Beyond Holding Ground
Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP) went into GE2025 with a steady hand and a stronghold on its traditional constituencies. Its “Working for Singapore” campaign reinforced its image as a rational, policy-driven, and loyal opposition. Yet despite maintaining its existing seats, it made little inroad into new constituencies. The question remains: how can the WP go beyond managing its base to mobilizing a movement? One possible answer lies not in technocratic tweaks but in emotional transformation. Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign offers not a blueprint, but a blueprint’s spirit—a way to speak to the deep hopes and quiet fears of a risk-averse electorate and to galvanize a movement built not just on policy, but on participation.
The PAP’s Fear-Based Advantage
“Vote PAP, stay safe” is not a formal slogan, but it might as well be. In a small, trade-dependent city-state navigating a volatile global order, this implicit message is powerful. The PAP campaign machine consistently leverages Singapore’s size and vulnerability to frame itself as the only stable steward of the country’s future. This narrative works because it taps into lived reality: a world in flux, rising costs, and geopolitical friction. Stability feels like a precious currency. For many voters, especially older Singaporeans, the middle class, and civil servants, the fear of disruption outweighs the promise of change.
WP’s Current Strategy: Strengths and Gaps
The Workers’ Party has, to its credit, avoided both populism and confrontation. It has chosen the difficult path of presenting itself as a constructive opposition, not an adversary. Its messaging in GE2025 highlighted service, unity, and responsibility. But in doing so, it sometimes ceded emotional ground. A purely pragmatic appeal cannot outmatch a fear-based one unless it offers not only a solution but a story—something that makes people feel seen, empowered, and capable of co-authoring the future.
The Obama Model: Emotional Resonance and Participation
Obama’s “Yes We Can” tapped into precisely that psychological terrain. The slogan was powerful because it was not about the candidate but about the people. It invited ordinary citizens into the political process. Its repetition created a speech chain, spreading organically through communities. It worked across race, class, and geography by appealing to collective dignity and possibility. Most of all, it redefined politics not as an elite negotiation but as a participatory act.
Reframing WP’s Narrative: From Service to Solidarity
The WP need not, and should not, copy this formula wholesale. But it can adapt its ethos. A shift from “Working for Singapore” to “Together, We Can” is not just a rebranding exercise. It is a philosophical pivot from service delivery to civic empowerment. Such a slogan frames politics as shared work, not delegated labor. It signals that WP is not merely asking for votes but inviting co-ownership of the future. In a system where opposition parties are structurally disadvantaged, from GRCs to media coverage to short campaign cycles, this emotional mobilization can level the field in a way technocracy cannot.
Movement-Building and Grassroots Empowerment
To build this participatory spirit, WP must move beyond ward-level service delivery and become a movement builder. That means elevating the voices of supporters, not just candidates. Imagine a campaign series titled “Why I Support WP,” featuring hawkers, retirees, new citizens, and first-time voters. These stories are not just endorsements; they’re bridges. They help depoliticize the act of supporting the opposition by making it personal, relatable, and non-threatening. They create narrative pluralism, showing that WP voters are not a monolith but a cross-section of Singapore.
A Digital Strategy for Trust and Interaction
Digital strategy must also evolve. GE2025 saw better outreach via social media, but it remained largely one-way. In contrast, Obama’s campaign created feedback loops. Regular live Q&As, digital town halls, and community-generated content helped build trust and flatten hierarchies. WP can embrace a similar model through volunteer platforms, micro-targeted outreach via WhatsApp and TikTok, and systematic feedback mechanisms. For example, a “You Spoke, We Acted” update can show concretely how public input is shaping WP’s positions. Trust is not won through visibility alone, but through interaction.
Addressing Voter Psychology with Empathy
This approach also addresses a critical cultural challenge in Singapore: the internalization of risk aversion. Many Singaporeans are politically cautious not because they love the status quo, but because they fear the consequences of change. The WP must recognize this and not shame it but respond with empathy and reassurance. A “Yes We Can”-inspired strategy reframes risk not as danger, but as shared courage. It says, Yes, we are small, yes, the world is uncertain, but together, we can face it.
Hope and Pragmatism: Not Mutually Exclusive
The WP already has building blocks. Its MPs are generally seen as hardworking and principled. Its manifestos are detailed and credible. It has established trust in Aljunied, Hougang, and Sengkang. But trust alone is defensive. Hope expands. If the WP wants to grow, it must build a narrative not only about holding the government accountable but also about believing in what Singapore could become with more voices at the table.
This does not mean abandoning pragmatism. On the contrary, it means combining it with emotional intelligence. Policy and poetry can co-exist. It means showing voters not only what WP would do, but who they are doing it for and with. A campaign that centers empowerment, that welcomes dialogue, and that invites the cautious middle to walk alongside them rather than leap into the unknown can change the electoral terrain.
Beyond Elections: Sustaining the Movement
Crucially, this strategy is not just for elections. It is about movement-building between elections, especially in a system where civic space is limited. Empowered supporters can organize house visits, initiate neighborhood dialogues, and contribute to policy ideas long before the writ is issued. A participatory approach creates momentum that cannot be easily dismantled once the ballot boxes are sealed.
Localizing Hope: The Singaporean Context
Critics might argue that Obama’s context was different—more open, more dramatic, and more ideologically charged. Singaporeans, by contrast, prize order and are wary of emotional politics. But hope is not an imported value. The 2011 election showed that a powerful story of fairness, representation, and inclusion can move hearts and votes. What matters is not whether the emotion is loud, but whether it is sincere. A hope-driven message tailored to Singaporean concerns—rising inequality, job insecurity, and generational change—can resonate deeply.
Conclusion: Co-authoring the Nation’s Future
The PAP has long mastered the art of fear-based governance, calibrated through economic credibility and state-linked grassroots machinery. It is a system that has delivered remarkable development but also cultivated caution. For the WP to credibly challenge that, it must offer more than oversight; it must offer ownership. That is the lesson from “Yes We Can.”
In the end, politics is not just about governance; it is about belonging. A party that helps people see themselves in the nation’s story gains not just votes, but conviction. By shifting from service to solidarity and from fear to hope, the Workers’ Party can become not just a counterweight to power but a co-author of Singapore’s next chapter.
