[Bigiron]

The bullshit in this GE2025: Good government needed to take Singapore through changed and troubled world, says SM Lee | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...rld-sm-lee

The article *"GE2025: Good government needed to take Singapore through changed and troubled world, says SM Lee"* (The Straits Times) follows a familiar political narrative that may contain several questionable or "bullshit" claims. Below are some likely examples and why they might be considered as such:

### **1. "Good government needed to take Singapore through a changed and troubled world"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **Loaded terminology**: The phrase "good government" implies that only the current PAP leadership qualifies, dismissing opposition voices as inherently incompetent.  
     - **Fear-mongering**: The "troubled world" framing suggests that only the PAP can protect Singapore, discouraging critical debate about policy failures.  
     - **Assumption of indispensability**: The claim ignores whether the PAP’s policies (e.g., rising costs, elitism, immigration strains) have contributed to Singapore’s challenges.  

### **2. "PAP is the only party capable of governing Singapore effectively"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **False dilemma**: Assumes no alternative parties or coalitions could govern, despite historical suppression of opposition (gerrymandering, defamation lawsuits, media control).  
     - **Lack of evidence**: No objective comparison is made—Singapore has never had a non-PAP government, so the claim is untested.  
     - **Self-serving**: The PAP defines "good governance" by its own metrics (economic growth, stability) while downplaying inequality, mental health crises, and political repression.  

### **3. "Singapore’s success is due solely to the PAP’s leadership"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **Ignores external factors**: Singapore’s success also stems from its strategic location, globalized economy, and workforce sacrifices—not just government policy.  
     - **Discounts collective effort**: Attributes national achievements solely to the ruling party, dismissing contributions by civil servants, businesses, and ordinary citizens.  
     - **Survivorship bias**: Other countries with similar policies (e.g., state capitalism, authoritarianism) have failed—success isn’t guaranteed by PAP’s model alone.  

### **4. "The world is more dangerous, so we must stay united under the PAP"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **Fear-based politics**: Uses global instability (wars, inflation) to justify one-party dominance, ignoring that dissent and accountability strengthen resilience.  
     - **No opposition allowed**: The PAP conflates "unity" with unquestioning loyalty, while suppressing alternative policy proposals.  
     - **Hypocrisy**: The PAP benefits from globalization (trade, foreign talent) but warns of external threats only when politically convenient.  

### **5. "The PAP has a proven track record"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **Selective memory**: Highlights successes (GDP growth) but omits failures (housing affordability, transport breakdowns, corruption cases like Iswaran).  
     - **Changing goalposts**: Past success doesn’t guarantee future performance—many once-dominant parties (e.g., Japan’s LDP, Malaysia’s UMNO) declined due to complacency.  
     - **No real accountability**: The PAP rarely admits mistakes (e.g., COVID mismanagement in migrant worker dorms) without reframing them as "learning experiences."  

### **6. "Opposition parties are unprepared to govern"**  
   - **Why bullshit?**  
     - **Systemic disadvantage**: Opposition parties face unequal election rules (GRCs, short campaigning periods), making it hard to prove competence.  
     - **Strawman argument**: The PAP defines "readiness" by its own standards (e.g., having ex-generals as candidates), ignoring diverse leadership models.  
     - **Self-fulfilling prophecy**: By marginalizing opposition, the PAP ensures they remain "untested," then claims they’re unfit.  

### **Conclusion**  
The article’s arguments rely on **circular reasoning** (only the PAP can govern because it governs), **fear tactics** (the world is dangerous, so don’t risk change), and **suppression of alternatives** (dismissing opposition as unworthy). This isn’t a substantive case for the PAP—it’s pro
paganda disguised as political wisdom.

[Bigiron]

To Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s claims in *The Straits Times* article, dismantling the narrative point by point with logic, evidence, and rhetorical force:  

---

### **1. "Only the PAP can provide 'good government' for Singapore."**  
**Counter:**  
- **Good for whom?** The PAP defines "good governance" as GDP growth and stability—but ignores widening inequality, crushing cost of living, and elite privilege. A "good government" doesn’t need lawsuits (e.g., Raeesah Khan, Leong Sze Hian) to silence critics.  
- **Where’s the proof?** Singapore has never had a non-PAP government. Claiming opponents are "unfit" while systematically handicapping them (GRCs, POFMA, media monopolies) is like a chess player declaring victory after stealing the opponent’s pieces.  
- **Global examples:** Countries like Taiwan and South Korea thrived after transitioning from one-party rule. Why is Singapore uniquely incapable?  

**Rhetorical jab:**  
*"If the PAP is so confident, why does it need to gerrymander elections, sue dissenters, and control 90% of Parliament to win?"*  

---

### **2. "The world is too troubled; Singapore needs the PAP’s ‘steady hand.’"**  
**Counter:**  
- **Self-serving fearmongering:** The PAP warns of external dangers (war, inflation) but takes zero blame for *self-inflicted* crises:  
  - **Housing unaffordability** (BTO delays, skyrocketing resale prices due to policy failures).  
  - **Overcrowding** (6.9M population target while infrastructure lags).  
  - **Corruption** (Iswaran scandal, Keppel offshore bribes).  
- **Hypocrisy on globalization:** The PAP loves foreign talent (cheaper labor) and free trade (GDP boosts) but invokes "dangerous world" rhetoric only to scare voters into submission.  

**Rhetorical jab:**  
*"If the world is so risky, why did the PAP’s ‘steady hand’ let wages stagnate for a decade while ministers’ salaries doubled?"*  

---

### **3. "The opposition is ‘not ready’ to govern."**  
**Counter:**  
- **The PAP rigs the game:** Short campaign periods, GRC systems, and defamation lawsuits ensure opposition parties can’t build momentum. Then the PAP turns around and says, *"See? They’re unprepared!"*  
- **Meritocracy?** The PAP parachutes ex-generals and scholars into power with no private-sector experience—yet claims a cleaner or teacher from WP is "unqualified."  
- **Historical revisionism:** The PAP itself had zero governing experience in 1959. By its own logic, LKY was "not ready."  

**Rhetorical jab:**  
*"The PAP says the opposition isn’t ready—but after 60 years in power, neither is our healthcare system for a pandemic, nor our housing policy for young couples."*  

---

### **4. "Singapore’s success is thanks to the PAP."**  
**Counter:**  
- **Crediting itself for global tailwinds:** The PAP took office during the post-colonial boom, when *any* government could’ve thrived with Singapore’s strategic port, Anglophone workforce, and U.S.-backed global order.  
- **Ignoring collective effort:** Success came from the sweat of workers—not just elites. Yet the PAP rewards itself with million-dollar salaries while telling Singaporeans to "tighten belts."  
- **Survivorship bias:** Other authoritarian regimes (Malaysia’s UMNO, Suharto’s Indonesia) collapsed from corruption and complacency. The PAP isn’t special—just lucky.  

**Rhetorical jab:**  
*"If the PAP is so brilliant, why does it need to jail rivals (Chia Thye Poh), bankrupt critics (J.B. Jeyaretnam), and fix elections to stay in power?"*  

---

### **5. "We need ‘unity,’ not divisive politics."**  
**Counter:**  
- **‘Unity’ = obedience:** The PAP conflates dissent with disloyalty. Real unity includes *accountability*—like asking why Hyflux failed, why TraceTogether data was lied about, or why Transport Minister S. Iswaran was charged with corruption.  
- **False harmony:** A 90%-PAP Parliament isn’t "unity"—it’s a monopoly. Healthy democracies thrive on debate (e.g., UK, Germany), not stifled parliaments where MPs applaud on cue.  

**Rhetorical jab:**  
*"When the PAP says ‘unity,’ it means ‘sit down and shut up.’ When they
 say ‘good government,’ they mean ‘our government.’"*

[Jinwului]

you are the one in trouble!

[winbig]

Govt need to hear the citizens to move forward in this changed and troubled world.

[Wy:Nox]

Good Govt is made of 4 Components and the PaP is weak in all 4. Above all, we need more Opposition members to strengthen the Parliament, to invigorate more discussion, to make PaP better, to help PaP, to help us.

[RiseofAsia]

A good govt will serve its ppl first not foreigners lah.

Sg has already rotten, no eye to see.
Continue to vote for current team if you want to see roting continue. As usual, they will become deaf after GE.

[Blin]

A good govt will serve its ppl first not foreigners lah.

Sg has already rotten, no eye to see.
Continue to vote for current team if you want to see roting continue. As usual, they will become deaf after GE.

By tonite LHY will say something.

[Gemstar]

Time after time keeps saying they are good Govt. Just look at what hv been done and what are not done can conclude is this a good govt? There is no need for overhead shelter, beautiful gardens or amazing landscspes, more important is our daily survival and rice bowls.

[Ineedhelp]

Everyone ready to sign the next blank cheque? This Saturday remember you owe them the blank cheque! Cos you took CDC vouchers... Although technically the money is from your own pocket. So is their million dollar paycheck... Lol