01-05-2025, 08:24 AM
Bullshit in GE2025: Campaigning should not generate ‘heat’ without providing solutions, says Chan Chun Sing | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...-chun-sing
Let’s **deepen the analysis** by breaking down the **underlying mechanisms** of political control in Singapore and how Chan Chun Sing’s statement fits into the PAP’s long-standing strategy of **suppressing dissent under the guise of "rational governance."**
---
### **1. The Myth of "Rational Politics" (and Why It’s Bullshit)**
**Chan’s claim:** Campaigning should avoid "heat" and focus on "solutions."
**Reality:** This is a **rhetorical trap**—it frames the PAP as the only party capable of "serious policymaking" while dismissing opposition critiques as "emotional" or "irresponsible."
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **The PAP itself uses emotional, fear-based campaigning** (e.g., "vote opposition and Singapore will collapse").
- **"Solutions" are narrowly defined as PAP-approved policies.** Opposition ideas (e.g., minimum wage, reducing ministerial salaries) are dismissed as "populist," even when evidence-backed.
- **The playing field is rigged:** Opposition parties have **far fewer resources** to produce detailed policy papers, yet the PAP demands they "provide solutions" while controlling state media to drown them out.
**Example:**
- In **GE2020**, the PAP framed itself as the only party capable of handling COVID-19, despite early missteps (e.g., migrant worker dorm outbreaks).
- When the **Workers’ Party (WP) proposed alternative housing policies**, they were dismissed as "risky experiments," even though WP-run towns (like Aljunied) perform well.
---
### **2. The "Heat" Double Standard (PAP Can Rage, Opposition Can’t)**
**Chan’s claim:** Politicians should not "generate heat" without substance.
**Reality:** The PAP **regularly uses aggressive, even inflammatory rhetoric** against opponents—but when the opposition does it, it’s "irresponsible."
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **PAP leaders have called opposition voters "free riders"** (Goh Chok Tong, 2011).
- **Ministers have threatened voters** with estate upgrading cuts if they vote opposition (a form of **political blackmail**).
- **PAP-friendly media amplifies attacks** on opposition figures (e.g., Raeesah Khan scandal was relentlessly covered, while PAP scandals like **Iswaran’s corruption case** were downplayed).
**Example:**
- In **GE2011**, then-PM Lee Hsien Loong warned that voting opposition could lead to a **"freak result"** (implying disaster).
- Yet, when **Chee Soon Juan (SDP) criticized healthcare costs**, he was painted as "stirring anger" instead of raising valid concerns.
---
### **3. The Illusion of "Constructive Debate" in a Controlled System**
**Chan’s claim:** Politics should be about "solutions," not just criticism.
**Reality:** Singapore’s political system is **structurally designed to prevent real debate**:
- **GRC system** makes it nearly impossible for opposition to win without supermajority support.
- **Short campaigning period (9 days in GE2020)** prevents proper scrutiny of PAP policies.
- **Libel lawsuits** (e.g., sued bloggers like Roy Ngerng, Leong Sze Hian) deter criticism.
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- The PAP **does not engage in good-faith debates**—it **sets the rules, controls the narrative, then claims opposition "has no solutions."**
- **No free press:** MediaCorp and SPH are pro-PAP, meaning opposition voices are filtered or ignored.
**Example:**
- **During GE2020 live debates**, PAP representatives (e.g., Vivian Balakrishnan) **avoided direct answers** when challenged on issues like **PAP’s handling of jobs for foreigners vs. locals**.
- Yet, after the debate, state media **framed the PAP as the "clear winner"**—not based on substance, but narrative control.
---
### **4. The Ultimate Bullshit: "We’re Just Protecting Singaporeans from Populism"**
**Chan’s implied argument:** The PAP must suppress "heat" to prevent "bad policies."
**Reality:** This is **elitist paternalism**—the idea that only the PAP knows what’s best, and citizens cannot be trusted to evaluate opposition ideas.
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- Many "risky" opposition policies (e.g., **universal healthcare, minimum wage**) exist successfully in other advanced economies.
- The PAP **itself engages in populism** (e.g., **cash handouts before elections, "Merdeka Generation" packages**).
- The real fear is **losing political dominance**, not "bad policies."
**Example:**
- When WP proposed **reducing reliance on foreign labor**, the PAP called it "xenophobic."
- But later, the PAP **tightened foreign worker quotas** after public backlash—proving WP was right, but never admitting it.
---
### **Conclusion: Chan’s Statement is Classic PAP Gaslighting**
His argument follows this formula:
1. **Define "good politics" as only what the PAP does.**
2. **Label opposition critiques as "heat" (i.e., irrational).**
3. **Demand impossible standards (full policy papers from under-resourced opposition).**
4. **Use state machinery to ensure PAP always "wins" the debate.**
**This isn’t about "solutions vs.
heat"—it’s about maintaining one-party dominance by silencing dissent.**
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...-chun-sing
Let’s **deepen the analysis** by breaking down the **underlying mechanisms** of political control in Singapore and how Chan Chun Sing’s statement fits into the PAP’s long-standing strategy of **suppressing dissent under the guise of "rational governance."**
---
### **1. The Myth of "Rational Politics" (and Why It’s Bullshit)**
**Chan’s claim:** Campaigning should avoid "heat" and focus on "solutions."
**Reality:** This is a **rhetorical trap**—it frames the PAP as the only party capable of "serious policymaking" while dismissing opposition critiques as "emotional" or "irresponsible."
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **The PAP itself uses emotional, fear-based campaigning** (e.g., "vote opposition and Singapore will collapse").
- **"Solutions" are narrowly defined as PAP-approved policies.** Opposition ideas (e.g., minimum wage, reducing ministerial salaries) are dismissed as "populist," even when evidence-backed.
- **The playing field is rigged:** Opposition parties have **far fewer resources** to produce detailed policy papers, yet the PAP demands they "provide solutions" while controlling state media to drown them out.
**Example:**
- In **GE2020**, the PAP framed itself as the only party capable of handling COVID-19, despite early missteps (e.g., migrant worker dorm outbreaks).
- When the **Workers’ Party (WP) proposed alternative housing policies**, they were dismissed as "risky experiments," even though WP-run towns (like Aljunied) perform well.
---
### **2. The "Heat" Double Standard (PAP Can Rage, Opposition Can’t)**
**Chan’s claim:** Politicians should not "generate heat" without substance.
**Reality:** The PAP **regularly uses aggressive, even inflammatory rhetoric** against opponents—but when the opposition does it, it’s "irresponsible."
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- **PAP leaders have called opposition voters "free riders"** (Goh Chok Tong, 2011).
- **Ministers have threatened voters** with estate upgrading cuts if they vote opposition (a form of **political blackmail**).
- **PAP-friendly media amplifies attacks** on opposition figures (e.g., Raeesah Khan scandal was relentlessly covered, while PAP scandals like **Iswaran’s corruption case** were downplayed).
**Example:**
- In **GE2011**, then-PM Lee Hsien Loong warned that voting opposition could lead to a **"freak result"** (implying disaster).
- Yet, when **Chee Soon Juan (SDP) criticized healthcare costs**, he was painted as "stirring anger" instead of raising valid concerns.
---
### **3. The Illusion of "Constructive Debate" in a Controlled System**
**Chan’s claim:** Politics should be about "solutions," not just criticism.
**Reality:** Singapore’s political system is **structurally designed to prevent real debate**:
- **GRC system** makes it nearly impossible for opposition to win without supermajority support.
- **Short campaigning period (9 days in GE2020)** prevents proper scrutiny of PAP policies.
- **Libel lawsuits** (e.g., sued bloggers like Roy Ngerng, Leong Sze Hian) deter criticism.
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- The PAP **does not engage in good-faith debates**—it **sets the rules, controls the narrative, then claims opposition "has no solutions."**
- **No free press:** MediaCorp and SPH are pro-PAP, meaning opposition voices are filtered or ignored.
**Example:**
- **During GE2020 live debates**, PAP representatives (e.g., Vivian Balakrishnan) **avoided direct answers** when challenged on issues like **PAP’s handling of jobs for foreigners vs. locals**.
- Yet, after the debate, state media **framed the PAP as the "clear winner"**—not based on substance, but narrative control.
---
### **4. The Ultimate Bullshit: "We’re Just Protecting Singaporeans from Populism"**
**Chan’s implied argument:** The PAP must suppress "heat" to prevent "bad policies."
**Reality:** This is **elitist paternalism**—the idea that only the PAP knows what’s best, and citizens cannot be trusted to evaluate opposition ideas.
**Why it’s bullshit:**
- Many "risky" opposition policies (e.g., **universal healthcare, minimum wage**) exist successfully in other advanced economies.
- The PAP **itself engages in populism** (e.g., **cash handouts before elections, "Merdeka Generation" packages**).
- The real fear is **losing political dominance**, not "bad policies."
**Example:**
- When WP proposed **reducing reliance on foreign labor**, the PAP called it "xenophobic."
- But later, the PAP **tightened foreign worker quotas** after public backlash—proving WP was right, but never admitting it.
---
### **Conclusion: Chan’s Statement is Classic PAP Gaslighting**
His argument follows this formula:
1. **Define "good politics" as only what the PAP does.**
2. **Label opposition critiques as "heat" (i.e., irrational).**
3. **Demand impossible standards (full policy papers from under-resourced opposition).**
4. **Use state machinery to ensure PAP always "wins" the debate.**
**This isn’t about "solutions vs.
heat"—it’s about maintaining one-party dominance by silencing dissent.**