![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
7 hours ago
Bullshit in "A ridiculous argument": SM Lee rebuts #WP chief Pritam Singh's point that losing key ministers will not weaken the #PAP's ability to govern. #GE2025
Follow our live blog: https://str.sg/HYxi
The article you referenced discusses a debate between SM Lee and WP chief Pritam Singh regarding whether losing key ministers would weaken the PAP's ability to govern. While I can't access the live blog directly, I can analyze the general arguments and highlight potential weaknesses or "bullshit" in such a political exchange.
### Possible "Bullshit" in the Argument:
1. **Assumption of Indispensability**
- **Bullshit**: SM Lee's argument likely hinges on the idea that key ministers are irreplaceable, implying the PAP's governance would collapse without them.
- **Why?**: No individual is truly indispensable in a well-structured system. If the PAP has strong institutions and a deep bench of talent (as it claims), losing a few ministers shouldn’t cripple governance. Pritam Singh's point exposes this contradiction.
2. **Overstatement of WP's Impact**
- **Bullshit**: If SM Lee frames WP's argument as "ridiculous," he may be exaggerating the threat of opposition influence to dismiss valid criticism.
- **Why?**: The WP isn’t saying the PAP can’t govern—just that the system shouldn’t rely on a few individuals. SM Lee’s rebuttal could be a strawman.
3. **False Dichotomy (PAP vs. Chaos)**
- **Bullshit**: The argument may imply that without PAP elites, Singapore would face governance failure.
- **Why?**: This ignores the possibility of competent alternative leaders or systemic resilience. Many democracies function despite leadership changes.
4. **Ignoring Systemic Weaknesses**
- **Bullshit**: If the PAP claims its governance is robust, why would losing a few ministers weaken it?
- **Why?**: Either the system is strong (and can handle turnover) or it’s overly reliant on a small group (which is a vulnerability). SM Lee can’t have it both ways.
5. **Political Fear-Mongering**
- **Bullshit**: The rebuttal might be framed as "the opposition is reckless," playing on voter fears.
- **Why?**: Instead of addressing the merit of Singh’s argument, it could be a tactic to discredit WP by making their stance seem irresponsible.
### 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:
-T𝐡𝐞 "𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐭" 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐀𝐏'𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:
- 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠, 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.
- 𝐈𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 *𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬* 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐞.
- 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐬 "𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬" 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭
𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥.
Follow our live blog: https://str.sg/HYxi
The article you referenced discusses a debate between SM Lee and WP chief Pritam Singh regarding whether losing key ministers would weaken the PAP's ability to govern. While I can't access the live blog directly, I can analyze the general arguments and highlight potential weaknesses or "bullshit" in such a political exchange.
### Possible "Bullshit" in the Argument:
1. **Assumption of Indispensability**
- **Bullshit**: SM Lee's argument likely hinges on the idea that key ministers are irreplaceable, implying the PAP's governance would collapse without them.
- **Why?**: No individual is truly indispensable in a well-structured system. If the PAP has strong institutions and a deep bench of talent (as it claims), losing a few ministers shouldn’t cripple governance. Pritam Singh's point exposes this contradiction.
2. **Overstatement of WP's Impact**
- **Bullshit**: If SM Lee frames WP's argument as "ridiculous," he may be exaggerating the threat of opposition influence to dismiss valid criticism.
- **Why?**: The WP isn’t saying the PAP can’t govern—just that the system shouldn’t rely on a few individuals. SM Lee’s rebuttal could be a strawman.
3. **False Dichotomy (PAP vs. Chaos)**
- **Bullshit**: The argument may imply that without PAP elites, Singapore would face governance failure.
- **Why?**: This ignores the possibility of competent alternative leaders or systemic resilience. Many democracies function despite leadership changes.
4. **Ignoring Systemic Weaknesses**
- **Bullshit**: If the PAP claims its governance is robust, why would losing a few ministers weaken it?
- **Why?**: Either the system is strong (and can handle turnover) or it’s overly reliant on a small group (which is a vulnerability). SM Lee can’t have it both ways.
5. **Political Fear-Mongering**
- **Bullshit**: The rebuttal might be framed as "the opposition is reckless," playing on voter fears.
- **Why?**: Instead of addressing the merit of Singh’s argument, it could be a tactic to discredit WP by making their stance seem irresponsible.
### 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:
-T𝐡𝐞 "𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐭" 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐀𝐏'𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:
- 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠, 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.
- 𝐈𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 *𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬* 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐞.
- 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐬 "𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬" 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭
𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥.
![[+]](https://sgtalk.net/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
