In Singapore’s General Election 2025, little changed on the surface. The People’s Action Party (PAP) regained momentum, winning 87 of 97 seats and improving its national vote share. The Workers’ Party (WP) held a firm retain of Aljunied, Sengkang, and Hougang, preserving its presence in Parliament with 10 seats.
Respectable. But it is also revealing.
The WP is clearly credible. Its MPs are diligent, its messaging is careful, and its conduct is professional. Yet even with these strengths, the party has not expanded beyond its traditional enclaves. The bigger question now is not whether the WP is viable, but whether viability alone is enough to win.
That question might find surprising clarity in the world of baseball.
A Playbook for Underdogs
Moneyball, popularized by Michael Lewis and later a Hollywood film, tells the story of the underfunded Oakland A’s baseball team. Instead of trying to compete with big-budget giants like the New York Yankees on their terms, the A’s redefined value. They used data and strategy to identify undervalued players and to question the assumptions that governed the sport.
They did not try to beat the Yankees at their own game. They changed the game.
One line from Moneyball captures the essence of the WP’s strategic dilemma: “If we try to play like the Yankees in here, we will lose to the Yankees out there.” The same holds in Singaporean politics. If the WP tries to play like the PAP—technocratic, cautious, and command-driven—it will lose to the PAP every time. The ruling party’s advantages are structural and entrenched: deep institutional presence, control over media narratives, the grassroots machinery of the People’s Association, and a long-cultivated image of competence and stability. Trying to mimic this model risks making the WP look like a replica rather than an alternative. And in a system wired for continuity, voters almost always stick with the original.
To grow, the WP does not need to be more like the PAP. It needs to be more like itself: strategic, deliberate, and with a clear sense of the kind of politics it wants to build.
Where Respectability Hits a Ceiling
Over the years, the WP has invested heavily in policy seriousness. Its manifestos are detailed, and its parliamentary performances are measured. This has built public trust, but also a certain perception: that the party is solid but not stirring. Responsible, but not different.
Ground engagement is another strength. In Aljunied, Sengkang, and Hougang, WP MPs are visible, responsive, and grounded in local issues. Yet this intimacy has not translated into wider national traction. The PAP’s machinery, linked to community clubs and long-term networks, still commands more breadth and depth.
Online, the WP has been savvy. Its social media content is relatable and professional. But digital engagement alone cannot overcome structural asymmetries. Mainstream media coverage remains tightly curated. Legal constraints like POFMA and the Public Order Act shape how bold or visible an opposition party can afford to be.
The result: a message that is often careful when it needs to be catalytic.
An Uneven Playing Field
The political playing field in Singapore is, by design, uneven. And this too echoes Moneyball’s brutal realism. At one point in the story, the team’s general manager admits, “The problem we’re trying to solve is that there are rich teams and there are poor teams. Then there’s fifty feet of crap, and then there’s us. It’s an unfair game. And now we’ve been gutted.”
The WP, of course, is not starting from zero. But the larger truth stands: Singapore’s opposition operates in a system where incumbency, resources, and control of narrative compound year after year. The game may not be openly hostile, but it is structurally tilted.
Which is precisely why the party’s strategy cannot be about fairness but rather cleverness. Not force-on-force competition, but asymmetric innovation.
Playing to Strength: Four Strategic Shifts
The WP’s challenge is to think differently: not louder or angrier, but smarter. It must identify domains where its smaller scale, outsider status, and credibility can be leveraged into actual political advantage.
First, the party can turn its wards into working models of participatory democracy. Participatory budgeting, open-data town council dashboards, and regular, resident-driven town halls would make engagement tangible, not rhetorical. This is not about left or right; it is more about co-governance. About showing, not telling, what a more inclusive politics looks like.
Second, it is time for a functional shadow cabinet, not to signal an imminent takeover, but to offer clarity. Voters want to know what an alternative governing team might look like. They want to see preparation, not provocation. The message should not be “We’re taking over,” but “We’re ready if and when you are.”
Third, the WP can diversify its bench by recruiting respected voices from civil society, academia, and professional communities. Many such individuals are committed to public service but are ideologically or culturally unsuited to the PAP. They might not contest elections, but they can lend credibility, craft policy, and shape public conversation in meaningful ways.
And finally, the WP could invest in independent civic platforms that go beyond campaign messaging. Imagine a space where residents can track estate upgrades, suggest community initiatives, or even engage directly with MPs and experts on policy issues. This builds political literacy, encourages participation, and sidesteps traditional gatekeepers without triggering confrontation.
Framing Change as Stability
Singaporean voters value stability. Many are open to alternatives, but not to upheaval. That makes any move toward greater pluralism inherently delicate. But change does not have to mean disruption. It can mean calibration, responsiveness, and evolution.
For the WP, this means positioning its innovations not as threats, but as improvements. Not as rejection, but as renewal. The party does not need to promise radical shifts. It just needs to offer credible, intelligible steps toward a political culture where power is shared, voices are heard, and institutions evolve.
It’s a fine line. But it’s walkable.
From Opposition to Alternative
The WP today is trusted. It has shown that opposition politics in Singapore can be constructive, professional, and principled. But the next phase demands more than respect. It requires strategic boldness.
That does not mean trying to beat the PAP at its own game. That means rethinking what the game could be.
The Moneyball lesson is simple: if you try to outmuscle giants on their terms, you will always lose. But if you find your own edge, your own metrics, and your own rules, you can start winning on yours.
In Singapore’s political stadium, the PAP will likely always have home-field advantage. But the WP has the chance to do something else: to change the way the game is played.
One ward. One policy. One bold idea at a time.
