I ask AI this question : Does suing people for defamation and silencing discussion makes a good government looks better or worse?

[bobby]

S'pore has been referred to as a socialist democratic society, but the truth is that we have an authoritarian regime.

The regime may be authoritarian but 65% of the population is fucked

 

[Hightech88]

Should ask AI why 65% loves to be arse-farked by PAP and CECAs.

 

[Leongsam]

Should ask AI why 65% loves to be arse-farked by PAP and CECAs.

Q: Why does 65% of the Singapore population still vote for the PAP despite knowing that the government is going to arse fuck them immediately after the election?

The question assumes that 65% of Singaporeans vote for the People's Action Party (PAP) despite expecting severe negative consequences, which oversimplifies voter motivations. Based on available data and analysis, here are the key reasons why a significant majority continue to support the PAP, despite criticisms of its policies:

1. Economic Stability and Proven Track Record: The PAP has governed Singapore since 1959, transforming it into a global financial hub with high GDP per capita, low corruption, and robust public services. Many voters prioritize this stability, especially amid global economic uncertainties like the US-China trade war and potential tariffs under the Trump administration. The PAP’s campaign emphasized continuity and competence, resonating with risk-averse voters. For instance, in the 2025 election, the PAP secured 65.57% of the vote, up from 61.2% in 2020, partly due to fears of economic downturns.
2. Fear of Global Instability: Singapore’s economy is highly trade-dependent, with a trade-to-GDP ratio over 300%. Recent global trade disruptions, including US tariffs, heightened voter concerns about economic turbulence. The PAP positioned itself as a "flight to safety," with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong promising to "steer Singapore through the storm." This message appealed to voters prioritizing security over experimentation with opposition parties.
3. Electoral System and Structural Advantages: Singapore’s electoral system, including Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and frequent boundary redrawals, favors the PAP. GRCs require parties to field teams, which smaller opposition parties struggle to do, and boundary changes—often announced close to elections—disrupt opposition planning. Critics allege gerrymandering, though the government claims these reflect population shifts. The short nine-day campaign period and high candidate deposits further disadvantage opposition parties.
4. Limited Opposition Viability: While the Workers’ Party (WP) retained its 10 seats in 2025, other opposition parties performed poorly, with some labeled "Mosquito Parties" for lacking concrete alternatives. The fragmented opposition, with 10 parties competing, dilutes anti-PAP votes. Voters may see the PAP as the only credible governing force, especially since opposition gains have been modest historically.
5. Media Control and Narrative Shaping: Singapore’s mainstream media is government-affiliated, with Reporters Without Borders ranking it 123rd for press freedom. This limits critical coverage of the PAP and amplifies its narrative of stability. Defamation lawsuits against critics and opposition figures, like J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan, have historically suppressed dissent, reinforcing PAP dominance.
6. Voter Pragmatism Over Ideology: Singaporeans often prioritize material interests—housing, jobs, cost of living—over liberal concerns like free speech or political pluralism. Despite grievances about rising costs or the 9% GST hike, voters may trust the PAP’s ability to deliver subsidies, public housing, and economic growth over untested opposition promises. The PAP’s responsiveness, like curbing immigration after the 2011 election’s 60% vote share, reinforces this trust.
7. Cultural and Historical Factors: The PAP’s long rule has shaped a political culture where stability is valued over change. Older generations, who witnessed Singapore’s rapid development, remain loyal, while younger voters, though more open to opposition, still lean toward the PAP in crises. The party’s meritocratic image, despite elitism critiques, aligns with Singapore’s competitive ethos.

Addressing the Assumption: The phrase “arse fuck them immediately after the election” implies deliberate betrayal, but there’s no evidence voters broadly expect such outcomes. Criticisms like the GST hike or housing costs are real, yet the PAP mitigates discontent with subsidies and housing policies. Voters may dislike certain policies but still see the PAP as the least risky option. The 65% vote share reflects a calculated choice, not ignorance of consequences.
Counterperspective: Critics argue the PAP’s dominance limits democratic choice, with restricted freedoms and legal actions stifling opposition. Some voters may support the PAP reluctantly, feeling trapped by a lack of viable alternatives or fear of economic instability. However, the 2025 election’s high turnout (over 90%) and the PAP’s improved vote share suggest genuine, if pragmatic, support.
In summary, Singaporeans vote for the PAP due to its economic track record, structural electoral advantages, and ability to project stability in turbulent times. While criticisms of authoritarianism and policy burdens persist, many voters prioritize practical outcomes over ideological change, especially when opposition options appear fragmented or unready.

 

[tobelightlight]

The PAP’s responsiveness, like curbing immigration after the 2011 election’s 60% vote share, reinforces this trust.

Really? Curbing immigration? What sort of AI is this?

 

[True Believer]

The regime may be authoritarian but 65% of the population is fucked

Those 65% suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome, and believe in flying to the "relative safety" of their captors due to the fearmongering.

 

[WangChuk]

depend on which AI apps you ask ... U ask China AI confirm plus chop tell you its good good government .... using Angmoh AI will tell you the opposite.

 

[NanoSpeed]

Rich Sng needs crowdfunding. The response will be immense as Singaporeans want to know the answer. It might just make Rich Sng even richer.

Just promise us you will fight the case, and assure Singapoeans you will subpoena Sam to the witness stand. Don't be like that mokuaiyong BG.

 

[disconsolate]

Rich Sng needs crowdfunding. The response will be immense as Singaporeans want to know the answer. It might just make Rich Sng even richer.

Just promise us you will fight the case, and assure Singapoeans you will subpoena Sam to the witness stand. Don't be like that mokuaiyong BG.

Because PAP refuses to convene a COI on all these Ministers, Popiah Sam must be cross examined under oath in the stand to determine the real truth of what has transpired, on the reasons of such gatherings, their frequency and why a unknown young billionaire was often invited to such gatherings. Were the Ministers not suspicious of his constant presence? It is in the public interest to know what actually transpired.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Litigation and private defamation suits is popular in SG solely because the judicial system in SG is very biased to a certain party.

It is a guaranteed win verdict by ball-less judges under instructions from their bosses.

For this case...it's like the defamation suits is used to cover up what these elites want to hide

 

[superpower]

S'pore has been referred to as a socialist democratic society, but the truth is that we have an authoritarian regime.

S'pore's economy is not socialist. It is neo-liberal (an economic system which encourages privatization, deregulation, policies favoring corporations over workers, minimal govt intervention and minimal social safety nets)

S'pore is not a true democracy, but an authoritarian illiberal democracy (where non-democratic practices are hidden behind a formal system of democratic institutions)

 

[duluxe]

The words uttered are clearly defamatory. The first post was ok. The subsequent post where he pretended to speak in the capacity of Su Haijin - that one was damaging. You can say you don't believe, and that is not defamatory. You can raise doubts, but don't give your own version as if it's a matter of fact.

His only hope is to rely on the defense of fair comment on an issue of public interest. That the matter is of public interest is glaring. If the matter is dealt with at the stage Summary Judgment at the Registrar's Office, then the statements will not be tested in Court.

The honorable chief counsel of sammyboy and prestige admirer of GSB,

Sir, the first post, Sng wrote at the end "Not facts. Just theory.". Does that still constitute defamation?
And why you are so lucky, not sued by GSB for defamation?