[GE2025] SDP Discussion Thread

[Youareme]

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.

I see, a communist regime with stable governance, world class infra and open markets like Hong Kong would have trumped Singapore too right? Don't see anything unique about Singapore's model.

 

[netsplit]

I see, a communist regime with stable governance, world class infra and open markets like Hong Kong would have trumped Singapore too right? Don't see anything unique about Singapore's model.

That’s a false equivalence. Hong Kong’s success was historically tied to British rule, not a communist regime—and its decline in recent years shows what happens when political stability and autonomy are compromised.

 

[ShinnAsuka]

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.

Well, i appreciate your long reply. While what you say can be agreeable, fundamentally there are contradictions

1. you mentioned you go for the flawed incumbent. But this incumbent has more than 1/3 new blood, and the old incumbent has not been making right decisions and shirking responsibilities. Aren’t you expecting close to status quo while expecting changes/improvement?

2. Lky fought hard to turn from opposition to ruling, but the current 4th gen is inherited with the strong foundation laid — no hard work done. By natural evolution, unless you are really incapable, a country should continue to flourish, because of its people. In a way the incumbent proved themselves by scoring a 61% in ge2020 , should the prime minister then get 61% of the salary?

3. Everyone started with 0 experience with governance, so how would you conclude that opposition suck at it? What if back then when you get ur first job and your boss deem you are worthless just because you are new? Apply the same to the elected opposition.

the last question is 先有人 or 先有國?

 

[netsplit]

Well, i appreciate your long reply. While what you say can be agreeable, fundamentally there are contradictions

1. you mentioned you go for the flawed incumbent. But this incumbent has more than 1/3 new blood, and the old incumbent has not been making right decisions and shirking responsibilities. Aren’t you expecting close to status quo while expecting changes/improvement?

2. Lky fought hard to turn from opposition to ruling, but the current 4th gen is inherited with the strong foundation laid — no hard work done. By natural evolution, unless you are really incapable, a country should continue to flourish, because of its people. In a way the incumbent proved themselves by scoring a 61% in ge2020 , should the prime minister then get 61% of the salary?

3. Everyone started with 0 experience with governance, so how would you conclude that opposition suck at it? What if back then when you get ur first job and your boss deem you are worthless just because you are new? Apply the same to the elected opposition.

the last question is 先有人 or 先有國?

Likewise, I appreciate the callout, and I see where you’re coming from. That said, I still stand by my original point: the average voter is not equipped to be the compass for complex policymaking. Democratic participation is important—but it cannot replace expertise, long-term vision, or the willingness to make difficult, unpopular decisions.

1. On expecting change from the incumbent:
I acknowledge the contradiction—and I own it. I’m not expecting a bold transformation from the incumbent, but I do expect governance that doesn’t collapse. The bar is basic competence, not radical reinvention. I’m not supporting the status quo because I believe it’s ideal—I’m choosing it because the alternative has yet to prove it can deliver better. That’s not complacency; that’s prudence.

2. On inherited success and salary:
Yes, the 4G team inherited a strong foundation—but inheritance isn’t a flaw. The real question is whether they’ve preserved and built on it, or allowed it to decline. That’s my benchmark. And as for the 61% vote share argument—governance isn’t a popularity contest. You don’t slash a CEO’s pay just because shareholder sentiment dips if the company remains fundamentally sound. Leadership at this level carries disproportionate weight; compensation should reflect the responsibility, not approval ratings.

3. On the opposition’s inexperience:
You're right—everyone starts somewhere. But this isn’t an internship. Missteps in governance carry consequences—economic, social, and geopolitical. We don’t put rookie pilots in the cockpit mid-flight. If the opposition wants to be taken seriously, they need to demonstrate more than the incumbent, not just match them in rhetoric, but surpass them in competence. So far, that’s not evident.

4. On 先有人 or 先有國:
It’s not a binary choice, but there is a necessary sequence. A functioning state—anchored by law, institutions, and stability—is the foundation upon which people can prosper. Without that foundation, rights and prosperity remain abstract ideals. But as mentioned, it's not a binary choice in today’s context, it’s not just about enriching the state first and hoping the benefits trickle down. We must enrich the nation in order to empower its people. The state is the vessel; the people are its purpose. That’s why I believe: 富国以富民，强国为民富.

 

[buttbERry]

see the results this sat ba

 

[pmetpmet]

I predict dr chee finally can enter parliament after 30 yrs. With a good win..

57% sdp 38% pap.

5% SPOIL

Don't jinx it lah! If EDMW says Chee will win, then Chee will surely loose

 

[pmetpmet]

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

In every GE, all the rallies and flamboyant speaking are only for entertainment — don't read too much into it. Results are consistent every year with the PAP forming govt

Huat ah! PAP WSWSWWS!

 

[dk44.32]

As long as Chee in charge, won't vote for them.

 

[tyhand39]

As long as Chee in charge, won't vote for them.

you should try talking to him in public

you have been brain-washed by PAP over decades, now so biased

 

[cheechong]

Dr Chee is on Facebook Live now!

 

[carlongerdidu93]

 

[ShinnAsuka]

Likewise, I appreciate the callout, and I see where you’re coming from. That said, I still stand by my original point: the average voter is not equipped to be the compass for complex policymaking. Democratic participation is important—but it cannot replace expertise, long-term vision, or the willingness to make difficult, unpopular decisions.

1. On expecting change from the incumbent:
I acknowledge the contradiction—and I own it. I’m not expecting a bold transformation from the incumbent, but I do expect governance that doesn’t collapse. The bar is basic competence, not radical reinvention. I’m not supporting the status quo because I believe it’s ideal—I’m choosing it because the alternative has yet to prove it can deliver better. That’s not complacency; that’s prudence.

2. On inherited success and salary:
Yes, the 4G team inherited a strong foundation—but inheritance isn’t a flaw. The real question is whether they’ve preserved and built on it, or allowed it to decline. That’s my benchmark. And as for the 61% vote share argument—governance isn’t a popularity contest. You don’t slash a CEO’s pay just because shareholder sentiment dips if the company remains fundamentally sound. Leadership at this level carries disproportionate weight; compensation should reflect the responsibility, not approval ratings.

3. On the opposition’s inexperience:
You're right—everyone starts somewhere. But this isn’t an internship. Missteps in governance carry consequences—economic, social, and geopolitical. We don’t put rookie pilots in the cockpit mid-flight. If the opposition wants to be taken seriously, they need to demonstrate more than the incumbent, not just match them in rhetoric, but surpass them in competence. So far, that’s not evident.

4. On 先有人 or 先有國:
It’s not a binary choice, but there is a necessary sequence. A functioning state—anchored by law, institutions, and stability—is the foundation upon which people can prosper. Without that foundation, rights and prosperity remain abstract ideals. But as mentioned, it's not a binary choice in today’s context, it’s not just about enriching the state first and hoping the benefits trickle down. We must enrich the nation in order to empower its people. The state is the vessel; the people are its purpose. That’s why I believe: 富国以富民，强国为民富.

You can have everything in the country, but without people, whatever foundation you build is nothing. Yes, it will attract people initially, but it will not last if behind the strong foundation lies exploitation on its people. Don't forget, you need people to build your nation.

you don't see the point, everyone starts from 0, not about internship or not. A strong leader who inspires, with its people support, other nation leaders will give respect, just like lky. This is the competence, but this is not found in the whites today. Strip off the pap affiliation and titles, and what are they?

if today pritam singh is pap 4g pm, and lawrence wong loto, will u vote for pritam or lawrence? If you vote for pap still, you are voting for the party, the branding, not the individual. This totally contradicts on paying an individual on its competence. This also means anyone in pap being dispensable. Then if you vote for lawrence, you are contradicting your point that only incumbent is better than opposition.

 

[ShinnAsuka]

Any sdp supporters actually use chatgpt or deepseek to validate prof paul’s speech on sdp manifesto used for pap’s initiatives?

 

[tankee531]

Comparing with last election, do you notice any differences how SDP run its campaign and choice of candidates ?

I recalled Dr Chee called for a post mortem after last election wipe out and promised to emerge better.

I failed to see any change. Still just anti-PAP

 

[oOsiMm]

As long as Chee in charge, won't vote for them.

haha u really kong tau by PAP..... what u see in MSM, news, social media protrayed him as a psychopath

he isn't and he is well mannered and articulated. he is damm passionate and truly a SG son, more so then u and me.

why else a man can forsake his reputation, putting himself at harms way with persecution and jail, ruin his career and a quiet life to help speak up for a just and fair Singapore?

pls do listen to his speeches and watch him talk,know him better than what MSM smeared him of.

MSM is same like communist tool.

 

[byfun]

haha u really kong tau by PAP..... what u see in MSM, news, social media protrayed him as a psychopath

he isn't and he is well mannered and articulated. he is damm passionate and truly a SG son, nire so then u and me.

why else a man can forsake his reputation, putting himself at ahrms way with persecution and jail, career and a quiet life to help speak up for a just and fair Singapore?

pls do listen to his speeches and watch him talk,know him better than what MSM smeared him of.

MSM is same like communist tool.

Dont insult communism leh.. real communist is socialist. SG is a capitalist state.

 

[miko66]

I would luv to see both Dr Tambyah and Dr CSJ voted into parliament ..

Sure both can contribute even better than many of the miw

I bet miw will not doze off in parliament if both voted in

 

[Kunkka]

 

[RedOrion]

As long as Chee in charge, won't vote for them.

Paul Tambyah is the chairman for SDP.

 

[Shion]

【GE2025】卓金炎：行动党通过增加人口 降低国人薪水和提高国内生产总值​

https://www.8world.com/singapore/ge2025-sdp-alectok-2779511

新加坡民主党马西岭—油池集选区候选人卓金炎表示，人民行动党通过增加人口，包括吸引想减税的外国人和剥削外来劳工，来降低新加坡人的薪水和提高新加坡的国内生产总值。

卓金炎在群众大会上表示，和行动党相反的是，民主党的愿景是让每一位新加坡人都能茁壮成长，不论贫或富、新公民或土生土长的本地人、健全或残障人士。

他呼吁选民在投票日当天把票投给民主党。

“我们虽然只有11名候选人，但是您可以放心，如果当选，我们每一位都会在国会里提倡理念，检修政策，监督政府。”