GE2025 results: A closer look at the strong PAP mandate and the opposition strategy
23:22 Share

You're listening to a CNA podcast. So hey everyone, welcome back to Deep Dive. It's our final wrap of the Singapore general elections. Otelli, it was a long night. It was, yeah. From day to night. Still in recovery mode. Are you? I know.

It's that one show that comes around every five years is our most watched and our longest, averaging about eight hours. Kind of look at it as a national service as well. I know. But yeah, if you think about what happened, because behind the scenes, some people don't know, but it's really a huge team supporting this entire production. More than 800 people actually, working just on the show alone and obviously the lead up to it. So it was a massive production.

So all of you know the results. People's Action Party received this resounding victory. Not only has their vote share increased from 61.24% in GE 2020, it's gone up to 65.57%. Some teams scored extra big. Talking about Tanjung Pagar PAP team led by Education Minister Chan Chun Sing.

hitting 81%. That's quite amazing. I know, to hit the 80s was pretty crazy. So it was a big night for the PAP. And for opposition supporters, it was a bit of a disappointing night. I think a few surprises there. Dr Paul Tambaya from the Singapore Democratic Party and the Progress Singapore Party, well, they scored lower than their last run. Workers' Party also pretty much just maintained status quo, did not gain any new ground. So here to chat with us a little bit more about what

All the results mean we've called back two of our analysts from our nomination special, Associate Professor Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University. Always a pleasure. And we have Dr. Ruben Ng as well from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Thank you. Great to be here.

Let's start off with the PAP and of course the Prime Minister, Lauren Tuong there would have been very pleased with the results. The PAP improved their score overall. Marceling Yuti, which is his ward, also did well. No new seats ceded to the opposition overall. So what would you say, maybe Ruben you can start first, are the factors that led to such a strong mandate? The incumbent parties have a lot of tailwind this time from the Trump turmoil, Trump tariffs.

So obviously that played a factor. But I'm thinking also in the last elections in G2020, we were undergoing a health crisis as well, the pandemic. So what changed, right? So two crises, what changed? I think because the last general elections was pretty much a digital election. This time there was both a fiscal component and digital component.

So I think the ground operations, knocking on doors, getting people to go out and vote for me, that really made a difference. That face-to-face encounter. So that's what you think gave PAP that strong mandate. That was the difference, the main difference. That could be one. I don't think it's everything. Of course, they have been working hard in the last few years to sort of blunt a lot of criticisms from the opposition with regard to cost of living and things like that. It's quite critical to understand that PAP has 60 years of experience in terms of ground operations.

all the volunteers that they have. And they've got big machinery behind them as well. And that made a difference. And we can see that for Workers' Party as well because they retain the seats that they gained in 2020. Eugene, your thoughts? One is certainly how the PAP ran their campaign.

I thought it was a very disciplined campaign. They kept to their core messages. For example, for PM Wong to have the full suite of men and women to take Singapore forward. It was a disciplined campaign also because the party kept to its script. If we look at previous elections, my sense was that they were always unduly defensive, particularly when the opposition mounted a collective attack. So you could see that even in the face of much criticisms about the GST hikes,

about cost of living and all, they were very focused on their messages. And I think a related point is, of course, you know, they kept to a very fair, clean and gentlemanly campaign, right? So no mention, for example, about P. Chiam Singh's conviction about the troubles that the Workers' Party faced. So that, to me, I think, made them appealing. Right.

I certainly agree with Ruben. There was the tailwind of the terrorist war, but I think it was also the PAP, the new faces. This was really PM Wong's attempt to reach out to younger voters, right? Millennials and the Gen Zs. So he brought a different feel to it, I mean. He brought a different feel, right? Usually when you have a transition general election, right, from one leadership to another...

usually you want to keep as many of the old team as possible. And in a way, PM Wong took a counter-intuitive approach. In a way, the PAP had thought about this whole big picture, the world is changing, we need more stable government versus the opposition who are saying it's about day-to-day issues. They didn't overplay that card as well, right? Because I think they were mindful about not being seen to be fear-mongering.

But I think it was really the work, as Ruben pointed out, done over the last five years. So even the GST, which was really the focus of the opposition, I think in the end, Singaporeans will grudgingly accept the GST hikes. But I think more importantly, they perhaps understood the rationale for the hikes. They welcomed the vouchers, credits and rebates that went along with the GST hikes.

And so I think this attempt to mitigate some of the harshness of unpopular policies, I think also did help the PAP to show that unpopular measures were needed and

But the concerns of the people were not forgotten. I mean, I agree with Eugene that it's really also the strength of the candidates, right? It's not just the party brand, it's also the candidates. If you look at most of the candidates that were first time elected in 2020, now their vote share, most of them have gone up. It means that they have worked hard in the last five years and that matters to people.

In terms of DPM Gan being moved to Punggol GRC, now DPM Gan Kim Yong is a very interesting character, right? Because he... The task force man. Correct. And he owned his meme, right? He didn't reject it or move away from it, shy away from it. He owned the meme, right? Even in his acceptance speech, he said, you know, I'm the task force man and I'm no longer a stranger to Punggol, right? So he owned his meme, which endeared him to maybe people of the younger generation.

And he was sturdy enough to also appeal to people of the older generation. So he's a rare candidate, I feel, that transcended different generations. And that perhaps that anchor minister effect and the fact that he could transcend different generations really augured well for them in Punggol GRC. And the fact that PAPF was able to let go some of the previous MPs who have only done a term, does that also signal in terms of their being a lot more decisive and discerning in how they are choosing these people?

I think it's a lot more demanding. I've never seen the rate of change of first-term MPs being so high. If you're a potential recruit, you might be wondering if this is the sort of rigour that they're going to assess us. Some of them might say, well, maybe I don't really want to be in the game. It does signal the sort of increasing demands on members of parliament, regardless of whether they come from a ruling party or

or the opposition. I mean, we Singaporeans can be a very difficult lot. Hard to please. Complain about everything. Yeah, let's talk about the opposition now. And of course, we have to start with the WP. Some have this view that the WP was somewhat conservative this time around with their moves and, you know, who they were putting in the various wards.

How do you think they played their cards and what sort of lessons do you think they would have learned from this GE? Ruben? I don't really think it's a conservative sort of strategy. I think it's the right strategy for the right time. Because 2025, there are lots of headwinds against opposition parties. So when there's

turbulence, people tend to vote for continuity, people tend to vote for status quo. And by the way, that also means in Aljunied GRC, Sengkang and Hougang, right? The incumbency strength is there and they've also worked the ground. So it doesn't make sense to change a lot of stuff when there's a lot of turmoil and sort of uncertainty. So I felt that the strategy was a good one. They retained most of the heavyweights in Aljunied GRC. They took out Faisal Mana, you know, they refreshed the team. In Sengkang, it was largely an intact team. Mm-hmm.

Al-Gang, of course, is the same as well. But the interesting thing will be, what about GE 2030? What's going to happen next? By then, DPM Gan may probably not stand again. Who's going to be the anchor minister? Will that be a time where they feel that maybe Pree Tam Singh, He Ting Roo or even Jameis could go there and helm the Punggol GRC? I think it's slightly different from Ruben, right? I thought they were rather complacent.

Starting off with nomination day, abandoning Marine Parade, Bredell Heights, an area where they had quartered the ground very assiduously. And I know because I come from the GRC. For them to scatter, you know, all the people who have been working on the ground to different constituencies, right, from Tampines to East Coast and to Pongo, I thought was a tactical mistake, right? Because if you are not in Marine Parade, Bredell Heights, you will look at WP's

as perhaps a bit, I don't know, I find a bit high-handed. So do you think WP's sort of brand has taken a hit because of that move? I think so. I think they were complacent. Complacent to think that, you know, we could just give up a GRC, move the people elsewhere, and the people will take it as though nothing has happened. When you look at all the different teams where they were not the incumbents, you couldn't really tell which was their A-team.

So it wasn't like 2011 Aljunied, where you could tell that this was really the A team. So you had Harprit in Pongol, and then you had Faisal Manab in Tampines. Jen Jhun was, of course, the leader in East Coast. I don't know whether that reflects a sense of complacency, you know, that it doesn't matter the line-up.

WP branding, people will buy into us. Did they think that the brand would be strong enough to carry these people? I suspect so. I suspect that they thought that the brand was strong, so it doesn't matter what configuration you had. They were all interchangeable. Hence the complacency, right? Yes, I think they were conservative, for example, in keeping the incumbents largely to where they were. But I wondered whether they had too much

emphasis on the party branding and not recognising that sometimes the groundwork is so important. So they needed some of these stronger, if they had brought some of the stronger candidates, so to speak, together into one GRC, for instance. Make it compelling. Yeah, make it very clear that this is my A-team. But look what happened to PSP though. They brought their A-team.

And then now the question is, is PSP even going to survive this? The tier one will be the WP and then a tier two with the PSPs and the SDPs. But what we can agree on is, I think it feels like the voters have rejected the really small parties.

Because some of them, right? It was a wipeout. Nothing. It was a wipeout. Were there too many parties for one? Why these parties have chosen to take part? Will they come back again? I mean, we don't know. If they don't mind losing their deposit, I suppose. Yeah, I don't know. I think I'll tell you, you're right to say that there's a tiering to the different parties.

So just look at the election results. I think Workers' Party is strongly in tier one. I mean, they managed to breach 40% and more. There are tier two parties like SDP, PSP, who managed to breach maybe 30% or so. Not all the time, but sometimes. Then the rest are just the rest. So I think there needs to be some thinking around some consolidation. Because if you don't consolidate, the message is not clear. It's very fragmented. Yeah.

nothing really sticks. So it's better to have fewer parties banding together doing more things than more parties doing limited stuff. So common perception is that 30% of people would vote for the opposition no matter who is fielded. Do you think then this election has put that theory to the grave that the smaller parties lost their election deposits?

And we have People's Power Party, for instance, they gunned at 0.43%. Of the vote, NSP, 0.18%. So they should merge, pack up or call it a day and try again. I think we need to rethink what a protest vote is. Because a protest vote used to be a vote for the opposition. But I don't think it is because if you look at the numbers...

2020 compared to 2025, there was actually a 50% increase in voters who either did not vote or spoiled their vote. A 50% increase, right? So I'm really, really worried about that because that's very insidious. Is that the new protest vote? And the new protest vote is not voting or spoiling your vote. And that increase from 2020 to 2025 is a 50% jump. So that worries me very much, much.

On one hand, I think it is important for opposition parties maybe to focus on, you know, these potentially disillusioned or apathetic voters because it's probably easier to convert them to support opposition parties and convert existing PAP supporters. But this is something that we really need to watch because it chips away at Singapore's political exceptionalism. Right. When you look at small parties, did they really disrupt things? I mean, you know, they became the subject of memes, you know, they provided Comedy Central, you know, they were like Comedy Central. I,

I mean, it's... I think the whole air of the election would be very different without the smaller parties. That is true. It raises questions about whether in a very crowded and fragmented opposition landscape...

whether these smaller parties serve any real purpose, right? I increasingly find them to be irrelevant. Even if they were not to contest in the next general election, you wouldn't feel the loss. So back to PSP again. Dr Tan Cheng Bok, I mean, he's not even contesting anymore. Left with Hazel Pua, Leung Mai Wai, they're not going to be represented in Parliament. So what's going to happen to the party? It's tough to say. As much as Eugene mentioned, there are A-teams and there are A-teams. That was really their A-team, right? That was PSP's A-team.

So I think they were pretty hopeful about it. There was Tan Jing Bok saying, hopefully this is my last election, so give my team a chance. Hazel Pua and Leong Man Wai, their national prominence when they serve as NCMPs. But even then, it couldn't get them to breach even 40%. Elections, there are always two sides, right? There's always the opposition party, but there's also the incumbent party.

So where they were standing, maybe the PAP team did really well. It was helmed by Minister Desmond Lee, who has been working hard on HDB policies, giving different BTO options and things like that, increasing the stock. You have people who work the ground. So I think on one hand, it may be the weakness of the opposition, but it could also be the strength of the PAP party that carried them through. And it also seems like PAP, compared to the last election, they have also really improved in their social media game, right? I mean, they're coming on a lot of podcasts,

They're just being a lot more open and personalising themselves. I mean, they're realising that they need to relate to also a younger generation who are seeing a lot of this online, you know, not through traditional media. So that is a challenge for them. But yeah, I mean, West Coast was one of those PSP. The question is in terms of renewal, they don't seem to have had

very much in the works or at least to the rest of us. Yeah, so you see that problem across the opposition parties, right? Whether it's SDP or PSP or even new ones like Red Dot United, RDU. There are candidates who are people in their 50s, 60s. Nothing wrong with that, right? You know, because I come from the age group, right? It's a great age group. Yeah, I can relate. It is, you know. But the idea that you need a cross-section of society in your party list of candidates is...

You can't have all your candidates coming from a certain demographic. So I think that's where the appeal of the smaller opposition parties is weakening. They're not getting new recruits, good caliber ones. And when you rely too much on candidates who have contested before but have not really made any headway, I think it

It becomes even more difficult. That could become like baggage, so to speak, instead of an uplift. Yeah, right? I mean, when you look at a track record and you say, well, you know, should I really, you know... Speaking of track record and all that, I think quite a bit of a surprise was SDP's Dr Paul Tambaia. He has come out to say maybe lack of resources, he's not on TV as much because it's not COVID. But what do you think

But what do you think really happened there? Do you think Jijin Wong's gaffe could have impacted the party as a whole and the members that make up the party? It could, but I also wonder whether, because this is the first time that in 10 years they were coming back to normal campaigning, that a party with the sort of resources like the PAP would be able to engage in close-quarter campaigning. Something which I think

uh, that SDP lacks. I think during COVID, they may have benefited because everything was online. Uh,

But I think when you look to see whether the party is on the ground, right, during those crucial nine days or even before that, that's where SDP has a distinct disadvantage. But some would argue that since Paul had stood in the same area before, he had those five years to sort of walk the ground. So the question is whether he had kept up with the intensity. Or maybe Mr. Erling Wah just did more. Mr. Erling Wah just did more. I mean, he's a cancer survivor. And I don't know whether, you know, his...

to want to serve the people, you know, actually in a way benefited him. I mean, it's important to note that Mr Liang En Hua took over in 2020 from Teo Ho Pin, who served three terms, right, at Bukit Panjang SMC. And in the last five years, he probably worked really hard on the ground. He met his constituency members and did a lot of work. And I think this was evident in the increased vote share. GG Wong's gap, I don't think it's a factor because if you think about

Dr Chi Soon Juan's vote share it actually increased it was pretty decent right he was the third best loser and it's a new award for him as well exactly and he was going up against somebody who had five years of ground experience Poli San who I'm sure worked really hard as well

It's very hard to say, but I think a person to watch is Dr. Chee, right? Because in the next general election, if he were to stand, in spite of not standing in the former SMC, right, he did pretty well. Which means that next general election, if he keeps up at this and improve their ground operations on top of the online one, he may well enter parliament as an NCMP or MP.

We also want to talk about the independent candidates because every election, there are a few interesting ones. I mean, we almost had the most valuable party, but turned out to be not so valuable. But actually, some of them did really well. I mean, Jeremy Tan in Mountbatten, we've been calling him the Bitcoin guy, you know, but with over 36%. Yeah. And again, he's new, a new face never heard of before, but yet he was able to bring in those numbers. That's right.

Does it give individuals or independents the confidence to like, I'm not going to lose my deposit, you know, give it a go? It does. But I think anyone taking the run as independent, you know, must be fairly circumspect.

Right, because voters at the thought of their minds are concerned, can this guy establish and run a town council? And when you look at the independents without taking anything away from them, in Malbaton, you know, Jeremy Tan, you know, he was up against the People's Action Party. I wouldn't be surprised if voters took the view, you know, that rather than spoil their ballots, if they're not keen on the PAP, well, you know,

why not this independent, right? He's probably not going to win, but let's cheer the underdog. Because I know of people who say, yeah, you know, so poor thing, I don't want this person to lose the deposit. Let's work for him. Yeah, because in a way, they feel they have nothing to lose, right? They may need the voters, right? Because they're really sure that the PAP candidate, Ms Goh, would make it through. But they were not comfortable with casting a ballot for the PAP and

And they felt that, well, instead of wasting the ballot by spoiling it or whatever, why not cast it in favour for the independent candidate? And I think in the same way, you could also look at that when it comes to Radin Mas, right? Where Daryl Loh was up against the PAP and PR candidate. PR candidate lost his deposit, which I think in a way reflected he was not competitive from the get-go. And you're not keen on the PAP, then you might say, well, you know, maybe let me just try and support this young chap.

Now, I'm not taking anything away from them because I think they did see that there were opportunities for them in terms of how to win the votes, issues that the parties were not tapping on. But I don't think that these two cases demonstrate that Singaporeans are now completely enamoured with independence. But I think it also speaks of the Singaporean voter. We are prepared to give independence a fair hearing. And it's quite brave also of the individuals to

really put themselves out there. If these young two gentlemen decide to carry on and pursue it again five years from now, and if they ended up joining one of the other stronger opposition parties, then we could say it's possible they could be a real contender. Yes, because if you think of Jeremy Tan, 36% vote

So I suppose voters in Mountbatten know him or know of him. We shouldn't be surprised if the parties were to start to call him. I think what's remarkable is that as an independent candidate, he managed to breach the vote share of tier two parties, such as SDP and PSB. So it's actually quite remarkable, which means Singaporeans are, I guess, willing to look at the person, not just the party. I'm particularly impressed with Jeremy Tan. His rally speech was one of the few I heard the second time.

Because the first time when I heard many sophisticated ideas, I couldn't really get at first blush. So I needed to listen to it for the second time. What's quite interesting is that he put forward a lot more ideas rather than just ideals. And even though he came from a tough background that came up through some interviews, he didn't foreground that.

he foregrounded instead his policy proposals and I thought that was actually quite impressive. So I want to talk about NCMP because WP they've got two more slots and looks like Andre Lau is getting in. So the other or maybe not Eugene you're giving me a

funny look maybe not well the WP has this practice of not necessarily giving the best loser the best loser the NCMP seat I mean it happened before with Lee Lillian and giving up her place for Daniel Goh the rules are somewhat unclear

So they can choose whoever they want in that sense. It has happened. So there's a precedent, right? They will go to Parliament and say, look, you know, it has happened before. We are free to choose as long as they come from Tampines. So how are they going to be assessing which are the best NCMP candidates? The main thing about WP is they have options, right? Including Andre Lau.

But if you look at Tampines, if they want to get the gender balance right, Yilin Chong would be a good consideration. Because they only have Silver Limb and Hurting Roo as women MPs. So that's one. And of course, then the other one, Michael Tung, which I think left a strong impression from the roundtable. I suspect that they might want to capitalise on that.

But the WP has no shortage of options and they want to use that to profile their younger candidates. So that will have to wait. More politics at play even within the parties themselves. In the end, when I look at the election results, I would say PM Wong got the mandate that he sought but

He will also recognise, you know, that the Workers' Party held on fairly comfortably. They gave the PAP a good fight and that was voters signalling, you know, that even as we give PM Wong the mandate, we also want to ensure that there is a vibrant, credible opposition in Parliament.

So I think in the end, people talk of it as status quo. But I think there are many layers beneath that status quo. And I thought we voters have done exceptionally well. And it does feel like we are maturing in terms of the way we look at the whole political race. I think we only have more exciting times ahead of us in future elections. And I think if anything, it forces both sides to work really hard for the vote. And it's all for the betterment of Singapore. Yeah.

All right, gentlemen. Well, thanks so much for coming in, sharing your thoughts with us. And folks, if you've been listening in, any thoughts, comments you have, you know, we've been covering the election in a big way and we hope that coverage has been good for you and you found it meaningful. On that note, this has been Deep Dive. We want to say a big thank you as well to the team behind the pod, Tiffany Ang, Junaini Johari, Joanne Chan, Saye Win, Crispina Robert and Alison Jenner. We'll see you next week. Bye. Bye.