Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Chee Soon Juan has made a questionable choice nominating Ariffin Sha, the 27-year-old founder of Wake Up, Singapore (WUSG), to contest Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.

The decision is not a minor oversight—it points to a lapse in judgment that may cast doubts on Chee’s fitness for ministerial office.

While the People’s Action Party (PAP) has faced its own scandals involving individuals who were later convicted (Eg. Iswaran), these typically emerge after elections, not before.

Background

In August 2024, Ariffin was fined S$8,000 after pleading guilty to criminal defamation for publishing a fabricated story about KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, falsely claiming a woman suffered a miscarriage due to negligence.

Chee’s response to Ariffin's red flag is has been evasive.

At a press conference on April 13, 2025, he urged voters to focus on SDP’s policies, not Ariffin’s past, and compared the case to former PAP Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin’s resignation over an extramarital affair. The comparison misses the mark: Tan’s personal lapse, while serious, did not involve lawbreaking or public harm.

Chee’s deflection sidesteps the core issue of vetting a candidate with a known conviction.

Leadership requires sound judgement

The PAP is not immune to scrutiny.

Cases like former Transport Minister S. Iswaran’s corruption charges in January 2024 and former Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui’s affair with Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan Jin reveal vetting gaps.

However, these issues emerged after elections. The PAP acted decisively, removing Iswaran from his post and asked both Tan Chuan Jin and Cheng Li Hui to resign.

No system guarantees flawless candidates, but knowingly selecting a convict pre-election reflects a clearer lapse in judgment.

Zero tolerance on misinformation

Ariffin’s case strikes at Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance on misinformation.

In 2024, POFMA was invoked 15 times to correct falsehoods, underscoring the harm of unchecked narratives. Ariffin’s defamation directly contravened this ethos, making his nomination a liability in a constituency where community cohesion is vital.

Residents value reliability in governance. Chee’s oversight suggests a disconnect, potentially eroding confidence in SDP’s ability to address bread-and-butter issues like job security and affordability.

Ariffin’s supporters may cite his work with Wake Up, Singapore, which amplifies marginalized voices, or argue his youth mitigates his error. These arguments carry limited weight.

Public office demands high standards, especially in Singapore, where trust underpins stability.

Ariffin’s conviction reflects a lapse in responsibility, and Chee’s endorsement suggests inadequate scrutiny.

新加坡能否在动荡的地缘政治格局中保持中立？

前贸易及工业部长、现任教育部长陈振声在新传媒播客中指出，问题不在于选择站队——有时这由不得你——而在于让新加坡变得如此不可或缺，以至于各方都想分一杯羹。

陈部长的洞见凸显了新加坡务实的外交策略，但却掩盖了一个冷峻的事实：在中美之间深厚的经济与战略纠葛面前，中立不过是一场海市蜃楼。

中立承诺公正，但新加坡的现实与之背道而驰

由于与美国和中国的经济、战略及地缘政治联系根深蒂固，新加坡在中美贸易战中无法保持真正中立。

2023年，中国占新加坡出口的14%（830亿美元），进口的13%；美国则占出口的13%（760亿美元），进口的10%。

美国的外国直接投资（2340亿美元）是新加坡经济增长的引擎，而中国的“一带一路”倡议则充分利用新加坡港口的枢纽地位，2024年处理了3700万标准箱（TEU）。

新加坡支持美国主导的印太框架，如2022年启动的“印太经济繁荣框架”（IPEF）。这一由14国（不含中国）组成的联盟，旨在促进贸易与供应链韧性。

被排除在IPEF之外的中国，将其视为美国遏制其地区影响力的棋局。中国外交部长王毅痛斥这是经济“脱钩”与“煽动对抗”的企图。

2024年，中国官媒点名批评新加坡在IPEF中的角色，暗示可能招致贸易报复，至今虽未见实质行动，但信号清晰：当最大贸易伙伴感到被背叛，中立不过是镜花水月。

在东盟走钢丝：平衡大国与区域挑战

在安全领域，新加坡依赖美国，尤其是在动荡地区维持威慑力量，这使其战略天平有所倾斜。

真正的中立要求疏远与美国的防务合作，但面对区域威胁——包括中国在南海对东盟的强硬姿态——这一选项几无可能。

尽管新加坡在南海没有主权声索，但其支持基于规则的国际秩序，暗中配合美国针对中国主张的“航行自由”行动。这一立场在《2024年新加坡外交政策报告》中清晰阐述，引发中国不满，重创其中立形象。

作为东盟核心成员，新加坡致力于区域团结。然而，东盟内部裂痕——柬埔寨与老挝亲近中国，菲律宾与越南倾向美国——使中立成为外交雷区。

新加坡的真正策略：不是中立，而是实力

选择中立意味着在经济与安全上避免与任何一方结盟，但新加坡对中美市场的依赖迫使其采取务实外交。

偏向一方可能疏远另一方，而超然物外则可能使新加坡在全球贸易网络中被边缘化。

因此，新加坡追求“战略自主”——两面下注、多元化伙伴关系、保持最大灵活性。这种策略宛如一辆精密战车，游走于大国博弈之间，而不被任何一方完全吞并。

2023年，新加坡6000亿新元的经济在关税逆风中仍增长1.2%，彰显其非凡韧性。

新加坡的真正优势不在于回避站队，而在于让自己成为不可或缺的枢纽，让大国竞相拉拢。

这不是中立——这是实力。

2025年5月3日，Jalan Kayu单选区（Jalan Kayu SMC）的29,565名选民将站在十字路口，选择两条崎岖路径之一：人民行动党（PAP）职总秘书长黄志明，背负2024年职总英康收购案的污点，宛如一辆伤痕累累的战车；抑或红点团结党（RDU）的激进教育家卡拉·马尼卡姆，其2021年前进党诉讼风波暴露的个人主义倾向，恰似一艘独木舟在政治风浪中摇摆 [译注：2025年4月22日，红点团结党宣布退出Jalan Kayu单选区，支持工人党参选，以避免多角竞争。本文基于此前候选人假设撰写]。

候选人背景

黄志明（56岁）

黄志明曾于2009至2013年担任新加坡空军总长，2013至2015年升任三军总长，展现军事生涯的严谨与权威。2015年，他代表人民行动党当选巴西立-榜鹅集选区国会议员，但在2020年竞逐盛港集选区时，以47.88%的得票率铩羽而归。自2018年起，他担任职总秘书长，力推劳动力发展和工人权益政策，试图为职场注入活力。然而，2024年职总英康收购案令其公信力蒙尘，被舆论抨击“要么纵容利益输送，要么严重失职”，如同一座信任堡垒被风暴侵蚀。

卡拉·马尼卡姆（57岁）

卡拉·马尼卡姆是单亲母亲、特殊教育专家兼中小企业主，拥有终身教育硕士学位，散发草根魅力。她是新加坡武装部队首批女军官之一，服役七年，官至中尉，彰显坚韧。2020年，她代表前进党竞选义顺集选区，获38.76%选票；同年12月被开除，2021年提起“不当终止党籍”诉讼，后和解。此事暴露其“独行侠”作风。如今，她加入红点团结党，聚焦职业培训和生活成本压力，试图以小党之力撬动选民心弦。

黄志明的职总英康风波

2024年7月，职总与德国保险巨头英杰华（Allianz）提出22亿新元的收购案，宣称将增强职总英康的竞争力。8月，黄志明与职总主席达纳拉克希米发表联合声明，信誓旦旦保证英杰华将维护英康的社会使命。然而，细节如暗礁般浮现，险些葬送交易。英杰华计划提取18.5亿新元资本，近半投资可迅速回笼，恐耗尽维持低保费的储备金，宛如从社会保障的根基抽梁换柱。2024年10月14日，文化、社区及青年部长唐振辉代表政府果断叫停交易，认定其背离英康2022年公司化目标，即强化财务实力以惠及保单持有人。

黄志明坚称职总中央委员会对资本提取计划毫不知情，试图撇清责任，但前英康首席执行官陈瑞财痛斥该计划“违背诚信”，直指交易暗藏私利。新加坡管理大学副教授陈庆文直言，这种无知“令人瞠目结舌” [译注：意指难以置信的疏忽]，如同指挥官在战场上迷失方向。2025年1月，黄志明将就业不稳定性归咎于人工智能，回避外籍劳工政策争议，被批“高高在上”，如同一座与民意脱节的孤塔。2020年盛港集选区失利已暴露其政治软肋，选民不禁质疑：他究竟是工人代言人，还是行动党机器的忠实齿轮？

卡拉的前进党诉讼争议

2021年7月，卡拉向高等法院起诉前进党，后移交国家法院，掀起政治风波。她要求宣告2020年12月开除决定“违法无效”，并追讨1万新元竞选开支，指控前进党违宪，未给予她申辩机会。前进党提交七份宣誓书，包括党魁陈清木的证词，指控她破坏团队凝聚力、抗命不遵。同区候选人郑德源透露，她跳过团队会议、擅自组织走访，形同独奏而非合唱。17人联署反对其复职，干部以55:11的投票支持开除决定。

陈清木回忆，2020年11月会议上，卡拉“挑衅好斗”，高喊“证据呢？证据呢？”，如同一头不甘受缚的猛兽。她通过脸书和法庭公开控诉，展现原则性，却也暴露分裂倾向，宛如在政治舞台上独舞。转投红点团结党被批“机会主义”，如同一名独行侠在寻找新战场。诉讼虽和解，但卡拉的个人主义标签挥之不去，恐难适应新加坡强调协作的政治生态。

选情分析

黄志明依托行动党强大的基层网络，Jalan Kayu单选区与宏茂桥集选区的历史渊源为其加分。然而，英康风波重创公信力，盛港失利阴影犹存，选民质疑其是否真为工人发声。卡拉的草根形象贴近民心，反对党协调机制或助其整合选票，但诉讼风波暴露团队协作缺陷，红点团结党知名度有限，难以撼动主流。工人党未派候选人，人民力量党若参选可能分散反对派选票，但红点团结党与其他小党的协调或可缓解分裂风险。这场选举无关谁是耀眼的明星，而是两块“卡由”（马来语“木头”谐音，喻指不完美的候选人）中，谁能更稳固地承载选民的期望。

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.

During the PSP's manifesto launch early this month (Apr 6), Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the party's chairman, criticized the government's response to the US tariffs as "overblown".

He suggested that the government's strong warnings, such as Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's (PM Wong) statement on about the "likelihood of a full-blown global trade war," might be an attempt to "instil fear" in voters to make them choose the incumbent as a "safe bet" ahead of the General Election.

In a YouTube video, PM Wong urged Singaporeans to brace themselves because the risks are real and the stakes high.

Dr Tan called for economists to study the real impact of the tariffs. "Don't just make statements of this kind and scare everybody," he said.

To worry or not to worry?

On Saturday (Apr 19), Dr Tan reiterated his party’s stance on the trade war, calling it “a very difficult problem, but a very serious problem” that “we are not taking lightly”.

He said: "Trump is so unpredictable. I cannot give you the answer also. But i don't think that we are just lying low and say oh, nothing to worry. of course, we worry differently. We are looking for answers. This is a very difficult, serious problem. And we are not taking it lightly."

PSP's position on the US tariffs reflects a critical view of the government's initial response as potentially exaggerated for political gain but later recognized the trade war's significant economic implications that should not be taken lightly.