Was the WP right to keep Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim at Aljunied? Many believe so
- Advertisement -
SINGAPORE: Since the Workers' Party announced its candidates for the May 3 polls on Nomination Day, armchair commentators have questioned the party's strategy of keeping its two highest-profile candidates at Aljunied GRC.
Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim, the party's secretary-general and chair, respectively, are aiming for a fourth term in Parliament representing Aljunied GRC, which is now pretty much established as an opposition stronghold.
At a press conference to introduce the WP candidates on April 17, Mr Singh said the party would be contesting fewer than a third of the seats in Parliament this year, signalling that while the WP would naturally want more elected MPs, the party would proceed with more caution than risk.
Prior to Nomination Day, speculation abounded as to where the WP would field candidates. Many believed that former MPs He Ting Ru, Jamus Lim, and Louis Chua would stay where they were, believing it would be necessary for them to serve a second term to solidify the party's foothold at Sengkang.
- Advertisement -
As for the Aljunied GRC MPs, Mr Singh, Ms Lim, WP vice chair Faisal Manap, and former Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam, there was speculation they would go further afield to strengthen the WP's chances of winning more constituencies.
On Nomination Day, it was revealed that Mr Manap would lead the team at Tampines GRC, but Mr Singh, Ms Lim, and Mr Giam would contest at Aljunied.
There have been mixed reactions to this. Some argued that Ms Lim, in particular, could have helmed the WP slate either at East Coast GRC or Punggol GRC. It's possible, after all, that for the party chair, who just turned 60, this may be the last time she contests an election.
Others have said that Mr Singh, who is widely respected despite being convicted earlier this year of lying to a Parliamentary committee, could have lent his star power to newer candidates elsewhere. Some even dreamed of a Singh-Singh team-up, with the party chief heading a slate that included new candidate Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh, who is leading the charge for the WP at Punggol GRC.
- Advertisement -
There were commenters who even said that Ms Lim and Mr Singh could have passed the Aljunied baton to Mr Giam, a popular figure who has established himself as a capable parliamentarian in his own right.
However, many Singaporeans online believe that the caution exercised by the WP this time was a wise move.
'I believe their main focus for this election is to consolidate their seats (retaining existing seats plus perhaps 1/2 more constituencies), and to show that the quality of WP candidates is as good as the PAP's… Perhaps they have deduced that the time is not ripe yet for a more aggressive approach,' wrote one.
'Their goal, as mentioned by them, is to deny the PAP a 2/3 majority. They can't be too aggressive. As long as they hold this, plus a few new others like Tampines GRC (with Changkat), they will achieve their goal, which is a win for both the WP and Singaporeans,' agreed another.
- Advertisement -
Some pointed out that the WP is already fielding two new faces at Aljunied, Fadli Fawzi and Kenneth Tiong. If any of the other former MPs moved to another constituency, three new candidates might have made Aljunied voters skittish.
'If Sylvia goes to another GRC and loses, WP loses one of the veterans in parliament. WP losing a veteran is magnitudes more impactful than PAP losing a veteran,' a Reddit user wrote.
'I personally felt that it was a smart move on their part. Solidifying their foothold in Aljunied rather than sending out their heavyweights elsewhere. How would Aljunied residents feel then? After all, it took them 20 years of hard work in Hougang. Retain existing constituents and recreate 2020 with a quality team to further expand their foothold. That seems like the best possible move now for them,' another agreed.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Whether the WP played its cards right for GE2025 will be known after the last ballot is counted on May 3. /TISG
Read also: Pritam Singh explains why Singaporeans should vote for the WP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far?
An art installation at the Padang. Vocal naysayers recently accused the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. PHOTO: ST FILE Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far? SINGAPORE – At a time when most people understand that the personal is political, individual views have become a battleground of virtue – equality, good; hierarchy, bad. Elitism? The worst possible kind of social evil. Yet, take a step back from this instinctive repulsion and there might be benefits to muddying the waters. Elitism, the belief that an elite group, however defined, should be entitled to the reins of power has been the norm throughout much of history. Whether it is the clergy, kings with their divine right, the Confucian scholar or today's fintech bros, there have been groups in each time period that societies tend to value and reward. It was only with increasing democratisation, and a growing disenfranchisement at the chasm between the top and the rest, that elitism has become a byword for undeserved privilege and gross injustice. This brief trip back in time is not to rehabilitate elitism, but to show that the current period against it – or at least one that pays lip service to not believing in an elite class – may be an aberrant one. In the West, this has been taken to extremes, manifesting in a debilitating disregard fo r e xperts and fatal results during the Covid-19 pandemic against the advice of doctors to vaccinate. In Singapore, it is the elite schools that are targeted, in the idealistic slogan that every school is a good school. Though, for perplexing reasons, this scepticism has not yet been extended to the natural reverence the majority of Singaporeans harbour for lawyers and doctors. Their expertise is assumed to be universally applicable – a mentality that has narrowed parents and students' conception of what success looks like. In any case, the ills of elitism have been thoroughly aired, including the type of entitled, discompassionate divas that it ends up producing. The very consensus of who deserves to be elite has also fractured. I wonder, though, if this enmity has led to some unexpected side effects. This is a train of thought sparked by recent reactions to the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative set out during the Budget statement in 2025. Self-sabotage Under the scheme, $100 would be given t o Si ngaporeans aged 18 and above for the consumption of the local arts, redeemable from September. One would expect rejoicing, but there was uproar from a group of vocal naysayers. They accused the credits of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. Why? Because the money could be better spent on support for groceries. This, I thought, was a case of anti-elitism as self-sabotage. Central to this worldview was that the arts is an elitist activity patronised only by the rich and the hyper-educated aesthete, when one type of activity for the elite and one for the others is exactly the sort of segregation and self-limiting mentality that perpetuates divides. There was no sense that this $100 in credits was a way of making the perceived barrier more permeable. To put it in context, the Government also announced $800 in CDC vouchers. This was bread for all, and roses too. Yet another potentially problematic by-product is that the word 'elite' has since been tainted by association. No one dares lay claim to the word 'elite', or acknowledge that someone else may be elite in his or her field. The rare exemption is perhaps in sports, where athletes accept the cut-throat nature of their competition, and where non-athletes are so tangibly outside their league that there is no point in pretending otherwise. This is not in itself a problem – elite is after all just a word – though I find no easy replacement term that can immediately convey excellence to the same degree. But it incidentally comes at a time when there is a general reluctance to impose any kind of objective standard, supplemented by that compassionate but useless invention: the consolation prize. This applies to things: Is no one taste now better than another? As well as people, where so many takes on social media are considered equally valid, measured just by virality. It is the kind of ChatGPT mentality where how often something is repeated or the number of clicks on a website can influence results, with no regard to its truth value. The war against elitism may have come at the expense of standards and good sense. Reclaiming elite This impulse to drag discourse to the same level – usually downwards – has the right intentions, timely given that, for so long, highly selective elitist standards have been imposed as objective metrics. To right the ship so discourse is levelled upwards though, perhaps elite can be thought of as separate from elitism, rehabilitated without the corresponding concentration of resources and power. This should be expanded so that who is elite becomes not just about education but also because of other qualities – role models people can aspire to in different contexts. What constitutes an elite has always been reliant on man-made barometers, negotiated by the community. There should be no shame in aspiring to be elite. Anti-elitism should not mean an absence of the elite, but that all who put their heart and minds to it should have a fair shot at claiming its pedigree, or getting closer to it. It is a lifelong dusting off of mediocrity, and it begins with first recognising what is good. Hear Me Out is a new series where young journalists (over)share on topics ranging from navigating friendships to self-loathing, and the occasional intrusive thought. Check out the Headstart chatbot for answers to your questions on careers and work trends.
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
S'pore embassy in Washington seeking US clarification on Harvard's visa ban
SINGAPORE - Singapore's embassy in Washington has been seeking clarification from the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security on President Donald Trump's directive prohibiting foreigners from entering the country to study at Harvard University. The embassy is hoping for clarity from US authorities in the next few days, including on whether there will be any delay in the processing of visas for Singaporeans hoping to study in the US, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said on June 7. In a zoom call with Singapore media to wrap up his five-day visit to Washington, he noted that many current and prospective students looking to study in the United States had expressed their concern to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over potential visa delays. Asked to elaborate on contingencies being planned should Singaporean students find themselves unable to proceeds with their plans to study in the US, he said the Government is trying to find solutions to deal with the worst case scenario where students are not able to physically study in Boston. 'We've got some ideas for how we can help them to, in a sense, deal with that eventuality without impairing their academic and professional progress,' said Dr Balakrishnan. 'For others who are not yet here, who have not yet secured visas, you may also need to have backup plans, but my main point is we will stay in touch, and we will continue to keep you informed.' Dr Balakrishnan noted that Singapore's ambassador to the US Lui Tuck Yew has also held a virtual town hall with students currently studying in Harvard. In the virtual town hall on May 30, Mr Lui told Singaporean students at Harvard that the Republic's autonomous universities can offer them placements if they wish to discontinue their studies in the US and return home. A Ministry of Education spokesperson said this message was shared with affected students so they could consider returning to Singapore as a possible option to continue their studies. There are six autonomous universities here: National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Singapore Institute of Technology. University statistics show that there are currently 151 Singaporean students in Harvard. Among them are 12 Public Service Commission scholarship holders. Foreign students at Harvard were thrown into limbo after Mr Trump's administration announced on May 22 that it had revoked Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Programme certification with immediate effect. The nearly 6,800 international students in the Ivy League college were given an ultimatum to either transfer to another institution, or face deportation. A federal judge later blocked the move, with the Trump administration rolling back its stance on May 29 and giving Harvard 30 days to submit evidence contesting the administration's plan to revoke the school's right to enrol international students. International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard's student body, but Mr Trump said the university should cap its international intake at 15 per cent. Dr Balakrishnan said the situation confronting international students stems from domestic political issues within the US. But students, including from Singapore, can become affected as collateral damage, and there will be a period of uncertainty of at least a few days or weeks. 'Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue this with the American authorities, and I hope we'll be able to find suitable solutions for our students who want to pursue educational opportunities in the United States.' At a macro level, it remains in both Singapore and the US' interests to keep opportunities open for Singaporeans who want to study and work in the US to expand their domain experience and their networks, he added. 'So this is an issue that we will continue to pursue with the State Department.' Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Straits Times
4 days ago
- Straits Times
Give more thought to lowering Singapore's voting age to 18
The writer says that when young Singaporeans feel marginalised in politics and disengage from political participation, Singapore will be poorer for it. PHOTO: ST FILE Over the past few years, there have been calls from some quarters to lower Singapore's voting age to 18. They cite Singapore as one of the few states in the world where the minimum voting age is 21, highlighting a mismatch with existing legislation. After all, 18-year-old Singaporeans can get married, do national service, be appointed as company directors and be polling and counting agents during elections. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
