“The authority of the government emanates from the people,” noted Singapore’s apex court in a 2020 decision ruling that the highest law of the land – the Constitution – contains the right to vote.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy, being a concrete means by which citizens can have a voice in the political future of the country.
Then-Nominated Member of Parliament Professor Thio Li-ann said that the vote “underscores the stake each citizen has in the country, inspiring a sense of loyalty, stewardship and responsibility for Singapore.”
With growing political polarisation and division in many places over the past few decades, concerns have been voiced about “single-issue voting” and its related politics. One American professor, the late Robert Spaeth, called “single-issue politics” a “special threat” to both political parties and universities.
What is “single-issue voting”? Is there something more to it?
What is “Single-Issue” Voting?
A 1982 article in the journal Political Behavior defined “single issue” as “any issue that generates a significant amount of single-minded behavior among some public”, where “single-minded behavior” is described as “the willingness of an individual to allow one issue to guide his or her participation in politics”.
Single-issue voting is motivated by strongly-held values. It usually rests on one or more of the following: moral principle, constitutional rights or “protection of a way of life”.
Topics that can be considered “single-issue” vary from country to country, and across time as well. In the United States, among the “single-issue” topics typically identified by studies are topics like taxation, abortion, gun control, LGBTQ+ and so on.
In the United Kingdom (UK), Brexit is perhaps the biggest single issue in recent times, where a hotly debated 2016 referendum decided that the UK would leave the European Union. Brexit remained a prominent issue in the 2019 elections, and there was even a political party known as the Brexit Party (later renamed the Reform Party).
The Hidden Complexity of “Single-Issue” Voting
“Single-issue” voting has been criticised for being a threat to the political system. For example, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had warned in 1991 that single-issue voting risks turning the Government “populist” in order to appease various interest groups, instead of taking long-term decisions for the good of the country.
Despite the criticisms against it, “single-issue” voting is actually far more complex.
Firstly, as the 1982 Political Behavior article points out, “single-issue” voting need not necessarily reflect a simplistic “gut” response to an issue. It could instead reflect “hard-issue” voting, based on “conscious calculation of policy benefits for alternative electoral choices”.
The authors write that: “Under some circumstances, political sophistication may actually act as a stimulus to single-issue voting; well- informed voters may, in fact, choose to single-issue vote as a consequence of careful deliberation over the costs and benefits of such action.” In other words, it may not just be a single-issue, it may be the singular issue.
Secondly, in the eyes of voters, the meaning of any particular “single issue” is actually far broader than what appears on the surface.
In an article titled “In Support of ‘Single-Issue’ Politics”, then-Yale lecturer Sylvia Tesh cited the example of abortion in the United States. To supporters of abortion, legalised abortion means “freedom for women to control their own reproduction and thus their lives”, and is thus connected to “the women’s movement’s goal of equality between the sexes”.
Opponents of abortion also see the symbolic meaning beyond the act itself. With reference to the religious opposition to abortion, she notes their view that “it places in the hands of human beings decisions that are rightfully God’s”.
In addition, “they believe that abortion poses a threat to the traditional role of women and thus to the stability of families, causing an increase in venereal disease, sex crimes, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, drug and alcohol abuse, and atheism”.
The closest example in history to a “single-issue” vote may be one from before Singapore’s independence, during the 1962 referendum on “the mode and manner” of the merger with Malaysia.
The referendum had attracted criticism from opposition politicians, as the referendum did not ask the people whether they wished to merge with Malaysia or not. It simply gave voters three different options as to ‘how’ Singapore should merge with Malaysia. Further, any spoilt or blank votes were deemed to follow the decision of the majority in the Legislative Assembly.
Criticising the opponents of merger in a report to the United Nations, the ruling Government characterised them as people “who do not want to see the country free and independent”, but who wanted to “retain Singapore’s semi-colonial status, for political reasons of their own”. Thus, what appears on the surface to be a simple debate about merger was actually seen as a wider debate about colonialism, freedom and sovereignty.
What do the above examples reveal?
The short answer: the ‘issue’ is not the issue. There are deeper questions and complexities involved even in the context of what might seem to be “single-issue” topics on the surface.
What About Singaporeans Today?
Statistics suggest that most Singaporeans vote pragmatically, rather than ideologically. According to an Institute of Policy Studies post-election survey, the top concerns of the 2020 General Elections were “the need for efficient government” and “fairness of government policy” respectively. An overwhelming 60% of respondents said “the need for efficient government” was “very important”, and 37% said it was “important”.
On the other hand, the study found that the “legal status of homosexuality” (at a time when Section 377A of the Penal Code was still on the books) ranked much lower, with those saying it was “very important” or “important” at 14% and 26% respectively. The study did not ask about whether they were for or against its repeal, but this is still quite a sizeable number.
For a significant number of Singaporeans (around 40%), the contentious topic of Section 377A of the Penal Code and its official repeal at the beginning of 2023 was an important issue that they were concerned about. As many have pointed out, Section 377A was seen by both supporters and opponents as “symbolic” of societal acceptance of homosexuality and LGBTQ+ values as a whole.
Practically, this means that there may be some people for whom this single issue (the repeal of Section 377A) may affect their decisions about whom to vote for.
More significantly, the statistics suggest that a larger number of people will consider this issue among one of many factors in their choice of political party to vote for. In constituencies where the election is closely-fought, this could make a difference and tip the result in one direction or another.
Singapore’s political landscape has largely avoided the pitfall of other political systems and governments that have been mired by single-issue politics, particularly LGBTQ+ politics.
LGBTQ+ activists in Singapore actively seek to radically revise the pillars and ethos of what constitutes a family, socio-legal norms of gender identity and public policy concerning housing, media and so on.
Their concerted effort to realise their desired revisions carry significant consequences to the rest of Singapore’s population should it come to pass: changes to the nuclear family, legal definition of marriage and reallocation of already-scarce resources would run contrary to national interests, and come into conflict with the deeply-held values and beliefs of our multicultural, multireligious society – many of whom do not endorse such changes.
As such, our government of the day (the PAP) has largely eschewed the tempting strategy of capitalising on the single-voter issue of LGBTQ+ politics to curry the favour of voters, and instead opted for an approach that is rooted in mutual understanding of interests and facilitated discourse.
The decision to repeal S377A was not made overnight – countless rounds of interparty negotiations between LGBTQ+ spokespeople and social-religious parties were cornerstone to reaching a consensus-based outcome of repeal.
A New Era of Single-Issue Politics in Singapore?
GE2025 may mark a turning point. The ground is shifting—and two recent developments show that single-issue voting is no longer fringe. It’s becoming a force.
First, the Protect Singapore Scorecard. Created by social conservatives, the Scorecard grades MPs and parties based on their public positions on LGBTQ+ issues, marriage, and family. Attending Pink Dot, staying silent on cultural policy, or using progressive language in Parliament—all of these are treated as signals of ideological drift.
To supporters, the Scorecard fills a vacuum. It reflects unease over a perceived leftward shift in Singapore’s culture—particularly around media, education, and legal norms. Many see this as more than just policy change; they see it as a redefinition of values without consensus. The Scorecard isn’t just a voter guide—it’s a protest. It says: we are still here, and our views still matter.
Second, the Malay-Muslim ground is stirring.
Years of quiet frustration have broken into public expression in the last month alone. The Calvin Cheng incident, where comments seen as offensive to many Malays drew mild consequences, deepening a sense of alienation. So did the government’s cautious, measured posture on the Israel–Hamas conflict—a stance many in the Malay-Muslim community perceived as cold or evasive in the face of Palestinian suffering. Fair or not, the sentiment is widespread: that when it comes to Muslim causes, empathy feels conditional.
These flashpoints tap into deeper wounds.
Grievances around the tudung issue, the dominance of closed-door policymaking, and perceived political tokenism have long simmered. But beneath them lie structural concerns—underrepresentation in national security, the judiciary, and other elite institutions; a MUIS that many Muslims view as state-aligned rather than community-led; and the longstanding belief that Malay-Muslim dignity is being managed rather than fully respected.
Faisal Manap, long a solitary figure, now represents more than himself. He embodies a model of representation that is charmingly inarticulate, unafraid, unapologetic, and rooted in faith and cultural identity.
The mood has shifted from “please include us” to “we will vote for those who speak for us—full stop.” These aren’t isolated uprisings. They are signs of a deeper reckoning. What ties both movements together is the sense that dignity, moral clarity, and voice are non-negotiable—and if they’re not offered, they’ll be demanded.
The Boiling Point: When Single Issues Become a National Reckoning
Singapore’s political stability rests on a quiet pact: don’t exploit cultural fault lines. The repeal of 377A was a textbook example of that pact at work—negotiated behind closed doors, balancing religious concerns with civil liberties. It didn’t please everyone, but it was a compromise. A line was drawn: no triumphalism, no escalation.
That line is now fraying.
The Workers’ Party has crossed into new territory—breaking the unspoken agreement to keep foreign conflicts out of local campaigns. By allowing a candidate to frontload the Israeli-Palestinian issue and including it in their manifesto, the WP hasn’t just made a policy choice. They’ve made a political bet: that appealing to ethnic grievance can deliver votes.
It’s a quiet but calculated move—designed to signal solidarity while preserving plausible deniability. But make no mistake: it shifts the ground.
The PAP, by contrast, tried to contain the Malay-Muslim reaction through calibrated statements and backchannel engagement. But the backlash suggests the strategy hasn’t worked. The anger is real. The ground is restless. From the Calvin Cheng episode to long-simmering concerns about dignity and underrepresentation, the message is clear: symbolic gestures and cautious language aren’t enough anymore.
People don’t just want to be heard. They want to see who is willing to speak for them.
Here’s the paradox: single-issue politics can be narrow and volatile—but they can also be morally clear. When people vote on family, faith, or identity, it’s not always out of tribalism or ignorance. It’s often the opposite: a deep sense of what’s at stake.
The danger isn’t in the conviction. It’s in how parties respond—whether they exploit it for easy points, suppress it for fear of disruption, or engage it with honesty and principle.
The complexity of the danger is that single issues don’t stay single for long. One concern becomes a proxy for identity, representation, even legitimacy. What looks like a culture war skirmish can morph into a referendum on the social contract itself.
Dismiss that, and you’ll be blindsided. Exploit it, and you’ll deepen the divide. The only path forward is harder: honest engagement, principled leadership, and the political courage to hold the centre while others pull at the seams.
