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.

In a disturbing case of voyeurism and child exploitation, a 32-year-old Singaporean man, Alfred Ee Sung Chong, was sentenced to two years in prison and three strokes of the cane on March 25, 2025.

Ee had been secretly recording upskirt videos of unsuspecting victims in public using his mobile phone, a crime spree that began in June 2019. His arrest in July 2021 also uncovered a stash of child pornography on his electronic devices.

Ee's criminal activities came to light after he recorded a video of an unidentified victim's undergarment on an escalator at an MRT station in June 2019.

He continued his offenses, targeting another woman on an MRT train in October of that year, capturing her exposed buttocks beneath her shorts.

Between August 2020 and January 2021, he recorded videos of six more unidentified individuals, focusing on their buttocks or genital areas in public spaces like escalators.

The police were tipped off on July 17, 2021, and after reviewing CCTV footage, apprehended Ee ten days later.

A search of his devices revealed 140 videos and 1,770 images of children in sexual poses or acts, material he admitted to downloading from the internet and dark web for personal gratification.

Ee pleaded guilty to charges of voyeurism, insulting a woman’s modesty, and possessing child abuse material.

Following his sentencing, Ee’s bail was set at $20,000, with his prison term scheduled to begin on April 11, 2025.

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.

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。

Nearly two decades ago, Harpreet Nehal Singh — Harvard-educated, mentored by legal giant Davinder Singh, and bold enough to spar with Lee Kuan Yew on live television — sought entry into Singapore’s ruling elite.

Between 2005 to 2006, Harpreet met with the top brass of PAP's leadership - including multiple one-on-ones with Lee Hsien Loong, Tharman Shamugaratnam, S Jayakumar (then deputy prime minister) and the late Lee Kuan Yew.

As Jom confirms in a 2024 interview with Harpreet: “The cabinet deliberated” before rejecting him with the ambiguous, “There are different ways to contribute to this country.”

Now, at 59, Harpreet traded the establishment’s orbit for the opposition’s front line.

From PAP Aspirant to WP Member — or mole?

Harpreet's rejection didn’t end his political ambitions — he applied for an NMP role in 2007 but was again unsuccessful.

By the 2010s, Jom notes his growing disillusionment with PAP, mirrored by its declining vote share (75.3% in 2001 to 61.2% in 2020).

In 2021, he began volunteering with then - WP MP Leon Perera, and by 2023, he was seen in WP’s light blue uniform, engaging in walkabouts and Hammer newspaper sales.

The timing and context of Harpreet’s PAP meeting invite close to two decades ago invite speculation: was his rejection genuine, or a staged exit to position him as a long-term asset?

Meeting senior PAP leaders suggests trust — why entertain a high-profile candidate only to dismiss him without cause?

Harpreet is Establishment material

Harpreet’s resume screams establishment: Straits Times columns, elite circles, a career thriving in the PAP’s ecosystem.

His 2023 pivot to the WP feels dramatic—too dramatic, perhaps.

Jom quotes him decrying POFMA, Yale-NUS’s closure, and media control: “I don’t see this thing self-correcting.”

It’s a sharp but measured critique, never fully anti-establishment - almost as if he’s playing a part, staying within bounds set by unseen handlers. But it’s also rehearsed, polished — “carefully primed, bullet-proofed,” as Jom puts it.

Could Harpreet’s 2005-2006 encounter have been a directive to embed himself elsewhere, resurfacing in the WP as it gains traction ahead of the 2025 General Election?

The mole hypothesis

Here’s the theory: the PAP, masters of control, saw in Harpreet not a liability but an asset.

They let him simmer, maintaining his insider ties — think Davinder Singh’s mentorship, his establishment perch — while grooming him for a covert role.

That 2005-2006 meeting wasn’t a dead end — it was a starting line. He’s not hiding disillusionment; he’s concealing loyalty.

The WP’s growth threatens the PAP’s grip; who better to embed than a credentialed ally who can pass as a convert?

If he wins a seat, he’s not just a voice — he’s a listener, a conduit back to the ruling elite.

Jom calls him a potential “big fish” for the opposition, but what if he’s bait, dangling to keep the WP in check?

The PAP didn’t lose him — they deployed him.

Harpreet the Harpoon

Harpreet’s WP role is public: he’s been photographed with leaders like Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim, and his March 18, 2025, Facebook post declares pride in the party, advocating “balanced politics.”

Yet, the PAP’s silence on his departure is telling — no rebuttal, no narrative.

His insider roots — mentored by Davinder Singh, a PAP stalwart — contrast with his late opposition turn at 59.

The WP’s rise (10 seats in 2020) makes it a target for monitoring; Harpreet, with his credentials, fits as a potential plant.

No hard proof exists — his 2005-2006 meeting’s details remain opaque — but the hypothesis lingers.

What’s 'Harpreet the Harpoon' burying? A directive, whispered by senior leaders, to infiltrate and report? A promise of reward if he pulls it off? He’s not the naive reformer Jom lionizes; he’s a chess piece, moved by the party he claims to oppose.

Evidence is thin, but the pattern fits: a man too connected to break free, too strategic to act on whim.

What’s next?

Harpreet’s next steps will clarify his intent.

If he contests in 2025 and wins, his parliamentary actions — loyalty to WP or subtle PAP alignment — could reveal more.

For now, his journey from a 2005-2006 PAP meeting to WP prominence is fact; whether it masks a mole’s agenda is conjecture.

The timeline holds: he met PAP leaders nearly two decades ago, was rebuffed, and now challenges them — or does he?