The Economist suggests govt in S'pore should change peacefully in wake of M'sia election

They buried the suggestion in the last paragraph.

Belmont Lay | May 12, 2018, 12:15 AM

The Economist is being cheeky with Singapore again.

In a May 10, 2018 article, in the aftermath of the tsunami unleashed in the Malaysia election, the United Kingdom-based weekly magazine made the suggestion that a peaceful change in government up north, might be a good thing if it can become a contagion.

The article explicitly talked about how the loss of the ruling party in Malaysia will pave the way for reforms and a cleaning up of past detrimental practices.

This effect can then hopefully spread to surrounding countries in the region, resulting in the same peaceful changes and establishment of new governments.

The last paragraph of the article, "Mahathir’s back: Malaysia’s chance to clean up", presented as a flourish with the most sting, said:

Perhaps the new government will succumb to infighting and fail to get much done. But its very existence is a potent reminder to Malaysians and their neighbours that governments can and should, from time to time, change peacefully. With luck, Cambodians, Singaporeans, Thais and Vietnamese, among others, will begin to wonder if something similar might one day happen to them.

Asking for a rebuttal

The Economist has earned multiple rebuttals and rebukes from Singapore, as a result of the commentaries it puts out, that are frequently perceived as telling how Singapore should act but without the trappings of political office.

The ensuing rebuttals explaining Singapore's perspective are typically issued by Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK, Foo Chi Hsia.

Sometimes, the rebuttals are easy to formulate as The Economist glosses over the nuances and sets itself up for poor arguments:

Sometimes, The Economist makes valid counter-arguments and pulls one back:

[related_story]

However, before any official rebuttal is formally issued this time, it is not difficult to hazard a guess what Singapore can say as a response.

Because any point-of-view that assumes the toppling of the incumbent is a good thing, without factoring in the context, has already been preempted by ruling party cheerleaders in Singapore: