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.

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.

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.

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.

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。