The poll may be affected by the “flight to security,” as it has been in the past, but this result is a given because the voter is different and has changed.
Social scientist Teo Kay Key, a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies ( IPS) Social Lab, said that while it is human nature to travel to security when they see danger, what might mean for security may have changed over time.
She said the public will take into account several factors, including the world state of affairs, parties ‘ brand and plan stances, the PAP’s performance, MPs ‘ performance in opposition, provincial issues, and diversity in parliament.
Politicians “probably need to consider that the ballot decision is varied and that there is a need for genuine communication” said Dr. Teo in their communication with voters.
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser argued that Singapore’s “flight to health” attitude was akin to the” life philosophy” that said it is vulnerable and may take its success for granted since the time of its founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
However, the social environment has since become more polarized, with supporters of” those who support a trusted, solid government that provides security to the citizens” and those who “believe in social diversity and checks and balances on common policy and governance.”
It would be more difficult for the PAP authorities to persuade those who had formerly voted for resource enhancement and the rising living standards to continue with it, according to Dr. Tan, who serves as the IPS Social Lab’s alternative principal research fellow.
Instead, voters may cast ballots based on perceptions of a lack of affordable accommodation and the rising cost of living, and interpret geography as “fearmongering,” he said.
Although previous election results suggested a “flight to the familiar,” Assoc Prof. Chong argued that it’s a bargain whether or not this is actually protection. More of the same may be fine, he says. Although that was once a habit among Singaporeans citizens, there is no guarantee that it is.
Singapore must now be able to navigate unknown waters that it hasn’t recently encountered since democracy in ways that affect native bread and butter issues, he added.
” Geography 2025 does not just been about laying out and identifying the risks Singapore faces directly and their local spillovers; it will also include developing a solid plan that all Singaporeans is adopt.”
Back DARK CLOUDS
The General Election of this year won’t be the first to take place in the midst of international political and economic uncertainty.
No longer after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, GE2001 was held in the US. The PAP won 82 of the 84 chairs and 75.29 percent of the popular vote at the time. This was its highest voting promote since 1980.
The PAP won 83 out of 93 tickets during the COVID-19 crisis thanks to GE2020. It received 61.24 percent of the popular vote, which is a decrease of about 9 percentage points from the past GE and the lowest vote since 2011. The ruling party also lost a historically next GRC.
Dr. Teo, a representative from IPS Social Lab, claimed that the polls conducted at various stages of Singapore’s social background and the individual crises were likely not the same as those conducted in the two elections.
Opposition functions were still in their early stages of development during GE2001, with none of them ever winning a Group Representation Constituency. The terrorist strikes ‘ aftermath was a developing condition, and the answer was intended to combat external threats.
Therefore, the voters would have preferred a choice that resembled “flight to health” in its purest sense. However, we also see the two opposition Members keeping their chairs, which meant it was more about wanting things to stay the same, she said.
GE2020, in comparison, occurred about a year after the pandemic, when the virus’s prevention measures were in place. Opposition events were also more well-organized and established, with a few gaining more clout than they did in 2001, according to Dr. Teo.
GEOPOLITICS AND DAY LIFE
In a January survey of 1,310 Singapore conducted by Blackbox Research’s SensingSG, inflation and living costs topped citizens ‘ worries. Jobs and career came in second and fourth, followed by the economy, respectively.
Analysts argued that it is inappropriate to separate geopolitics from bread and butter issues. Geopolitics may not in itself become a significant election issue, but its impact on practical issues like the cost of living, work, and economic security may have a bearing on citizens ‘ minds.
According to NUS Associate Professor Chong, Singapore’s “phenomenal” growth in the past was fueled by financial globalization and liberalization that rested on corporations supported by the US. A deterioration of these conditions may put pressure on Singapore’s “basic company model.”
Singapore was a mediator, a broker, or a comprador par excellence in the globalized foreign system. It gathered businesses and markets from all over the earth, he said. In Singapore, funding was increased, jobs were created, growth was aided, and inflation was maintained.
” Maybe, our voters are informed enough about this fact to make it a significant factor in how they vote,” said Dr. Tan of IPS Social Lab.
According to Dr. Woo Jun Jie, senior lecturer at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, the PAP’s voting share in GE2020 makes it more difficult to predict whether there will be a trip to safety this time around.
Voters are more likely to concentrate on bread and butter problems, but they may unintentionally be affected by wider geopolitical improvements.
Even if it does not directly affect voters ‘ decisions, he said,” Political instability can cause a sense of unease among voters and color their views of domestic economic problems.”
According to analysts, Mr. Wong’s information on the taxes, which he delivered via his YouTube channel, is that voters should be aware of the difficulties Singapore faces and can be assured that the government will take action.
Dr. Woo said the speech assists Singaporeans in making crucial connections between world developments and their daily lives, as well as helping them to prepare for the effects the tariffs may have.
It is unjust to refer to the tariffs as “fearmongering” because of the major effects they will have on our business. Even if it were no an election season, the messages from both Mr. Wong and Mr. Singh would have been just as significant, he said.
Because it is election year, Mr. Wong’s leadership of the ruling party complicates how the word “united” is interpreted. It was anticipated that Mr. Singh, as the leader of the opposition, would share his opinions on this, according to Dr. Teo.
His primary goal is to convey the idea that having a different congress won’t lead to unrest, but rather to encourage cooperation among Singaporeans, she said.
According to Dr. Tan Ern Ser, the remarks made by PSP’s Mr. Leong and Dr. Tan Cheng Bock come off as trivializing the challenges that lie ahead.
However, the PSP officials “remark to something that cannot be excluded at this time: that the PAP may be attempting to use a real crisis to entice the common to vote,” said Assoc Prof Chong.