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.

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.

29,564 voters in Jalan Kayu SMC will likely have to choose between two kayus come May 3, 2025: Ng Chee Meng, the People's Action Party's NTUC chief tainted by the 2024 Allianz-Income debacle, and Kala Manickam, Red Dot United's (RDU) combative educator whose 2021 PSP lawsuit reveals a divisive streak.

Background on Ng Chee Meng and Kala Manickam

Ng Chee Meng, 56, served as Chief of Air Force (2009–2013) and Chief of Defence Force (2013–2015) in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Entering politics with the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 2015, he won Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC but lost Sengkang GRC in 2020 (47.88% votes).

As NTUC Secretary-General since 2018, Ng has championed workforce development and workers' rights. Yet, his endorsement of the 2024 Allianz-Income deal, marred by a S$1.85 billion capital extraction and transparency lapses, paints him as either complicit in prioritizing profits or negligent in oversight.

Kala Manickam, 57, is a relatable yet polarizing opposition candidate, bringing a mix of grassroots appeal and contentious history.

A single mother, specialist educator, and SME owner, she holds a Master’s in Lifelong Learning and was a pioneer female officer in the Singapore Armed Forces, serving seven years as a lieutenant.

Kala's 2020 run in Nee Soon GRC with the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) yielded 38.76% of votes, but her expulsion from PSP in December 2020 led to a 2021 lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. The lawsuit was later settled amicably but revealed a divisive streak through accusations of insubordination and solo campaigning.

Now with Red Dot United (RDU), Kala is the likely candidate for Jalan Kayu SMC, advocating for job retraining and cost-of-living relief.

Ng Chee Meng's NTUC-Allianz controversy

In July 2024, NTUC and Allianz proposed a S$2.2 billion acquisition deal to bolster NTUC Income's competitiveness.

In an August 2024 statement with NTUC President K Thanaletchimi, he endorsed the deal, assuring that Allianz would honor Income’s social mission and existing policies.

But the devil was in the details: a S$1.85 billion capital extraction plan would have seen Allianz recoup nearly half its investment, potentially draining reserves meant to keep premiums low.

The Singapore government, led by Minister Edwin Tong, blocked the deal on October 14, 2024, citing its clash with Income’s 2022 corporatization goal of building financial strength for policyholders.

As NTUC Enterprise board member and NTUC chief, Ng’s claim that the central committee was unaware of the capital extraction plan until disclosure is damning.

Yet, the capital extraction plan—described by former Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh as a “breach of good faith”—contradicted this.

Ng’s claim of acting in “good faith” rings hollow when his dual roles as NTUC leader and NTUC Enterprise board member placed him at the heart of decision-making.

If Ng knew about the extraction and supported it, he’s complicit in prioritizing profits over people.

If he didn’t know, as he claims, he’s guilty of negligence—a damning indictment for a former Chief of Defence Force who built his career on precision and accountability.

SMU’s Eugene Tan called this ignorance “mind-boggling".

This isn’t Ng’s first misstep.

In January 2025, he attributed job insecurity to AI, ignoring netizens’ concerns over foreign manpower policies, alienating workers facing stagnant wages and sparked backlash for misreading ground sentiments..

His 2020 Sengkang GRC loss (47.88% vote share) already marks him as vulnerable.

Ng’s military pedigree and NTUC role are assets, but the Allianz saga reveals a leader either too cozy with corporate interests or too lax to notice their overreach.

His inability to anticipate public outrage—or even know the deal’s terms—undermines his claim to represent workers.

Jalan Kayu’s voters, wary of PAP’s perceived elitism, may question whether Ng prioritizes their needs or the party line. His campaign’s reliance on PAP machinery, despite his “own merits” rhetoric, risks reinforcing this skepticism.

Kala Manickam's PSP controversy

In July 2021, Kala sued PSP in the High Court (later transferred to State Courts), seeking a declaration that her December 2020 termination was “wrongful and invalid” and a S$10,000 refund for election expenses (e.g., fliers, pamphlets).

She argued PSP violated its constitution and due process, claiming she was not informed of specific charges, given no chance to defend herself, and unaware of investigation outcomes.

PSP’s seven affidavits, including from Tan Cheng Bock, painted her as “disruptive” and “insubordinate,” bullying teammates, and undermining cohesion.

Kala's fellow Nee Soon GRC candidate Damien Tay described her as putting her self-interests ahead of the team, during the run-up to the elections. He and candidate Taufik Supan cited how she "went about doing her own things", such as going on solo walkabouts, skipping team meetings and amassing a volunteer pool for herself.

A 17-member petition - including Kala's own election agent - and 55-to-11 cadre vote against her reinstatement bolstered PSP’s case.

Tan Cheng Bock pointed to a November 2020 meeting in where she was confrontational, as if "raring for a fight"; and "aggressively questioned… proof of her wrongdoings by shouting: 'WHAT PROOF? WHAT PROOF?'".

Kala’s public airing of grievances—via Facebook and court—signals a principled stand but also a divisive style.

Her actions suggest a lone-wolf mentality, ill-suited for Singapore’s collaborative politics.

Her move to Red Dot United (RDU), a smaller party, looks opportunistic, especially after RDU chief Ravi Philemon’s own PSP exit.

Kala’s SAF and educator roles show leadership, but her PSP fallout reveals a failure to build alliances.

Ng benefits from PAP’s ground game and Jalan Kayu’s Ang Mo Kio roots, but his Allianz misstep and Sengkang loss make him vulnerable.

Kala’s relatable story and opposition unity give her an edge, but her PSP saga and lesser-known status limit her reach.

The Workers’ Party’s absence (no confirmed candidate) and People's Power Party potential entry could complicate vote splits, though RDU’s coordination mitigates this.

In Jalan Kayu SMC, it's not about picking a winner, but rather, who is the sturdier of two kayus.

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.

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.