SINGAPORE: In an interview with Mothership, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing addressed online criticism, national identity, and Singapore’s political landscape.
He acknowledged that public figures often face scrutiny, especially in an era where memes and social media amplify reactions.
Recalling advice from his wife, he said, “When people praise you, don’t let it get into your head. When people scold you, mock you, or make fun of you, don’t let it get into your heart.”
Despite this mindset, he admitted that negative remarks could be hurtful, particularly when they affected his family.
“Your children may ask why you do this, your wife may question if it’s worth it, and your mother may wonder why you can’t just have a normal life.”
Chan reaffirmed his commitment to public service, saying he could have retired after his Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) career to spend more time with his growing children, including his special needs child.
“But I choose to be here because I want Singapore to be here.”
National Identity: Conviction or Convenience?
Chan recalled a 2013 school visit where he asked students what nationality they would choose if given the option.
Most chose Singaporean, but one adult preferred Swiss nationality due to Switzerland’s reliable train system, contrasting it with Singapore’s train breakdowns at the time.
Chan responded, “If trains break down and we are determined to become better engineers so that they don’t break down as often, we will progress. But if, instead, we decide to become citizens of another country, then our trains will continue breaking down.”
He emphasised that national identity should be based on conviction rather than convenience.
“We can provide the means for our people to be Singaporean, but will they have the gumption to stay despite challenges? That is what defines us.”
Singapore’s independence, he noted, was still relatively recent.
“We have never been independent except for the last 59 years. Will we continue for another 41 years to beat the odds? That is the job to be done.”
Political Culture: A Race to the Bottom?
Chan warned against politics becoming divisive rather than constructive.
“It’s not just about diversity of ideas. The real problem is when, instead of debating policies, people start tearing each other apart.”
He observed that politics often becomes more about power than responsibility.
“Some just want to get into Parliament or be in power, but they don’t truly answer the question—what do you want to do with that authority?”
Chan also cautioned against social media being used to ridicule opponents rather than foster meaningful debate.
“Look at the amount of memes online. Many are just about pulling people down. I have had my fair share—people take you out of context, purposely make fun of you. But how does that improve our political system?”
He argued that when politics becomes a contest of ridicule rather than ideas, it leads to a “race to the bottom.”
“It’s no longer about who has the best ideas but about who can erode trust faster. The danger is that instead of aspiring to lift Singapore higher, we spend more time dragging each other down.”
Ultimately, he stressed that elections should not just be about which party wins but about ensuring Singapore wins.
“What matters most is whether we have a political culture where people trust their leaders and choose those with the right values who will do right by them.”
Scepticism Over Ministerial Challenges
Following Mothership’s Facebook post of the interview, netizens expressed scepticism, with many accusing Chan of exaggerating the difficulties of being a minister.
One commenter argued that the issue was not about public service but the high salary and privileges associated with the role.
They criticised Chan’s remarks as an attempt to garner sympathy ahead of the next election.
Another user echoed this sentiment, saying that if Chan and other ministers found the job too tough, they should step down.
They argued that many capable Singaporeans were willing to serve without complaining about million-dollar salaries.
Criticism of Chan’s Views on National Conviction
Responding to Chan’s anecdote about someone preferring Swiss nationality, one user contrasted Singapore’s system with Switzerland’s, saying the Swiss derive national pride from direct democracy, where citizens shape policies through referendums.
They argued that in Singapore, under the PAP, citizens were expected to “follow orders without questioning.”
Another user challenged Chan’s remarks on train breakdowns, pointing out that in 2025, disruptions had worsened, sometimes occurring multiple times a week.
They questioned how this aligned with the government’s call for “conviction in being Singaporean,” arguing that while conditions deteriorated, the government continued raising train fares and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Expanding their criticism, the same user also took issue with housing and environmental policies, claiming Singaporeans were increasingly reliant on foreigners for rental housing and healthcare.
“PAP Engages in What It Criticises”
Chan’s comments on political competition drew strong reactions, with netizens accusing the PAP of practising what he criticised.
One user argued that instead of engaging in proper debate, PAP often dismissed opposition proposals, ridiculed MPs, and enforced party-line voting.
They claimed that PAP had a track record of rejecting opposition ideas, only to later adopt them and take credit.
Another user criticised the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, arguing that it no longer ensured minority representation but instead served as a backdoor for weaker PAP candidates to enter Parliament.
They claimed that the system had lowered the quality of ministers and MPs, calling for a return to Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), where every candidate must prove their worth to voters.
One commenter accused Chan of “playing reverse psychology” by warning against political negativity while the PAP allegedly undermined the opposition and repackaged their proposals.
They urged undecided voters to give opposition candidates a chance rather than maintain PAP’s supermajority.
Netizens Warn of Unchecked Power and Call for Greater Accountability
Some users cautioned that PAP’s long-standing dominance had led to unchecked power.
One commenter wrote, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A true democracy needs strong opposition for real checks and balances.”
They suggested that PAP’s real fear was losing its ability to push policies without debate or accountability.
Another user criticised Chan’s remarks on governance as “hypocritical,” arguing that laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) were selectively used against government critics and opposition figures.
They urged the government to be honest, take responsibility for its mistakes, and rectify them quickly to minimise damage.
The user asserted that Singapore needed leadership that genuinely upholds freedom, equality, and opportunity for all, adding that the PAP had failed in its mission to care for Singaporeans.
The post Chan Chun Sing on public scrutiny and politics, netizens call it election drama appeared first on The Online Citizen.
