Who qualifies as a "natural politician" in Singapore? Who earns instant "star catch" status, and who radiates "political lost cause" vibes?
Are voters applying one yardstick to PAP hopefuls, and another to the opposition?
These are perennial election-season questions and, in this ongoing campaign, there is fresh fodder to chew upon.
Let's consider some new material: Viral memes skewering candidates, mainly from the PAP, who have touted their "humble background"; the pundits suggesting the WP's slate is of a significantly higher calibre than in previous polls; and some refreshingly candid comments on several strands of the debate from Education Minister Chan Chun Sing in recent podcasts.
The memes, making light of the likes of PAP's Chua Chu Kang GRC candidate Mr Jeffrey Siow - a former high-flying civil servant who has highlighted that his father worked 12-hour shifts at a coffee shop all his life - perhaps reveal an underlying cynicism among some Singaporeans that a humble origin story has become a must-have in the political identikit.
If the memes are the entry point to this sprawling, decades-old debate about how Singaporeans reflexively judge candidates, then Mr Chan's latest candid comments in an April 22 interview with the Yah Lah But podcast and in the April 13 R U OKAY! Mandarin show offer substantial food for thought.
Granted, the views of Mr Chan, the PAP's assistant secretary-general, come from his party's perspective, but his observations about double standards in how candidates are judged will resonate with middle-ground Singaporeans who recognise the inconsistency.
His core contention: When the PAP puts up candidates from humble backgrounds who have achieved stellar careers in civil service or uniform, their working-class roots are virtually ignored. Simply by virtue of their social mobility and PAP affiliation, these candidates are cast as perpetuating an "elitist" party narrative.
If the PAP fields a Harvard graduate, the reaction, as Mr Chan puts it in the Yah Lah But interview, would be "Alamak! See, so elitist!" Yet when the opposition presents someone with the same prestigious credentials, that person becomes a celebrated "star catch".
The WP's Michael Thng, with his Harvard Kennedy School master's degree, isn't explicitly mentioned - but one suspects he is in some way the source of this observation. Online commentators have widely hailed the Tampines GRC candidate as among the opposition party's prized catches.
For the full picture, viewers should watch both podcasts - though at 90 and 120 minutes, they require some commitment.
What emerges is the portrait of the evolution of Mr Chan, who, upon his entry to politics in 2011, was lampooned for, among other things, his unpolished English and inability to shed military mannerisms. Now, he seems to be embracing his authentic self - and calling out what he sees as double standards in how PAP politicians are perceived and unrealistic expectations of what they should be like, once elected.
In both interviews, he readily concedes - almost wearing it as a badge of honour - that his "English is not very good".
In the Yah Lah But interview, he said: "If someone like me whose English is not very good joins the PAP, you say... PAP standards dropped, can't even pronounce his words properly."
On the flip side, if someone like him joined an opposition party, the reaction would be: "Wow, he is so relatable. He speaks like us, without the English twang."
One can sense the frustration - even if he delivers this message in a jocular manner.
Taking all these points in - and yes, this risks inviting vigorous criticism from opposition leaders and supporters who face their own serious hurdles - one can't help but feel more than a twinge of sympathy for the predicament Mr Chan describes.
Formidable as the PAP is, with its ability to tap a wide range of sources including the civil service and uniformed services for talent, the double standard in how its candidates are judged reveals something uncomfortable about our political culture.
The crux is this: Opposition candidates, particularly those from the WP as the PAP's most formidable rival, enjoy a certain advantage.
Their credentials - whether from their education, degrees or experience in the social arena - are reflexively celebrated by hardened supporters and, to some extent, by swing voters who prioritise a stronger opposition presence in Parliament to act as an effective check on the ruling party. It is equally true that when the PAP fields candidates whose journeys have been similar, they attract memes, not acclaim.
Rather than making the futile call to abandon this political tribalism, perhaps voters simply need to dig deeper into who their candidates really are.
No one is destined to be a good leader based on background alone.
Yes, the opposition fielding "star catches" with sterling credentials has commentators suggesting that the quality gap between PAP and WP is narrowing.
But the WP themselves would concede that credentials don't guarantee effectiveness - they have seen their previous prized catches fizzle after elections.
The same applies to the PAP: Their credentialed slate must demonstrate a ground game that degrees and distinguished careers don't automatically prepare one for.
And to be clear, this isn't an argument for parties to field "everyman" candidates for diversity's sake. That serves no one's interest, least of all Singapore's.
But since tribal voting instincts won't disappear, we need a clearer test: Why is this person stepping forward? To serve Singapore or to pursue a different agenda? Neither a Harvard degree nor heartland background guarantees political effectiveness.
Judge the individual - not the pedigree. Hold every candidate, blue- or white-collar, PAP or opposition, to the same bar: integrity, competence and commitment to Singapore.
