually looking closely at the policies they are proposing,” he added.

“The electorate is more emotional than rational, and we will respect how people feel,” Mr Goh said.

PAR’s Mr Lim said it is silly to suggest that smaller parties dissolve. “The PSP and SDP showed they were able to contest only two GRCs each at most. The WP, five GRCs,” he noted.

If it were left only to these three parties, “at least eight GRCs would go uncontested”, he said. “That is not what Singaporeans want. Singaporeans want to have the chance to vote.”

Mr Lim also argued that PAR is already a product of opposition consolidation.

PAR’s main weakness, as he sees it, is that it is a new entity with barely two years behind it.

“Our constituent parties such as (Peoples Voice) and (Reform Party), which were far better known, gave up their separate identities to fight under a single banner. The electorate did not have time to know PAR well enough,” he said.

By the time the next election rolls along, PAR “will be a well known entity in Singapore”, he believes.

Prof Theseira posits that the future of Singapore’s opposition landscape is increasingly defined by a “new normal” where WP emerges as the primary opposition force, while other parties have to strive to gain mindshare by representing views not put forth by the WP.

This reflects a political environment where PAP retains government control but accommodates more diverse voices in Parliament.

The central issue is no longer whether opposition voices should exist, but how influential they can be, how they gain legitimacy, and how they are represented, he said.

While the PAP favours institutionalised plurality through the Nominated MP and NCMP schemes, the opposition would argue that only elected MPs offer genuine democratic legitimacy.

“The path forward depends on which view resonates more with voters,” said Prof Theseira.

​

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Commentary​

WP’s strategy clicks into place, even without new wins at GE2025​

Wong Pei Ting

WP candidates taking the stage before the announcement of the election results on May 4.ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
UPDATED May 10, 2025, 05:00 AM


SINGAPORE — For a hot minute on Nomination Day, WP chief Pritam Singh hopped on a bus bound for Yusof Ishak Secondary School – the nomination centre for East Coast and Punggol GRCs – teasing what looked like a bold departure from the party’s Aljunied stronghold to conquer new ground.

But the Leader of the Opposition would then alight, and subsequently board another bus bound for Poi Ching School, the nomination centre for Aljunied GRC, where he would eventually contest.

If he had left with the first bus, things might have panned out differently at the polls on May 3, with the WP potentially winning more seats instead of retaining its existing 10.

“In hindsight, everybody is a master,” Mr Singh himself said on May 4 when asked how he would have conducted things differently.

Political observers said the way the WP played its cards this general election was ambitious and conservative in equal parts – a paradoxical mix of bold manoeuvres and calculated restraint that ultimately delivered mixed results, offering both reason to celebrate and cause for regret.

Conservative, because the party’s top brass – Mr Singh and chairwoman Sylvia Lim – stayed put in their Aljunied “home base” along with head of policy research Gerald Giam, choosing only to swing vice-chair Faisal Manap out to Tampines GRC.

Ambitious, as the WP appeared to have deployed its candidates in a way that gave it the best possible chance to win big – all 26 of the 97 seats it was contesting, which would have been a leap towards its medium-term goal of securing a third of Parliament from the 10 seats it held.

Several aspects of its campaign hinted at this game plan to chip away at the PAP’s vote share uniformly across all eight battlegrounds where the 26 were fielded.

One, the WP spread the deployment of its higher-profile first-time candidates – such as Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh, former Institute of Mental Health director Ong Lue Ping, and start-up co-founder Michael Thng – across Tampines and Punggol GRCs, not prioritising either one.

NTU political scientist Walid Jumblatt Abdullah opined that had the WP fielded Mr Harpreet Singh in Tampines alongside Mr Faisal, it “would have been a done deal”. But Mr Harpreet Singh was fielded in Punggol, while Dr Ong and Mr Thng were fielded in Tampines alongside Mr Faisal.

The allocation of its most appealing candidates to the two GRCs – both areas where the WP had never ventured in past elections – led to the perception that the party had deprioritised East Coast GRC, where it had come close to winning after two decades of it chipping away at the PAP’s majority.

The likely reality is that WP’s strategy to win all 26 seats had necessitated the allocation of its chips in areas where fresh party buy-in was needed the most.

Instead of fielding a line-up of higher-profile candidates to move East Coast voters, the party likely thought that its two decades of groundwork and brand premium would come through and flip the group representation constituency blue in this election, with former Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong as the “party heavyweight” at the helm.

WP’s move to cede Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC – where its members and volunteers had poured hundreds of hours over the past five years sustaining a ground presence after its 2015 and 2020 electoral bids, only for it to end in a walkover – made greater sense if the plan was to win 26 seats.

Past electoral results have shown that the former Marine Parade GRC was a tough ground to crack. The absorption of MacPherson SMC further altered the battleground this time, and the WP likely assessed that its chances of winning had diminished.

Instead of fielding its reserve pool of candidates there, concentrating its firepower elsewhere allowed the WP to put forward the message that its slate of 26 was the best the party has ever convened, and Singaporeans should seize the opportunity to shore up the opposition bench in Parliament.

As the days bore out, the WP leaders repeated this message in more than a few ways: The 26 present a “serious choice” against PAP backbenchers, Mr Pritam Singh said. Even if Singaporeans vote in all 26, the ratio of WP MPs to PAP MPs will be only about two or three to nine, he said in another setting.

At the final rally before Polling Day, Ms Lim said: “If these candidates do not get elected this time, there may be no next time.”

WP also made a strong push for the single seats of Jalan Kayu and Tampines Changkat, with Mr Pritam Singh taking aim at the NTUC’s close relationship with the PAP. Labour chief Ng Chee Meng and NTUC assistant secretary-general Desmond Choo were PAP contenders in the two SMCs.

At one rally, the WP chief called the labour movement a “guaranteed trampoline” for losing PAP candidates, saying Mr Ng and Mr Choo would continue helping workers even if they were not elected.

The thinking behind WP spreading its 14 new faces so evenly across its eight battlegrounds – Aljunied, Sengkang, Tampines, Punggol, East Coast, Hougang, Jalan Kayu and Tampines Changkat – was likely not to just win one or two more constituencies, but to take them all.

Pulling away from the rest​

In the end, the WP’s cautious yet ambitious campaign led to the opposition party solidifying its grip on its existing seats, while gaining a foothold in adjacent constituencies.

By keeping its leaders in the Aljunied safe harbour, the WP consolidated its base. The party fared better in two of the three constituencies it held and maintained status quo in the third.

It polled 56.31 per cent in Sengkang GRC, improving on the 2020 result by 4.2 percentage points, while its Hougang score inched up almost one percentage point to hit 62.17 per cent.

The WP also garnered 59.68 per cent of the vote in Aljunied, largely unchanged from its 59.95 per cent result in 2020 – allaying fears that Mr Pritam Singh’s court trial over two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee could factor at the polls.

These results suggest that once constituencies turn blue, the ground is likely to stay blue.

The WP’s ambitious streak saw it gain a foothold in several new territories contiguous to the three it holds, though the party ultimately walked away empty-handed from its drive to capture multiple new constituencies.

Zooming out, WP ran a considerably larger campaign in 2025 than it did in 2020, covering 32.8 per cent more voters. Yet, the expansion came without making a dent to its vote share, which dipped slightly from 50.49 per cent in 2020 to the current 50.04 per cent.

Safe to say, today’s WP is no longer the party it was a decade ago, when it was still finding its footing.

Before the 2020 election, the WP’s popular vote share had fluctuated more widely between 38.4 per cent and 46.6 per cent. It is now clearly a head above the rest of the opposition parties.

NUS economist and former Nominated MP Ivan Png’s statistical analysis further confirms this.

In his bid to figure out how far ahead the support for the three top opposition parties of 2020 are from that of the other opposition parties, he found that the average WP candidate polled 25.9 percentage points higher in 2025, compared with 2006 when its lead was much smaller, at 3.4 percentage points.


This shows that the WP premium has grown, and the party has pulled away from the rest of the opposition pack.

It also reflects that even as more voters threw their support behind the ruling party at the election, they also wanted a continued and stable opposition presence in Parliament, with the WP securing a firm place in Singapore’s evolving political landscape.

Said Singapore Management University’s Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan: “Voters signalled that a firm mandate for the PAP was not at all at odds with a more vibrant political system characterised by a credible and responsible opposition.”

“That the WP maintained its ground despite its controversies in the past five years is a reflection of the niche it now occupies in Singapore’s political firmament,” he added.

Playing the long game​

All these provide the context to former Hougang MP Png Eng Huat’s sanguine message to the WP on May 4.

He wrote in a Facebook post: “The WP has planted the seeds in this GE. I look forward to a well-earned harvest for the new generation in the coming years. This is a fitting time to close an old book and start a new one. Congratulations to the Workers’ Party and godspeed.”

Asked about it, he told The Straits Times the “old book” refers to an old order where the party leaned towards making politically expedient moves that relied too much on party figureheads at the expense of greener hands. This meant it ended up poorer in terms of experience and exposure.

“Party figureheads are important but it can’t be more important than party renewal,” he told ST.

If Mr Png’s words are anything to go by, the book that the WP is writing next is about giving its next generation of leaders enough room to come into their own, instead of just focusing on securing wins.

Lending weight to this theory was the decision to field 33-year-old former disputes lawyer and newcomer Andre Low in Jalan Kayu SMC, where he was given the chance to hold his own against Mr Ng, a 56-year-old former minister, and earn his political chops in the process.

Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh picked this up as well, giving her take that the way its chips were played showed that the WP was “comfortable with playing the long game”.

They are good choices that set the stage for “more organic growth” and “more robust connection” between the newbies and the areas they are entrusted with, she said.


In an interview with ST on April 18, Mr Low said the party has started working at trimming its “key man risk” – having all expertise and knowledge centred around key individuals – and establishing a stronger party machinery.

“I do think that, in a good way, we have gotten to a place as a party where it’s not down to the individual anymore. Some of us can step away, if life comes into the picture, but we are mature enough now that the cause will keep going, and people will come in,” he said.

Prof Tan said the buzz and excitement generated by the 14 WP new faces this time round stand them in good stead in the next general election, where the stakes, given 2025’s fruitless run, would be higher.

For its goal of one-third of Parliament seats to “still be within the ballpark of realism for its current leaders”, the party should double its seat count by the end of the decade, he noted.

Dr Koh said the WP’s moderate tactics, grounded policy proposals, and fresh-faced candidates are likely to attract more voters to its brand in the years ahead.

Singapore is on its way to a “1½-party system”, where the opposition does not yet present itself to be a shadow government but is a steady presence to hold the dominant party to account, she added.

“I think (the WP leaders) read the room correctly,” she said, pointing to how voters want credible opposition candidates on the ballot. WP has worked towards “high averages with three or four new stars” fielded in teams, she added.

But whether the party can field good candidates in the same constituencies at the next election, and also introduce a fresh batch of credible newcomers, remains to be seen, Dr Koh said.

Another question mark is whether it will have sufficient resources to scale up and contest in more than a third of the seats, she added.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Why multi-cornered fights didn’t matter in GE2025​

There were five multi-cornered contests in this election, the highest number in decades.ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

UPDATED May 10, 2025, 05:00 AM


SINGAPORE - The results of the 2025 General Election have shown clearly that multi-cornered fights are inconsequential in Singapore, said political analysts.

Voters in this election preferred the familiar and the status quo, which meant giving their support to both the PAP and the WP, noted Associate Professor Chong Ja Ian from the National University of Singapore’s department of political science.

“Parties that seemed less familiar saw a sharp drop in support, making multi-cornered fights less important,” he added.

There were five such contests in this election, the highest number in decades. There were just two in the 2020 election and three in 2015.

Multi-cornered fights were “absolutely inconsequential” in this election, said political analyst Tan Ern Ser, adjunct principal research fellow and academic adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Social Lab.

“The fact that the teams sent by the smaller parties paled in comparison to the more established party, like WP, was good enough reason for voters to choose the more viable, credible party,” he added.

In the weeks leading up to the election, several opposition politicians said they wished to avoid multi-cornered fights which would split the opposition vote.

Two new alliances emerged, agreeing to avoid multi-cornered fights among their own members. The People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR) brought the Democratic Progressive Party, the People’s Power Party (PPP), Peoples Voice and the Reform Party under one banner, and an informal “coalition” was formed between the National Solidarity Party (NSP), Red Dot United (RDU), the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) and the Singapore United Party (SUP).

However, the alliances did not preclude multi-cornered fights with other non-member parties, and both also shed members ahead of Nomination Day, with the PPP withdrawing from PAR and RDU withdrawing from the coalition.

At the same time, some opposition party leaders publicly stated they would not move aside for other parties, citing their need to grow and their previous groundwork in certain constituencies.

Previous elections saw various opposition parties coming together for “horse-trading” talks to discuss who would contest where, but such talks fell through this time, with most negotiations taking place bilaterally between the parties.

Just days before Nomination Day, WP secretary-general Pritam Singh told the media that multi-cornered fights were to be expected, as the party did not attend talks with other parties and had no interest in making way for them.

In electoral politics, the phenomenon of a losing candidate who affects the outcome of a multi-cornered electoral contest by splitting the vote is sometimes referred to as a “spoiler effect”.

A third party would be a spoiler in a three-cornered fight if its supporters would have voted for one of the other parties in a straight fight, and the additional votes would have been enough for that party to win.

No spoilers have been observed in a parliamentary election since independence. Historically, the vast majority of such fights resulted in at least one party failing to garner at least 12.5 per cent of the vote and losing their deposits.

These trends continued to hold true in the 2025 election. There were no spoilers across the five constituencies contested by three or more parties, where the PAP won decisively with more than 50 per cent of the vote.

In total, 27 candidates from the NSP, PAR, PPP and SUP collectively forfeited $364,500 in election deposits, all of whom took part in multi-cornered fights.


In Tampines GRC, where the PAP faced the WP as well as teams from the PPP and the NSP, voters seemed to have “abandoned” the latter two parties, leaving them with a negligible level of support, noted Prof Chong.

The five-member group representation constituency ended up being the second-closest fight for the WP, while both the PPP and the NSP garnered below 1 per cent of the vote.

In constituencies not contested by the WP, other parties received more votes but were still “far short of winning”, Prof Chong added.

In Ang Mo Kio GRC, the PPP and the SUP both lost their deposits after garnering a little more than 10 per cent of the vote each in a three-cornered fight against the PAP.

Prof Chong said the creation of the GRC system, which first came into effect in 1988, has made the idea of opposition unity less important as it means parties require both size and resources to be competitive.

“The maturation of the WP into a larger party that could perform well both legislatively and in terms of municipal management meant that it could more easily overwhelm other opposition parties in multi-cornered contests,” he added.


IPS Social Lab’s Dr Tan said the fact that there were more talks about opposition solidarity and the need to avoid multi-cornered fights in the past suggests that the concern about the opposition vote being diluted was more predominant in theory and practice then.

“But the political landscape has changed over the last decade,” he said.

Dr Tan added that Singapore may be gradually shaping up to be, potentially, a two-party system, while Prof Chong said it may evolve into a “1½- or two-party system”.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Commentary​

When it comes to voting for the opposition, Singaporeans want it slow and steady, and not suddenly​

Tham Yuen-C

A total of 27 candidates from (clockwise, top left) the National Solidarity Party, People’s Alliance for Reform, Singapore People’s Party, Singapore United Party and People’s Power Party polled below 12.5 per cent and lost $364,500 collectively in election deposits.ST PHOTOS: TAY HONG YI, TARYN NG, KUA CHEE SIONG, GAVIN FOO, AZMI ATHNI
UPDATED May 10, 2025, 05:00 AM

SINGAPORE - There was surprise, anger and a lot of disappointment.

Such was the despondent mood in the opposition camp on May 3 when the results of the 2025 General Election were released and the PAP romped home with a victory of 65.57 per cent of votes.

That the smaller opposition players did not gain any ground is as much a given as the PAP forming the Government.

But this time, the defeat was more abject, with a total of 27 candidates from the National Solidarity Party (NSP), People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR), People’s Power Party (PPP) and Singapore United Party polling below 12.5 per cent and losing $364,500 collectively in election deposits.

Never has so much in deposits been forfeited in an election.

Some like the PPP and NSP even managed to poll below 1 per cent of votes, granted it was from a four-cornered fight in Tampines GRC.

Parties, people or pace?​

Interpreting the results, analysts have been almost unanimous in their assessment that the vote was a repudiation of the smaller “mosquito parties”, with their haphazardly put together motley crew of candidates, lack of groundwork, and unclear positions.

To say that this has led to soul-searching, though, would be overstating it.

Perhaps emotions are still too raw.

A disgruntled opposition politician from one of the smaller, but older, parties told a colleague of mine that if it were up to him, he would change his party’s logo to a black heart, reflecting how Singaporeans have been hard-hearted despite the sacrifices of him and his ilk.

Another from a newer party ranted that his leaders’ strong faith in the electorate had been misplaced, since voters care more about brand than beliefs.

To them, the people are to blame.

A look back at past election results will show that this has happened before.

Perhaps not the losing of deposits – the last time the opposition camp polled so badly was in 1972 when 22 candidates got below 12.5 per cent of votes – but the swing away from the opposition.

In 2015, opposition parties tried to build on the momentum of the 2011 election, where the WP took Aljunied GRC, the first group representation constituency won by any opposition party.

When the results were released, the PAP had won with 69.86 per cent of votes, a 9 percentage point swing from the previous election.

After that, the 2020 election saw the WP adding to its turf with a win in Sengkang GRC.

Then, of course, we have this just concluded 2025 election.

While each swing may seem like a big win or a big loss, and seen discretely it is, over a longer term it is perhaps more indicative of the pace of change Singaporeans are comfortable with, than their preference for particular parties or policies.

Surveys, like those done by the Institute of Policy Studies after each election since 2006, have consistently shown the desire among voters for greater political diversity.

What the election results show, in concert with this, is the desire to get there slowly, steadily, and not suddenly.

A vote for progress​

For the longest time, the umbrella term of “opposition” has been used to refer to the many different opposition parties and politicians collectively.

But this has changed in recent times, with the standout performance of the WP since 2011.

While in the past, votes for opposition parties were often regarded as a vote for the opposition cause, or protest votes against the PAP, increasingly, votes for opposition parties will become more intentional.

This means opposition parties can no longer rely on the old formula of banking on antipathy towards the PAP.

At best, as this election shows, the die-hard anti-PAP vote bank is shrinking from the estimated 20 per cent to 30 per cent of voters, to below 20 per cent.

In constituencies like Tanjong Pagar GRC and Queenstown SMC, the PAR got 18.97 per cent and 18.88 per cent of votes, respectively.

With a plethora of parties to choose from, voters are thinking harder about what ideology each party subscribes to, looking at their policy suggestions and sizing up their candidates.

As seen in the WP’s showing, which was markedly better than even its closest competitors the PSP and Singapore Democratic Party, voters clearly expect certain standards of opposition candidates and parties, even if they are prepared to lower these standards in comparison to the PAP.

The WP’s parliamentary profile aside, it has been consistently recruiting higher-calibre candidates each election and putting out well-researched election manifestos.

In addition, it has continued to cultivate the ground, with party chief Pritam Singh saying a day after the election that work goes on.

This makes some of the other opposition parties look opportunistic, when they appear with a haphazardly assembled motley crew right before hustings begin, rustle up last-minute manifestos and also skip on the groundwork in between elections.


While voting is a private decision, withholding support to such parties can only be good for Singapore, and in the long run will help to develop more credible opposition parties that will not just bumble through election cycle to election cycle.

The vote this time around, then, was also a vote for the kind of opposition politics Singaporeans want to perpetuate, and also the kind they want to do without, a necessary step on the road towards a two-party or multi-party democracy.

As Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam famously said after the 2015 election, Singaporeans get the government they deserve.

If I may add, also the opposition they deserve.

​

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Sexism and politics: General elections should not be beauty pageants​

Whether it is their looks, their age or their race, women in politics are judged unfairly, and it is Singapore that suffers.​

Stefanie Yuen Thio

Once a woman enters the political spotlight, her appearance becomes public property.ST PHOTO: GIN TAY
PUBLISHED May 10, 2025, 05:00 AM

Don’t be too young. Don’t be too old. Don’t be unattractive – but don’t be too attractive either.

This is the impossible balancing act women in politics are expected to perform: While their male counterparts are assessed largely on policy and performance, female candidates have to fight a parallel campaign involving their age, looks, marital status and wardrobe, often eclipsing their political positions.

Just look at this cursory snapshot of social media comments on women candidates during GE2025 that we at SHE (SG Her Empowerment) compiled:

The snapshot clearly shows that, across platforms and parties, women candidates are subject to toxic comments pertaining to their gender.

Judged before they’re heard​

Once a woman enters the political spotlight, her appearance becomes public property.

From Reddit threads to Facebook groups, her weight, facial features and clothing are dissected. Political forums become beauty contests, and policy discussions are sidelined.

Those who don’t conform to conventional beauty ideals are mocked. Those who do are sexualised. A female candidate’s misstep becomes ammunition not for fair critique, but for insults grounded in gender and appearance.

PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM REDDIT
Even compliments carry baggage. Online “fan clubs” spring up around women candidates, but their admiration often focuses primarily on looks – with overtly sexual undertones.

When political competence is acknowledged, it’s often paired with remarks about attractiveness, suggesting substance is palatable only if it’s photogenic.

This culture of objectification isn’t new. Back in GE2011, Ms Nicole Seah and Ms Tin Pei Ling – both first-time candidates then – were pitted against each other in the media in a manner more akin to reality TV rivals than political peers. A similar dynamic persists today, amplified by the speed and reach of social media.

In a Reddit post, a netizen claimed that Progress Singapore Party’s Ms Stephanie Tan had “more substance than any of (other parties’) flowerpots”.

While meant as praise, it reduced other women to decoration – highlighting how even positive comparisons can reinforce gendered tropes.

PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM REDDIT
As Workers’ Party candidate Alexis Dang aptly put it, “all of us here are multifaceted individuals, so I don’t think one image can define us”.

Ageism and marital status​

Women in politics face a no-win scenario when it comes to age. Older candidates are mocked as “aunties”. Younger ones are either dismissed as inexperienced or subject to cynical speculation about scandal – based on nothing more than how they look.

Marital status also becomes fair game. Single women are scrutinised for not being married; married or attached women are subject to discussions on their personal life and how it affects their performance in the political field. These lines of questioning have little to do with a candidate’s actual capability.

Are male candidates subject to similar interrogation?

When sexism meets race​

Sexism in politics often intersects with other forms of discrimination – particularly race and religion.

Red Dot United’s Ms Liyana Dhamirah was subjected to such vicious racialised and misogynistic online abuse that she filed a police report.

Her party rightly condemned the remarks as “blatant, offensive attacks on her identity as a Malay-Muslim woman”.


Such hostility doesn’t just shape public perception, it determines who feels safe to step forward.

When women – especially minority women – are forced to weigh their desire to serve against the personal cost of relentless abuse, many simply choose not to run.

That is a loss for Singapore – for both women and men.

What’s at stake​

When women are pushed out of the public sphere, we lose perspectives that are essential to good governance.

A truly representative democracy cannot be built on conditions that devalue half the population before they’ve even had a chance to speak.

Singapore prides itself on being a meritocracy. But merit means more than just talent. Meritocracy also requires fairness – an environment where everyone has a shot, regardless of gender.

At SHE, we are committed to building that environment.

A call to action​

Outrage alone isn’t enough. If we’re serious about making politics more representative, we must move beyond slogans and into structural change. That means:

• Media outlets must audit how they’ve covered women in past elections – and stop entertaining appearance-based narratives.
• Political parties should have:
• 
  
• Voters should not just call out misogyny or report toxic content, but also examine why we so often associate leadership with a particular look, tone or gender. Are we commenting on the candidate’s political ability or importing irrelevant gender considerations?

Let’s stand with the women who run. Let’s demand a political culture that sees them as politicians, full-stop – not lightning rods for commentary on their bodies, ages or marital status. Representation isn’t just about who runs. It’s about whether they’re given a fair fight.

Only then can Singapore tap the full range of talent our society has to offer.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Staying on message and away from ‘knuckleduster politics’ pays off at polls for the PAP​

Ng Wei Kai and Goh Yan Han

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong speaking at the Fullerton rally held at the promenade area beside UOB Plaza on April 28.ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG
UPDATED May 10, 2025, 05:00 AM


SINGAPORE – A disciplined campaign focused on the core issues and the absence of hardline tactics were key reasons behind the resounding mandate that the PAP received on May 3.

The ruling party also harvested the fruits of groundwork over the past five years and efforts to assuage voters’ concerns on matters such as the cost of living, while tailoring its campaign with constituency-specific plans for different towns.

These decisions helped deliver 65.57 per cent of the vote to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in his first election as head of government and secretary-general of the PAP, and cemented his leadership of party and country.

The ruling party won 87 out of 97 seats in the next term of Parliament, and improved on 61.24 per cent of the popular vote at the 2020 General Election.

Drumming home the fundamentals​

Fronted by PM Wong, the PAP’s campaign had a consistent message that was reiterated every day at rallies across the island – from Choa Chu Kang and Sembawang to Punggol and Sengkang – as well as at the lunchtime Fullerton rally and May Day Rally.

This was: that a strong government led by the PAP is necessary to meet the challenges of a changed world, and that going with the team with a proven track record would give the Republic the best chance of continuing to succeed.

PM Wong was reinforced on the key themes by Senior Ministers Lee Hsien Loong and Teo Chee Hean, noted Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh.

This included articulating the PAP’s thinking on key issues like multiracialism and job creation, as well as tackling the Income-Allianz deal when it was brought up during the hustings, and whether raising the goods and services tax was necessary in an inflationary environment, said Dr Koh.

Left largely unsaid in the Prime Minister’s call for Singaporeans to send all of the PAP’s ministers – as well as its cohort of 32 newcomers – to Parliament was that the election was about his leadership, and whether Singaporeans approved of the fourth-generation (4G) team’s succession.

On this, he capitalised on the goodwill he had generated as the face of the government task force that tackled the Covid-19 pandemic.

That was when PM Wong rose to national prominence, and Singaporeans came to be familiar with his style of communication and leadership – though he was not anointed leader of the 4G until 2022.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said: “The PAP kept to a disciplined campaign. They were not unduly defensive and also kept their focus on their key campaign messages.”

No knuckledusters​

This election was also notable for how “gentlemanly” the PAP was in its campaign, noted Associate Professor Tan.

In the pre-2000s, the party at times used hardline tactics against opposition figures, including WP politicians Tang Liang Hong, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Francis Seow, said former PAP MP Inderjit Singh, who retired from politics in 2015.

These included public accusations about their character and beliefs, defamation suits, as well as legislative changes that appeared to target them.

During the 2025 hustings, the PAP did not bring up leaked text messages containing expletives that Mr Andre Low – the WP’s candidate in Jalan Kayu SMC – had sent to a group of friends.

There was also no direct mention by the ruling party about the saga surrounding former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s lying in Parliament, nor of WP chief Pritam Singh’s subsequent conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee in this matter.

It was different during the 2020 election campaign, after some of Ms Khan’s old social media posts surfaced and became the subject of police reports.

Even after a public apology by Ms Khan, the PAP had asked the WP to state its stand on her posts and questioned its choice to field her for election.

By keeping to a “clean” campaign and not reacting defensively to the opposition’s volleys, the ruling party came out ahead, said Prof Tan.

“It contested like a ruling party, with an overwhelming majority, rather than as a party under siege,” he said.

In doing so, it exuded “quiet confidence”, helped by the WP’s strategy against Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, he added.

DPM Gan was the subject of WP’s criticism across its rallies – including over his move from Chua Chu Kang GRC to Punggol GRC on Nomination Day.

PM Wong responded by expressing disappointment at the WP’s attacks, and later said it had been “cavalier and irresponsible” to Singaporeans to downplay the potential loss of an experienced minister.

Mr Inderjit Singh said hardline tactics attacking one’s opponents are not workable in this new era, and that political parties here have to win the hearts and minds of voters to be victorious.

Dr Koh added: “In GE2025, it was a great relief that we did not see a return to the knuckleduster politics of the early decades of political history.”

Walking into prepared ground​

The PAP’s success this round rested not just on its campaign strategy, but also on its decision to strengthen its groundwork following GE2020.

At the biennial PAP conferences in 2022 and 2024, both SM Lee and PM Wong drove home to the party faithful the need to look after residents and their communities, and to be attuned to their problems and how to improve their lives.

Before the first rally speech was uttered, the PAP had ensured it was going into battle well-prepared, where all policy and groundwork levers had been pulled for this objective.

In Budget 2025, for instance, PM Wong made sure to address the cost of living – one of the central policy issues of the election – while also announcing moves for large families and workers facing job insecurity.

Dr Koh said that by doing so, the PAP had set itself on “the best footing possible”, knowing that “this would be Mr Lawrence Wong’s first campaign and that such maiden elections are always risky”.

She highlighted data from market research company Blackbox that showed growing positive sentiment on core economic, social and political issues ahead of the election.

While concerns about these issues were not perfectly assuaged, the PAP could remind voters of its plans and policy track record, she added.

The PAP did this by stepping up its “ground game”, campaigning on a local level.

Mr Inderjit Singh said: “I think one of the most significant improvements by the PAP was the ground game not just during the nine days, but the last five years.

“Many incumbents developed goodwill, and this helped win voters.”

He said: “In places where incumbents had stepped down, they turned up to help new candidates campaign, and their goodwill definitely helped to woo voters.”

As the incumbent in most constituencies, PAP ministers also announced local town plans for better infrastructure and services.

This included, notably, Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat’s promise to fight for a hawker centre for his residents in Bishan.

The PAP’s presence and attention to the ground – its strength both as the incumbent as well as the dominant ruling party – came amid a return to physical campaigning, after a pause in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

After that election, PM Wong – then a minister and member of the party’s central executive committee – had told activists that the party had not done so well in the digital arena, and not all of its content connected with netizens.

Prof Tan said that, this round, the party struck the right balance in working the online and physical ground.

“So it did matter that GE2025 was not primarily digital.”


In all, the PAP’s vote share shows it managed to win over many middle-ground voters.

Besides maintaining the support of its base – approximately 40 per cent of the electorate – it had to win over at least half of voters not tied to any party, or about 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the electorate, said Prof Tan.

That it managed to do so at this election reflects both the PAP’s performance legitimacy, and that it had campaigned fairly and in a gentlemanly manner, he added.

This electoral performance will give PM Wong confidence and a “free hand” in forming his Cabinet, said Mr Inderjit Singh.

He said: “It now remains for the PM and the 4G team to consolidate the confidence and trust of Singaporeans and work on improving the lives of Singaporeans in the next five years.”