Workers' Party (WP) new face, Harpreet Singh, recently let slip that he doesn’t want to be “parachuted” into a “safe seat", according an interview with The Straits Times.

Harpreet's comment reveals the party’s belief in “safe seats” like Hougang and Aljunied, suggesting internal confidence in their electoral strongholds.

By admitting there are “safe seats,” Harpreet confirmed what many suspect: Hougang (WP’s turf since 1991) and Aljunied (theirs since 2011) are as close to a sure bet as it gets in Singapore’s PAP-dominated landscape.

In GE2020, WP held Hougang with 61.2% of the vote and Aljunied with 59.9%. These margins, while not overwhelming, reflect consistent voter loyalty in a political landscape dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP), which won 83 of 93 seats in the last election.

Yet, WP leader Pritam Singh continues to warn of a potential “opposition wipeout,” as highlighted in a Channel News Asia report early this year.

Pritam's wipeout narrative

Pritam Singh’s emphasis on a potential wipeout, as articulated in his call for party unity, appears designed to galvanize supporters and prevent complacency.

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

Yet, this narrative risks undermining the WP’s credibility.

Harpreet’s admission of safe seats suggests the party privately believes its core constituencies are secure. Publicly warning of a wipeout, then, could be perceived as disingenuous, especially by a discerning electorate.

If voters sense the WP is exaggerating risks to manipulate sentiment, trust in the party could erode—a dangerous prospect when authenticity is a currency in short supply.

It is also not helpful that Pritam himself was convicted for dishonesty.

Earlier this year, Pritam was convicted on two counts of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The case stemmed from his handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statements in Parliament in 2021, where she fabricated a story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station.

Playing the 'underdog' card

Pritam Singh isn’t daft. He’s a lawyer, an MP, and a guy who’s navigated Singapore’s political minefield for years. His wipeout narrative isn’t about doubting WP’s grip on Hougang or Aljunied—it’s about firing up the base.

In Singapore, where voter apathy can creep in, scaring supporters into showing up is Politics 101.

But there’s a flip side. Overplaying the underdog card risks crying wolf.

If WP’s seats are as safe as Harpreet implies, Pritam’s gloom-and-doom could erode trust.

Voters aren’t stupid—they see through spin.

And in a city where trust in institutions is high (78% of Singaporeans trust the government, per a 2023 Edelman survey), coming off as manipulative isn’t a great look.

Pritam’s banking on fear to mobilize, but he might be underestimating how savvy Singaporeans are.

With GE2025 around the corner, WP should ditch the drama and double down on policy.

Safe seats or not, elections are won by showing up for the heartlands, not by shouting “wipeout” from the rooftops.

In a nation of pragmatists, substance trumps spin every time.

Goh Meng Seng’s claim—“Trump’s tariff will not last”—seems to gloss over the issues of uncertainty.

In a Facebook post published by Goh, he said: "Trump's Tariff will not last. At most, it's between China and US but even for that, it will be much moderated."

His Facebook post, while likely aimed at calming nerves and challenging the PAP’s narrative, underestimates how even a fleeting tariff can ripple through a trade-dependent economy like Singapore’s.

The problem with "It won't last"

Goh’s assertion that Trump’s tariffs are a short-term blip sounds reassuring, but it misses the forest for the trees. Uncertainty is the real poison in global trade, and Singapore, with its open economy, is particularly allergic.

Even a temporary 10% tariff on Singapore’s exports to the U.S. spooks investors and businesses. A “short” tariff could still scare off a chip fab or logistics hub - of which Singapors economy is largely based on, costing billions in future growth.

Singapore’s role as a transshipment hub means it’s hyper-sensitive to global trade flows. A brief tariff could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing or shipping schedules, leading to delays, higher costs, and lost contracts. For example, electronics, a key export, rely on tight margins—any hiccup can cascade.

If China’s economy slows due to tariffs on U.S. goods, Singapore’s exports to China (think components, chemicals) could tank.

Even a three-month tariff war could shave 1.5% off GDP, per analyst estimates, hitting jobs and wages. That’s not a “bloop”; that’s a retrenchment notice.

Goh’s point might be that Singapore’s resilience—built on diversified trade partners and government agility—can absorb a temporary shock.

Fair enough.

We’ve got FTAs with the EU, ASEAN, and Japan, and the PAP’s track record of rolling out SME aid is solid.

But resilience doesn’t mean immunity. Uncertainty breeds hesitation—businesses pause hiring, and consumers tighten belts.

Why uncertainty is the real villain

Trade isn’t just about tariffs; it’s about confidence.

Singapore thrives on predictability—stable ports, clear trade rules, and a government that doesn’t surprise you.

SMEs, which employ 70% of Singapore’s workforce, can’t plan if tariffs might vanish or double. Should they eat the 10% cost? Pivot to new markets? Lay off staff? The indecision itself is paralyzing.

Trump’s tariffs aren’t just about Singapore. If the U.S.-China trade war escalates, global demand could slump, hitting Singapore’s exports across the board.

Does Goh Meng Seng have a point?

To give Goh some credit, he’s likely trying to counter the PAP’s “sky is falling” narrative ahead of GE2025.

The PAP’s warnings—PM Wong’s “seismic change,” SM Lee’s globalization eulogy—can feel like election scare tactics.

Goh’s post taps into that skepticism, suggesting the PAP’s hyping a temporary issue to rally voters.

And he’s not entirely wrong: Singapore’s economy has weathered shocks before (SARS-08, COVID-19), and a short tariff might not trigger Armageddon. The government’s got tools—subsidies, retraining programs, trade pivots—that could soften the blow.

But Goh’s oversimplifying.

The damage—lost contracts, spooked investors, job cuts—lingers.

And if Trump’s tariffs spark a broader trade war (say, EU retaliates or China doubles down), Singapore’s caught in the crossfire. Goh’s confidence feels like a campaign soundbite, not a strategy.

Goh’s “it won’t last” is refreshingly defiant, but it’s also naive. He’s betting on resilience without acknowledging the chaos a “bloop” can unleash.

Can Singapore stay neutral in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape?

Former Trade Minister and current Minister of Education Chan Chun Sing’s said in a CNA podcast that it's not about choosing sides—sometimes that’s decided for you—but about making Singapore so valuable that everyone wants a piece.

While Chan’s perspective highlights Singapore’s pragmatic diplomacy, it sidesteps a stark reality: neutrality, in the face of deep economic and strategic entanglements with both the US and China, is a mirage.

Neutrality promises impartiality but Singapore's reality mocks it

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China tariff war due to its deep economic, strategic, and geopolitical entanglements with both powers.

In 2023, China devoured 14% of Singapore’s exports ($83 billion) and supplied 13% of imports, while the US took 13% of exports ($76 billion) and 10% of imports.

US foreign direct investment ($234 billion) is a growth engine, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative exploits Singapore’s ports, processing 37 million TEUs in 2024.

Singapore backs US-led Indo-Pacific frameworks like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Launched in 2022, IPEF’s 14-nation coalition (excluding China) aims to boost trade and supply chains.

China, excluded from IPEF, views it as a US strategy to counter its regional influence, a sentiment echoed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who labeled it an attempt to “decouple” economically and “incite confrontation.”

In 2024, China’s state media jabbed at Singapore’s IPEF role, hinting at trade blowback but nothing came out of it as of today. However, the message was clear: neutrality is a fantasy when your biggest trading partner feels betrayed.

Walking a regional tightrope with ASEAN

Singapore’s security reliance on the US, especially for deterrence in a volatile region, tilts its strategic calculus.

Neutrality would require distancing itself from US defense cooperation, but this is unlikely given Singapore’s need for a counterbalance to regional threats, including China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea that affects ASEAN.

Singapore has no claims but supports a rules-based order, implicitly aligning with US freedom-of-navigation operations against China’s claims. This stance, articulated in Singapore’s 2024 Foreign Policy Report, draws China’s ire, undermining perceptions of neutrality.

As an ASEAN linchpin, Singapore pushes for regional unity but ASEAN’s fractures—Cambodia and Laos cozy up to China, while the Philippines and Vietnam lean US—make neutrality a diplomatic minefield.

Singapore's real play is not neutrality, but power

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement.

Favoring one risks alienating the other, yet remaining aloof could marginalize Singapore in global trade networks.

Instead, Singapore pursues strategic autonomy—hedging bets, diversifying partners, and maximizing flexibility. This approach, allows Singapore to navigate the conflict without being fully subsumed by either side.

In 2023, Singapore's S$600 billion economy grew 1.2% despite tariff headwinds, proving its adaptability.

Singapore’s edge lies not in avoiding sides but in making itself so valuable that sides compete to win its favor.

That’s not neutrality — it’s power.

Singapore’s economy is heavily reliant on global trade, with exports accounting for a significant portion of its GDP (about 170%) — think electronics, shipping, manufacturing.

U.S. tariffs, even at 10% on Singapore’s exports, could disrupt supply chains. Growth forecasts? Down 1.5%.

If U.S.-China tariffs spike, China’s economy slows, and Singapore suffers. Fewer ships, quieter factories, jobs on the line. With living costs up 4%, families are already stretched.

PAP say "be worried"; PPP say "don't bluff"

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has described the tariffs as marking a “seismic change” in the global order, signaling the end of rules-based globalization. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong echoed this, noting that Singapore can no longer rely on a stable global trading system, raising the risk of a recession.

People's Power Party chief Goh Meng Seng calls PM Wong's statement "fear-mongering". They call the PAP’s warnings “scare tactics” to spook voters into sticking with the safe bet.

Crises usually send Singaporeans running to the PAP, but Goh’s betting on change. Voters are livid about housing costs and stagnant wages—why obsess over tariffs when you can’t afford a flat?

PAP has historically benefited from a “flight to safety” during crises, where voters favor stability. However, according to Goh, this strategy may be less effective now, as voters are more polarized and focused on local issues like housing affordability.

PPP: US tariffs on Singapore is "ikan bilis"

The PPP’s claim that the government is overreacting could stem from the fact that Singapore’s 10% tariff is relatively low compared to others (e.g., 26% for India). They might argue that Singapore’s diversified trade partnerships (e.g., with ASEAN, EU, and Japan) and free trade agreements could cushion the blow.

But they miss the forest for the trees. Tariffs aren’t just about U.S. trade—they disrupt global flows.

A slowdown anywhere hits our ports, factories, and wallets. Brushing it off as “ikan bilis” is reckless, like ignoring a leak in a ship.

The PPP’s skepticism taps voter frustration, but it underestimates a real economic storm.

Additionally, some opposition figures may believe the government’s messaging exaggerates immediate risks to rally voters, when the full economic impact might take time to materialize.

COVID-19 measures were also an overreaction but look at where it got Singapore

PM Wong referenced the COVID-19 response, where early government action was criticized as overreach but later proved necessary. This suggests a pattern: proactive warnings about external risks (like tariffs) aim to prepare Singaporeans for tough times, even if the full impact isn’t immediate.

According to Goh, he said to "let the big boys (US and China) hash it out" - reiterating that the tariffs are temporary and for Singapore to focus on domestic issues.

Goh rightly highlights domestic pain—housing and jobs are urgent—but dismissing tariffs ignores how global shocks amplify local struggles.

Some analysts argue that Singapore’s agile economy and government interventions (e.g., support for SMEs) could mitigate damage. The PPP might be banking on this resilience -- an irony seeing that PAP's policies created this resilience - to argue that panic is premature.

Election noise means opinions from political parties need to be taken with a grain of salt

With the General Election (GE2025) set for May 3, opposition parties are differentiating themselves by challenging the PAP’s narrative. Calling out “fear-mongering” appeals to voters frustrated with the PAP’s dominance. The PPP’s critique is partly electoral posturing.

Conversely, the PAP’s emphasis on unity and preparedness could be seen as leveraging the crisis to bolster its campaign.

However, dismissing the tariff threat as “fear-mongering” overlooks the broader economic stakes that affect the livelihood of all Singaporeans, and is nothing short of myopic.

Back in 2015, during the General Election’s Cooling-Off Day — a sacred 24-hour no-campaigning zone— Vivian Balakrishnan’s Facebook page was caught posting.

The Elections Department (ELD) issued a stern reminder about the rules, and Vivian’s team chalked it up to a “technical bug” causing “recurrent auto-posting,” later confirmed by Facebook (Straits Times, 2015).

Most gave Vivian the benefit of the doubt but fast-forward a decade, and that “one-off” glitch is starting to look like a feature, not a bug.

Another "bug" bites

On March 13, 2025, Vivian’s official Facebook page “liked” a post by Calvin Cheng suggesting pro-Palestinian activists be shipped to Gaza with no return ticket — a diplomatic disaster in a single click.

The backlash was instant, with netizens and activist groups like Monday of Palestine Solidarity slamming it as tone-deaf, especially given Vivian’s parliamentary nods to Palestinian causes.

By April 2, Vivian denied liking the post, claiming “unauthorized activity” and reporting it to Meta for investigation.

One too many glitches

Vivian’s social media has gone off-script, and the “bug” excuse is wearing thin.

In 2015, we could shrug it off—social media was still a wild frontier, and bugs weren’t uncommon.

But in 2025, when Singaporeans are dodging phishing scams and securing their Singpass with 2FA, a minister’s verified account getting “hacked” or “bugged” raises red flags.

When a minister’s account keeps glitching, it erodes confidence.

If Vivian’s team can’t secure a Facebook page, how do we trust them with cybersecurity or foreign policy?

With GE2025 looming, Singaporeans want leaders who can keep up — on policy and on Facebook.

Anything less, and Vivian risks being debugged by the ballot box.