By Roberto Coloma/AFP/Singapore

The unexpectedly large victory margin of Singapore’s long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in a snap general election came from a swing vote triggered by fears of change and instability.
Enthusiastic crowds of up to 30,000 attended campaign rallies of the opposition Workers’ party (WP), which was hoping to win up to 20 of 89 available seats, almost triple the seven it held in the previous parliament.
The PAP’s low-energy rallies were dwarfed by comparison and ridiculed in social media. And so the scale of the ruling party’s victory came as a surprise.
The PAP, in power for more than half a century, won 83 seats and scooped up 70% of all votes cast, reversing a setback in 2011 when its share of the popular vote fell to an all-time low of 60%.
The WP’s seats fell to six and it very nearly lost five of them.
“I think it is a flight to safety. The concern of the PAP being severely weakened has contributed to voters, particularly the middle ground or undecided voters, deciding to plump for the tried-and-tested plan,” said Eugene Tan, associate law professor at the Singapore Management University.
Under the PAP, Singapore grew into one of the world’s richest societies with near universal home ownership, low crime and a per capita gross domestic product exceeding $50,000.
But the party has also been criticised for quashing protests, jailing dissidents, muzzling the media and driving political opponents to bankruptcy with costly defamation suits.
Yet political freedom was not even one of the hot topics during the campaign, which centred on immigration, the high cost of living, strained public services and the needs of the poor and elderly in a fast-ageing society.
Bridget Welsh, a senior research associate on Asian politics at the National Taiwan University, said the PAP benefited from a “pendulum swing” by the silent majority in the final phase of the nine-day campaign.
“As polling day approached, the opposition’s messages and prominence in the media gained traction. The prominent messages and large crowds provoked a counter-reaction that boosted the PAP performance, an opposition blowback,” she wrote in a post-election analysis.
“The stronger the opposition became, the stronger the response against the opposition, especially among the silent majority,” Welsh said.
In an e-mailed message to Singaporeans yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the results “show that you have rejected divisive politics, and supported rational approaches to solving our problems.”
The message said: “Our rallies may have been less exciting than the opposition’s, but you understood what was at stake, and stood with us. I thank you for that.”
Daniel Goh, a sociologist who ran unsuccessfully under the WP, wrote yesterday on Facebook that the people had spoken “and the collective wisdom is always right”.
WP chief Low Thia Khiang also acknowledged that there was a “massive swing” in favour of the PAP.
“I believe all of us have to accept it,” he told journalists.
The PAP did not wage a totally benign campaign.
It attacked the character of some candidates and cast doubt on the divided opposition’s ability to govern, alleging that it mismanaged one district it wrested from the ruling party in 2011.
In densely populated Singapore, MPs also manage municipal services, not just create legislation.
Also working in the PAP’s favour were the afterglow from the 50th anniversary celebrations of Singapore’s independence in August, and the outpouring of grief when founding leader Lee Kuan Yew died in March.
“I think that has a significant contributory effect psychologically in favour of the PAP,” said Devadas Krishnadas, chief executive of consultancy Future-Moves Group.
The PAP also learned its lessons in 2011 and moved quickly to address the issues.
Lee’s government sharply reduced the intake of immigrants and foreign workers accused of stealing Singaporeans’ jobs and causing overcrowding.
It poured billions of dollars into improving public housing and mass transport. It expanded a “baby bonus” scheme to encourage parents to have more children. Benefits for the elderly and lower-income families were also unveiled in the run-up to the vote.