WP plays at being a Moral Standard

image modified by ed
In a previous article, i stated that the so-called ‘Worker’s Party’ attempted to get itself some moral points by sacking Yaw Shin Leong for airing his family jewels outside of the marital boudoir. 

But instead of wondering if they messed up by not objectively considering if his extra-marital potency is relevant to his political adequacy, they decide to validate their approach, or cover their balls-up by demanding that the PAP do something about the supposed Don Juan of the PAP, Shanmugam.  


What the hell does poor Yaw’s extra-marital fertility count got to do with his vote count?  Perhaps the rest of the WP fellas think that all married men should just sigh and retire to the bathroom for 5-15 minutes with some tissue and Lianhe Wan Bao’s steamy stories when the wife has a headache, and other than that, confine their kicks to feeling special when the beer lady at coffeeshops stop by to pour their beer - whilst oblivious to the fact that she’s only doing it so they’ll just finish their goddamn beer fast and order more. 

Perhaps the rest of the WP fellas think that all married men should just sigh and retire to the bathroom for 5-15 minutes with some tissue and Lianhe Wan Bao’s steamy stories when the wife has a headacheEven the so-called ‘truth-seeker’, Gopalan Nair, who fancies himself an Indian whilst sporting quite typically Confucian traits has jumped on the bandwagon and trained his eyes on Shanmugam.  Perhaps he’s also a Lianhe Wanbao subscriber.  Or Under the Willow Tree's attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill by deeming Shanmugam intimidating and having something to hide by taking issue with some singaporean site for making an issue about his sexual proclivities.

That's just a deviation from the issue, and a vilification of Shanmugam simply because he chooses not to publish his sexual memoirs at this point.  Perhaps UTWT, Gopalan, and the following, Yap, ought to publish their sexual exploits before we choose to consider what they have to say about this or other matters.  If not, they are hiding something and can't be trusted?  Do these silly boys have any sense at all?

The point is, this whole thing is getting kind of childish.  Like how childishly this so-called ‘uncle’ Yap states "Howz famiLee LEEgime going to answer the similar question on minister after WP Expelled MP YSL?"  Besides this phrasing being an illustration of a juvenile standard of wit,  this bloke Yap even starts off his video in mandarin instead of english and with a background picture of him in some China suit, mandarin characters, etc - like i said quite a few times in the past, and with enough evidence, the so-called singaporean ‘opposition’ is nothing but a product of the PAP’s racial and cultural biases.  You can take all the opposition's ranting as nothing but pro-chinese parties squabbling over the spoils of economic exploitation, power, and discrimination.

Why on earth start off each new section in the video (below) in Mandarin and then supply an English translation later?  Do the chinese not understand English?  But to place mandarin over English, when it is completely unnecessary is to basically present chinese culture as singapore’s culture and english as a subsidiary language.  And to top it off, he also sticks in chinese music every now and then.  Same thing applies to chinese subtitles in local programming.  I don't think J.B. Jeyaratnam would have started off his videos this way, though Yap kept yapping away about how he looks up to him in the video - obviously an effort to curry favour, or should i say, stir-fry favour for his cause from J.B. supporters out there.  Connect the dots, and you’ll see this chinese racial supremacist nonsense everywhere.   You don’t need to be biased to see this.  You just need to pay attention to the facts.  The only difference between the PAP and the so-called opposition is that the former is insidiously chinese-supremacist, whilst the latter, are blatantly so.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, this Yap bloke states,

“The issues of Accountability and Transparency is precisely identical. WP set the example. And it is now just up to famiLEE LEEgime & Lee Hsien Loong to show the world weather they are able to follow.

It is obviously both the duites and obligation of minister Shanmugam & famiLEE LEEgime to respond to the allegation instead of abusing defamation suit threats to silent the voices doubting their own transparancy and accountability."

Like I said, to demand that the PAP do as you did, and expel Shanmugam, you’ll first have to prove that what you did was right.  If not, like the PAP, your only argument for the righteousness of what you did would be based on your saying that it’s right as opposed to proving that its right.  How does that make you any different?

In this, i have to give some credit to the PAP fellas in that they probably think, or at least i hope they do, that one cannot infer that Shanmugam’s political adequacy is compromised by his sexual proclivities.  Or perhaps they’re just saving Shanmugam to be used as in the future to present Indians as good for nothing but being ‘MRT (mama rubba teh teh - as laughed some chinese after an Indian singapore president, Devan Nair, was kicked out for that in the past)’ so as to justify Chinese political hegemony as they did with poor Devan Nair.  I know not.  But for now, credit to the PAP.....for this. 

So what’s the point here.  Marital fidelity maketh a good political party?  Is the slogan for the Worker’s Party for the next elections going to be, “I hump none other than the wife, so i’ll make a good MP.  Thank you for coming to the Rally.  Good night.”? That seems like quite the 'limp dick' of an argument for political adequacy mate.

So what’s the point here. Marital fidelity maketh a good political party? Is the slogan for the Worker’s Party for the next elections going to be, “I hump none other than the wife, so i’ll make a good MP. Thank you for coming to the Rally. Good night.”? There’s a lot to be said for and against marital infidelity.  Briefly, if one was to think about it, one might wonder if John F. Kennedy would have been as much of an out-of-the-box thinker if he wasn’t a bit of a philanderer as well.  I’m not saying that philandering is a good thing.  Being faithful is also a good thing so long as one is very adventurous with her/is spouse - i’d recommend a touch of BDSM, roleplaying, kinky outfits, amongst others, so as to make one as creative or even more so, than a philanderer.

If you just abide by traditions for traditions sake, that wouldn’t make you a very creative leader would it.  And if you don’t have much of a sex life, then you’re probably going to compensate for it by too much hunger for power, wealth, and perhaps, food - unless one is in the caring professions that is.  (i’ve often been inclined to think that a culture where eating is one its main courses, the people have relatively rubbish sex lives.)  So such a leader might be more controlling, self-absorbed, and greedy and power-hungry. 

So if we don’t feel compelled to ask our leaders and future leaders to prove that they have a great sex life with their wives as proof that they’re going to do a great job in office, then i don’t see any reason why their being philanderers is a good reason to kick them out.

Anyway, for now, i’d like to see the WP prove that the philandering proclivities of an MP definitely impacts negatively on his political performance.  If not, this witch-hunt for philandering politicians can be appreciated as nothing more than an effort to gain points where such points prove nothing when it comes to political adequacy, whilst presenting the WP as another moral powerhouse if not an empathetic and intelligent one.



  1. Exactly my sentiments! What is the proof that extra-marital affair has got to do with political performance? It is really pathetic to watch this drama carries on. This makes the chinese soap operas on Channel 8 look interesting.


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.