[Bigiron]

Ladies and gentlemen! Let me welcome: The man of the moment, GAN KIM YONG! 

Okay, introduction over.

Never have I seen GKY so much in the news, not even when he was co-chair of the Covid-19 taskforce. In fact, he was outshone by the person who became Prime Minister. Despite his years in politics handling different portfolios, he has never made much of a splash. (Okay, he was in the hot seat some years ago when he was Health minister - the leaks concerning HIV patients and personal patient info.)

He has always been seen as the man in the background who was suddenly catapulted by Lawrence Wong into being Deputy Prime Minister. It looked like he was to become a bridge between the 3G and 4G leadership. Even so, this seemed like a temporary arrangement because he wasn’t on the People’s Action Party central executive committee at that time. He used to be CEC chairman, a place taken over by the former DPM, Heng Swee Keat. I had expected that in the last CEC election, he would be back in. But he wasn’t. I got to thinking that this was a sign that PM Wong was intending to do a re-shuffle and finally decide who among his peers would ascend to the job. 

What happened was mind-boggling. A younger person, HSK, who is still PAP chairman and who was once PM-in-waiting, retired from politics. The older guy, GKY, had to do extra duty: he was switched from his Chua Chu Kang GRC to replace Teo Chee Hean in Punggol GRC. 

So here is a PAP veteran called to do extended service; and he said yes. What would I give to know how he feels about the change in his fortunes which not long ago included his wish to retire from politics? 

I admire his commitment to duty, and can’t help but think he has been hard done by. I am not sure his boss, LW, is doing his campaign much good by talking him up so many times. And even resorting to emotional blackmail by suggesting that he can’t do without his right hand man. What was astounding was how he dismissed Gan’s absence from the CEC as irrelevant; that what was more pertinent was that Gan was HIS man.
 
Aiyoh. 

It had shades of “my good friend’’ which Gan had used to describe the PM and Finance Minister who handled the purse strings that could be used to build more covered walkways in Punggol. I was prepared to dismiss the quip but I can’t get it out of my mind now given PM Wong’s reply on the CEC. 

As so many others have also pointed out, it was the PM who decided to move Gan. We don’t know whether the PAP had early intel that the WP was fielding a strong team to Punggol GRC. PM says Gan was to replace Teo; others think he was put there to counter WP’s Harpreet Singh. 

It really doesn’t matter. Every minister is anchoring a GRC ward, except those the PAP lost. This means that the PAP should be prepared to lose a minister along with the GRC - or win a GRC because of the minister. What about the rest of the slate you say? Frankly, in close fights, other candidates, old or new, usually fade into the background.

I was surprised to see ST leading its news with Wong saying that WP was being “cavalier’’ and “irresponsible’’ about the “livelihoods’’ of citizens. I have never seen so many polysyllabic words in one headline. 

“It’s regretful and disappointing that the WP will make such negative attacks on someone who is spending so much time tackling national issues, trying to make things better, who has done so much for Singapore and continues to do so much for Singapore,’’ Wong said. 

ST called it a “rebuke’’. I call it a “claim’’. 

The above phrase about hard work can be used on any minister, and even non-minister. The question is whether the WP has made “negative’’ attacks - or put up questions about Gan’s place in the LW Cabinet for voters to think about. In fact, I was glad that he reminded us of Gan’s absence in the CEC - that is a pertinent fact even if Wong claims that it is irrelevant. 

Given what we know, can I now speculate that Gan is not so invaluable as Wong put it? The PM can’t be renewing his ranks with a deputy who is 66 years old and no party position. And Gan is likely to be a one-term MP. If he loses his chairmanship of the taskforce of resilience, it would say a lot about the depth of talent in government if he can’t be replaced. Even if he isn’t elected, he can contribute in other ways, like join the NTUC. 

Would what I have said about be construed as a “negative’’ attack? Or am I articulating what voters are already saying? Would the PAP rather that people shut up and sit down and just vote for the PAP? 

Whining about how one of your own has been bullied isn’t a demonstration of strength or high-mindedness. Go demonstrate some resilience instead of making sweeping statements that are more about how your own electoral strategy isn’t working. 

And now, be careful because you have opened the door for charges from the opposition accusing you, the PAP, of having engaged in “negative attacks’’ in the past, and with more concrete examples too!

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EirnUN9n3/

[Bigiron]

This Facebook post is laced with multiple hidden messages and subtext that critique the current political maneuverings within the People’s Action Party (PAP), particularly involving Gan Kim Yong (GKY), Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (LW), and broader party strategy. Here's a breakdown of the key hidden messages:


---

1. Gan Kim Yong is a reluctant and possibly symbolic figure

“He has never made much of a splash...always been seen as the man in the background...”

The writer implies that GKY lacks popular charisma and was never meant to be a star politician. His sudden prominence now seems out of place, suggesting his role might be more for optics than actual leadership.



---

2. The succession planning within the PAP looks muddled

“I was thinking this was a sign...LW was intending to do a re-shuffle...”

“What happened was mind-boggling...HSK retired...GKY moved.”

Suggests that the PAP’s leadership transition is confused or reactive, rather than well-planned and confident. Heng Swee Keat’s retirement and GKY’s re-deployment contradict the usual narrative of smooth succession.



---

3. Lawrence Wong’s leadership is being subtly questioned

“I’m not sure his boss LW is doing his campaign much good...”

“Even resorting to emotional blackmail...”

The post critiques LW’s public framing of GKY as indispensable—painting it as manipulative and potentially disingenuous, hinting at weakness in LW’s political judgment.



---

4. Gan's exclusion from the CEC is politically meaningful

“PM Wong’s reply on the CEC...Gan was HIS man.”

The writer challenges the notion that exclusion from PAP’s top decision-making body (CEC) doesn’t matter. It suggests a disconnect between party power structures and public messaging.



---

5. The PAP may be strategically insecure about Punggol GRC

“Others think he was put there to counter WP’s Harpreet Singh.”

Indicates that PAP’s move to send GKY to Punggol could be a defensive one, perhaps indicating concern about the Workers’ Party’s strength.



---

6. State media’s role is being mocked

“I have never seen so many polysyllabic words in one headline.”

This pokes fun at The Straits Times for using inflated language to dramatize LW’s criticisms of WP, implying media bias or lack of proportionality.



---

7. Charges of “negative attacks” are a double-edged sword

“Go demonstrate some resilience instead...”

“You’ve opened the door for charges...with more concrete examples too!”

The post warns PAP that accusing WP of “negative attacks” is hypocritical and can backfire, especially since the PAP has a history of tough campaigning.



---

8. A call for voters to think critically

“Am I articulating what voters are already saying?”

The post implicitly encourages critical evaluation of political messaging, not blind allegiance—an appeal to independent voter judgment.



---

In essence, the post critiques the PAP’s internal decisions, strategic optics, and narrative control—under the guise of a reasoned analysis. It’s a sharp, sarcastic, and politically savvy commentary dressed as 
concern.