This is the last of five in a series on Singapore’s prospective next prime minister. If you have enjoyed this series, please consider making a donation here to support my future work.

The pandemic has been tragic. Yet the assorted losses and disruptions to ordinary life have also prodded many Singaporeans to think about better ways of doing things, of living the good life. 

Some are enjoying more time with old friends and family; others have opened their hearts (and wallets) to migrant workers they hitherto ignored.

This is the fourth of five in a series on Singapore’s prospective next prime minister. See here for the third, on Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, 61, minister for law & minister for home affairs

It may seem odd to include Shanmugam, never touted as a potential leader of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), in this series. Yet he is clearly a, if not the, power behind the throne. And observers do wonder if he harbours even greater ambitions.

This is the second of five in a series on Singapore’s prospective next prime minister. See here for the first, on Heng Swee Keat.

Ong Ye Kung, 51, minister for transport

To his fans, Ong Ye Kung (centre) is precisely the sort of leader Singapore needs in these uncertain times. Somebody who is affable and politically savvy; and who is able to listen to diverse views and then act quickly and decisively, with a conviction steely enough to fend off naysayers.

If you think the pandemic has left your own plans in tatters, spare a thought for poor Lee Hsien Loong (middle), Singapore’s sixty-eight-year-old prime minister.

Recently on the verge of stepping down after sixteen years at the helm, he now does not know when he can.

Often when Singaporean politicians stray from the script, they produce gems, phrases for the ages, words destined for internet meme stardom.

“Sud, you better lay low,” one of my buddies said in May, after Foo Teow Lee, Singapore’s consul-general in Hong Kong, wrote a letter to the South China Morning Post (SCMP) questioning my integrity and motives. Another friend said “they will come after your family.” Another one said: “Eh, your videos are getting more radical ah.” “Which video?” “The one on race you just published.” … Continue reading Mindless bullies: How some PAP fans try to silence me

If we take a moment to try and cut through the blur of COVID-19, the uncertainty of bubble tea, and the endless stream of police reports, I believe this is it: what level of social protection is adequate for Singaporeans in the future?

All the opposition parties essentially offer a vision of a society with greater social protections than what the People’s Action Party believes is best. This is true from the well-oiled machinery of The Workers’ Party—yes, Jamus has done his math—to fledgling outfits like Red Dot United.

(I like Michelle Lee, one of the best speakers I’ve heard in the past year. But every time I hear her new party’s name, I can’t decide if she’s angling for parliament or Jalan Besar Stadium.) Continue reading “GE2020: What fundamental socio-economic tension is at the heart of this election?”

Many people worry about voting for the opposition because they think: a) They will lose their job because the government will blacklist them b) Singapore will collapse because Singapore functions because of the PAP. In this video I debunk both those notions. This is the last in a series of four GE2020 videos: 1. “To help the PAP and Singapore improve, I’m voting opposition.” 2. … Continue reading GE2020 Video 4: If I vote for the opposition, will I lose my job? Will Singapore collapse?

  “Singapore is small and vulnerable. We have no natural resources” Because we have been sold this narrative of small and vulnerable our whole lives, we are all individually and collectively constantly in panic mode. In this video, I focus on one aspect: that because of our vulnerability, we must accept a trade-off between economic growth and democratic rights and freedoms. The idea that Singapore … Continue reading GE2020 Video 3: Singapore is small and vulnerable so we need a one-party state. True?