Cherian George, Professor of Media Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, has described Singapore’s General Election 2025 (GE2025) as a “status quo vote” rather than a “landslide victory” for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
George’s remarks were first made on 4 May, following the 3 May polls, during an Academia SG webinar.
He elaborated further in an 8 May Facebook post, criticising the media’s use of the term “landslide” to characterise the outcome.
George argued that maintaining the status quo represents a significant success for Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and his new administration.
However, he stressed that voters are increasingly making positive choices based on the quality of candidates, rather than casting protest votes.
This shift, according to George, benefits the Workers’ Party (WP), which retained its 10 seats, while the PAP kept the rest.
By contrast, smaller alternative parties struggled, reflecting what George sees as a maturing electorate.
George explained, “Singaporeans can now see what an effective, high-quality opposition looks like, which may make them less tolerant of lower quality candidates and parties.”
Cherian George questions vote share focus and challenges use of ‘landslide’ label
In his social media post, George challenged comparisons to other political contexts.
“Even by the standards of Singapore’s extremely stable context, the PAP did not (unlike in 2015 and in 1997) flip a single seat,” he wrote.
He pointed to examples like Donald Trump’s surprise wins in swing states or Britain’s Labour Party almost doubling its seats as true landslides.
George cautioned against overemphasising vote share as a meaningful metric.
“I don’t know of any other democracy where a 4.4-point shift in the winning party’s popular vote would qualify as a ‘landslide’ when it makes zero difference to the distribution of power in the legislature,” he wrote.
He noted that historically, Singapore’s vote share has been seen as a proxy for the PAP’s approval rating, particularly during periods when alternative parties had little or no parliamentary representation.
However, George said this focus is less relevant today.
“One of the most important trends post-2011 is the shrinking of the protest vote,” George observed.
“Now, when the opposition wins, it is in large part because voters are making a positive choice for high-quality candidates.”
The performance gap between the WP and smaller parties was, in George’s view, evidence of this voter discernment.
He added, “There never was a strong reason to obsess about the popular vote. There is even less reason now, when voters are extremely discerning and can’t all be placed on either side of the protest/approval binary.”
Bhavan Jaipragas urges alternative parties to prioritise local engagement and clear vision
George’s comments were partly a response to an opinion piece by Bhavan Jaipragas, deputy opinion editor and columnist at The Straits Times.
Jaipragas challenged the “status quo result” label, noting that past landslides, such as in 2015, also occurred when the opposition was weak.
Jaipragas highlighted that despite voter anger over cost-of-living pressures and political scandals, the PAP’s strong performance warranted attention.
He further cited factors such as global uncertainty, the “Hurricane Trump” effect, and the PAP’s robust grassroots efforts as critical to its electoral success.
Jaipragas also pointed out that while the alternative parties’ “checks and balances” message resonated, with 56% of voters supporting it, this did not necessarily translate into votes.
He acknowledged the hurdles alternative parties face, including short campaign periods, opaque electoral boundary changes, and the advantage conferred by the People’s Association network.
Nonetheless, Jaipragas urged alternative parties to focus on what voters value most: consistent local engagement, problem-solving, and a clear political vision.
He cautioned that merely blaming structural disadvantages was unlikely to yield better results.
Responding to Jaipragas, George maintained that the media’s uncritical use of political labels such as “swing” or “landslide” risked conflating political spin with genuine analysis.
“To accept any such spin uncritically and call it analysis would just reveal where we stand on the political spectrum, not whether we are right or wrong,” he wrote.
George also encouraged readers to engage directly with arguments rather than dismiss viewpoints based on their source.
“Regardless of where the writer or newspaper stands, one might learn something new from what they say,” George commented.
The post Cherian George: GE2025 a ‘status quo vote’; voters demand higher-quality alternative parties, candidates appeared first on The Online Citizen.
