The manifestos of the People’s Action Party (PAP), Workers’ Party (WP), Progress Singapore Party (PSP), and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for the 2025 Singapore General Election reveal a spectrum of priorities, as summarized in the following table:

This table highlights the diversity in approach, with PAP focusing on continuity, WP on balanced reform, PSP on transformative change, and SDP on social justice and democratic overhaul.

Critical Insights

1. Addressing Public Concerns:

   • PAP: Targeted subsidies (e.g., Assurance Package) provide immediate relief but may not address root causes like rising costs, appealing to those prioritizing stability.
   • WP: GST exemptions and a $1,600 minimum wage offer practical relief, balancing affordability with feasibility, suitable for middle-class voters.
   • PSP: Reducing GST to 7% and deferring HDB land costs are bold, voter-friendly moves, but fiscal risks may concern cautious voters.
   • SDP: Abolishing GST on essentials and taxing the top 1% directly tackle inequality, appealing to lower-income groups, but lack of cost estimates raises feasibility questions.

2. Housing:

   • PAP: Over 50,000 new flats increase supply, with VERS addressing lease decay, maintaining market stability.
   • WP: 70-year leases and buy-back schemes focus on affordability, offering a middle-ground solution.
   • PSP: AHS excludes land costs for affordability, with Millennial Apartments addressing youth needs, but market disruption is a risk.
   • SDP: The $270,000 NOM Scheme cap is innovative but lacks specifics on flat types or fiscal impact. Building more flats is vague without a supply target, unlike PAP’s 50,000 or PSP’s 20,000/year.

3. Governance and Democracy:

   • PAP: Prioritizes stability and anti-corruption, avoiding structural reforms.
   • WP: Proposes an Ombudsman and GRC abolition for accountability, balancing reform with pragmatism.
   • PSP: Freedom of Information Act and GRC abolition push transparency, appealing to reformists.
   • SDP: POFMA reform, constitutional changes, and GLC divestment are radical, aligning with its democratic ethos, but may face resistance in Singapore’s conservative political culture.

4. Economic Growth:

   • PAP: Balances local and global needs, supporting PMETs and businesses.
   • WP: Enhances local talent via SkillsFuture, maintaining economic competitiveness.
   • PSP: A $2,250 minimum wage risks business costs but benefits workers.
   • SDP: Minimum wage and foreign labor reduction prioritize locals but lack specific figures, potentially disrupting Singapore’s globalized economy.

5. Social Safety Net:

   • PAP: Strengthens ComCare and Silver Support, building on proven systems.
   • WP: Simplifies assistance, focusing on healthcare and retirees.
   • PSP: Introduces caregiver allowances and MediSave expansion, resembling a basic income model.
   • SDP: NHIF and free maternal/pediatric care are ambitious but lack costings, while the Malay community plan and gender equality initiatives address inclusivity without specific actions.

Overall Assessment

• PAP: Appeals to voters valuing economic stability, strong governance, and proven leadership, attracting conservative voters, older generations, and middle to upper-income brackets. Its continuity is robust but may seem out-of-touch with reformists.

• WP: Offers a credible, pragmatic alternative, appealing to middle-class families, younger voters concerned about housing and education, and those desiring a stronger check on PAP. Its balanced approach is feasible but may lack transformative vision.

• PSP: Presents a bold platform for change, drawing support from younger demographics, lower-income workers, and reformists willing to risk significant change. Its ambition is appealing but faces feasibility challenges.

• SDP: Champions social justice and democratic reform, appealing to lower-income groups, youth, and reformists frustrated with inequality and governance restrictions. Its radical proposals (e.g., abolish PSLE, scrap CPF Minimum Sum) resonate with those seeking systemic change but risk alienating moderates due to limited electoral track record and vague costings.

The election outcome on May 3, 2025, will hinge on voter priorities—stability versus change—and how each party builds trust amid economic and social challenges.

Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Chee Soon Juan has made a questionable choice nominating Ariffin Sha, the 27-year-old founder of Wake Up, Singapore (WUSG), to contest Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC.

The decision is not a minor oversight—it points to a lapse in judgment that may cast doubts on Chee’s fitness for ministerial office.

While the People’s Action Party (PAP) has faced its own scandals involving individuals who were later convicted (Eg. Iswaran), these typically emerge after elections, not before.

Background

In August 2024, Ariffin was fined S$8,000 after pleading guilty to criminal defamation for publishing a fabricated story about KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, falsely claiming a woman suffered a miscarriage due to negligence.

Chee’s response to Ariffin's red flag is has been evasive.

At a press conference on April 13, 2025, he urged voters to focus on SDP’s policies, not Ariffin’s past, and compared the case to former PAP Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin’s resignation over an extramarital affair. The comparison misses the mark: Tan’s personal lapse, while serious, did not involve lawbreaking or public harm.

Chee’s deflection sidesteps the core issue of vetting a candidate with a known conviction.

Leadership requires sound judgement

The PAP is not immune to scrutiny.

Cases like former Transport Minister S. Iswaran’s corruption charges in January 2024 and former Tampines GRC MP Cheng Li Hui’s affair with Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan Jin reveal vetting gaps.

However, these issues emerged after elections. The PAP acted decisively, removing Iswaran from his post and asked both Tan Chuan Jin and Cheng Li Hui to resign.

No system guarantees flawless candidates, but knowingly selecting a convict pre-election reflects a clearer lapse in judgment.

Zero tolerance on misinformation

Ariffin’s case strikes at Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance on misinformation.

In 2024, POFMA was invoked 15 times to correct falsehoods, underscoring the harm of unchecked narratives. Ariffin’s defamation directly contravened this ethos, making his nomination a liability in a constituency where community cohesion is vital.

Residents value reliability in governance. Chee’s oversight suggests a disconnect, potentially eroding confidence in SDP’s ability to address bread-and-butter issues like job security and affordability.

Ariffin’s supporters may cite his work with Wake Up, Singapore, which amplifies marginalized voices, or argue his youth mitigates his error. These arguments carry limited weight.

Public office demands high standards, especially in Singapore, where trust underpins stability.

Ariffin’s conviction reflects a lapse in responsibility, and Chee’s endorsement suggests inadequate scrutiny.

Disclaimer: This analysis is a speculative exploration based on geopolitical trends, historical patterns, and open-source intelligence.

Foreign interference isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a global reality, from Russia’s 2016 U.S. election hacks to China’s whispered influence in Australia.

Singapore, a tiny island with outsized influence, is a high-value target. Its role as a global financial hub, with approximately S$5.4 trillion in assets under management makes its electoral outcome a matter of international consequence.

China

China, Singapore’s largest trading partner with S$150 billion in bilateral trade in 2022, has strong incentives to influence GE2025.

As ASEAN’s diplomatic anchor, Singapore influences regional policies critical to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and South China Sea claims.

A government aligned with Beijing would enhance its dominance in Southeast Asia, where Singapore’s neutrality is a linchpin.

Moreover, Singapore’s military training partnerships with Taiwan make it a target for China’s efforts to suppress Taiwanese independence narratives.

Past disinformation campaigns

China has a well-documented history of disinformation:

• Taiwan: Beijing has used deepfakes and propaganda to discredit Taiwanese leaders and deter voters from supporting independence, targeting Chinese-speaking communities to sow division, as reported by regional security experts.

• Philippines: China has promoted narratives portraying itself as a constructive regional actor while casting doubt on U.S. reliability, aiming to weaken U.S.-Philippine ties, per the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

• Singapore (2017): A notable incident involved Huang Jing, a U.S. citizen and academic at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who was expelled in August 2017 for acting as an agent of influence for a foreign country, widely understood to be China. Huang used his position to share privileged information with foreign intelligence operatives and attempted to influence Singapore’s foreign policy, per MHA.

Potential impact in Singapore

Singapore’s 74% ethnic Chinese population and economic ties with China create vulnerabilities to disinformation.

AI-generated deepfakes on platforms like Meta and Tiktok could depict candidates disparaging Chinese culture, alienating voters.

Cyber operations might target journalists of alternative and mainstream media outlets, while covert funding through Chinese business networks or clan associations could support pro-China candidates.

The October 2024 deepfake video targeting former President Halimah Yacob, falsely showing her criticizing the government, underscores this threat.

The 2020 case of Dickson Yeo, a Singaporean sentenced in the U.S. for spying for Chinese intelligence, further highlights Beijing’s use of local operatives, though Yeo claimed no disloyalty to Singapore.

Why Singapore?

Singapore’s diplomatic leadership in ASEAN and military ties with Taiwan make it a strategic target.

China’s ambition to dominate ASEAN relies on influencing key players like Singapore, whose neutral stance could shift regional dynamics if manipulated.

Disinformation could erode public trust or promote candidates aligned with Beijing’s goals.

Israel

Israel, a key defense partner supplying Singapore with technologies like the Iron Dome, seeks to maintain a government supportive of bilateral ties.

As one of Singapore’s few ASEAN allies alongside Thailand, and with neighbors like Malaysia and Indonesia holding anti-Israel stances, Singapore’s pro-Israel policies are crucial.

A change in government could disrupt defense cooperation or weaken Israel’s Southeast Asian foothold, where Singapore is a diplomatic and technological hub.

Past disinformation campaigns

Israel’s disinformation efforts, particularly since the Gaza war, have aimed to shape global narratives:

• U.S. Lawmakers (2024): Israel funded a $2 million campaign through Stoic, a Tel Aviv-based firm, using 600 fake social media accounts to target 128 U.S. Congresspeople with pro-Israel messaging. Active as of June 2024, it employed AI tools like ChatGPT and fake news sites to attack UNRWA and influence policy (The New York Times, June 2024).

• Gaza War propaganda: AI-driven bot farms spread false narratives to dehumanize Palestinians and pressure policymakers, as reported by The Intercept in February 2024 (Gaza: Israel, Netanyahu, propaganda, lies, Palestinians).

• Meta censorship: Israel secured the removal of 38.8 million pro-Palestinian posts on Meta platforms by April 2025, aligning with efforts to suppress criticism (Dropsite News).

• Specific falsehoods: Misleading claims, such as audio evidence in the Gaza Baptist Hospital massacre, highlight tactical disinformation (Euronews, February 2024).

Potential impact on Singapore

Israel’s cyber capabilities, exemplified by tools like Pegasus and Graphite used in Singapore pose a threat.

While the 2024 Graphite spyware from Paragon Solutions was reportedly halted, Israel’s history with Pegasus—sold to various governments—suggests that comparable tools remain active.

Disinformation campaigns might target Singapore’s Malay-Muslim community (15% of the population) to counter anti-Israel sentiments, using bots on platforms like Meta.

Covert lobbying through defense or tech partnerships could subtly influence policy.

Why Singapore?

Singapore’s status as a rare ASEAN ally makes it a linchpin for Israel’s regional strategy.

A pro-Israel government ensures sustained defense cooperation and counters regional hostility.

Disinformation could protect these ties by shaping elite perceptions or neutralizing anti-Israel narratives.

Singapore's defense capabilities

Singapore has fortified its electoral process against disinformation:

• Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 (FICA): Enables authorities to remove false content and scrutinize foreign funding, countering China’s deepfakes and Israel’s bot campaigns Countering Foreign Interference.

• Cybersecurity: The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) secures electoral systems, with 2023 advisories promoting robust digital protections Advisory to Presidential Election Candidates.

• Public resilience: Media literacy campaigns and high public trust (84% in government, 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer) equip citizens to identify disinformation Commentary: What Singapore can do more against rising threat of foreign interference.

The FICA law was in the news recently when four members of one of Singapore's richest families were designated as "politically significant persons" for their membership to a China political advisory body. MHA had emphasised that the four individuals had not engaged in any “egregious activity”. As such, their designation can be seen as a pre-emptive move to guard against any potential vulnerabilities to foreign interference.

Also last year, FICA was invoked to block 95 social media accounts linked to self-exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, the first time that the account restrictions directions under FICA were being deployed.

Foreign disinformation poses a significant threat to GE2025.

China aims to dominate ASEAN by leveraging Singapore’s diplomatic influence and cultural ties, while Israel seeks to preserve its strategic alliance.

Singapore’s FICA, cybersecurity, and public resilience provide a strong defense, but sustained vigilance is critical.

Enhanced cyber audits, monitoring of foreign networks, and public education will ensure Singapore’s vote remains untainted.

As GE2025 approaches, the nation’s commitment to sovereignty will determine its success in countering these threats.

29,564 voters in Jalan Kayu SMC will likely have to choose between two kayus come May 3, 2025: Ng Chee Meng, the People's Action Party's NTUC chief tainted by the 2024 Allianz-Income debacle, and Kala Manickam, Red Dot United's (RDU) combative educator whose 2021 PSP lawsuit reveals a divisive streak.

Background on Ng Chee Meng and Kala Manickam

Ng Chee Meng, 56, served as Chief of Air Force (2009–2013) and Chief of Defence Force (2013–2015) in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Entering politics with the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 2015, he won Pasir Ris–Punggol GRC but lost Sengkang GRC in 2020 (47.88% votes).

As NTUC Secretary-General since 2018, Ng has championed workforce development and workers' rights. Yet, his endorsement of the 2024 Allianz-Income deal, marred by a S$1.85 billion capital extraction and transparency lapses, paints him as either complicit in prioritizing profits or negligent in oversight.

Kala Manickam, 57, is a relatable yet polarizing opposition candidate, bringing a mix of grassroots appeal and contentious history.

A single mother, specialist educator, and SME owner, she holds a Master’s in Lifelong Learning and was a pioneer female officer in the Singapore Armed Forces, serving seven years as a lieutenant.

Kala's 2020 run in Nee Soon GRC with the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) yielded 38.76% of votes, but her expulsion from PSP in December 2020 led to a 2021 lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. The lawsuit was later settled amicably but revealed a divisive streak through accusations of insubordination and solo campaigning.

Now with Red Dot United (RDU), Kala is the likely candidate for Jalan Kayu SMC, advocating for job retraining and cost-of-living relief.

Ng Chee Meng's NTUC-Allianz controversy

In July 2024, NTUC and Allianz proposed a S$2.2 billion acquisition deal to bolster NTUC Income's competitiveness.

In an August 2024 statement with NTUC President K Thanaletchimi, he endorsed the deal, assuring that Allianz would honor Income’s social mission and existing policies.

But the devil was in the details: a S$1.85 billion capital extraction plan would have seen Allianz recoup nearly half its investment, potentially draining reserves meant to keep premiums low.

The Singapore government, led by Minister Edwin Tong, blocked the deal on October 14, 2024, citing its clash with Income’s 2022 corporatization goal of building financial strength for policyholders.

As NTUC Enterprise board member and NTUC chief, Ng’s claim that the central committee was unaware of the capital extraction plan until disclosure is damning.

Yet, the capital extraction plan—described by former Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh as a “breach of good faith”—contradicted this.

Ng’s claim of acting in “good faith” rings hollow when his dual roles as NTUC leader and NTUC Enterprise board member placed him at the heart of decision-making.

If Ng knew about the extraction and supported it, he’s complicit in prioritizing profits over people.

If he didn’t know, as he claims, he’s guilty of negligence—a damning indictment for a former Chief of Defence Force who built his career on precision and accountability.

SMU’s Eugene Tan called this ignorance “mind-boggling".

This isn’t Ng’s first misstep.

In January 2025, he attributed job insecurity to AI, ignoring netizens’ concerns over foreign manpower policies, alienating workers facing stagnant wages and sparked backlash for misreading ground sentiments..

His 2020 Sengkang GRC loss (47.88% vote share) already marks him as vulnerable.

Ng’s military pedigree and NTUC role are assets, but the Allianz saga reveals a leader either too cozy with corporate interests or too lax to notice their overreach.

His inability to anticipate public outrage—or even know the deal’s terms—undermines his claim to represent workers.

Jalan Kayu’s voters, wary of PAP’s perceived elitism, may question whether Ng prioritizes their needs or the party line. His campaign’s reliance on PAP machinery, despite his “own merits” rhetoric, risks reinforcing this skepticism.

Kala Manickam's PSP controversy

In July 2021, Kala sued PSP in the High Court (later transferred to State Courts), seeking a declaration that her December 2020 termination was “wrongful and invalid” and a S$10,000 refund for election expenses (e.g., fliers, pamphlets).

She argued PSP violated its constitution and due process, claiming she was not informed of specific charges, given no chance to defend herself, and unaware of investigation outcomes.

PSP’s seven affidavits, including from Tan Cheng Bock, painted her as “disruptive” and “insubordinate,” bullying teammates, and undermining cohesion.

Kala's fellow Nee Soon GRC candidate Damien Tay described her as putting her self-interests ahead of the team, during the run-up to the elections. He and candidate Taufik Supan cited how she "went about doing her own things", such as going on solo walkabouts, skipping team meetings and amassing a volunteer pool for herself.

A 17-member petition - including Kala's own election agent - and 55-to-11 cadre vote against her reinstatement bolstered PSP’s case.

Tan Cheng Bock pointed to a November 2020 meeting in where she was confrontational, as if "raring for a fight"; and "aggressively questioned… proof of her wrongdoings by shouting: 'WHAT PROOF? WHAT PROOF?'".

Kala’s public airing of grievances—via Facebook and court—signals a principled stand but also a divisive style.

Her actions suggest a lone-wolf mentality, ill-suited for Singapore’s collaborative politics.

Her move to Red Dot United (RDU), a smaller party, looks opportunistic, especially after RDU chief Ravi Philemon’s own PSP exit.

Kala’s SAF and educator roles show leadership, but her PSP fallout reveals a failure to build alliances.

Ng benefits from PAP’s ground game and Jalan Kayu’s Ang Mo Kio roots, but his Allianz misstep and Sengkang loss make him vulnerable.

Kala’s relatable story and opposition unity give her an edge, but her PSP saga and lesser-known status limit her reach.

The Workers’ Party’s absence (no confirmed candidate) and People's Power Party potential entry could complicate vote splits, though RDU’s coordination mitigates this.

In Jalan Kayu SMC, it's not about picking a winner, but rather, who is the sturdier of two kayus.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) released its manifesto for Singapore's 2025 General Election under the slogan “Thrive, Not Just Survive,” presenting a comprehensive set of policy proposals to address key national issues.

1. Cost of Living

The SDP highlights Singapore’s rising cost of living, driven by high housing prices, healthcare costs, and regressive taxation like the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The party critiques policies that burden the middle and lower classes while wealth concentrates among the elite.

• Tax Reforms:
  • Abolish GST on essential items (e.g., food, medicine, school supplies) to reduce costs of necessities. No specific list of items or fiscal impact estimate is provided.
  • Increase income tax on the top 1% of earners to fund social programs. No tax rate or revenue target is specified.
  • Reinstate estate duty to address wealth inequality. No thresholds, rates, or expected revenue are detailed.
• Ministerial Salary Reduction:
  • Cut ministerial salaries significantly, redirecting savings to aid lower-income households. No specific reduction amount or savings estimate is provided (current ministerial salaries: ~S$1.1M–S$3.2M annually, 2022 data).
• Minimum Wage:
  • Introduce a minimum wage to ensure a living wage. No specific wage amount (e.g., S$2,000/month) or implementation timeline is stated.
• Economic Transparency:
  • Enhance transparency in managing national reserves to ensure equitable use. No mechanisms (e.g., audits, parliamentary oversight) or reserve figures are specified.

2. Housing

The SDP criticizes the high cost of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, driven by land costs and the 99-year lease decay issue. The party proposes restructuring the housing system to prioritize affordability and sustainability.

• Non-Open Market (NOM) Scheme:
  • Cap HDB flat prices at S$270,000, excluding land costs, with flats sold back to HDB upon resale to maintain affordability. No details on flat types (e.g., 3-room, 4-room) or locations covered are provided (2024 BTO prices: ~S$300,000–S$600,000).
• Voluntary En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (VERS):
  • Introduce a sustainable VERS to address lease decay, enabling collective redevelopment. No specifics on funding, scale, or eligible estates are mentioned.
• Increase Housing Supply:
  • Build more affordable flats to meet demand, reducing waiting times and prices. No specific figure for annual flat supply (e.g., 20,000 flats/year, as in 2024 HDB data) or demand metrics (e.g., marriage rates) is provided.

3. Jobs and Wages

The SDP aims to prioritize Singaporeans in employment, reduce reliance on foreign labor, and address wage stagnation, particularly for Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians (PMETs), in a workforce where foreign workers comprise ~39% (2024 data).

• Minimum Wage:
  • Implement a minimum wage to ensure a living wage. No specific amount or benchmark (e.g., S$2,000/month) is provided.
• Talent Track Scheme:
  • Introduce a points-based system for foreign PMETs, prioritizing Singaporeans for hiring and retrenchment protection. No criteria (e.g., skills, experience) or quotas are specified.
• Foreign Labor Reduction:
  • Gradually reduce reliance on foreign workers to create opportunities for Singaporeans. No target percentage (e.g., from 39% to 30%) or timeline is stated.
• CPF Minimum Sum Reform:
  • Eliminate the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme (Full Retirement Sum: ~S$213,000, 2024) to provide retirement flexibility. No alternative savings mechanism is proposed.

4. Social Safety Net

The SDP seeks to strengthen social support, focusing on healthcare, marginalized communities, and gender equality, replacing complex schemes with accessible programs.

• National Health Investment Fund (NHIF):
  • Replace the 3M system (Medisave, Medishield, Medifund) with NHIF, where citizens contribute a fixed monthly amount, and the government funds the rest via taxes. No contribution amount (e.g., S$50/month) or total cost estimate is provided.
  • Make maternal and pediatric care mostly free. No scope (e.g., age limit for pediatric care) or budget is specified.
• Malay Community Upliftment:
  • Implement a 10-point plan to address economic inequality, education access, and discrimination. No specific actions (e.g., scholarship funding, employment quotas) or metrics are detailed.
• Gender Equality:
  • Promote women’s rights via the SDP Women’s Wing, focusing on healthcare, work-life balance, and anti-discrimination. No specific programs (e.g., subsidies, leave policies) or funding is outlined.

5. Education

The SDP critiques Singapore’s exam-driven education system for fostering stress and inequality, proposing reforms to prioritize holistic development.

• Abolish PSLE:
  • Eliminate the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) to reduce student stress. No replacement assessment (e.g., portfolios) or transition plan is detailed.
• Smaller Class Sizes:
  • Reduce class sizes to improve learning. No target size (e.g., from 33.6 to 25 for primary, 2023 data) or funding estimate is provided.
• Holistic Curriculum:
  • Emphasize critical thinking, creativity, and socio-emotional skills. No specific curriculum changes or teacher training plans are outlined.
• Equal Opportunities:
  • Address socio-economic disparities in education. No interventions (e.g., subsidies) or disparity metrics (e.g., low-income student percentage) are specified.

6. Governance

The SDP addresses concerns over the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) dominance and restrictions on freedom of expression, seeking to enhance transparency and civil liberties.

• Ministerial Salaries:
  • Reduce ministerial salaries to align with public service ethos. No specific reduction amount is provided.
• Freedom of Speech:
  • Reform laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to protect constitutional rights. No specific mechanisms (e.g., judicial oversight) are detailed.
• Constitutional Reforms:
  • Strengthen civil liberties through constitutional amendments. No specific articles or amendments are specified.
• Government-Linked Companies (GLCs):
  • Divest inefficient GLCs to foster competition. No list of targeted GLCs or economic impact estimates is provided.
• Regional Democratic Partnerships:
  • Foster partnerships with democratic neighbors (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia). No specific agreements or initiatives are outlined.

7. Environment

The SDP emphasizes environmental sustainability, addressing climate change and resource management in a densely populated nation.

• Climate Commitments:
  • Strengthen adherence to the Paris Agreement through emissions targets and renewable energy. No specific targets (e.g., 50% emissions cut by 2030) are provided.
• Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  • Provide incentives for EV adoption to reduce emissions. No details on subsidies (e.g., amount per vehicle) or infrastructure (e.g., charging stations) are included.
• Population Control:
  • Oppose population growth to 10 million, rejecting long-term planning scenarios (e.g., 2013 White Paper). No alternative population cap (e.g., 6M) is proposed.
• Haze Pollution:
  • Enforce the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. No specific actions (e.g., fines, regional agreements) are detailed.
• Waste Reduction:
  • Reduce single-use packaging. No targets (e.g., 50% reduction by 2030) or mechanisms (e.g., bans) are specified.

Conclusion

Launched ahead of the May 3, 2025, General Election, the SDP’s manifesto reflects its social liberal democratic vision, emphasizing affordability, equity, and sustainability.

Key proposals, such as the S$270,000 HDB price cap and opposition to a 10 million population, include specific figures, but most policies (e.g., building more flats, minimum wage, class size reductions) lack quantitative details, such as numerical targets or cost estimates.

Implementation challenges include fiscal costs (e.g., NHIF, GST exemptions), political resistance to bold reforms (e.g., PSLE abolition, GLC divestment), and the SDP’s limited electoral success (no seats since 1997).