As the rhetoric intensifies in the lead-up to Singapore’s General Election 2025 (GE2025), a now-familiar message is once again resurfacing: if voters choose the opposition, they may lose a government minister — and with that, Singapore’s future could be at stake.
The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has long relied on the strength and track records of its ministers to bolster its electoral messaging. But in recent years — and particularly in this election cycle — it appears that their presence on the ground is being used less as a promise of service and more as a political ultimatum. Voters are being asked: Do you want strong, experienced leadership, or do you want to “take a risk”?
In a campaign speech on April 28, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong appealed to voters in Punggol GRC by underscoring the importance of Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong’s international experience, including trade negotiations and pandemic response leadership. Wong asked: “Do you think any of the opposition candidates can do what Gan Kim Yong does?”. The implication was clear: a vote for the Workers’ Party in this GRC is not just a choice for a different voice — it is a vote that could cost Singapore a capable minister.
This framing, however, has drawn sharp criticism — not just from the opposition, but also from a politically mature electorate that increasingly rejects fear-based narratives.
History Repeats — But Is It Still Effective?
The idea that electing an opposition candidate is somehow detrimental to national governance is not new in Singapore’s political playbook. As far back as 1997, the PAP tied public housing upgrades to electoral loyalty. Constituencies that voted for the opposition were warned — and later, observed — to be the last in line for estate enhancements. The PAP defended this as “rational resource allocation.” Critics called it pork-barrel politics.
In 2011, the late Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew famously warned residents of Aljunied GRC that they would have “five years to repent” if they voted for the Workers’ Party, which they did, resulting in the loss of Foreign Minister George Yeo. And yet, Singapore’s foreign policy machinery did not collapse. The Foreign Ministry continued to function. Many voters remember this clearly and are now questioning if similar warnings in 2025, this time about losing Gan Kim Yong, hold the same weight.
What’s changed in the last 15 years is not just political messaging, but the electorate itself. Voters, especially younger Singaporeans, are no longer solely motivated by fear of losing resources or office-holders. They are more likely to ask, ‘Is this candidate accessible?‘ Are they responsive? Does my vote have to come with a threat attached?
The Workers’ Party Pushes Back
Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh wasted no time in responding to the PAP’s line of attack, calling it a form of “negative politics.” At a recent rally, Singh reminded voters of past instances where opposition MPs were denied access to community clubs, not invited to public events, and had to fight for basic estate upgrades. He pointed out that while some of these practices have improved, the mindset remains the same — that voters in opposition wards will somehow lose out.
Singh further argued that this approach presupposes that the PAP alone has capable individuals — a narrative that, he says, does not reflect the talent and ability available in the opposition. Citing the example of George Yeo’s 2011 loss, Singh asked whether Singapore’s diplomacy and trade suffered. His point: Singapore’s institutions are robust and do not crumble when individual ministers leave.
By framing the issue this way, Singh is tapping into a deeper conversation — one about accountability and the danger of personalising governance. The opposition’s message is clear: voters should not be coerced into keeping someone in office just because of their ministerial status. They should be empowered to vote based on merit, performance, and the quality of local representation.
A False Binary?
At the heart of this issue lies a troubling binary — that a candidate must either be a loyal, PAP-affiliated office holder or else is a “risk” to the nation. This black-and-white framing does a disservice to the democratic process.
To be clear, the loss of experienced ministers does matter. Governance is complex, and institutional memory is valuable. But the idea that only PAP ministers are capable of leading — or that their defeat in an election equates to national decline — is increasingly difficult to sustain. If the system cannot withstand the rotation of individuals, how resilient is the system to begin with?
Moreover, such messaging suggests that the people’s vote is not sacred, but conditional. Conditional on choosing “the right party.” Conditional on accepting that some voices are too important to lose. That is not the ethos of a confident, democratic society. It is the ethos of a party nervous about growing political diversity.
A Politically Mature Electorate
Singapore’s electorate today is far more discerning than in previous decades. The average voter is better informed, more critical of dominant narratives, and more attuned to what makes a good member of parliament, regardless of whether they hold office.
This is not a call to reject ministers out of spite. It is a call to vote without fear. If a candidate deserves to return to Parliament, it should be because of their work on the ground and their accountability to residents, not because the nation might “weaken” without them.
If the PAP truly believes in its talent pipeline and leadership renewal, it should have the confidence to contest elections without threatening loss of influence. And if voters think a minister should stay, it should be because they feel represented, not because they are being guilt-tripped.
Conclusion
As GE2025 draws to a close, we have heard many arguments about leadership, stability, and national progress. The “office holder” argument has featured prominently, but it’s time we asked: Is this a genuine concern, or political insurance?
Singapore deserves a mature democracy where leadership is built on trust, not fear. Where MPs — ministers or otherwise — earn their mandate through performance, not prestige. And where voters can exercise their choice freely, knowing that the strength of a nation is not measured by who wins a GRC, but how respectfully and confidently we conduct our elections.
RELATED:From Walkover to Walk Forward: How Workers’ Party Can Turn Crisis into Opportunity
Join the conversations on TheHomeGround Asia’s Facebook and Instagram, and get the latest updates via Telegram.
