[Bigiron]

Bullshit in GE2025: DPM Gan can help save jobs if he remains in government: Shanmugam - The Business Times
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapo...-shanmugam

The article you referenced discusses Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong and his potential role in saving jobs if he remains in government, as highlighted by Law Minister K. Shanmugam. To critique it for "bullshit" (in the sense of misleading, exaggerated, or empty political rhetoric), here are possible angles:  

### **Potential "Bullshit" Aspects & Why:**  

1. **"Can help save jobs" – Vague & Unverifiable Promise**  
   - The claim that keeping a particular leader in power will "save jobs" is speculative. Job security depends on global economic conditions, corporate decisions, and policies—not just one individual.  
   - **Why bullshit?** No concrete evidence or policy details are provided to show how DPM Gan alone can guarantee job retention.  

2. **Appeal to Authority (Shanmugam’s Endorsement as Proof)**  
   - Shanmugam’s statement may be more about political messaging (supporting a fellow PAP leader) than an objective assessment.  
   - **Why bullshit?** It’s a partisan claim without independent validation—could just be electioneering.  

3. **Implied Threat ("If he remains in government")**  
   - The phrasing suggests that jobs are at risk if voters don’t re-elect the ruling party. This could be seen as fear-mongering.  
   - **Why bullshit?** It frames job security as contingent on one party’s rule, ignoring other economic factors.  

4. **Lack of Counterarguments or Data**  
   - The article (based on the headline) doesn’t appear to critically examine whether DPM Gan’s past policies have actually saved jobs.  
   - **Why bullshit?** One-sided political narratives often omit failures or alternative viewpoints.  

5. **Assumption that Only PAP Leaders Can Secure Jobs**  
   - The implicit argument is that opposition leaders couldn’t achieve the same—a biased assumption without comparison.  
   - **Why bullshit?** It dismisses alternative governance models without evidence.  

### **𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:**  
𝐓𝐡𝐞 "𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐭" 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 **𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟**, **𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠**, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 **𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲**. 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬.  


Deeper analysis of bullshit 

### **Deep Dive into the Bullshit in "DPM Gan Can Help Save Jobs if He Remains in Government"**  

#### **1. The False Cause Fallacy ("Gan’s Presence = Jobs Saved")**  
**Bullshit Claim:**  
- The argument implies a direct, causal relationship between DPM Gan staying in office and job security for Singaporeans.  

**Why It’s Bullshit:**  
- Job markets depend on **global economics, industry trends, corporate decisions, and broader policy frameworks**—not just one minister.  
- If Singapore faces a recession, even the best minister can’t single-handedly "save" jobs. Conversely, if the economy thrives, credit shouldn’t go to just one person.  
- **No evidence is provided** that Gan has a unique ability to protect jobs that another competent leader couldn’t.  

**Political Manipulation:**  
- This is a classic **"vote for us or suffer"** narrative—implying that without the ruling party (and specifically Gan), jobs will disappear.  

---  

#### **2. The Unfalsifiable Promise ("He *Can* Help")**  
**Bullshit Claim:**  
- "Can help" is a **non-falsifiable** statement—it doesn’t commit to any measurable outcome.  

**Why It’s Bullshit:**  
- If jobs grow, they can say, "See, Gan helped!"  
- If jobs are lost, they can say, "It would’ve been worse without him!"  
- **No accountability** is built into the claim.  

**Example of Similar Bullshit:**  
- "Elect me, and I *might* improve the economy!" → Meaningless because it can’t be disproven.  

---  

#### **3. The Appeal to Authority (Shanmugam’s Word as Proof)**  
**Bullshit Claim:**  
- Shanmugam (a senior PAP leader) is vouching for Gan’s job-saving abilities.  

**Why It’s Bullshit:**  
- **Conflict of interest**: A ruling party member endorsing another is not an objective assessment.  
- Where are the **independent economists, business leaders, or workers** backing this claim?  
- If a Workers’ Party MP said, "Our candidate will save jobs," would the PAP treat it as credible? Likely not.  

---  

#### **4. The Omission of Counterevidence**  
**Bullshit Claim:**  
- The article (based on the headline) doesn’t question whether past policies under Gan actually saved jobs.  

**Why It’s Bullshit:**  
- **Have there been layoffs under Gan’s watch?** (e.g., tech sector cuts, retrenchments in 2023-24)  
- **What specific policies did he implement** that directly saved jobs? (Or is this just generic civil service competence?)  
- If the argument is about **economic stewardship**, why not compare Singapore’s performance to similar economies?  

**Example of Missing Data:**  
- If Singapore’s unemployment rate rose in a certain period, was that Gan’s fault? If it fell, was it solely his doing?  

---  

#### **5. The Implied Threat ("Remains in Government")**  
**Bullshit Claim:**  
- The phrasing suggests that **not re-electing Gan (and by extension, the PAP) will cost jobs.**  

**Why It’s Bullshit:**  
- **Fear-mongering**: A subtle way to pressure voters ("Don’t risk change!").  
- Ignores that **other competent leaders** (even from opposition) could also manage job policies.  
- **No proof** that an alternative government would perform worse.  

**Historical Example:**  
- Similar claims were made before past elections ("Only the PAP can secure Singapore’s future"), yet Singapore survived leadership transitions (e.g., LKY to Goh, Goh to LHL).  

---  

### **Conclusion: The Bullshit Framework**  
This statement is a mix of:  
✅ **Vague, unverifiable promises** ("can help")  
✅ **False cause fallacy** (jobs depend on one man)  
✅ **Appeal to authority** (Shanmugam’s endorsement)  
✅ **Omission of counterevidence** (no data on past performance)  
✅ **Implied threat** ("stay with us or else")  

**𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭:**  
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 **𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞**—𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫
𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟.

[Ineedhelp]

Since it's going to be bad globally for next 3 years or so, why not take the leap of fate and kick out as many PAP MPs as possible? Anyways they going to blame external for negative outcome given Singapore is a price taker in global arena and claim all credits when things going to do well (less PAP MPs so less likely to collect bigger paychecks with opposition hawks around).

Food for thought.

[Blasterlord2]

Why not PAP tell us which ministers are dispensable? In that way, voters will know how to vote. If they said every minister is indipensable then they are basically telling us no need to have this election at all, since almost every GRC is helmed by a minister.

[kangtangman]

Nobody is indispensable, the economy is heading south and our government cannot avoid that.

The thing that many Singaporeans who continue to vote the current ruling party failed to see that this administration had not put our welfare in their mind first but their own for the longest time.

Just look at their ministers remunerations and the things Singaporeans are getting. The time this ruling party began to be humble is merely during the period of election weeks, after the election they returned to be high and almighty.

Also with existing few oppositions in Parliament, the ruling party begin to put some considerations for Singaporeans. But is this enough?

If we have a few more oppositions added to the existing number, this administration will put more serious considerations for Singaporeans, in my opinion.

And it doesn’t hurt the ruling party after all they continue to run the administration, they continue to have the majority seatings in Parliament. If the ruling party members had failed to serve the people, the chance should gives to newcomers.

[theold]

Nobody is indispensable, the economy is heading south and our government cannot avoid that.

The thing that many Singaporeans who continue to vote the current ruling party failed to see that this administration had not put our welfare in their mind first but their own for the longest time.

Just look at their ministers remunerations and the things Singaporeans are getting. The time this ruling party began to be humble is merely during the period of election weeks, after the election they returned to be high and almighty.

Also with existing few oppositions in Parliament, the ruling party begin to put some considerations for Singaporeans. But is this enough?

If we have a few more oppositions added to the existing number, this administration will put more serious considerations for Singaporeans, in my opinion.

And it doesn’t hurt the ruling party after all they continue to run the administration, they continue to have the majority seatings in Parliament. If the ruling party members had failed to serve the people, the chance should gives to newcomers.

Bingo.