[Bigiron]

Bullshit in GE2025: Good government needs good people, don't play dangerous game with tactical voting, says SM Lee

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...042025_cna

The article you referenced discusses Senior Minister (SM) Lee Hsien Loong's warning against tactical voting in the upcoming Singapore General Election (GE2025), emphasizing the importance of a "good government" needing "good people." Here are some potential points of contention or "bullshit" (depending on perspective) that critics might raise:

### 1. **Fear-Mongering Against Opposition**  
   - SM Lee frames tactical voting (voting strategically to deny one party a supermajority, for example) as a "dangerous game." This could be seen as discouraging democratic choice by portraying voting strategies as risky rather than a legitimate part of electoral politics.  
   - The implication that only the PAP can provide "good government" dismisses the possibility of competent opposition candidates or alternative governance models.

### 2. **Assumption That PAP = Good People**  
   - The argument assumes that only PAP candidates are "good people" capable of governing, while opposition candidates are implicitly framed as less qualified or risky. This ignores instances of opposition MPs (e.g., Workers' Party) performing well in their roles.  
   - It also overlooks past PAP scandals (e.g., corruption cases, mismanagement in certain ministries), which show that no party is immune to flaws.

### 3. **Tactical Voting as "Dangerous"**  
   - In many democracies, tactical voting is a normal strategy to balance power (e.g., voting to prevent a supermajority). Portraying it as "dangerous" frames voter agency as a threat rather than a democratic right.  
   - The real "danger" might be to the PAP's dominance, not necessarily to Singapore's stability.

### 4. **Overemphasis on Elite Governance**  
   - The PAP often argues that Singapore's success depends on a small group of highly qualified leaders. This top-down narrative dismisses the value of diverse voices and checks-and-balances in Parliament.  
   - The "good people" rhetoric may also reflect elitism, suggesting that only a select few (as chosen by the PAP system) are fit to govern.

### 5. **Ignoring Genuine Concerns About One-Party Dominance**  
   - The article doesn't address concerns about lack of accountability, groupthink, or policy blind spots that can arise from decades of one-party dominance.  
   - Instead of engaging with criticisms, the framing portrays any shift away from PAP as inherently risky.

### 6. **Timing and Political Messaging**  
   - The statement comes ahead of GE2025, which suggests it's less about governance principles and more about pre-emptively discouraging opposition support.  
   - Similar warnings were made in past elections (e.g., "freak results" in 2011), yet Singapore survived even with more opposition MPs.

### Conclusion  
While SM Lee's argument is consistent with the PAP's long-standing narrative, critics could call it a manipulative or dismissive framing of legitimate voter concerns. The "bullshit" lies in presenting PAP dominance as the only path to stability while stigmatizing democratic t
actics like tactical voting.

[Bigiron]

To SM Lee Hsien Loong’s warning against tactical voting in GE2025:  

---

### **1. "Good Government" Requires Accountability, Not Just "Good People"**  
SM Lee suggests that only the PAP can provide "good government" because it has "good people." But good governance isn’t just about individual merit—it’s about **systems, checks, and accountability**.  

- **PAP’s recent scandals** (corruption cases, Ridout Road, Iswaran’s arrest) prove that even their own "good people" can falter.  
- Without a strong opposition, there’s **no real scrutiny**—ministers mark their own homework, and mistakes (like TraceTogether’s privacy issues or SingHealth’s data breach) go under-examined.  

**Counterpoint:** A "good government" isn’t just one with elite bureaucrats—it’s one that faces **real debate, transparency, and consequences** when things go wrong.  

---

### **2. Calling Tactical Voting "Dangerous" is Undemocratic Fear-Mongering**  
SM Lee warns that voting strategically is "playing a dangerous game." But tactical voting is **a normal part of democracy**—voters balancing power to prevent one-party dominance.  

- In **2020, voters in Sengkang chose the WP over PAP’s "star candidates"**—was that "dangerous"? No, it was democracy working.  
- If the PAP were truly confident, they wouldn’t need to **scare voters** into sticking with them.  

**Counterpoint:** Calling tactical voting "dangerous" is like a monopoly claiming competition is bad—it’s self-serving, not patriotic.  

---

### **3. The Real "Danger" is a Rubber-Stamp Parliament**  
SM Lee’s argument assumes that more opposition MPs = chaos. But **Singapore already has one of the weakest oppositions in the democratic world** (only 10 out of 93 seats).  

- Countries like Sweden, Germany, and Japan have strong oppositions **without collapsing**.  
- Even WP-held wards (like Aljunied, Hougang) are **well-run**—proving opposition can govern responsibly.  

**Counterpoint:** The real risk isn’t opposition voices—it’s a **complacent, unchecked PAP** making decisions without real debate.  

---

### **4. The PAP’s Definition of "Good People" is Hypocritical**  
The PAP claims only they have "good people," but:  
- **Many qualified Singaporeans are sidelined** if they don’t toe the party line.  
- **Former PAP MPs (e.g., Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Jee Say) joined opposition**—were they "bad people" overnight?  
- The **WP’s Jamus Lim, He Ting Ru, and Louis Chua** are highly qualified—why doesn’t PAP acknowledge them as "good people"?  

**Counterpoint:** "Good people" exist across parties—the PAP just wants a **monopoly on legitimacy**.  

---

### **5. The PAP Plays Its Own "Dangerous Games"**  
SM Lee warns against tactical voting, but the PAP has **gerrymandered GRCs, changed election rules, and used state resources** (e.g., PA, grassroots) to tilt the field.  

- **GRCs were introduced to ensure minority representation**—but now they’re used to **protect weak PAP candidates** behind anchor ministers.  
- **Sudden electoral boundary changes** before elections (like in 2020) show who’s really gaming the system.  

**Counterpoint:** If the PAP truly respected fair play, they’d **abolish GRCs, allow equal media access, and stop last-minute boundary shifts**.  

---

### **Final : Democracy Thrives on Choice, Not Fear**  
SM Lee’s argument boils down to: **"Trust us, don’t risk change."** But democracy is about **trusting voters**, not infantilizing them.  

- **If the PAP is truly the best, it shouldn’t fear competition.**  
- **If Singaporeans are mature, they shouldn’t be told how to vote.**  

**Conclusion:** Tactical voting isn’t "dangerous"—it’s **democracy in action**. The real danger is a system where dissent is framed as disloyalty, a
nd voters are told they’re not smart enough to decide.  

-

[Wy:Nox]

He should thank us and appreciate those Snr Ministers being voted out because indeed, they have made PaP lose votes for many years.

It is our Duty to do PaP a good Service and pay back our gratitude for due diligence and subscribing to highest national honour for Singapore.

[talky]

Bullshit in GE2025: Good government needs good people, don't play dangerous game with tactical voting, says SM Lee

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...042025_cna

The article you referenced discusses Senior Minister (SM) Lee Hsien Loong's warning against tactical voting in the upcoming Singapore General Election (GE2025), emphasizing the importance of a "good government" needing "good people." Here are some potential points of contention or "bullshit" (depending on perspective) that critics might raise:

### 1. **Fear-Mongering Against Opposition**  
   - SM Lee frames tactical voting (voting strategically to deny one party a supermajority, for example) as a "dangerous game." This could be seen as discouraging democratic choice by portraying voting strategies as risky rather than a legitimate part of electoral politics.  
   - The implication that only the PAP can provide "good government" dismisses the possibility of competent opposition candidates or alternative governance models.

### 2. **Assumption That PAP = Good People**  
   - The argument assumes that only PAP candidates are "good people" capable of governing, while opposition candidates are implicitly framed as less qualified or risky. This ignores instances of opposition MPs (e.g., Workers' Party) performing well in their roles.  
   - It also overlooks past PAP scandals (e.g., corruption cases, mismanagement in certain ministries), which show that no party is immune to flaws.

### 3. **Tactical Voting as "Dangerous"**  
   - In many democracies, tactical voting is a normal strategy to balance power (e.g., voting to prevent a supermajority). Portraying it as "dangerous" frames voter agency as a threat rather than a democratic right.  
   - The real "danger" might be to the PAP's dominance, not necessarily to Singapore's stability.

### 4. **Overemphasis on Elite Governance**  
   - The PAP often argues that Singapore's success depends on a small group of highly qualified leaders. This top-down narrative dismisses the value of diverse voices and checks-and-balances in Parliament.  
   - The "good people" rhetoric may also reflect elitism, suggesting that only a select few (as chosen by the PAP system) are fit to govern.

### 5. **Ignoring Genuine Concerns About One-Party Dominance**  
   - The article doesn't address concerns about lack of accountability, groupthink, or policy blind spots that can arise from decades of one-party dominance.  
   - Instead of engaging with criticisms, the framing portrays any shift away from PAP as inherently risky.

### 6. **Timing and Political Messaging**  
   - The statement comes ahead of GE2025, which suggests it's less about governance principles and more about pre-emptively discouraging opposition support.  
   - Similar warnings were made in past elections (e.g., "freak results" in 2011), yet Singapore survived even with more opposition MPs.

### Conclusion  
While SM Lee's argument is consistent with the PAP's long-standing narrative, critics could call it a manipulative or dismissive framing of legitimate voter concerns. The "bullshit" lies in presenting PAP dominance as the only path to stability while stigmatizing democratic t
actics like tactical voting.not as strong as lky warning

repent for 5 yrs
still lose with this serious warning
worst lose the the person  in line to be next pm or dpm

lky holds high regards to george yeo