[GE2025] SDP Discussion Thread

[evildoer]

they holding rally every single day

 

[oOsiMm]

theirs is like the most interaction with the fans.. do this do that

My cam lousy but ya sooo fun..like family and geuinue fun vibe...


https://streamable.com/cg2x97

 

[Forever84]

Funny how this person once suspected of being a pap spy can become so popular now

 

[sPacEmAn_sPiFf]

Alot of good policies stolen by pap. And their candidates are of high caliber.

ya tiagong got one candidate got Gigene sibei tokong !

 

[eAtNeAt]

Nowadays most opposition candidates are higher quality than pappies.
Pappies mp hide behind ministar nia.

 

[evildoer]

Nowadays most opposition candidates are higher quality than pappies.
Pappies mp hide behind ministar nia.

PAP inbreed.. so many candidate from the defense force

 

[theballstopshere]

Dr thambyah alone is higher caliber than all the new pap candidates.

Pls vote him in

 

[heroking]

elephant got go?

 

[samich]

Yes it's good

 

[Kitaro9202]

Hopeful dr chee go in tbe parliament

 

[Kunkka]

No offense.
Some of their candidates reminded me of the ch 8 talentine in the afternoon on Friday.

This one kym

 

[boh_liao]

in 2020

Liang Eng Hwa - 53.74%
Paul Tambyah - 46.26%

same opponent this year.
let's see

 

[oOsiMm]

 

[KenQuek]

Upload if you have more

 

[gaul_ads]

in 2020

Liang Eng Hwa - 53.74%
Paul Tambyah - 46.26%

same opponent this year.
let's see

I think this time is very very close..

Winning margin less than 2%.. either side

 

[Hyruga]

Their packaging not good enough. Workers party still have slightly better packaging.

 

[netsplit]

You think too highly of the current slate of MP in parliment. Most of them are not even worth the $16k per month paid just for them to treat it as a part time job and a yes man in parliment.

And you have entirely forgotten that MP and Ministers are supported by the entire civil service at their disposal.

Do you think MP and Ministers come up with policy on their own? They don’t even write their own speeches in most cases.

the current gov neither inspire nor show real leadership over the years and lets not even talk about execution - where they perform the worse.

The Pap of today is a far cry from the pap of the past.

Actually, with my last sentence that you have quoted, "Right now, we’re just getting figureheads who happen to be in charge". I am in complete agreement with you that the incumbent is not as strong as I'd like it to be. Still, neither is the opposition, and rather than leaving the nation in the hands of individuals with zero institutional knowledge on running a country, I'd rather opt for stability amid the craziness we're facing.

 

[netsplit]

Competence demands high pay. This means with competence, high pay is expected. Isn't this the causal relationship? If high pay then implies competence, that’s correlation.

Managing a nation has similarities to managing a company. But, the difference is a nation leader serves its people, while the latter is serving shareholders. This is the key difference. A shareholder can give up his rights by selling his shares and buy into another, a citizen cannot easily transfer his citizenship.

What is populist? If you are anti populist, this may imply a full disregard in common concerns the people are facing. Quite elitist i would say.

Lastly, tell me who is inspiring in the incumbent? Personally i don't think anyone, because putting Singapore highly up in the global level, we don’t have the Taiwanese TSMC, Malaysia’s GRAB. Yes, we have Razor and SecretLab, but these 2 known companies are only limited to gaming industry.

Yes, I agree—competence must demand high pay, and that is only fair. Therefore, I see no issue with benchmarking our top political roles against that of Fortune 100 CEOs, contrary to marksnow44’s suggestion that their compensation should be reduced in favour of "passion to serve"

I also agree that managing a country shares similarities with managing a company. But I want to emphasise this: just because a leader serves the people does not mean that public sentiment should dictate every decision. Yes, I am being elitist—and unapologetically so. Because policymaking requires expertise, foresight, and the courage to make unpopular but necessary choices. The average voter, no matter how well-intentioned, is often guided by emotion, not data; by the short term, not the structural implications.

Take, for instance, the clamour to release CPF funds prematurely—it is emotionally appealing but financially unsound. Or the call for across-the-board tax reductions—short-sighted, when we’re facing rising healthcare and social infrastructure demands due to our ageing population. These are not just bad ideas; they are dangerous if allowed to shape policy unchecked.

To quote what I said earlier: “We need real leadership—people who can inspire, articulate vision, and execute. Right now, we’re just getting figureheads who happen to be in charge.” That statement applies across the board. I see little distinction between the incumbent and the opposition in this regard—neither has shown the conviction or clarity of leadership we need. That said, if forced to choose, I would still rather place my bets on the incumbent, flawed as they may be, because at the very least, they’ve been steering the ship. I would rather not risk handing the helm to political novices and watch them run us into the ground through inexperience or populist pandering.

Lastly, I would argue that Singapore need not strive to form conglomerates. Our strength lies in other areas: our strategic port, political stability, world-class infrastructure, and a competent workforce. These are the pillars that attract FDI and create broad-based prosperity. Rather than chasing industrial giants, our national strategy should continue to invest in these core competencies that have consistently delivered results.

 

[Youareme]

blah blah etc etc.....

Lastly, I would argue that Singapore need not strive to form conglomerates. Our strength lies in other areas: our strategic port, political stability, world-class infrastructure, and a competent workforce. These are the pillars that attract FDI and create broad-based prosperity. Rather than chasing industrial giants, our national strategy should continue to invest in these core competencies that have consistently delivered results.

Can replace the word Singapore with communist China also have same effect right?

 

[netsplit]

Can replace the word Singapore with communist China also have same effect right?

China’s model relies on building massive state-backed conglomerates - they made that their playbook. Singapore, on the other hand, took a different path: we focus on being a trusted hub with world-class infrastructure, stable governance, and open markets.

So no, swapping “Singapore” with “China” in that paragraph misses the point. China’s strengths come because they built giants. Ours come because we didn’t need to. That’s the difference, and it’s a deliberate one.