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.

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.

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.

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.