How the Worker’s Party sacking of MP plays into the hands of the PAP

I really wonder about these people sometimes.  Very silly people.  I'm talking about the Worker's Party here.

They sacked this bloke, Yaw Shin Leong, he loses his seat in Parliament, and now there’s a call for a by-election.  And all because of his extramarital affair.  What’s that got to do with how well he does his job as a member of parliament?  Or do they think that he’s going to turn his ‘walkabout’ in his constituency into a f&*$about’? 

I’ll get to the point given that the confucianised singaporean of today have very limited attention span when it comes to contradictory ideas or long sentences. 

By sacking this fellow, they are basically saying that the perceived virtue of parliament must be maintained.  They are presenting parliamentarians, MPs, etc, as sort of divine creatures like some ‘Son of Heaven’ of Chinese history whom have no sin to be absolved.  It doesn’t matter if you’re great at your job in ensuring that your constituents have their needs met; it doesn’t matter if you’re a true egalitarian and democrat (not that i’m saying that this Yaw bloke is all of that)  You also have to ensure that you reserve your dick for your wife as and when she doesn’t have a headache, or as and when she decides to uncross them because you have been assiduous in doing her bidding - as seems to be the case in all the relationships i’ve personally encountered in singapore.  By sacking this bloke for what he did, basically implies that parliament is a place for those with impeccable virtue, and which implies that other oppositional fellas and the PAP blokes as well, are already of impeccable virtue, and thus occupy their respective positions.

When we take away sinners of the sort like Yaw, we are basically implying that the ‘sin’ of ministers who overpay themselves, amongst other sins, aren’t sins, but just something they choose to do, and we choose to disagree with.I’d say, let the sinners in....and let him who has not sinned cast the first stone at them.  When we keep sinners about, it might make us wonder after the virtue of those we consider to not be sinful.  It might also reveal us for the hypocrites we are.  All of which, bodes well, for discovering the greatest of evils passed off as normal because we ourselves aren't that different.  In this, the vilification of Yaw can be nothing other than an effort to maintain a greater sin from which we are all beneficiaries.  

To be honest, It will be nice to have this ‘extramarital Yaw’ around and start the debate about if he is less virtuous than ministers who earn as much as they do but keep their netherregions to themselves and their wives.  When we take away sinners of the sort like Yaw, we are basically implying that the ‘sin’ of ministers who overpay themselves, amongst other sins, aren’t sins, but just something they choose to do, and we choose to disagree with.  I’d also like the focus to be on proving that the extramarital sin of Yaw interferes with his work as opposed to assuming that it does.  

If you think about it, there is a greater case for assuming that overpaying ministers interferes with their being concerned about the people who employ them.  So who is the greater sinner here mate?  You could say that the WP sacked this bloke, as opposed to letting him resign, in an effort to present themselves as virtuous, like the PAP.  In the UK, amongst others, what might generally happen is that such ministers would resign in an acknowledgement that what they did might not be right as opposed to it being seen as an opportunity by the party to present itself as always right.   It goes well with the Chinese political ethos, practiced for a couple of thousand years of 'scapegoating' so as to present the party in power as beyond reproach and divinely mandated. That is why, given this event, amongst a host of others, i've said for a while that these so-called 'opposition' fellas are nothing but a product of that which they purport to oppose.  Typical.  So typical.

Sometimes i wish i can take these fellas who run the SDP, WP, etc, by the ear, sit them down, cross my legs, and with a rotan in one hand, and a chalk in other, teach them some of my sensibilities given that they ought to already possess them if they didn’t already think themselves so smart enough to lead other know-nothing girls and boys playing at being ‘opposition’ as did the proverbial piper.  Being arrested umpteenth times for the ‘oppositional cause’ means nothing.  All that matters is ensuring that you aren’t a product of the party you oppose, and do your best not to play into their hands despite your best intentions.

(news: WP expels Yaw Shin Leong)



  1. I agree with your views, Ed. Frankly, the focus should be whether Yaw has fulfilled his responsibility as an MP to the people in Hougang. What he does in his private life is secondary. In a statement issued by WP, it states that ‘Shin Leong has been a core member of the Party leadership for more than 10 years, and has made significant and unique contributions towards WP’s growth.   He has also served the residents of Hougang diligently.‘ Doesn’t this matter more?

    Why is Yaw’s alleged extra-marital affair more important than the other sins existing in singapore. Instead of sacking Yaw, we should sack the people who came up with the Speak Mandarin Campaign, who implemented the SAP school, who put the minorities as 2nd class citizens. Those who promoted Monoculturalism and got rid of Multi-culturalism should also be sacked. Who is the greater sinner here?    

    I do not support extra-marital affairs but the people and WP have mis-placed their focus Instead of fixing the above cited issues, they are re-enforcing that the ‘parliamentarians, MPs, etc, as sort of divine creatures like some ‘Son of Heaven’ of Chinese history whom have no sin to be absolved’.

  2. Hey,

    //The first few things that came to my mind after knowing the news was "So what's the issue here? What does the Shin Leong's extramarital affair have got to do with his job as a MP? Is the WP trying to wayang so as to gain more votes in the next general election?"//After that, I showed the news to my friend. Upon he seeing this, he immediately gave a double facepalm and asked why there were full of idiots everywhere in sg. Anyway, there were quite a number of politicians and experts in history that committed infidelity and yet they were quite eminent in their respective fields, eg Richard Feynman, a quantum mechanics expert; Albert Einstein, a very famous physicist; etc. Even in Malaysia, despite numerous scandals involving some politicians, most Malaysians don't really give an arse to such trivial stuff. Seriously, Singaporeans are so easily distracted by any trivial red herring and do not take issue with more pressing issues like implementing Confucian policies that underdevelop the minorities and dumb down the population, ministers overpaying themselves with millions, which is the corollary of the former, etc.

    //And the quote on "In this, the vilification of Yaw can be nothing other than an effort to maintain a greater sin from which we are all beneficiaries" is not dissimilar to a scenario where people are vilified almost immediately for their bigot comments in order to sweep the greater issue of insidious institutional racism under the carpet, hence the populace, especially from the majority, benefit from such situation at the expense of others. What's worse they still justify the "meritocratic" system as something that's not to be questioned. Almost everyone behaves just like the government, hence no individuality. It's sort of like a feedback loop which every segment of the society encourage one another to conform to the Legalist-Confucian culture as dictated by the government.

  3. You may be correct... but there are also some very solid reasons for dismissing him. Here are a couple derived from a few factoids found in the news...
    1. He made himself unavailable and inaccessible to his party's core team and leadership members. This is untenable for numerous reasons. For one, if you've experienced being on an effective work or sports team... you matter alot to each other. I may be supporting you now, but at the next moment I may be really needing your effort & support. When you work on an effective team, it becomes very apparent when someone is not there for you.

    2. If his shenanigan's do not matter or do not have an impact on his work, goals or results.. I.e. his personal political capital, the least he could do for the others, and the most he could do to help himself, would have been to show up for his team, and in public. If his political record and capital speaks for itself, he should show up and simply walk the walk, and walk the talk. That would be slick. I suspect he felt strongly humiliated, at least more than Jack Neo was, to instead be slinking away the way he did. It was he who gave up first, not us, not his team.

    3. He left the country, to start a new life... all in a matter of days of the news breaking. Wow, he doesn't grow any strong roots does he?

    4. He left his wife to "tie up loose ends" while he presumably is hard at it, blazing a new trail. And left his married lover behind without his moral support? If I were his wife or his lover, it would be clear to me which loose end needs tying up! If he has real pride in being a real stud, he should have stayed and let his hard-on stand by itself.

    I'm sure I can think of more reasons, but over to you folks.... your thoughts?

  4.  Thank you for the information. 

    1. I don't get if he didn't make himself available for this issue, or generally.  If it is the latter, then the 'philandering' bit is irrelevant.  If it is the former, i don't understand how he could have been unavailable.  Was he out of the country?  Did he refuse to respond over a long period of time?  And most importantly, if it was either case, there is still no reason to dismiss him as it has yet to be proven that what he did interfered with his work.

    2. So he was finally sacked for not bothering to defend himself on this matter?  And not because the matter is truly supposed to be an issue of public concern?  If it is as you said, then the WP has sort of confused the issue.  Was he sacked because he screwed around - which might not be any of the WPs business - or was he sacked because he didn't attempt to publicly defend himself about that which could be argued to not require a defence?  Looks like an ego thing on the part of the WP, and as stated, an attempt to score 'moral points' against the PAP.

    3.  Well, he left the country.  I don't know about the need to have 'strong roots' in singapore.  Why bother sprouting roots on bad soil?  I personally wouldn't want to if i had a choice as that would just result in my fruit having little taste.  As for Yaw, perhaps he knows that people have been made superficial by years of PAP rule and 'oppositional' self-absorption and hence would not judge him for his political merits as opposed to the locality where he last zipped up his pants.  I mean, just look at the major blog aggregator, and how it has a 'daily chiobu' section on its site.  How on earth does that complement the main focus of their site.  Just one example.

    4.  Personally, i would have done as you suggested in (4).  But that's his choice.  And is not relevant to the issue.  If singapore wasn't as small-minded as it is, perhaps he might not have acted as he did.  We have to consider the socio-political status quo and how it might have played the role of agent provocateur in leading him to behave the way he did after the issue came to the attention of the public.

    Perhaps you could include a name.  Your arguments are pretty good and certainly informative.  No reason to hide behind a pseudonym.  I don't see why it's alright to publicly 'come out' as 'gay' in singapore, but not as a thinking human being;)

  5. "Even in Malaysia, despite numerous scandals involving some politicians,
    most Malaysians don't really give an arse to such trivial stuff."

    Are you trying to be funny Ang, with that above statement? - given that Anwar was hauled up on 'sodomy' charges?  If so, then damn good one...haha! 

    Your friends' 'double facepalm' reaction is an apt and funny one - like the mousy in the picture above.  Better than my usual  reflexive 'blur' reaction of 'ha? what the f*$# kind of crap is this?  These people got any brain or not?"

    Anyway, confucians don't take issue with confucian policy.  They just try to make it more palatable to themselves.  It's political opportunism of the confucian kind.  They don't try to make things better.  They just try to make things better for their own party/sector/race/etc.  That is why they never bothered much about the racism in singapore, and very naturally took to xenophobia as do i to curry.

    You're right on with appreciating how the small things are fussed about in an effort, albeit unwitting, to sweep the bigger issues under the carpet, and come across as magnanimous.  If you think about it, that's party the reason why people give to charities.

    Yup.  Almost everyone is a confucian.  Other than V, yourself, and your mysterious 'friend' you often allude to (i think his name starts with 'D' right?  If so, and if it is that person i think it is, i was very impressed with a statement he made in the post about the Filipina, Rachelle, i think.  I was taken aback actually.  An anomaly, like yourself.)  But at least, 3 whom aren't is better than my sitting on my own and 'LPPL' with frustration...haha.

  6. Hi ed,

    Please disregard the previous post.

    Regarding the whole issue of the WP sacking Yaw, as Guest had mentioned it wasn't the fact that he may or may not have screwed someone other than his wife. Guest had already elaborated on the series of events, so I won't dwell too much on it. Rather, the whole reason the WP leadership called him to explain himself was that Yaw had become a political liability.

    When he refused to entertain any questions or even outright dismiss the allegations as being irrelevant and beneath his notice or admitting it and taking his public flaying by the press like a real pol, he acted evasive and looked guilty. Worse, when the WP leadership closed ranks, the media went to town and the papers were splashed with colourful accounts of his alleged flings. They were making the WP leadership look like the PAP, except they don't have the legitimacy of office.

    It no longer mattered how they ended up with the load, only that it was weighing them down.

    Low, especially was hurt badly by this episode. His core supporters of Teochew speaking lower class Chinese in Hougang won't mind an affair or three that much. What did hurt was how Yaw played dumb and the WP leadership had no idea until someone leaked the news. Yaw was, as far as the WP base is concerned, Low's apprentice and heir apparent. Now he looks like a fool who didn't win the trust of his own protege enough to know of politically damaging secrets so as to have a backup plan.

    The PAP for all their faults were never hesitant in hushing up scandals decisively with all available resources or making a very public example of the errant member when things go south too much for a cover up to be effective. The WP let the whole thing fester in public view while the PAP unleashed their media attack dogs, staying above the fray while their only real threat takes a beating.

    Whether or not his flings have anything to do with his ability to function as an MP no longer matters as far as the WP was concerned. It was making the entire party look bad and affecting the electability of their upcoming stars as a result. If a politician becomes unelectable, then it doesn't matter anymore how competent he is.

    Yaw, lacking the requisite shamelessness that politicians need, decided to cut and run when he realised the party was prepared to throw him under the bus due to his botched handling of the scandal.

  7. Hey,

    Haha yeah I was more or less referring to the Anwar's "sodomy" charges. I wonder whether UMNO is going to launch a "sodomy" Part III. Quite ridiculous, but it's funny.Yeah I can see your point on people giving to charities. When there's disaster, there's a tendency for the mass to be relied on to donate their money for the "good" cause so that they could feel "good" for being part of the effort to rescue the victims, without the elite having to contribute as much. What's more the corporations may use such incident as an opportunity to squeeze out more profits by various means. So far, not much is done to question the entire issue on charity being a form of validation of elites' act of minimising their contributions towards the rescue effort and maximising their ill-gotten gains. Very similar to the "native-born" people being the "guardian angels" of the "meritocratic" system.Nope. If you look at my fb wall post, the one that recently posted 2 stuff on my wall before my own post is the one that I often refer to (the one whose name starts with an "L"). He can be more pissed than I am with regards to having to face such "native-born" people here, to the point that he often feels lethargic to continue leading such life.

  8.  Hi Feng Li,

    The point of my articles lies in how the points made may be applied, refined, or rejected.  Till that is done, the articles published here can never be deemed to be completed.  Hence, to yourself, like Guest, thank you for taking the discussion further.

    I agree that Yaw ought to have said something, or at least stated that it was nobody's business and therefore refuse to dignify it with a reply.  But the point is, if it would have been alright if he said it was none of anybody's business, then it would also follow that his lack of reply can also be taken as it being none of anybody's business. 

    1) We cannot take his refusal to reply as a sin till we have proven that the allegations are a sin in itself politically speaking,


    2) We cannot take Yaw's not answering the WP's question as a sin till we have proven that the WP were right in the first place in asking about his private affairs.   

    In this, i'd rather that the WP themselves actually state that this was nobody's business. My eyes would have widened in surprise if they did such a thing and i would certainly have accorded them a standing ovation for it.  One could say that it was WP's failure to do this that contributed significantly to their 'looking bad'. 

    Basically, to demand that someone answer an allegation without having to prove that it is worth answering puts the party forward as autocratic. 

    I'm aware that people are generally pretty backward in this sense in singapore and might take Yaw's affair as a negative reflection on his political potentials and aspiration.  But the WP had a very valuable opportunity here to present itself more as an objective party as opposed to a moral authority.  It's most unfortunate that they took the latter approach.  What we need in singapore politics is not another moral authority - which, in a confucian state of affairs can just maintain the herd-mentality amongst the people - but an objective one. 

    The WP, unless i'm very much mistaken, is supposed to be a socialist party - and I am a more left-leaning Socialist myself.  Hence, it's morality must flow from objectivity.  In other words, what it feels is right, must be determined by what is logically right.  In view of this, they should have stood by this bloke and not further pander to the unobjective sense of the people by, as you said, 'throwing him under the bus due to his botched handling of the scandal.' 

  9.  Agree with you on all  points Ang.  That's why i said some years ago, 'its easier to suggest or partake in a solution, than to not be a part of the problem" ;)

    Ah, i see.  'L' (like the 'L' from 'Death Note;).  I think I know who the culprit is;)  Quite the Jedi isn't he;)  But he look so 'kuai' lei?  Maybe smiling humble tiger.  More pissed than you.  Aiyoh.  That's chia lat...haha. 

    I think we need to form a social support network to make each other feel better.  Something like army time where we stand in a line, then turn right and massage the guy on the right, then left, and massage the guy on the left;)  Knowing that there are others who empathise can go far in relieving much stress.


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.