GE2015 results show that voters assess candidates and parties critically

ANYONE looking for pointers to the future of politics in Singapore will be making a mistake if they see only the big picture of a general election national swing to the People's Action Party of around 10 percentage points and what the PAP did to increase its support. The details of the results matter.

Certainly, there was a swing to the PAP which benefited it at the expense of the entire opposition, but there were differences in the swing that say a lot about the political scene.

The swing against the Workers' Party (WP) and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) was lower than it was for almost all the other parties that have stood for election before: the WP's vote share in the constituencies it contested fell by 6.85 percentage points and that of the SDP by 5.57 points, which compares with losses of 14.32 points, 14.03 points and 11.2 points by the Singapore People's Party (SPP), National Solidarity Party (NSP) and Reform Party (RP) respectively. The Singapore Democratic Alliance suffered a relatively small adverse swing, and the People's Power Party and Singaporeans First (SF) had not contested an election before, but fared badly, with only 23.11 per cent and 21.49 per cent of the votes in the constituencies they contested. The WP and the SDP obtained a bigger share of the votes where they stood than any other opposition parties did elsewhere: 39.75 per cent and 31.23 per cent respectively.

It is surely no coincidence that the WP and SDP are the opposition parties with the most developed policies and most robust party organisations: that didn't give them the gains they'd expected, but it did minimise their losses in the face of a nationwide pro-PAP swing. They are left well-placed to consolidate opposition support around themselves and assert a claim to contest a bigger share of the constituencies nationally.

These results say something about the choices Singaporeans are making.

It is sometimes argued that there are people who will always vote for the opposition, whoever they are, regardless of the quality of their candidates or policies, simply because they are anti-PAP. The general election suggests otherwise; perhaps there is a core of voters out there who are simply anti-PAP, but the difference in the results suggests that there was also a substantial number of voters who assessed all candidates and parties critically and came to an informed decision on their vote. Otherwise, there would have been a more uniform shape right across Singapore to the swing to the PAP.

Another significant result is the low turnout for Singaporeans First, the party that had most to say about foreigners coming to work in Singapore. It attained only 21.49 per cent of the vote where it stood. There are countries in the West where parties with a strong anti-foreigner policy have won massive support in the past decade, particularly since 2008, but SF won the second to lowest percentage of the vote of any opposition party.

Finally, a detail that is worth noting is the role of two mothers: Tin Pei Ling of the PAP, a new mother, and Kevryn Lim of the NSP, a single mother, who each in her own way affirmed that women could be mothers of young children and be politically active, without suffering a noticeable penalty at the polls.

These outcomes speak well to the political maturity of Singapore's electorate. In thinking ahead to the next general election, this is one factor that any party would underestimate at its own peril. Easy answers, appeals to prejudice and last-minute engagement with voters won't rally these voters; they'll want policies that convince and evidence of long-term commitment. Only parties that can offer those will fare well.