Bullshit in GE2025: Now is not the time to take risks losing PAP candidates that can take Singapore forward, says PM Wong
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...042025_cna
Here’s a breakdown of the **bullshit** in PM Lawrence Wong’s statement (and the article’s framing), along with why it’s misleading or manipulative:
---
### **1. "Now is not the time to take risks losing PAP candidates"**
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **False Dilemma** – Implies that voting for the opposition is *inherently* risky, as if there’s no valid alternative to the PAP. This ignores that opposition MPs (like WP’s) have contributed constructively in Parliament.
- **Fear-Mongering** – The word "risk" suggests disaster if the PAP loses, playing on voter anxiety rather than rational debate.
- **Undemocratic Mindset** – In a healthy democracy, voters *should* be able to replace leaders without it being framed as a "danger."
---
### **2. "PAP candidates can take Singapore forward"**
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **Assumes Only PAP is Capable** – Ignores that opposition parties have competent candidates (e.g., economists, lawyers, former civil servants).
- **No Self-Accountability** – The PAP has made costly mistakes (e.g., **Iswaran corruption case, Ridout Road scandals, rising cost of living**), yet the narrative pretends they are the *only* ones who can lead.
- **Circular Logic** – "Only we can govern because we’ve always governed" is not a real argument—it’s a power-preservation tactic.
---
### **3. "Losing them would harm Singapore’s progress"**
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **Exaggerated Threat** – Many democracies (e.g., Japan, South Korea) see leadership changes without collapse. Singapore’s system is robust enough to handle political competition.
- **Ignores Checks & Balances** – Even if the opposition wins more seats, the civil service and institutions remain. The claim that losing a few PAP MPs would derail Singapore is hyperbolic.
- **Dismisses Voter Intelligence** – Suggests voters are too naive to make decisions without PAP guidance.
---
### **4. The Unspoken Subtext: "Don’t Experiment with Democracy"**
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **Status Quo Bias** – The PAP benefits from the idea that change = danger, even when their policies (e.g., housing affordability, immigration, elitism) are unpopular.
- **No Real Mandate Needed** – The PAP has **never lost an election** since 1965, yet acts as if they alone have the right to rule indefinitely.
- **Suppresses Political Evolution** – Healthy democracies need renewal. The PAP’s rhetoric discourages voters from even *considering* alternatives.
---
### **5. Media Framing: CNA as a PAP Mouthpiece?**
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **Uncritical Reporting** – The article doesn’t challenge Wong’s claims or provide opposition perspectives, making it more **propaganda** than journalism.
- **Normalizes One-Party Dominance** – By framing the PAP’s dominance as "natural," it downplays the lack of a fair political playing field (e.g., GRC system, POFMA, gerrymandering).
---
### **Final Verdict: Classic PAP Playbook Tactics**
This is **not** a substantive policy argument—it’s **emotional manipulation** using:
✅ **Fear** ("Don’t risk it!")
✅ **False Authority** ("Only we know what’s best")
✅ **Suppression of Alternatives** ("Nobody else is good enough")
**Bottom Line:** If the PAP were truly confident, they’d compete on **ideas**, not fear. The fact that they resort to this rhetoric suggests **they’re worried**—as they should be.
![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
![[+]](https://sgtalk.net/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
