Disclaimer: This analysis is a speculative exploration based on geopolitical trends, historical patterns, and open-source intelligence.

---

Foreign interference isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a global reality, from Russia’s 2016 U.S. election hacks to China’s whispered influence in Australia.

Singapore, a tiny island with outsized influence, is a high-value target. Its role as a global financial hub, with approximately S$5.4 trillion in assets under management makes its electoral outcome a matter of international consequence.

China

China, Singapore’s largest trading partner with S$150 billion in bilateral trade in 2022, has strong incentives to influence GE2025.

As ASEAN’s diplomatic anchor, Singapore influences regional policies critical to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and South China Sea claims.

A government aligned with Beijing would enhance its dominance in Southeast Asia, where Singapore’s neutrality is a linchpin.

Moreover, Singapore’s military training partnerships with Taiwan make it a target for China’s efforts to suppress Taiwanese independence narratives.

Past disinformation campaigns

China has a well-documented history of disinformation:

• Taiwan: Beijing has used deepfakes and propaganda to discredit Taiwanese leaders and deter voters from supporting independence, targeting Chinese-speaking communities to sow division, as reported by regional security experts.

• Philippines: China has promoted narratives portraying itself as a constructive regional actor while casting doubt on U.S. reliability, aiming to weaken U.S.-Philippine ties, per the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

• Singapore (2017): A notable incident involved Huang Jing, a U.S. citizen and academic at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who was expelled in August 2017 for acting as an agent of influence for a foreign country, widely understood to be China. Huang used his position to share privileged information with foreign intelligence operatives and attempted to influence Singapore’s foreign policy, per MHA.

Potential impact in Singapore

Singapore’s 74% ethnic Chinese population and economic ties with China create vulnerabilities to disinformation.

AI-generated deepfakes on platforms like Meta and Tiktok could depict candidates disparaging Chinese culture, alienating voters.

Cyber operations might target journalists of alternative and mainstream media outlets, while covert funding through Chinese business networks or clan associations could support pro-China candidates.

The October 2024 deepfake video targeting former President Halimah Yacob, falsely showing her criticizing the government, underscores this threat.

The 2020 case of Dickson Yeo, a Singaporean sentenced in the U.S. for spying for Chinese intelligence, further highlights Beijing’s use of local operatives, though Yeo claimed no disloyalty to Singapore.

Why Singapore?

Singapore’s diplomatic leadership in ASEAN and military ties with Taiwan make it a strategic target.

China’s ambition to dominate ASEAN relies on influencing key players like Singapore, whose neutral stance could shift regional dynamics if manipulated.

Disinformation could erode public trust or promote candidates aligned with Beijing’s goals.

Israel

Israel, a key defense partner supplying Singapore with technologies like the Iron Dome, seeks to maintain a government supportive of bilateral ties.

As one of Singapore’s few ASEAN allies alongside Thailand, and with neighbors like Malaysia and Indonesia holding anti-Israel stances, Singapore’s pro-Israel policies are crucial.

A change in government could disrupt defense cooperation or weaken Israel’s Southeast Asian foothold, where Singapore is a diplomatic and technological hub.

Past disinformation campaigns

Israel’s disinformation efforts, particularly since the Gaza war, have aimed to shape global narratives:

• U.S. Lawmakers (2024): Israel funded a $2 million campaign through Stoic, a Tel Aviv-based firm, using 600 fake social media accounts to target 128 U.S. Congresspeople with pro-Israel messaging. Active as of June 2024, it employed AI tools like ChatGPT and fake news sites to attack UNRWA and influence policy (The New York Times, June 2024).

• Gaza War propaganda: AI-driven bot farms spread false narratives to dehumanize Palestinians and pressure policymakers, as reported by The Intercept in February 2024 (Gaza: Israel, Netanyahu, propaganda, lies, Palestinians).

• Meta censorship: Israel secured the removal of 38.8 million pro-Palestinian posts on Meta platforms by April 2025, aligning with efforts to suppress criticism (Dropsite News).

• Specific falsehoods: Misleading claims, such as audio evidence in the Gaza Baptist Hospital massacre, highlight tactical disinformation (Euronews, February 2024).

Potential impact on Singapore

Israel’s cyber capabilities, exemplified by tools like Pegasus and Graphite used in Singapore pose a threat.

While the 2024 Graphite spyware from Paragon Solutions was reportedly halted, Israel’s history with Pegasus—sold to various governments—suggests that comparable tools remain active.

Disinformation campaigns might target Singapore’s Malay-Muslim community (15% of the population) to counter anti-Israel sentiments, using bots on platforms like Meta.

Covert lobbying through defense or tech partnerships could subtly influence policy.

Why Singapore?

Singapore’s status as a rare ASEAN ally makes it a linchpin for Israel’s regional strategy.

A pro-Israel government ensures sustained defense cooperation and counters regional hostility.

Disinformation could protect these ties by shaping elite perceptions or neutralizing anti-Israel narratives.

Singapore's defense capabilities

Singapore has fortified its electoral process against disinformation:

• Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 (FICA): Enables authorities to remove false content and scrutinize foreign funding, countering China’s deepfakes and Israel’s bot campaigns Countering Foreign Interference.

• Cybersecurity: The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) secures electoral systems, with 2023 advisories promoting robust digital protections Advisory to Presidential Election Candidates.

• Public resilience: Media literacy campaigns and high public trust (84% in government, 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer) equip citizens to identify disinformation Commentary: What Singapore can do more against rising threat of foreign interference.

The FICA law was in the news recently when four members of one of Singapore's richest families were designated as "politically significant persons" for their membership to a China political advisory body. MHA had emphasised that the four individuals had not engaged in any “egregious activity”. As such, their designation can be seen as a pre-emptive move to guard against any potential vulnerabilities to foreign interference.

Also last year, FICA was invoked to block 95 social media accounts linked to self-exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, the first time that the account restrictions directions under FICA were being deployed.

Foreign disinformation poses a significant threat to GE2025.

China aims to dominate ASEAN by leveraging Singapore’s diplomatic influence and cultural ties, while Israel seeks to preserve its strategic alliance.

Singapore’s FICA, cybersecurity, and public resilience provide a strong defense, but sustained vigilance is critical.

Enhanced cyber audits, monitoring of foreign networks, and public education will ensure Singapore’s vote remains untainted.

As GE2025 approaches, the nation’s commitment to sovereignty will determine its success in countering these threats.

With HDB resale prices up 50% since 2020 and BTO waiting times stretching to five years, affordability and access are strangling young couples, singles, and retirees alike.

The 99-year lease model, once a cornerstone of stability, now looms as a ticking time bomb for ageing flats.

The PAP, WP, SDP and PSP have rolled out their housing manifestos, each claiming to fix voters' housing concerns.

But do they deliver?

PAP - more flats, same old tune

Flood the market with supply, tweak eligibilit, and tackle lease decay head-on

The PAP, Singapore’s ruling juggernaut, promises to build over 50,000 new HDB flats in three years—enough for an entire Ang Mo Kio town.

They’re doubling down on Shorter Waiting Time flats to cut BTO delays, exploring options for higher-income couples and singles, and pushing the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) to rejuvenate old estates like Kallang-Whampoa.

More flats don’t automatically mean cheaper flats

The Housing Price Index (HPI) ratio—median flat price to median income—hovers around 5-6, far from affordable for a $80,000-a-year household eyeing a $400,000 4-room BTO.

PAP’s reliance on grants, like the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, is a band-aid, not a cure, when resale prices have soared 50% in five years.

VERS sounds promising but lacks teeth—its voluntary nature and vague compensation details leave residents guessing, unlike the more decisive Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

Expanding access for singles and higher-income groups is inclusive but risks diverting resources from lower-income families who can’t even dream of a $500,000 resale flat.

And while 50,000 flats sound impressive, global supply chain crunches and labor shortages could derail delivery, as seen in past construction delays.

Stability, not affordability

PAP’s plan is feasible, backed by HDB’s machine and approximately $1.2 trillion in reserves, but it’s incremental, not transformative.

PAP is betting on stability, not affordability, leaving young Singaporeans stuck in a cycle of grants and grit.

WP - bold on ideas, shaky on substance

The Workers’ Party takes a different tack, zeroing in on affordability with a promise to slash the HPI ratio to 3.0 or below—meaning a 4-room flat for a median-income family would cost no more than $240,000.

They propose 70-year BTO leases at lower prices, with an option to top up to 99 years, and a universal buy-back scheme to rescue retirees from depreciating flats.

To sweeten the deal, WP wants HDB to reacquire coffee shops and cap rents to inflation, easing living costs in estates.

Gutsy policy proposals but no clarity on how to fund it

WP's proposed housing policies speak directly to middle-class families and retirees crushed by prices.

An HPI of 3.0 would be a game-changer, making homeownership a reality, not a pipe dream.

The 70-year lease option is clever, offering flexibility for cash-strapped buyers, while the buy-back scheme tackles lease decay with precision, ensuring grannies in 40-year-old flats aren’t left penniless.

A very costly proposal

But ambition comes at a cost.

Dropping the HPI to 3.0 means slashing flat prices by 40-50%, requiring massive subsidies or land cost write-offs that could dent fiscal reserves or spike taxes.

The buy-back scheme, while noble, could cost billions if applied universally, and WP’s manifesto is mum on funding.

Worse, there’s no clear plan to boost flat supply, leaving waiting times untouched—a glaring blind spot when young couples are begging for faster BTOs.

WP’s heart is in the right place, but its wallet might not be.

PSP - radical vision, risky bet

The Progress Singapore Party swings for the fences with its Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS), scrapping BTOs to sell flats without land costs—recovered only on resale. This could halve prices, dropping a $400,000 flat to $200,000.

Singles aged 28+ get to buy 2- and 3-room flats anywhere, more flats will be built based on demand, and a Millennial Apartments Scheme offers short-term rentals in prime spots for young folks.

It’s a bold, youth-centric vision, promising to break the affordability curse and free CPF savings for retirement.

Revolutionary if it works, catastrophic if it flops

AHS is a stroke of genius on paper, tackling the root of high prices: land costs, which eat up half a flat’s value.

Letting singles buy at 28 in any estate is a nod to a growing demographic—30% of adults are single—while rental apartments cater to millennials delaying marriage.

But genius comes with glitches.

Deferring land costs guts government revenue ($20 billion yearly from land sales), risking budget shortfalls or reserve dips that Singapore’s fiscal hawks will savage.

Resale markets could tank as cheap new flats flood in, rattling homeowners’ wealth.

AHS demands a complete HDB overhaul, a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

The Millennial Scheme sounds sexy but faces land scarcity in prime areas, limiting scale.

And PSP’s silence on lease decay is a fatal flaw—retirees with 30 years left on their flats get no lifeline.

It’s a high-stakes gamble: revolutionary if it works, catastrophic if it flops.

SDP - bold but tricky to execute

Slash prices with NOM flats, prioritize families, and secure retirements

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) proposes a transformative Non-Open Market (NOM) Scheme, selling HDB flats at cost—excluding land costs—for as low as S$70,000 (2-room) to S$240,000 (5-room).

NOM flats can’t be resold on the open market, only back to HDB, curbing speculation.

The Young Families Priority Scheme (YFPS) fast-tracks flat access for couples with kids, while singles, single parents, and low-income renters get broader eligibility.

An enhanced Lease Buy-Back Scheme offers seniors inflation-adjusted annuities, and a buffer stock of flats aims to slash waiting times.

A sophisticated Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) balloting system promises efficient allocation.

Affordability and inclusivity with a side of complexity

SDP’s NOM Scheme is a masterstroke for affordability, potentially cutting a 4-room flat from S$400,000 to S$160,000, freeing CPF savings for retirement and family needs.

YFPS directly tackles Singapore’s dismal 0.78 Total Fertility Rate by prioritizing young families, while inclusive policies for singles and single parents resonate with 30% of adults who are single.

The buffer stock and VCG system could shrink waiting times, addressing a key pain point.

The annuity-based Lease Buy-Back is a lifeline for retirees, ensuring dignity without depleting equity.

Bold but tricky to execute

NOM’s cost-recovery model, while appealing, risks government revenue losses similar to PSP’s AHS, though SDP’s resale restrictions may stabilize markets better.

Converting existing flats to NOM could spark legal or financial disputes over compensation.

The VCG system, while innovative, may confuse applicants unused to bidding premiums, and maintaining a buffer stock demands precise demographic forecasting to avoid oversupply.

Funding grants for low-income households (up to S$60,000) and annuities could strain reserves without clear fiscal plans.

SDP’s vision is bold and inclusive but hinges on complex execution and public buy-in.

Verdict

Singapore’s housing crisis—skyrocketing prices, endless waits, and lease decay—demands more than manifesto bravado.

• PAP offers stability and supply but ducks affordability, betting voters will trust its track record over flashy fixes. Its plan will keep the system humming but won’t ease the squeeze.

• WP’s price-slashing ambition and retiree focus hit the mark but stumble on funding and supply, risking empty promises. Its heart is right, but its math is shaky.

• PSP’s radical AHS and youth appeal are electrifying but teeter on fiscal recklessness, ignoring older voters’ fears and homeowners who see housing as their nest egg. Its vision is thrilling but could crash the economy.

• SDP balances affordability, inclusivity, and demographic fixes with NOM flats and family-focused policies, but its complex mechanisms and revenue risks need ironclad execution. Its plan is ambitious but navigates a tightrope.

GE2025’s housing debate exposes a truth - no party has a silver bullet. Voters must weigh stability against bold reform, affordability against fiscal prudence, and inclusivity against execution risks.

Comparative Analysis

Aspect	PAP	WP	PSP	SDP
Key Proposals	50,000+ new flats, Shorter Waiting Time flats, VERS, options for singles/higher-income.	HPI ≤3.0, 70-year leases, universal buy-back, coffee shop rent caps.	AHS (no land cost), singles 28+, more supply, Millennial Apartments.	NOM Scheme (cost-recovery flats), YFPS, enhanced Lease Buy-Back, buffer stock, VCG balloting.
Affordability	Relies on supply and grants; no direct price cuts.	Targets HPI ≤3.0; flexible leases for cost savings.	AHS removes land costs; highly affordable but disruptive.	NOM flats slash prices (e.g., S$160,000 for 4-room); grants for low-income.
Lease Decay	VERS rejuvenates old estates; proactive but vague.	Universal buy-back; direct but costly.	No specific measure; overlooks ageing flats.	Enhanced Lease Buy-Back with annuities; preserves equity.
Supply and Access	Strong focus on 50,000+ flats; inclusive for singles/higher-income.	Limited supply focus; emphasizes affordability over volume.	Increases supply; strong singles’ access at 28+.	Buffer stock to cut waits; inclusive for singles, single parents, renters.
Innovation	Incremental; builds on BTO/VERS frameworks.	Moderate; new lease options and buy-back scheme.	Transformative; AHS and Millennial Scheme rethink housing models.	Transformative; NOM, VCG, and YFPS overhaul pricing and allocation.
Feasibility	High; leverages HDB’s systems and reserves.	Moderate; HPI target and buy-back costly but implementable.	Low to moderate; AHS fiscally risky, others feasible.	Moderate; NOM and VCG complex but actionable with reserves.
Voter Appeal	Likely appeals to families, older voters, and those prioritizing stability and supply.	Likely attracts middle-class families, retirees, and young couples seeking affordability.	Likely draws younger voters, singles, and reformists open to bold changes.	Likely appeals to young families, singles, retirees, and those valuing inclusivity and affordability.

根据《海峡时报》专访，工人党新人哈普雷特·辛格（Harpreet Singh）近日坦言，不愿被“空降”至“安全选区”。此言如石投湖面，激起涟漪，揭示了工人党对后港和阿裕尼等选区坚如磐石的自信，暗示其内部对这些传统票仓的掌控力。

哈普雷特的表态证实了外界长期的猜测：在人民行动党（PAP）主宰的新加坡政坛，后港选区（自1991年起为工人党根据地）和阿裕尼集选区（2011年夺下）堪称反对党的“铁打营盘”。2020年大选（GE2020）中，工人党在后港赢得61.2%的选票，阿裕尼集选区得票率达59.9%。虽非压倒性胜利，但在人民行动党（上届93席中占83席）的绝对优势下，这份选民忠诚度无疑是一股不容小觑的力量。

然而，工人党秘书长普里坦·辛格（Pritam Singh）却频频警告反对党可能“全军覆没”，正如《亚洲新闻台》今年初报道所述。这番危言耸听的论调，与哈普雷特的乐观表态形成鲜明对比，令人不禁质疑其真实意图。

普里坦的“全军覆没”危言

普里坦在呼吁党内团结时反复提及“全军覆没”的风险，表面上是为激励支持者，防止自满情绪滋生。他将选举塑造成一场生死存亡的较量，意在确保工人党支持者——尤其是在后港与阿裕尼等关键选区——踊跃投票。这种“恐惧动员”在新家坡政坛并不陌生，堪称政治教科书中的经典一招。

然而，这柄双刃剑暗藏风险。哈普雷特对“安全选区”的坦率承认，暗示工人党私下对核心选区的稳固地位信心十足。公开渲染“全军覆没”的危机，难免让敏锐的选民嗅到一丝虚伪的气息。在新加坡这个以务实著称的城邦，选民对政治话术的洞察力不容小觑。若他们察觉工人党夸大风险以操控舆论，这种“公信力货币”本就稀缺的政党恐将陷入信任危机。

更棘手的是，普里坦自身的诚信风波为其言论蒙上阴影。今年早些时候，他因在国会特权委员会（Committee of Privileges）作伪证被判两项罪名成立。案件源于他处理前国会议员拉希莎·汗（Raeesah Khan）2021年在国会谎称陪同性侵受害者报警一事的失当行为。这场风波令普里坦的公信力备受考验，也让他的“全军覆没”论调更显牵强。

“弱势牌”的高风险博弈

普里坦绝非政坛新手。作为律师、国会议员及深耕新加坡政坛多年的老将，他的“全军覆没”论并非出于对后港或阿裕尼选情的真正担忧，而是精心设计的动员策略。在选民冷漠情绪可能滋生的岛国，点燃支持者的危机感是政治动员的入门课。

然而，过犹不及。过度渲染弱势地位，恐有“狼来了”之虞。正如哈普雷特所暗示，若工人党的核心选区稳如泰山，普里坦的末日论调可能适得其反，侵蚀选民信任。在新加坡，选民对政治操作的敏锐嗅觉不容低估。2023年爱德曼调查显示，78%的新加坡人对政府抱有高度信任，这种信任文化使得任何试图操弄民意的行为都可能招致反感。

2025年大选（GE2025）即将来临，工人党应抛弃戏剧化的危机叙事，转而深耕政策与基层。在这个以理性与实干为本的国度，选民更看重政党的实际作为，而非耸人听闻的“全军覆没”呐喊。无论选区是否“安全”，选举的胜负始终取决于扎根选民的真诚努力，而非高调的恐惧营销。

在这个崇尚实质的城邦，空洞的话术终将被务实的行动盖过光芒。

Ariffin Sha, founder of Wake Up Singapore and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate for GE2025, and Raeesah Khan, former Workers’ Party MP have one thing in common: a failure to uphold truth.

Both, in their respective arenas—alternative media and Parliament—have faltered, revealing a troubling symmetry.

Ariffin is the male counterpart to Raeesah, not in ambition or ideology, but in their shared disregard for facts when narrative suits their cause.

Background

Ariffin, a 27-year-old law graduate and SDP candidate for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, built Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) as a platform for socio-political commentary.

A legal executive by day, he manages WUSG, which boasts over 100,000 followers.

In March 2022, WUSG published a fabricated story about a miscarriage at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH), alleging staff mishandled a foetus.

The claim, based on doctored documents from KKH patient Ma Su Nandar Htwe, was false.

Ariffin’s platform failed to verify the story, leading to a criminal defamation charge, a guilty plea, and an S$8,000 fine in August 2024. His apology and retraction came only after exposure, too late to restore trust in KKH, which serves 12,000 inpatients annually.

Raeesah Khan, a 31-year-old former MP for Sengkang GRC, committed a parallel offense in August 2021. She claimed in Parliament to have accompanied a rape victim to a police station, where an officer made insensitive remarks. This was a lie, admitted three months later, rooted in her personal trauma but lacking any factual basis.

Her resignation from the Workers’ Party and a recommended S$35,000 fine followed, alongside a breach of parliamentary privilege that eroded trust in elected officials.

Both Ariffin and Raeesah leveraged significant platforms—WUSG’s social media reach and Khan’s parliamentary pulpit—to amplify unverified claims.

Both tackled sensitive issues (healthcare and sexual assault) that demand rigor, not recklessness.

Their admissions of fault, only after being cornered, reveal a willingness to prioritize narrative over truth, whether driven by zeal or negligence.

Dr Chee pleads for "mature" political discourse

At SDP's press conference, Dr Chee was asked how he would respond to any voters concerned about Mr Ariffin Sha’s previous conviction.

He claimed Ariffin had “very ably” made a case for younger Singaporeans and urged a focus on issues over personal attacks. “We want (the) Singapore political system to mature… where we can talk about issues and not go back into past practices where we are just destroying people in terms of talking about their personalities,” Chee said.

He compared Ariffin’s case to PAP politicians’ mistakes, citing former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, who resigned in 2023 over an extramarital affair with a Tampines GRC MP. “We want to be judged by the same standards,” Chee added, rejecting “personal demonization.”

Mr Tan resigned from his position and from the PAP in 2024 over an affair he had with a fellow party member who was a Tampines GRC MP.

“We want to be judged by the same standards,” Dr Chee said, adding that he wished to avoid a situation of “personal demonization, that is not in keeping with a mature civilized election campaign”.

Comparing Sha’s conviction to PAP’s Tan Chuan-Jin’s personal scandal, however, is a false equivalence—adultery doesn’t undermine public institutions; spreading falsehoods does.

Chee’s plea to focus on “issues” over “personalities” conveniently ignores that Sha’s lapse is the issue: judgment matters in leadership.

Raeesah’s case is equally indefensible.

Her lie, though tied to personal trauma, was not a slip but a calculated statement repeated thrice in Parliament, undermining the Workers’ Party’s credibility and fueling skepticism about opposition accountability.

Weaponizing sensitivities for moral posturing

Both cases expose a deeper issue: the temptation to weaponize sensitive topics for clout or moral posturing.

Ariffin and Raeesah, in their respective roles, failed to grasp the weight of their platforms, treating truth as negotiable when it suited their ends.

As GE2025 looms, Ariffin's candidacy with SDP and Raeesah's retreat from politics highlight divergent paths but a shared lesson: public figures must be held to a higher standard.

Voters in Marsiling-Yew Tee deserve candidates who prioritize evidence over emotion.

Ariffin's fine may close his legal chapter, but his platform’s lapse raises questions about his judgment. Raeesah's resignation, while accountability of a sort, leaves a stain on the opposition’s claim to moral high ground.

Whether in media or Parliament, the duty to verify, clarify, and rectify is non-negotiable.

Anything less is a disservice to the nation.

Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Chee Soon Juan has made a questionable choice nominating Ariffin Sha, the 27-year-old founder of Wake Up, Singapore (WUSG), to contest Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.

The decision is not a minor oversight—it points to a lapse in judgment that may cast doubts on Chee’s fitness for ministerial office.

While the People’s Action Party (PAP) has faced its own scandals involving individuals who were later convicted (Eg. Iswaran), these typically emerge after elections, not before.

Background

In August 2024, Ariffin was fined S$8,000 after pleading guilty to criminal defamation for publishing a fabricated story about KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, falsely claiming a woman suffered a miscarriage due to negligence.

Chee’s response to Ariffin's red flag is has been evasive.

At a press conference on April 13, 2025, he urged voters to focus on SDP’s policies, not Ariffin’s past, and compared the case to former PAP Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin’s resignation over an extramarital affair. The comparison misses the mark: Tan’s personal lapse, while serious, did not involve lawbreaking or public harm.

Chee’s deflection sidesteps the core issue of vetting a candidate with a known conviction.

Leadership requires sound judgement

The PAP is not immune to scrutiny.

Cases like former Transport Minister S. Iswaran’s corruption charges in January 2024 and former Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui’s affair with Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan Jin reveal vetting gaps.

However, these issues emerged after elections. The PAP acted decisively, removing Iswaran from his post and asked both Tan Chuan Jin and Cheng Li Hui to resign.

No system guarantees flawless candidates, but knowingly selecting a convict pre-election reflects a clearer lapse in judgment.

Zero tolerance on misinformation

Ariffin’s case strikes at Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance on misinformation.

In 2024, POFMA was invoked 15 times to correct falsehoods, underscoring the harm of unchecked narratives. Ariffin’s defamation directly contravened this ethos, making his nomination a liability in a constituency where community cohesion is vital.

Residents value reliability in governance. Chee’s oversight suggests a disconnect, potentially eroding confidence in SDP’s ability to address bread-and-butter issues like job security and affordability.

Ariffin’s supporters may cite his work with Wake Up, Singapore, which amplifies marginalized voices, or argue his youth mitigates his error. These arguments carry limited weight.

Public office demands high standards, especially in Singapore, where trust underpins stability.

Ariffin’s conviction reflects a lapse in responsibility, and Chee’s endorsement suggests inadequate scrutiny.