Singapore’s General Election is due by November 2025, and the Workers’ Party (WP) is hyping itself like it's ready to take over.

They’ve already got 10 seats—Aljunied, Sengkang, and Hougang—and now they’re eyeing more, like Marine Parade, East Coast, Tampines, and Pasir Ris-Punggol. With new faces popping up and a fancy Senior Counsel named Harpreet Singh joining the crew, people are buzzing about a “blue wave.”

But beyond the cheerleading, their track record’s a mess. Should we really give these folks a bigger mic? Let’s dig in.

WP has been on a winning streak

WP knows how to pull off a victory. In 2011, Chen Show Mao helped them snag Aljunied GRC, shocking the PAP.

In 2020, Jamus Lim’s charm won Sengkang with that “warm my cockles” moment we’re still quoting.

Now, Harpreet Singh Nehal—big-deal lawyer turned WP newbie—might be their next star. Spotted in Marine Parade, he’s got the resume to turn heads (think courtroom boss meets grassroots warrior).

Other parties like PAP and PSP are also bringing newbies, but WP’s crew feels like they’re ready to connect—think less suits, more “I get you” energy.

Four more GRCs? They pulled 50.49% in contested seats last time, and the east—full of stressed-out families—might bite. But winning’s one thing; delivering’s another.

Upcoming heroes or a brewing hot mess?

Here’s the tea: WP’s got baggage.

Jamus Lim’s a charmer, but his woke rants on inequality sound like a uni lecture—great for TikTok, less for heartlanders who just want cheaper chicken rice.

Pritam Singh, their leader, just got fined $14,000 for lying to a parliamentary committee about Raeesah Khan. That's a red flag and it’s not a great look for the Leader of the Opposition.

And 2023’s Leon Perera-Nicole Seah affair drama? More soap opera than serious vibes.

These aren’t one-off flubs; they’re a pattern of sloppy judgment. WP’s not the PAP’s well-oiled tank—they’re more like a rickety scooter.

So, should WP get more power?

If WP scores big—say, 20+ seats with wins like 59% in Aljunied, 52% in Sengkang, and 51% in a couple eastern GRCs—it’s less about them being flawless and more about the electorate wanting change. Skyrocketing costs, housing stress, young people over it—WP’s tapping that. Harpreet could be the boost they need, but their ideas have to shine brighter than their slip-ups.

They’re loud about fairness, but can they run the show without tripping over themselves? Parliament might get spicier, but it could also get sloppier.

The bottom line

WP’s got some wins and big talk, but their shine’s fading fast. New faces like Harpreet can’t hide the cracks—shaky delivery, sketchy leaders, and scandals that won’t quit. Their manifesto’s fine, but it’s not worth the chaos they drag in.

Root for them if you’re over PAP’s rule, but don’t expect miracles—just more noise.

On March 11, 2025, The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a Signal chat with Trump’s top national security team—Michael Waltz, JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard, and more.

Dubbed "Houthi PC small group," the chat laid bare plans for a U.S. strike on Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

On March 15, Hegseth posted specifics: “1415: Strike Drones on Target,” alongside F-18 and Tomahawk timelines.

Hours later, the attack killed 31.

How it happened

The story begins on March 11, 2025, when Goldberg received a connection request on Signal, an encrypted messaging app, from a user identified as Michael Waltz—President Donald Trump’s national security adviser.

On March 13, Waltz added him to a chat labeled "Houthi PC small group" (likely shorthand for Principals Committee), which included 18 members such as Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and other key figures.

Unbeknownst to the group, Goldberg silently observed as officials discussed operational details of an imminent U.S. military strike against Yemen’s Houthi militants, a group that had been attacking international shipping in the Red Sea.

On March 15, at 11:44 AM ET, Hegseth posted a "TEAM UPDATE" with precise timelines, including the launch of F-18 jets, MQ-9 drones, and Tomahawk missiles, as well as weather conditions and targeting information. Hours later, the strikes commenced, killing at least 31 people according to Yemen’s Houthi-run health ministry.

Goldberg, lacking security clearance, did not participate in the chat and later removed himself, a move that would have notified Waltz as the group creator—yet no one followed up.

On March 24, he published his initial account in The Atlantic, withholding some specifics to avoid endangering U.S. personnel.

The next day, after administration officials repeatedly claimed no classified information was shared, the magazine released a fuller transcript on March 26, arguing that the public deserved transparency given the administration’s denials.

Broader implications

The leak exposed more than just military plans. It revealed internal tensions, with Vance urging a delay to avoid “bailing out Europe” (which relies heavily on Red Sea shipping) and Hegseth decrying “European free-loading.”

European allies reacted with alarm, with anonymous officials decrying the “reckless” breach and anti-European rhetoric. Allies like Samar Ali warned that partners might hesitate to share sensitive intelligence with the U.S. moving forward.

Domestically, the incident revived debates over government transparency and accountability.

The National Security Council is reviewing the incident, but accountability remains uncertain.

Read the full chat log

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has got two Non-Constituency MPs—Leong Mun Wai (LMW) and Hazel Poa—re-elected to their Central Executive Committee (CEC) on March 20, 2025, per CNA, and founder Tan Cheng Bock (TCB) still looms large as chairman.

Tan Cheng Bock - the big boss who won’t let go?

Tan Cheng Bock, 84 as of now (two years older than Joe Biden, who’s 82), is PSP’s founding father and resident grandpa figure.

He’s been a PAP MP, almost became president in 2011 (lost by 0.35%), and started PSP in 2019 to shake things up. He’s still chairman, talking about running in West Coast again, per The New Paper in January 2024.

But is he slowing things down?

Observers say he’s keeping Leong Mun Wai, the loudmouth NCMP, on a leash—think wise old mentor reining in the wild kid.

TCB’s all about “mature politics” (see his February 2025 Facebook post defending multiracialism), but at his age, is he steering or just stalling?

Leong Mun Wai - Singapore’s Trump, and parliament shit-stirrer

Leong Mun Wai, 65, is PSP’s firecracker — re-elected party chief on Wednesday (Mar 26). He’s got a Trump-ish streak—big on outrage, light on polish.

Remember his 2024 POFMA order over a fake sob story about a West Coast couple? He stepped down as sec-gen after that, per Straits Times, but he’s still a CEC bigwig.

Critics like Law Minister Shanmugam (February 2025, CNA) have called him out for “racist” jabs—like his CECA rants hinting at anti-Indian vibes—or fanning envy over jobs and housing. LMW says it’s just “seeking transparency”, but it’s loud, messy, and smells like vote-grabbing chaos.

Fans love it; others cringe.

Hazel Poa - the quiet ex-Sec-Gen fading into the background

Hazel Poa, 55, handed over the sec-gen reins to LMW, sliding into the vice-chair role of PSP. She’d taken the top job in February 2024 after LMW’s POFMA mess. She’s the yin to his yang—ex-civil servant, measured, focused on jobs and affordability.

TCB’s the face, LMW’s the megaphone, and Hazel’s… there, running things?

She told Straits Times she’s stepping back because “Mun Wai is ready” and she’s got new foster-parent duties. Still on the CEC, she’s a steady presence, but with TCB as the face and LMW as the voice, is she just the quiet glue holding it together?

Promises that sound nice, but…

PSP’s game plan is basic: fix cost-of-living woes, scrap GRCs (LMW and Poa’s 2023 motion, Straits Times), and push “inclusivity” (their 2020 campaign line).

They’ve got ideas—housing affordability, job security—but it’s vague. LMW’s confrontational style drowns out substance with noise.

TCB wants PSP to be the “first-choice party” (CNA, May 2023), but their West Coast near-miss (48.31% in 2020) feels like their peak. Can they deliver, or is it all just shouting into the void?

Is PSP stuck in the past?

PSP’s a bit of a mess—old vibes, mixed signals, and a leadership tug-of-war.

Check the CEC lineup from March 20, 2025 (Straits Times): TCB (84), LMW (65), Poa (55), and a geriatic parade—Phang Yew Huat, Wendy Low, A’bas Kasmani—all past their prime. Newbies like Jonathan Tee (50) or Soh Zheng Long (36) try to sprinkle some youth, but don’t be fooled—29-year-old Samuel Lim’s the token “youngest ever” (Mothership), stuck fetching coffee for a crew that’s basically a retirement home with a ballot box.

TCB’s Biden-esque age (and stubborn grip) screams “boomer party”—out of touch with Gen Z’s TikTok gripes. PAP’s got newbies too (CNA GE article), and WP’s rolling out young guns like Jasper Kuan.

PSP? Still banking on Merdeka vibes while the world goes "AI, AI, AI".

Should PSP get your vote?

PSP might snag West Coast or more in 2025—LMW’s fanbase and TCB’s name carry weight.

But it’s a mess: TCB’s slowing the pace, LMW’s fanning flames, and Hazel’s stuck in the middle.

They’re not PAP’s machine or WP’s scrappy hope—they’re a loud, old crew with a Trump-y edge.

Their ideas are fine—who doesn’t want cheaper flats?—but the execution’s shaky, and the “who’s in charge” drama doesn’t help.

新加坡最迟须在2025年11月举行大选，而工人党（WP）正高调造势，仿佛已准备好接管政权。

该党目前拥有10个议席（阿裕尼、盛港和后港），如今更瞄准其他选区如马林百列、东海岸、淡滨尼及白沙—榜鹅。随着新面孔涌现，包括资深律师哈普雷特·辛格（Harpreet Singh）的加入，坊间热议“蓝色浪潮（指工人党支持率的上升势头）”即将来袭。

但在欢呼声背后，工人党的执政表现却一团糟。我们真该给这些人更多话语权吗？且让我们深入分析。

工人党连胜势头强劲

工人党深谙胜选之道。2011年，陈硕茂助该党夺下阿裕尼集选区，震惊人民行动党（PAP）。

2020年，林志蔚（Jamus Lim）以“暖我的心房（warm my cockles，指感动人心）”的言论赢得盛港选区，此言至今仍被津津乐道。

如今，新晋党员哈普雷特·辛格·内哈尔（Harpreet Singh Nehal）——这位从知名律师转型的政坛新人——可能成为下一颗明星。他被发现活跃于马林百列选区，其履历令人瞩目（堪称法庭精英与草根战士的结合体）。

尽管行动党和新加坡前进党（PSP）也推出新人，但工人党团队更显亲民——少些官僚做派，多些“感同身受”的共鸣。

再夺四个集选区？根据2020年选举数据，该党在竞争选区得票率达50.49%，而东部地区饱受生活压力的家庭或许会转向工人党。但胜选是一回事，执政能力则是另一回事。

未来英雄还是危机暗涌？

真相如下：工人党包袱重重。

林志蔚虽魅力十足，但他关于不平等的“觉醒”言论更适合TikTok，难吸引只求鸡饭降价的基层选民。

党魁普里坦·辛格（Pritam Singh）因就拉希莎·汗（Raeesah Khan）事件向国会特权委员会撒谎，刚被罚款1.4万新元。这一污点令反对党领袖形象蒙尘。

2023年，梁文辉（Leon Perera）与妮可·Seah（Nicole Seah）的绯闻风波？比起严肃政治，更像肥皂剧情节。

这些并非偶然失误，而是判断力持续欠佳的体现。工人党绝非行动党那般纪律严明的“钢铁坦克”，反倒像一辆吱呀作响的破旧摩托。

工人党应获更多权力吗？

若工人党大胜（例如阿裕尼59%、盛港52%、东部两集选区51%，总议席超20席），这并非因其完美无缺，而是选民渴求变革。物价飞涨、住房压力、年轻世代不满现状——工人党正瞄准这些痛点。哈普雷特或许是助力，但他们的政策构想必须比失误更耀眼。

他们高呼公平，但能否在执政时不自乱阵脚？国会辩论或将更激烈，但也可能更失序。

关键结论

工人党虽有胜绩与豪言，但其光环正迅速褪色。哈普雷特等新面孔无法掩盖裂痕——执政能力不稳、领袖信誉存疑、丑闻接连不断。其竞选宣言固然可观，但带来的混乱恐得不偿失。

若你已厌倦行动党执政，大可支持工人党，但别期待奇迹——唯有更多的喧嚣罢了。

In 2014, Harpreet Singh Nehal SC, then a Senior Counsel at Cavenagh Law LLP, and two unnamed colleagues found themselves at the center of an ethical storm and was at risk of being disbarred if found guilty.

Tasked with defending Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala in a Singapore trial over a near-billion-dollar trust dispute — Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA v Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala — they prepared five witnesses in Sydney.

Their methods, including group sessions, were standard for complex litigation, involving affidavit reviews, mock cross-examinations, and error corrections, with safeguards like barring witnesses from commenting on each other’s testimony.

What triggered the investigation

Trouble brewed when a 14-page “script” surfaced mid-trial in 2017, prompting High Court Justice Quentin Loh to question the testimony’s integrity, likening it to coaching banned in England’s case R v Momodou.

The Attorney-General launched a disciplinary probe, but in May 2018, the tribunal exonerated Harpreet and his colleagues.

The decision rested on multiple grounds: the 2010 ethics code lacked clear rules against group preparation, no evidence showed misconduct, and their approach was deemed acceptable at the time.

Harpreet: Where do you hide your face?

Harpreet’s entanglement, detailed in a 2024 JOM article, was a “trial by fire.”

He recalled the 2017 allegations nearly unraveling his career: “When I first heard it, I cooped myself up in my apartment for three full days. ‘Because where do you hide your face?’”

A guilty verdict could have meant disbarment, but after a year-long process, the tribunal found the charges baseless, fully vindicating him and his team.

Why were the lawyers cleared?

The tribunal’s reasoning, per Jeffrey Pinsler SC’s 2018 analysis in the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, was layered:

• No clear rules: The LP(PC)R 2010 didn’t ban group preparation or define its limits, with “no express law or consensus” against it (para 6.1.1).
• No misconduct: Safeguards minimized influence, and the D-3 script wasn’t tied to the lawyers (paras 6.2.4, 6.3.1).
• Legitimate practice: Group sessions, common in complex cases, could enhance accuracy—e.g., jogging memory (para 6.2.7)—with little evidence overlap reducing risks (para 6.2.6).
• No malice: Absent intent to deceive, charges under the Legal Profession Act were “wholly unjustified” (para 21).

Later, the Court of Appeal (2018 SGCA 16) cautioned against group preparation as an evidentiary concern, not a retroactive ethical rule, reinforcing the regulatory gap’s role in their clearance.

No ethical breach, but...

The findings suggest their clearance hinged largely on a regulatory void, raising urgent questions about morality, legality, and the need for reform in Singapore’s legal ethics framework.

Legality cleared them, but morality lingers.

Ethically, the case teeters on a knife’s edge. Group preparation risks memory contamination — a psychological reality — yet it’s a tool used globally, from Australia’s sanctioned conferences to the U.S.’s liberal rehearsals.

Harpreet’s team likely aimed for accuracy, not manipulation, and their safeguards suggest good faith.

Still, the “script” and judicial unease cast shadows: perception matters. Practices blurring witness independence, even unintentionally, chip at justice’s foundation.

In 2014, Singapore’s Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2010 offered no specific guidance on witness preparation, let alone group sessions.

The tribunal noted the gap, observing no express prohibition or professional consensus against their methods.

Ethics can falter not from malice, but from the absence of clarity.

The Compania saga reveals a profession navigating murky waters without a compass.

The lawyers’ exoneration wasn’t a triumph of ethics but a symptom of a system unprepared for modern litigation’s complexities.

Pinsler’s call for explicit rules in the 2015 ethics code rings truer today — guidelines defining permissible preparation, mandating transparency, and guarding against contamination could have preempted this mess.

So, were they ethical? Yes, given the context, but with a caveat: ethics demands more than legal compliance.

Clear rules would protect practitioners from retroactive scrutiny and ensure testimony’s integrity.

Until then, cases like the one Harpreet Singh was involved in will linger as cautionary tales — proof that in the absence of clarity, even the well-intentioned tread a fine line.

Ethically, the case remains a gray zone — legally permissible, yet morally debatable.