Half truth is thrown up to mask their flaw argument.
For example, people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.
One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won't face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?
There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:
1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn't project any negativity to voters as a whole. (The only negativity projected by opposition which has NATIONAL influence and implications, is only the doubts thrown on the AHPETC saga but this has nothing to do with the small parties at all!)
2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters' mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .
Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?
Thus, please don't put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.
Contrary to those naysayers, opposition wasn't weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power. Period.