PPP
Conclusion
The PPP manifesto combines nationalist rhetoric with economically unfeasible proposals, often contradicting its own principles (e.g., anti-immigration but pro-family immigration, small-government rhetoric but heavy subsidies). While it raises valid concerns about housing, jobs, and governance, its solutions lack coherence and risk unintended consequences. The party’s stance on social issues also appears selectively conservative, undermining its claim to uphold individual freedoms.
SPP
Conclusion
The SPP manifesto raises valid concerns but suffers from **inconsistent logic, lack of detailed implementation plans, and unrealistic fiscal assumptions**. While it advocates for progressive change, many proposals appear **idealistic rather than pragmatic**, risking unintended consequences if implemented without further refinement. A stronger manifesto would provide **costed proposals, empirical justifications, and transitional frameworks** to address these gaps.
PSP
**Conclusion:** The PSP Manifesto 2025 offers bold solutions to Singapore’s pressing issues—cost of living, housing, and governance—but suffers from **unrealistic funding, contradictions, and weak implementation**. While its **social welfare and democratic reforms** are commendable, proposals like **GST cuts, nationalized healthcare, and strict EP quotas** lack fiscal and economic viability. The manifesto **identifies problems well** but falters in execution, with **uncosted spending, protectionist labor policies, and politically unfeasible reforms**. To gain credibility, PSP must **balance idealism with pragmatism**, clarify funding, and propose phased, achievable changes. **Strong on vision, weak on practicality**—refinement is needed to convince voters and policymakers.
Conclusion
The PPP manifesto combines nationalist rhetoric with economically unfeasible proposals, often contradicting its own principles (e.g., anti-immigration but pro-family immigration, small-government rhetoric but heavy subsidies). While it raises valid concerns about housing, jobs, and governance, its solutions lack coherence and risk unintended consequences. The party’s stance on social issues also appears selectively conservative, undermining its claim to uphold individual freedoms.
SPP
Conclusion
The SPP manifesto raises valid concerns but suffers from **inconsistent logic, lack of detailed implementation plans, and unrealistic fiscal assumptions**. While it advocates for progressive change, many proposals appear **idealistic rather than pragmatic**, risking unintended consequences if implemented without further refinement. A stronger manifesto would provide **costed proposals, empirical justifications, and transitional frameworks** to address these gaps.
PSP
**Conclusion:** The PSP Manifesto 2025 offers bold solutions to Singapore’s pressing issues—cost of living, housing, and governance—but suffers from **unrealistic funding, contradictions, and weak implementation**. While its **social welfare and democratic reforms** are commendable, proposals like **GST cuts, nationalized healthcare, and strict EP quotas** lack fiscal and economic viability. The manifesto **identifies problems well** but falters in execution, with **uncosted spending, protectionist labor policies, and politically unfeasible reforms**. To gain credibility, PSP must **balance idealism with pragmatism**, clarify funding, and propose phased, achievable changes. **Strong on vision, weak on practicality**—refinement is needed to convince voters and policymakers.