[Bigiron]

‘I’m no babe in the woods’: PAP newbie Elysa Chen asks to be judged on her track record | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/i...ack-record

[Bigiron]

The article *"‘I’m no babe in the woods’: PAP newbie Elysa Chen asks to be judged on her track record"* (The Straits Times) is a typical political profile piece that may contain elements of fluff, bias, or selective framing—common in party-affiliated media. Here are some potential "bullshit" aspects to critique:  

### 1. **Uncritical Promotion of a Political Newcomer**  
   - The article reads like a soft PR piece for Elysa Chen, a People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate, without substantive scrutiny of her actual track record.  
   - It emphasizes her confidence ("no babe in the woods") but doesn’t deeply examine her qualifications beyond surface-level achievements (e.g., her legal career and grassroots work).  

### 2. **Lack of Opposition or Alternative Views**  
   - As with many state-linked media profiles, there’s no critical perspective from opposition figures, neutral analysts, or constituents who might question her suitability.  
   - The framing is one-sided, presenting her self-assessment as fact rather than inviting external evaluation.  

### 3. **Vague Claims About "Track Record"**  
   - Chen asks to be judged on her track record, but the article doesn’t provide concrete metrics or independent verification of her grassroots impact.  
   - Many PAP candidates are parachuted into constituencies after short stints in "grassroots" roles (often seen as party grooming rather than organic leadership).  

### 4. **Omission of Broader Political Context**  
   - No mention of why she was selected (e.g., demographic targeting, party strategy) or how she compares to other candidates (PAP or opposition).  
   - The article avoids discussing controversies or criticisms surrounding PAP’s candidate selection process (e.g., elite favoritism, lack of political diversity).  

### 5. **Tone of Inevitability (PAP’s Advantage)**  
   - The piece subtly reinforces the idea that PAP candidates are inherently qualified, without acknowledging systemic advantages (media access, state resources, etc.).  
   - Opposition candidates rarely get similarly glowing, unchallenged coverage in mainstream outlets.  

### **Conclusion**  
The article isn’t outright false, but it’s a curated narrative that serves PAP’s electoral messaging. The "bullshit" lies in the lack of critical depth, the omission of opposing views, and the uncritical acceptance of self-promoted claims.  

For a balanced view, compare this with alternative media (e.g., *The Online Citizen*, *Mothership*) or opposition critiques, which might highlight her lack of prior electoral experience or PAP’s top-down candidate selection process.

[goodboy]

You’re no babe, that’s for sure