New candidate introductions shouldn’t be banal (The Nine Days, GE2025)

(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of the Singapore-based social service and non-profit organisations with whom I work or consult.)

Much has been made about the banality or unoriginality of GE2025 candidate introductions – especially those from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) – when candidates turn to sob stories about their humble beginnings, difficult childhoods, and challenging backgrounds. Predictably, their stories conclude with an inevitable triumph against the odds, thereby demonstrating Singapore’s meritocratic promise, as if to say: “If I can do it, so can you!”

Strangely too, and perhaps somewhat paradoxically for the ruling party, it has also placed less emphasis on its new candidates’ credentials. It feels paradoxical because, historically, a key PAP selling point has been its ability to attract the crème de la crème across the public, private, and non-profit sectors, to serve at a higher level for the country. To form the government! Instead, on the eve of Nomination Day, the PAP candidates may appear ready to handle municipal issues and relate to the average Singaporean – with a listening ear and a willing heart – but we know much less about their legislative aspirations.

(There is also ongoing discourse about the comparative “calibre” of candidates across political parties.)

Ultimately, what frustrates me most is how little I’ve learnt about these candidates, in their potential roles as parliamentarians. As someone in the social service sector, besides bread-and-butter issues, as I’ve written, I want to know about issues revolving around cohesion, cultivation, caregiving, and compassion. In a recent video explainer, Nanyang Technological University’s Prof. Teo You Yenn argued that factors such as relatability, likeability, and even candidates’ hobbies or pets are potential distractions. Instead, with limited information about candidates, voters should pose these questions:

• What are the challenges you see in Singapore society?

• What issues do you care about?

• How do you intend to prepare for your role as an MP?

Has the PAP made a strategic choice to keep its candidate introductions as safe as possible? After all, senior minister Lee Hsien Loong argued last week that candidates should not be judged just as individuals, but also the party for which they stand. He elaborated: “And also consider carefully that when you vote for an MP, you are not just voting for the person. You are voting for the party which stands behind her or him, and what the party needs by way of support and mandate in order to be able to serve Singapore.”

I’m taking up Mr. Lee’s suggestion to consider both the candidates and their parties. Today, specifically for my constituency first, I briefly study the candidates and their legislative aspirations: How do I learn more about the candidates? Then, more generally, after a broader scan of new candidate introductions, I evaluate: What works with new candidate introductions?

Tomorrow, I take a deeper dive into the party manifestoes of the PAP as well as the main opposition parties (i.e., the Workers’ Party, WP, Progress Singapore Party, PSP, and Singapore Democratic Party, SDP).

The obvious starting point for any Singaporean voter is to identify the (potential) candidates in your SMC or GRC. For me, I’ll vote – by post! – in Yio Chu Kang SMC. Right now (as of April 22), it’s likely a contest between the incumbent PAP MP Yip Hon Weng and Dr. Michael Fang of the People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR).

In many ways, this match-up is probably emblematic of the frustration felt by many voters, whose constituencies are not contested by one of the main opposition parties. In a healthy democracy, I value political contestation. I want diverse views to be represented robustly. Furthermore, I would never belittle the efforts of anyone willing to put their name forward, because it is a significant commitment, and because no walkovers are good.

But, my goodness, do Dr. Fang and the PAR make it very difficult.

Dr. Fang doesn’t have an official online website. The PAR website is an absolute mess. I couldn’t find any of his social media profiles or online footprint. Hence, all I know about him vis-à-vis GE2025 – that he is a 48-year-old health sciences lecturer who contested in GE2020 under the Peoples Voice banner – is from a brief report in “The Straits Times.” Besides a handful of pre-2025 content, there is only a 44-second “CNA” interview clip of Dr. Fang describing himself as “a barometer for change” (What does that even mean?)

Notwithstanding the benefits of incumbency and being part of the PAP machinery, because Dr. Fang has set the bar so low, Mr. Yip comes across as comparatively prepared and polished. His PAP profile page describes his teaching and civil service background (also, his 2020 introductory video largely answers the three questions Prof. Teo posed), and he has his own website alongside his Facebook and Instagram pages. Substantively too, we often hear about Louis Ng as the most active MP in the 14th term of parliament, but guess who’s number two (across the board, not just among PAP MPs)? It’s Mr. Yip.

Nevertheless, not all contests will be so cut-and-dried. Other candidates and their political parties are likely to have more decent online and in-person presence. Moreover, new candidates cannot draw from a parliamentary track record. As such, in the past weeks, having read, watched, and listened, I think new candidate introductions can be rendered less banal if I get to learn much more (i.e., more quantitative), in greater detail (i.e., more qualitative), and vis-à-vis their legislative aspirations (i.e., more substantive).

I want more quantitatively. Thus far, the PAP and the main opposition parties (i.e., WP, PSP, and PAP) have primarily relied on their press conferences covered by the mainstream media. Overall, in the lead up to Nomination Day, the WP seems to be presenting the most detailed information about their candidates, with the website noting their “Vision for Singapore” and “Philosophy and Passions.” I especially like the four- to seven-minute video introductions they’ve produced for each candidate, which are also completely centred on the candidates and their motivations.

The PSP has published profiles and videos of its new candidates, though they are a little briefer. At the moment, the SDP has a video featuring its potential and new candidates, but its website offers no additional candidate information. Conversely, the PAP publishes its candidate profiles as they are announced, though the write-ups are similarly sparse. Instead, the PAP may be making a big social media play, given that its candidates have the most populated Facebook and Instagram (and TikTok) pages.

I want more qualitatively. Yet, I am absolutely greedy to learn much more about the candidates in greater detail. For instance, with the PAP, I fully understand how their new candidates’ curated social media profile pages complement the party’s municipal strengths and door-to-door ground game during election campaigns. Strategically, however, these are approaches easily replicated by the other parties and candidates. It’s not particularly difficult – or meaningful – to exclusively post walkabout photographs and selfies or wefies, snippets of one’s hobbies and personal lives, or videos of your party volunteers’ tireless contributions or acts of kindness.

I get it. This may be a political era of short attention spans. Not everyone cares to know more about the candidates or their potential parliamentarians. And maybe senior minister Lee is right, that our voting decisions are guided more by the candidate’s party. At the same time, I don’t think it’s enough to let one’s party manifesto do all the heavy substantive lifting. In a very thoughtful manner, it’s not too much to ask a candidate to write about or speak to perceived challenges in Singapore society, while explaining the issues for which they’ll advocate.

And I want even more, substantively. Across both sides of the political aisle, requests for greater substance is neither outlandish nor difficult. For the new PAP candidates, beyond promises to serve residents in your neighbourhood, explicate how you intend to legislate and how you are qualified to legislate, likely as a backbencher.

For new opposition candidates, I agree that opposition for opposition’s sake is not adequate. Furthermore, besides staking your positions in relation to the ruling party, you are entering a context where your party colleagues have some legislative experience as MPs or NCMPs. If so, what have you learnt through observation or legislative assistance? What would future collaboration look like? And similarly, how are you qualified to legislate, likely in the minority?

Everything considered, it can feel like we’re asking for a lot from the candidates. Nonetheless, elections happen once every five years in Singapore, and the intense nine days of campaigning create a unique opportunity for voters to engage civically and politically. We owe ourselves that much. As Prof. Teo concluded, in the video explainer I referenced earlier:

“Elections and our voting decisions matter. We should think of our votes as having an impact on the kind of society we want to be. We should remember that we are not just voting for people to take care for municipal issues, but members of parliament.”