The Workers Party has lost its moral compass.

[tobelightlight]

’ - — ,

The Workers' Party eleventh hour withdrawal from - is not just a campaign decision. It is a profound act of betrayal, of opposition unity, of voters’ rights, and of the very spirit of democratic contestation.

The timing of the move, and the refusal to give space for others to contest, makes one thing clear: this was not about resources. This was about control. And it exposes a broader, more troubling realignment between ’s leadership and the very political dominance it once claimed to oppose.

This analysis does not come from hostility toward the idea of . It comes from disappointment at what has become under Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim , a party once feared by the establishment, now folded into its comfort.



- was not lost. It was handed over.
And ’ did it with the kind of precision that made sure no other party could step in.

This is not political strategy.
This is sabotage dressed up as pragmatism.

It was an ambush, not on the People's Action Party , but on the very voters who believed in as a force for change.

—

Let us be fair, redrawn boundaries in - may have presented valid electoral challenges for . Internal calculations could have indicated limited prospects or resource constraints, and party strategists might have opted to concentrate efforts where holds stronger ground.

Such tactical choices are not uncommon. In fact, many observers were prepared to understand if had publicly stepped aside early, allowing another opposition party to step in and carry the fight.

But that’s not what happened.

Instead of strategic transparency, we saw a strategic ambush.

remained silent until the last possible moment, preventing any other party from stepping in, and in effect, locking the constituency in a one-party grip.

So while we may understand the why behind the decision, we cannot and must not excuse the how, because that is where the betrayal lies.

The core issue was not withdrawal.
It was secrecy. It was timing. It was the quiet coordination with the ’s electoral convenience.

And in that, chose to serve the system, not the people.

—

Since assuming party leadership, gradually reshaped ’s posture, from one that challenged power directly, to one that carefully navigated within the boundaries of institutional comfort. The tone of changed.

Public defiance was replaced with managed speeches.
Engagement with grassroots activism dulled.
And now, direct withdrawal from one of the most symbolic GRCs in the East.

, once respected for her sharpness and independence, has become silent in the face of this strategic collapse.
Together, this leadership has led not to the next chapter, but to its expiration date.

- —

Let’s not sugarcoat this:
The didn’t come to win. came to lose.
And the way was cleared by silence, secrecy, and last-hour abandonment.

This isn’t just about - . It sends shockwaves across Aljunied GRC, Sengkang GRC and Hougang SMC.
If can walk away from one GRC with no warning, what else are they willing to walk away from behind closed doors?

The answer lies in the pattern, a party that once opposed, now performs opposition just enough to stay relevant, but never to challenge too far.



This article makes a clear distinction:
Not every member is guilty of this betrayal.

There remain among them volunteers, members, and former MPs, like Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap , who represent the real ideals of democratic service.
They, too, deserve answers. Because they, too, were betrayed.

’s downfall is not the fault of the base.
It is the result of a leadership that sought comfort in coordination with the establishment, rather than courage in standing against it.

— ,

This analysis is not a call to vote .
Let that be clear.

Where still holds ground, such as , and , and other wards where residents have built trust with local representatives, the people have every right to retain them, based on performance, presence, and local service.

But the party's direction must be reevaluated after this election.

Voters must draw a line between preserving good work on the ground… and rewarding national-level betrayal by leadership who no longer represent the struggle for change.

Let the people decide. Let them send a message.
Not just to , but to itself:
Reform, or be removed. Wake up, or be replaced.



It is no longer enough for to defend itself with political ambiguity. The events surrounding - have shown that the party’s leadership, from to , has become too compromised, too comfortable, and too removed from the spirit of true opposition.

, .

If is to reclaim its credibility, it must confront its internal decay. It must rediscover its fire. And that cannot happen under a leadership that has already proven willing to trade public trust for political convenience.

The message is clear, change must begin from within, or risks becoming politically irrelevant.

—

’ under and has lost the moral authority to claim leadership of the opposition in Singapore.

It has become a party of compliance, not challenge.
A tool of balance for the dominant party, not a threat to it.
And - is all the proof we need.

The voters now have the final say.

Let them remember this betrayal.
Let them recognise the pattern.
And let them decide, not just who should win seats, but who deserves to call themselves the opposition.

ℳ ℯ