As Singapore edges closer to its next general election, the national conversation inevitably turns to familiar anxieties — the cost of living, job security, housing affordability, and immigration.
These are bread-and-butter issues not because they are narrow-minded concerns but because they are lived realities for most citizens.
Yet a recent Straits Times opinion piece suggests that voters must broaden their lens to assess which political leaders possess the foresight to navigate a volatile global order.
The writer argues that Singapore’s foreign policy success is proof of “prescience and cognitive dexterity” — traits voters should prize as highly as domestic competence.
There is no denying that Singapore has benefited from decades of stable diplomacy and strategic positioning. But to suggest that these qualities are indicative of continued wisdom — or worse, to imply that domestic failings are secondary to global strategy — is to overlook serious lapses in planning and execution at home.
It is also worth remembering that the same leadership now presented as clear-eyed stewards of national interest has governed uninterrupted for over 60 years. The present vulnerabilities — whether in labour, business resilience, money laundering, scams, flooding, or foreign alignment — did not emerge from nowhere. They are, in part, the outcomes of choices made under the very frameworks being praised.
This article brings up only a few key areas of concern, but they are emblematic of broader structural weaknesses and blind spots that cannot be ignored — especially when the ruling party continues to assert that it alone has the solutions.
Jobs and the question of who benefits
The government continues to highlight Singapore’s tight labour market and rising demand for skilled workers, especially in the tech and finance sectors.
As of December 2024, there were 164 vacancies for every 100 job seekers, according to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).
But the numbers behind this headline raise uncomfortable questions. Between 2022 and 2024, total employment grew by 351,100 — of which 91.3% (320,800 jobs) went to non-residents.
Only 30,300 jobs were added for residents, a group that includes both citizens and permanent residents (PRs).
MOM does not provide a breakdown of how many of these 30,300 resident jobs went specifically to citizens.
Yet between 2022 and 2024, Singapore granted over 103,000 new PRs, suggesting that some of these employment gains could reflect foreign workers who later attained PR status — not necessarily new jobs going to Singaporeans.
This distribution casts doubt on the effectiveness of current labour market strategies. In a country where the “Singaporean core” is regularly emphasised, such an imbalance raises fair and necessary concerns.
Even in growth sectors like information and communications and financial services, where demand is high and salaries are attractive, the benefits are not evenly shared.
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng has spoken of the “complementarity” between local and foreign workers. But complementarity must not obscure equity.
If more than nine out of ten new jobs are going to non-residents, despite ongoing upskilling drives and job matching initiatives, it becomes difficult to argue that the planning has adequately prioritised local employment outcomes.
Transparency is also lacking. Without granular data that distinguishes between citizens and PRs in employment statistics, citizens are left to wonder whether they are genuinely first in line for the opportunities being created.
A business climate under pressure
Singapore’s economic planning has long emphasised its appeal as a hub for enterprise and investment. Yet for many on the ground — especially in the nightlife and F&B sectors — the business climate feels increasingly suffocating.
Rising costs, regulatory overreach, and what some describe as a rent-seeking state model have combined to place severe pressure on operators. The impact is most visible in the nightlife industry, once a source of tourism draw and local vibrancy.
Between 2015 and 2022, revenue from nightlife venues plummeted from S$674.7 million to S$284.7 million, according to the Department of Statistics.
In February 2025, bartender and industry veteran Naz Arjuna attributed the crisis to restrictive policies, including high alcohol duties, outdated licensing rules, and short operating hours. He noted how costs trickle down to consumers — with a basic bottle of spirits costing over S$300, and single drinks hitting S$20 or more.
He dismissed the idea that changing lifestyles are to blame. “People are still working in offices, but they now want to go straight back home… because it’s too damn expensive,” he said.
His critique echoes a broader sentiment across small businesses: the rules are tight, the costs are high, and the playing field is uneven. Despite Singapore’s emphasis on supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, many operators feel left behind, with support flowing disproportionately to mega-venues and well-capitalised players.
Governance gaps beyond the economy
Beyond labour and business pressures, other warning signs have surfaced — revealing deeper vulnerabilities in Singapore’s governance fabric.
In recent months, multiple flash floods have disrupted daily life across the island, submerging roads and impacting homes and businesses.
While authorities have attributed the incidents to intense rainfall and poor drainage, the frequency of these occurrences raises valid concerns about whether infrastructure planning and drainage systems are keeping up with climate realities and urban intensification.
At the same time, the S$3 billion money laundering case that came to light in 2023 remains a stark reminder that Singapore’s reputation as a clean and well-regulated financial hub is not immune to exploitation.
Far from being a one-off, the case has exposed potential systemic loopholes across property transactions, banking, and nominee directorships — prompting questions about how such large flows of illicit funds went undetected for so long.
Then there is the unrelenting rise in scams. In 2024 alone, scam victims in Singapore lost a record S$1.1 billion, according to police figures — a nearly 70 per cent increase from the S$651.8 million lost in 2023.
From phishing and investment fraud to job and love scams, the scale of deception has grown dramatically — exposing not just digital vulnerabilities, but also a troubling level of public naivety. This same trustfulness, in some ways, enables policymakers to overpromise and underdeliver with limited pushback.
These issues — floods, financial crime, and rampant scams — are not disconnected anomalies. They reflect a broader drift in institutional oversight, where early warning signs are missed, enforcement lags behind evolving risks, and accountability is diffused.
Global credibility and foreign policy contradictions
Singapore’s foreign policy has long been held up as a model of pragmatism. But recent events have tested the claim that the nation is as neutral and forward-looking as it appears.
The United States’ April 2025 imposition of tariffs on Singapore — despite an existing Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) — is a reminder that bilateral deals can be overridden by bigger powers at will.
Singapore’s decision to impose sanctions on Russia following the Ukraine invasion was defended on the grounds of international law and sovereignty. Yet when the International Court of Justice ruled Israel’s occupation of Palestine unlawful and called on states to cease assistance, Singapore did not impose any comparable sanctions.
Worse still, in December 2023, Singapore appointed its first resident ambassador to Israel, deepening ties even as the conflict in Gaza escalated.
When questioned in Parliament, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan declined to confirm whether Singapore has sold arms or materials to Israel since 7 October 2023, citing national security policies. He maintained that Singapore complies with all UN sanctions — but Israel is not under any, making the point less relevant.
This double standard weakens Singapore’s credibility as a principled actor. As a small state, consistency in upholding international law is not optional — it is a defence mechanism. Selectivity invites reputational risks and undermines the very norms Singapore claims to protect.
Meanwhile, Singapore is left dealing with the consequences of US political decisions — including protectionist tariffs — while offering little challenge to those very policies. This dependence is not a sign of diplomatic dexterity. It is a symptom of vulnerability.
The illusion of having all the answers
The Straits Times piece implies, implicitly or otherwise, that Singapore’s leaders — and, by extension, the PAP — remain uniquely equipped to navigate the global moment.
But recent experience suggests otherwise. Take the issue of lease decay and the long-awaited VERS (Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme). First floated in 2018 by then-Minister Lawrence Wong, VERS was positioned as the long-term solution to address the looming reality that HDB flats will eventually return to zero value at the end of their 99-year lease.
Touted as a key response to growing public unease over lease decay, VERS was framed as a cornerstone of future housing stability and retirement adequacy. Yet seven years on, there is still no plan.
When pressed for updates by Progress Singapore Party NCMPs Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa in March 2025, Prime Minister Wong responded, “We will provide details… eventually.” When asked for a timeline, he simply deferred the question to the Minister for National Development, offering no clarity on when, or even if, VERS will materialise.
If foresight means floating schemes without meaningful follow-up, it is understandable why public confidence may be fraying. Promises of long-term policy vision ring hollow when they remain just that — promises.
Generosity mistaken for judgment
The examples raised in this piece are merely the tip of the iceberg. Beneath them lies a deeper issue — one of credibility, accountability, and trust.
The Straits Times commentary frames the PAP as a party of foresight and stability, but that view overlooks the growing number of unresolved challenges and contradictions — many of which were created or worsened under its own long-standing leadership.
To suggest that these outcomes are the product of sound foresight is to conflate consistency with correctness — and policy inertia with strategic wisdom.
Singaporeans are not asking for perfection. But they are entitled to question policies that do not serve them well, and to scrutinise leaders who, despite experience, have not always read the road ahead clearly.
If voters are being asked to choose who can best guide the nation through uncertainty, it is entirely reasonable to ask: Why should that still be the same leadership that helped shape the very vulnerabilities we now face?
An honest reckoning with recent missteps is not a threat to our national resilience — it is a prerequisite for it.
The post The Straits Times gives too much credit: PAP’s foresight isn’t as sound as it seems appeared first on The Online Citizen.
