GE2025: Should Singaporeans strive for political maturity beyond simply being allowed to vote?

[SINGAPORE] Singapore witnessed its first walkover since the 2011 General Election when Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC went uncontested on Nomination Day earlier this week. In a surprising turn, five People’s Action Party (PAP) candidates were returned to Parliament unopposed—an outcome that left many residents shocked and disappointed at being denied the opportunity to vote on May 3.

Voters told they felt “let down,” expressing frustration at the unexpected turn of events. The backlash was swift. Opposition parties openly criticised the Workers’ Party (WP), which many had assumed would once again contest the GRC, as it had in 2015 and 2020. The WP’s decision to sit out this time caught both the electorate and fellow opposition parties off guard.

Calls for “opposition unity” echoed across political circles. Figures from various parties lamented the lack of coordination, suggesting they would have stepped in had they known the WP was not fielding a team in Marine Parade-Braddell Heights.

The walkover has reignited broader concerns over opposition strategy and cooperation in Singapore’s political landscape. Despite a growing appetite among voters for electoral competition, opposition parties continue to face challenges in resource allocation and strategic planning. In this instance, the WP’s withdrawal appears to reflect a calculated move to concentrate efforts on constituencies where it sees stronger support or less entrenched PAP incumbency.

Singaporeans have become increasingly accustomed to voting in every election. Since the landmark 2011 General Election—when all but one constituency was contested—voters have come to see the right to vote as an essential part of civic participation. The absence of a contest this year feels, to many, like a regression.

Yet political maturity, some argue, comes with difficult decisions. The ability of parties to make tough, strategic calls—even ones that disappoint voters—is part and parcel of a maturing democracy.

Singapore’s electoral history is still relatively young. In the 2006 General Election, the PAP secured 37 seats via walkovers, returning to power on Nomination Day. It was the first time in 18 years that such an outcome occurred. By 2011, only Tanjong Pagar GRC remained uncontested. That election also marked the WP’s historic win in Aljunied GRC.

By 2015, a milestone reflecting a fully contested election. The trend continued in 2020, when every seat was again contested. That year, the WP expanded its parliamentary presence, while the newly formed Progress Singapore Party secured two Non-Constituency MP seats.

These elections revealed a growing appetite for political alternatives. In several constituencies, the WP garnered close to half the vote share—evidence that Singaporeans value having a choice, even if they ultimately choose continuity.

Indeed, surveys from the Institute of Policy Studies’ Asian Barometer show that Singaporeans increasingly view free and fair elections as a core tenet of democracy. It’s a sentiment borne out by consistently high voter turnout—over 90 per cent—at every general election.

Roughly 30 per cent of voters routinely back opposition candidates, underscoring a desire for more than just symbolic contests. There’s an enduring expectation that opposition parties will not only contest, but contest to win.

The recent walkover in Marine Parade-Braddell Heights challenges that expectation. After months of speculation, the WP disclosed its plans only on Nomination Day, revealing it would not contest the GRC. It acknowledged that this decision could result in a walkover—especially after the National Solidarity Party had already announced its withdrawal.

WP chief Pritam Singh addressed voters shortly after the nomination deadline, calling the decision a difficult one for a “small opposition party.” He cited the need to prioritise constituencies where the WP could maximise its impact, given limited resources and the recent changes to electoral boundaries.

This focus on strategic deployment reflects a pragmatic approach common in mature democracies, where opposition parties often concentrate efforts in winnable districts rather than spreading themselves thin.

Singh was candid: the WP’s goal is to win more seats in Parliament. Achieving this, he said, requires strategic sacrifices—even if that means disappointing some voters in the short term.

Whether this decision will pay dividends remains to be seen. But if Singapore’s political system is to continue maturing, voters may need to accept that meaningful representation sometimes involves uncomfortable trade-offs.

A simple vote, once seen as a democratic milestone, may no longer suffice. Voters increasingly seek empowerment—a say in shaping the country’s direction. The WP’s move, though controversial, may represent a step towards a more sophisticated political discourse, where parties act with long-term electoral viability in mind.

Ultimately, if Singaporeans want their political choices to matter, they must also accept that parties—incumbent or opposition—need the freedom to make decisions that maximise their chances of success. The disappointment over the walkover is real, but it also signals a population that is engaged, invested, and ready for a more nuanced political future.