A free rider, as defined in economics, is an individual (or group) that reaps the benefits of the actions of others, without paying the cost (or underpaying for it). It is a form of market failure, and characterizes nonexcludable goods (those whose use cannot be restricted). 
In his opening address to the 14th Parliament, PM Lee spoke of a number of issues. Many points he made were thoughtful, and drew on his deep experience in government, and as Prime Minister. I appreciated his insight and candor.
PM Lee also suggested (and I paraphrase) that the argument that voting for the opposition because others will still return the PAP to power is what the economist will associate with being a free rider.
In his response, LO Pritam Singh rejected this claim, pointing out that the voters in wards that voted for the WP were reflecting a genuine desire for an alternative voice, and were not free riding off anyone.
Setting aside the fact that the #workersparty would not have formed government even if it did win every single contested seat (and the PAP would have formed it, assuming no other opposition gains), the free rider claim is worth exploring from an economist’s view.
Parliament seats are excludable: when a PAP MP is elected, the opposition is necessarily prevented from accessing it. Moreover, in Aljunied, Hougang & Sengkang, the votes were potentially costly: it required trust in our candidates, that we would be good town councilors and MPs.
Yet voters were willing to do so. This does not strike me as consistent with free riding. Moreover, our sense—having spoken to voters in the aftermath—is that they did not vote tactically. If anything, they overcame their fear of the untested, and voted for the WP regardless.
What is true is that they voted with their hearts, and with the conviction that some alternative voices were needed. Sure, they did so with some reassurance that the PAP would likely continue to form government. But it certainly wasn’t because they were looking for a free ride.
