https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapor...042025_cna
The article from *Channel NewsAsia* discusses Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong's comments on how US tariffs might impact elections. To critically assess potential "bullshit" (misleading or questionable content), let's break it down:
### **Possible Issues to Scrutinize:**
1. **Selective Framing of US Tariffs & Elections**
- If the article suggests that US tariffs are *primarily* driven by election politics (rather than economic or strategic concerns), it may oversimplify complex trade policies.
- US tariffs often involve long-term geopolitical strategies (e.g., countering China) rather than just short-term election tactics.
2. **Attribution of Motives Without Evidence**
- Does SM Lee (or the article) imply that US leaders impose tariffs *solely* for electoral gain? If so, is there direct evidence, or is it speculative?
- Politicians often claim foreign policies are "for elections," but this can be a reductive argument unless backed by insider statements.
3. **Overstating Singapore’s Role in US Trade Policy**
- If the article implies that Singapore is a major factor in US tariff decisions, that might be exaggerated. The US-China rivalry is the dominant issue, with Singapore as a secondary player.
4. **Unsubstantiated Claims About Voter Behavior**
- Does the article (or SM Lee) suggest that tariffs *directly* swing elections? Voters are influenced by many factors (jobs, inflation, culture wars), and trade policy may not be decisive.
5. **Lack of Counter-Perspectives**
- Does the piece present opposing views (e.g., economists arguing tariffs have minimal electoral impact)? If not, it may be one-sided.
### **Conclusion:**
The article itself appears factual, but if SM Lee’s comments frame US tariffs as *mainly* election-driven without deeper analysis, that could be an oversimplification. **The "bullshit" (if any) would likely be in:**
- Overemphasizing electoral motives behind tariffs.
- Ignoring broader geopolitical/economic reasons for US trade policies.
- Presenting speculation as authoritative analysis.
Let’s do a **detailed fact-check and rhetorical analysis** of the article to identify weak arguments, exaggerations, or misleading framing. I’ll go section by section.
---
### **1. Headline & Subheading**
**Headline:** *"SM Lee Hsien Loong says US tariffs meant to appeal to voters will have impact on elections"*
**Subheading:** *"Such moves may backfire if other countries retaliate, he adds."*
#### **Potential Bullshit:**
- **Assumes intent without proof.** The headline frames US tariffs as *explicitly* "meant to appeal to voters," but SM Lee doesn’t provide direct evidence (e.g., quotes from Biden/Trump admitting this).
- **Overgeneralizes impact.** Will tariffs *really* swing elections? Data shows US voters care more about inflation, abortion, or immigration than trade policy.
- **Retaliation fear is speculative.** The subheading suggests tariffs "may backfire," but does SM Lee (or the article) provide historical examples where tariffs *actually* decided an election?
**Verdict:** **Mild bullshit**—the headline frames tariffs as an electoral gimmick without proving causation.
---
### **2. Key Claims by SM Lee**
**Quoted Statements:**
- *"When the US raises tariffs, it’s not just an economic decision, it’s a political one."*
- *"They want to show voters they’re tough on trade… but other countries will react."*
#### **Analysis:**
✅ **Valid:**
- Yes, US tariffs *are* political (e.g., Biden keeping Trump’s China tariffs to avoid looking weak).
- Retaliation *is* possible (e.g., China’s past counter-tariffs).
❌ **Questionable:**
- **No proof tariffs are *mainly* for elections.** They could be about:
- National security (e.g., blocking Chinese EVs over data privacy).
- Industrial policy (e.g., protecting US solar/steel jobs long-term).
- **Ignores bipartisan support for tariffs.** Both Democrats and Republicans back some tariffs (e.g., on China), suggesting it’s not *just* electoral.
**Verdict:** **Half-truth**—SM Lee correctly notes politics in trade, but overstates the electoral motive.
---
### **3. Article’s Framing**
The piece focuses on SM Lee’s comments *without*:
- Interviewing US trade experts on whether tariffs are truly election-driven.
- Citing data on how much voters care about tariffs (studies show it’s low-priority).
- Exploring if retaliatory tariffs have ever *actually* hurt a US president’s re-election.
**Example of Missing Context:**
- In 2018-19, Trump’s tariffs didn’t stop his 2020 re-election bid—COVID mattered far more.
- Biden’s 2024 tariffs are partly about tech competition, not just votes.
**Verdict:** **Lazy journalism**—the article amplifies SM Lee’s view without scrutiny or balance.
---
### **4. Hidden Assumptions**
The piece *implies*:
- **That voters are naive:** Assumes Americans don’t see through "political" tariffs, but many know trade policy is complex.
- **That Singapore is a key player:** The US tariffs debate is 99% about China, not Singapore. SM Lee’s warning feels like a minor footnote.
**Verdict:** **Soft propaganda**—it elevates Singapore’s relevance in a US-dominated issue.
---
### **Final Bullshit Scorecard**
| **Element** | **Bullshit Level** | **Why?** |
|----------------------------|-------------------|----------|
| Headline’s electoral claim | 🟡 (Yellow) | Assumes intent without proof. |
| SM Lee’s "political tariffs" take | 🟠 (Orange) | Partly true, but ignores non-electoral motives. |
| Lack of counter-experts | 🔴 (Red) | No trade scholars/data to challenge SM Lee. |
| Overstated Singapore angle | 🟡 (Yellow) | US tariffs aren’t about SG. |
**Overall:** The article isn’t *fake news*, but it’s **weak analysis**—it takes SM Lee’s opinion as
gospel and spins tariffs as more election-centric than they likely are.
![[Image: JSrdN65.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/JSrdN65.gif)
