[TopSage]

GE2025: Ng Chee Meng not to blame for Income-Allianz deal; WP would have approved it if in charge, says SM Lee
Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Workers' Party had "nothing to do with" the blocking of the deal when parliament passed the legislation, as WP MPs had abstained from voting on the changes.

"If it had been left to the Workers' Party as government, the deal would have gone through because they didn’t oppose it, right?" said Mr Lee at the People's Action Party's (PAP) rally at Fern Green Primary School.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...z-5092831?

[Bigiron]

The article you referenced discusses Senior Minister (SM) Lee Hsien Loong's comments about the NTUC Income-Allianz deal and his claim that the Workers' Party (WP) would have approved it if they were in charge. Below are some potential **bullshit** (misleading, unsubstantiated, or politically loaded) aspects of the argument, along with explanations for why they might be problematic:

### **1. Strawman Argument: "WP Would Have Approved It"**  
   - **Why it's bullshit**: SM Lee is attributing a hypothetical stance to the WP without evidence. The WP was not in power and did not have access to the same information as the ruling party. Claiming they would have made the same decision is speculative and serves to deflect criticism rather than address concerns about the deal itself.  
   - **Counterpoint**: If the deal was truly above board, why invoke the WP at all? This seems like an attempt to preempt criticism by framing dissent as unreasonable.

### **2. Deflecting Accountability: "Ng Chee Meng Not to Blame"**  
   - **Why it's bullshit**: The statement absolves Ng Chee Meng (then-NTUC chief) of responsibility without a transparent, independent review. If there were concerns about the deal (e.g., valuation, impact on policyholders), simply declaring him blameless doesn’t address whether due diligence was followed.  
   - **Counterpoint**: Was there an independent audit or parliamentary debate on this? If not, this is a classic case of **"trust us, we know best"** without accountability.

### **3. False Equivalence: Comparing WP's Hypothetical Decision to PAP's Actual Decision**  
   - **Why it's bullshit**: SM Lee implies that since the WP might have done the same, the PAP's decision is justified. But this ignores whether the deal was optimal for policyholders or if alternatives existed.  
   - **Counterpoint**: Even if WP might have approved it, that doesn’t mean the deal was good. It could mean **both** parties might make questionable decisions—which is why oversight is needed.

### **4. Lack of Transparency in the Deal Itself**  
   - **Why it's bullshit**: The article does not delve into whether the deal was properly scrutinized. Were there concerns about valuation, conflicts of interest (NTUC is closely linked to PAP), or policyholder interests? SM Lee's defense sidesteps these questions.  
   - **Counterpoint**: If the deal was truly fair, why not release full details for public scrutiny instead of relying on political assurances?

### **5. Politicizing the Issue Ahead of GE2025**  
   - **Why it's bullshit**: The timing suggests this is less about accountability and more about shaping narratives before an election. By framing criticism as unfounded, SM Lee is preemptively discrediting opposition scrutiny.  
   - **Counterpoint**: If this were purely about governance, why bring the WP into it? This looks like **political deflection** rather than genuine accountability.

### **Conclusion**  
The core **bullshit** here is:  
- **Unverified claims** (WP would have approved it).  
- **Lack of transparency** (no independent review of the deal).  
- **Politically motivated framing** (using WP as a shield to avoid deeper scrutiny).  

This is a classic **"appeal to authority"** (SM Lee says it’s fine, so it must be) combined with **strawmanning the opposition**—rather than addressing whether the deal was truly in the public's best interest.

[sgbuffett]

SM Lee is dishonest and trying to mislead us into thinking the WP supoorts  Allianz deal...not true.

"If it had been left to the Workers' Party as government, the deal would have gone through because they didn’t oppose it, right?" said Mr Lee at the People's Action Party's (PAP) rally at Fern Green Primary School.

SM Lee should reflect on his term as PM and what he has done and how much of it beenfitted Singaporeans and what has made life harder.

[Bigiron]

### **Deeper Analysis of the Bullshit in SM Lee's Claims**  

Let’s break down each problematic aspect of SM Lee’s argument with more scrutiny, examining why these claims are misleading, politically convenient, or outright fallacious.  

---

## **1. The Strawman: "WP Would Have Done the Same"**  
### **Why It’s Bullshit**  
- **No Evidence Provided**: SM Lee asserts that the WP would have approved the deal, but he provides no proof—no statements from WP leaders, no policy documents, nothing. This is pure conjecture.  
- **False Symmetry**: The WP was **not in government**, so they never had access to the same financial, legal, or negotiation details. Claiming they would have made the same decision is a **rhetorical trick** to imply that any criticism is hypocritical.  
- **Preemptive Defense**: By framing the opposition as likely to agree, SM Lee is trying to **shut down debate**—as if to say, *"Even your preferred party would have done this, so stop complaining."*  

### **What Should Have Been Done Instead?**  
If the deal was truly sound, the government should:  
- Release full details of the valuation process.  
- Explain why alternative options (e.g., keeping Income as a wholly cooperative entity) were dismissed.  
- Allow independent experts (not just PAP-linked figures) to assess whether policyholders got the best deal.  

Instead, we get a **political deflection** rather than real accountability.  

---

## **2. "Ng Chee Meng Not to Blame" – A Premature Absolution**  
### **Why It’s Bullshit**  
- **No Independent Review**: Was there a parliamentary committee, auditor-general’s report, or external assessment clearing Ng Chee Meng? Or is this just the PAP saying, *"Trust us, he did nothing wrong"*?  
- **Conflict of Interest Concerns**: NTUC Income is supposed to serve workers, but its leadership is closely tied to the PAP. If there were concerns about the deal (e.g., undervaluation, hasty approval), simply declaring Ng blameless doesn’t address them.  
- **Classic Authority Fallacy**: The argument boils down to *"Because SM Lee says so, it must be true."* That’s not accountability—it’s **elite self-policing**.  

### **What Should Have Been Done?**  
- A **transparent review process**, possibly involving COI (Committee of Inquiry) if public interest was at stake.  
- **Ng Chee Meng himself explaining** the decision-making process, rather than SM Lee speaking for him.  

---

## **3. The False Equivalence: "If WP Did It, Then It’s Okay"**  
### **Why It’s Bullshit**  
- **Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right**: Even if WP hypothetically would have approved the deal, that doesn’t automatically justify it. Maybe **both** parties would make a bad call—which is why independent oversight is needed.  
- **Distraction from the Real Issue**: Instead of discussing whether the deal was fair to policyholders, SM Lee shifts the conversation to *"Well, your team would’ve done it too!"*—a classic **red herring**.  

### **The Real Question Should Be**:  
- Was the sale price fair?  
- Were policyholders’ interests protected?  
- Were there conflicts of interest in the negotiation?  

But instead, we get **political gamesmanship**.  

---

## **4. Lack of Transparency Around the Deal Itself**  
### **Why It’s Bullshit**  
- **No Public Scrutiny**: Major public-interest transactions (especially involving cooperatives like NTUC) should be subject to open debate. Yet, the deal was approved without meaningful parliamentary challenge.  
- **NTUC-PAP Links Raise Eyebrows**: NTUC has always been politically aligned with the PAP. If the deal was so clean, why not allow an **independent auditor** (e.g., from private sector or international firm) to assess it?  
- **Policyholder Impact Unclear**: Did premiums rise? Were benefits affected? SM Lee’s statement doesn’t address these concerns—it just says *"Nothing to see here."*  

### **What Transparency Would Look Like**:  
- Full disclosure of the valuation methodology.  
- Explanation of why Allianz was chosen over other bidders.  
- Clear data on how policyholders were affected post-deal.  

Instead, we get **"Trust me, bro" governance**.  

---

## **5. The GE2025 Timing: Political Damage Control**  
### **Why It’s Bullshit**  
- **Convenient Timing**: This defense comes just as GE2025 approaches, suggesting it’s more about **shaping voter perception** than addressing genuine concerns.  
- **Preempting Opposition Critique**: By framing the WP as hypothetical supporters, SM Lee is trying to **neutralize future criticism** from opposition parties.  
- **Classic PAP Playbook**: When questioned, deflect by (1) invoking the opposition, (2) appealing to authority, and (3) avoiding actual scrutiny.  

### **What This Reveals**:  
The PAP is **more concerned about political narratives** than transparent governance. If the deal was truly above board, they wouldn’t need to invoke the WP—they’d just release the facts.  

---

### **Final Verdict: This Is Political Bullshit**  
SM Lee’s argument relies on:  
1. **Strawmanning the WP** (attributing a fake position to them).  
2. **Appealing to authority** ("I say Ng Chee Meng is blameless, so he is").  
3. **Avoiding real scrutiny** (no independent review, no data transparency).  
4. **Politicizing the issue** (timing suggests electioneering, not accountability).  

### **What Would Real Accountability Look Like?**  
- An open parliamentary debate on the deal.  
- Independent financial and legal reviews.  
- Ng Chee Meng or NTUC officials explaining the decision **under oath**.  

But we won’t get that—because this isn’t about **good governance**, it’s about **political control**.

[forum456]

"If it had been left to the Workers' Party as government, the deal would have gone through because they didn’t oppose it, right?" said Mr Lee at the People's Action Party's (PAP) rally at Fern Green Primary School.

PM Lee must be voted out because he is getting senile.

Abstain is not equal to yes vote
Did not oppose is not equal to yes vote.

Abstain means WP cannot vote yes or no because of some reasons.
PAP needs to find out what WP needs so that WP can vote yes or no.

[Stoki]

Lying is now the favourite of pinky. 
It is just like pinky did not ask TCJ to step down immediately when he knew that TCJ was having an affair with you-know-who. He allowed the affair to go on for months
Lie after lie

[surfer]

WP did not go against doesn’t mean they approve of what NTUC did.
If I was at the rally I would ask him ….
1) Why raise GST when the govt has so much surplus every year?
2) Why waste taxpayers money to build a Founders Memorial ?
3) What happened to past assertions that NO SINGAPOREANS WILL BE LEFT BEHIND?
Clown who set up all these COL problems.

[forum456]

Lying is now the favourite of pinky. 
It is just like pinky did not ask TCJ to step down immediately when he knew that TCJ was having an affair with you-know-who. He allowed the affair to go on for months
Lie after lie

not months.

the adultery affair carried on for 2 to 3 years.

[Ineedhelp]

PM Lee must be voted out because he is getting senile.

Abstain is not equal to yes vote
Did not oppose is not equal to yes vote.

Abstain means WP cannot vote yes or no because of some reasons.
PAP needs to find out what WP needs so that WP can vote yes or no.

Now I wonder if the abstained or spoil votes all went towards PAP count or what??...

[luncheonmeat]

Pinky trying to spin dis in PAPAya's favour.

Reality is WP dunno book keeping details but oppose the deal on principal. NCM oso dunno book keeping details but approve because Mr Magoo Lim Boon Keng advised him to do so otherwise Income will become like another NOL haemorrhaging $$$.

Verdict: entirely PAPaya's mismanagement and fault.

However, the Income deal was ultimately scuppered bcos PAPaya last min discovered got legal quagmire underlying the deal which led to its eventual termination . Fact is whether WP abstain or not the deal would still have bulldozed through if PAPaya no discover treasury money hidden in Income.

[Soulhacker]

How can a party with only 10% of even less of the seats block a legislation?

[webinarian]

         
WP didn't oppose doesn't mean giving pap the reason to conclude the deal .   

With such weird reason and pointing and antagonizing China about 黑帮老大, I'll cast my vote for opposition party.  


.

[[[ForeverAlone]]]

LHL going to be like Biden liao rah.

[Niubee]

Loong put words in WP mouths.

Very good kungfu

[Scythian]

Lying is now the favourite of pinky. 
It is just like pinky did not ask TCJ to step down immediately when he knew that TCJ was having an affair with you-know-who. He allowed the affair to go on for months
Lie after lie

Singapore in a mess as PM Lee admits politics not as clean as country’s image

[Scythian]

Loong put words in WP mouths.

Very good kungfu

How can anybody believe in U.S. anymore, asks Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong..
.......27 October 2016

""We have stayed invested in the US through thick and thin, because of its vital role in the world economy. And we continue to have faith in the US economy's vibrance, dynamism, and sheer resilience."

GIC Chairman SM Lee (14 Nov 2024)"

[Scythian]

How can a party with only 10% of even less of the seats block a legislation?

They toss a coin with heads on both sides With no tail.

[Scythian]

Loong put words in WP mouths.

Very good kungfu

.
Cloned Illusionist David Copperfield

[Scythian]

LHL going to be like Biden liao rah.

https://images.app.goo.gl/REUK4

[Scythian]

Following lky prediction,no fear voting for more opposition into parliament..

"Lee Kuan Yew predicted that the opposition would win one day"

"An old quote by Singapore Founding Father Lee Kuan Yew regarding opposition parties in Singapore has resurfaced on the internet. 

The quote warns that one day, Singaporeans just may get tired of the ruling party, People’s Action Party (PAP), and vote for the opposition.""
,