On being gracious ‘winners’ and ‘losers’

Reflections on GE2025, what the mainstream media isn’t saying, and how we hold space for each other in a democracy

I recently spent 12 hours on the road— driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco and back—in order to vote at the embassy. That is a long time to be alone with one's thoughts, and my mind kept returning to GE2025.

In true Singapore fashion, I was in and out in record speed. No time wasted!

For many, especially those who voted in constituencies decided by razor-thin margins, the results sting. I’ve heard it described as a kind of moral grief: a quiet yearning over what could have been, what might have changed, and seeing the diminished hope of change in things that are closely intertwined with one’s value system and moral consciousness.

This hurt might be amplified by a narrative that is portrayed by mainstream media, that the incumbent won by a ‘landslide’; that the opposition ‘failed’ to make gains. Naturally if you support the opposition, it might seem like society is very far from where you want it to be.

So the first point of this post is: I am not sure I would call this a ‘landslide' win, and I think there is more to it than meets the eye. And the second point is about graciousness, because I was starting to see lots of posts that pitted blame on people for their voting decisions, and I think we need to talk about that.

Is it really a landslide win?

According to The Straits Times (screenshot below), it is. But let’s see what the data tells us. I will focus on WP’s election data because it is quite telling, and also because a lot of hurt I sense is from people who view them as a credible opposition and had high hopes for a different outcome.

The election data shows that WP got the popular vote in the constituencies it contested. It is marginal, 50.10% to WP and 49.89% to PAP (see table below), but it is significant. In fact, WP did the same in GE2020. So it looks like PAP won by a landslide because of our first past the post system, where vote share does not directly translate to outcomes in parliamentary seats. But in terms of results, I think it’s much closer a result than the mainstream narrative because the dominant media framing emphasizes the seat count, not the vote share or competitiveness.

Data from eld.gov

Second, the margins were super close (<3%) in two constituencies! The number of voters that was needed to swing Jalan Kayu SMC was 404, and the number of absent voters there was 2,208. In other words, it only required 1.5% of votes to swing the outcome. In Tampines GRC, the percentage required to swing was 2.34%, which is 3,191 voters, and there were over 10,000 absent voters there. In fact, for all the hotly contested constituencies, the absent voters far outweighed the number of voters required to swing the constituency.

Third, WP gained two seats in parliament as a result of this election, because of the non-constituency MP (NCMP) system. Under this system, the ’losing’ opposition candidates with the highest percentage of votes secured during the election will be offered seats in parliament. Notwithstanding criticisms of the NCMP system, if we take an outcome-based perspective, this is not a ‘loss’ in my view.

Lastly, WP strengthened its foothold in its existing constituencies. Notably, its winning margin in Sengkang GRC increased by ~4%, compared to the previous GE.

Now, I don’t want to over-emphasize these results. But I think it is important to consider this side of the picture when evaluating the outcomes of the election. I think it tells us the results were competitive in areas where Singaporeans thought there was a credible opposition, and it was not a landslide in these areas. In fact, the results continue to reflect a growing trend that the political landscape is shifting. That the PAP gained more vote share in constituencies where the WP did not contest is also another useful learning point.

Notwithstanding the above, I’ve seen a lot of disappointment and hurt being directed at those that vote the incumbent. How can we channel these feelings constructively without bringing each other down?

Question the system, not the people

Working and living in a country where politics pits people against people has shaped my views quite a bit. Here, both sides make no effort to hide their disdain, and it has not advanced discourse and outcomes for people. I just see more hate for the other side.

Now, the key difference in Singapore is that hand to heart I don’t believe parties have weaponized discourse by co-opting the language of outrage (”us vs. them”), and I genuinely do think that voters here have been discerning in not voting opposition for the sake of it. I mean, with opposition candidates making racial slurs and passing comments like “I am not gay”, that discernment is very much appreciated. Yes, there were unwarranted personal attacks during the campaign period that were miscalculated in my humble view - case in point: of the candidates that may deserve wrath, Gan Kim Yong does not and he literally exudes positivity and goodness - so I think the public’s response in calling WP out on that was sensible.

But when I see comments from hurt voters such as “well, I hope you choke on your GST vouchers” and blaming other fellow Singaporeans for the opposition party’s loss, I get a bit concerned. If the largest opposition party in Singapore won 50.10% of the popular vote in the areas it contested but only got ~10% of the seats in parliament, then I think the larger issue really isn’t the voters. A friend put this well - a status quo ‘draw’ feels like a loss, precisely because the system seems to be set up against those who want change and work hard for it. Yes, channeling the reflections on the system is what we need.

Going beyond winners and losers

If election outcomes are framed as ‘winning’ or ‘losing’, then I think we’ve lost. In other words, sorry that my title is misleading cause I don’t think there are true winners or losers in a democracy.

(Do as I say, not as I do!)

Also, if we start thinking that the party we vote for is the best party and strongly believe others should do the same, then we fall into the trap of assuming we know what’s best for other people and making decisions for them.

When we become compelled to take sides and virtue signal at definitions of morality and what can and cannot be acceptable, this leads nowhere other than utter contempt for the other, alienating people and pushing them more into the bubble they are in (I wrote about this in a separate post).

As much as I like to think I am principled and have my values and beliefs, I am also pragmatic about this. I know this can be unpopular, but I believe in making efforts to work within the confines of the present, even if I think it is unfair, unequal, or unjust. We lose something precious when politics becomes about being ‘right’ rather than building bridges.

TLDR; no, I don’t think the media told a complete story and I don't think it is a landslide victory. Second, I hope we can be more gracious about the results. Lastly, let’s not think about democracy as winning or losing, because these results can change quickly in the next election, and we will lose if we pit one against the other.

For those who voted for the party that was eventually elected - congratulations. Regardless of which side you sit on, I hope you can extend graciousness and know that people are hurting from this.

For those who felt hope diminish, I say chin up and hang on to your hope! Democracy is a marathon.