WHEN the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled Singapore ever since self-government in 1959, recorded its worst ever general election result in May 2011, it still won 60% of the votes and 81 out of 87 contested parliamentary seats. But far from shrugging off the setback, the party’s leader, Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, promised some “soul-searching”, acknowledging that many Singaporeans wanted the party to adopt “a different style and approach”. Since then, it has tried just that.

A by-election on January 26th suggested Singaporeans are yet to be convinced. The opposition Workers’ Party, winner of the six seats in 2011, took the seat of Punggol East from the PAP. Its candidate, Lee Li Lian, won despite competition from two other opposition-party candidates, and with a margin of 54.5% of the vote to the PAP’s 43.7%, a swing to her party of 10.8%. For orderly, stable, prosperous Singapore, where the only doubt at elections has been the size of the government’s majority, this is shocking. Alex Au, a local blogger, has pointed out that if that swing were repeated across the island in the next general election, due by 2016, the PAP would be reduced to 42 seats in parliament.

In countries with elections but single-party dominance, that party tends, sooner or later, to lose power (for a while at least): the PRI in Mexico; the KMT in Taiwan; the LDP in Japan. In an election due in the next few months in Malaysia, the sibling nation from which Singapore was separated in infancy, the coalition that has governed since independence in 1957 faces its biggest challenge yet. Does the PAP, too, face a mid-life crisis?

Probably not. Mr Lee, the prime minister, was quick to point to the “by-election” effect. Voters can register their disgruntlement without any risk that the opposition might take power. The Workers’ Party’s campaign offered constructive opposition to the PAP, not alternative government. Even some within the party itself say it is not large enough to develop its own policies. And the PAP has some unused weapons in its armoury. The elections department, which tinkers with constituency boundaries, is under the prime minister’s office. And although the recent campaign was a polite affair, the PAP has in the past played on fear and greed, threatening to deprive opposition-voting constituencies of funds for public-housing improvements, for example. It has also sued vocal opposition candidates for defamation.

The electoral system is dominated by “group” constituencies of four to six seats. Ostensibly designed to ensure that candidates from Singapore’s minority ethnic-Malay and -Indian populations are represented, the arrangement also makes life hard for small parties. And the Workers’ Party is but one of half-a-dozen opposition parties that find it hard to agree and co-operate. Some opposition voters are already disillusioned with it. Presenting itself as mature and responsible, it risks appearing as PAP-lite.

Nevertheless, the PAP must be worried. Its leaders argue that Singapore relies on its unique combination of electoral competition, to keep them honest, and the inevitability of PAP rule, so they can plan for the long-term and eschew populist pandering. And the PAP has certainly changed its style and tried to learn what voters want. After the 2011 election, the government launched a “national conversation”—a kind of mass focus-group exercise. This is a drastic change from the days of Singapore’s founder, Mr Lee’s father, Lee Kuan Yew, when the government left little doubt that it knew best. And, in the run-up to the by-election, the government offered voters lots of goodies: more measures to cool the heated property market; a planned doubling of the mass-transit network; handouts and more incentives for new parents; more money for the care of disabled children.

As Mr Lee acknowledged in 2011, the PAP’s problem is partly one of style. Proud of its “meritocratic” principles, it can seem elitist and uncaring. In a country where running a car is expensive, its unsuccessful candidate in Punggol East, Koh Poh Koon, a respected surgeon, was pilloried for suggesting that “everyone has a car” when it emerged that he and his wife have one each.

That points to the PAP’s other problem: one of substance. To the apparent disbelief of party leaders, many Singaporeans actually seem unhappy with government policy. Two related bugbears keep coming up: the cost of living and immigration. Many poorer Singaporeans feel their wages are depressed by an influx of workers from low-wage countries, such as Bangladesh and, above all, China. Singapore’s social safety net offers a bare minimum and all Singaporean men are conscripted for two years’ national service. Immigrants are seen as enjoying special privileges.

The government argues immigration is essential if Singaporeans are to maintain their standard of living. On January 29th it published a white paper on the population. From 5.3m at present it is expected to reach 6m by 2020 and 6.5m-6.9m by 2030. But Singaporeans are not having enough children. Despite decades of government pro-baby propaganda, the “total fertility rate” in Singapore (the number of children, on average, a woman will have) had fallen to 1.2 in 2011, among the lowest in the world. So from 2020, the number of working-age Singaporeans will decline and by 2030 there will be only 2.1 Singaporeans of working age for every one over the age of 64, compared with 5.9 in 2012.

Cui bono?

So the white paper estimates that Singapore needs 15,000-25,000 new citizens each year, along with, by 2030, 0.5m-0.6m foreign “permanent residents” and 2.3m-2.5m other foreigners. Already, probably fewer than half the people living in Singapore were born there. Some citizens have doubts about an economic model that both relies on immigrants to sustain growth and, increasingly, benefits immigrants. Nobody has come up with an alternative. But the government now has to show not only that it can run Singapore’s economy but also that it can answer the question: what and whom is its success for?

Economist.com/blogs/banyan