Dear Scroobal,
To a certain extend, I would agree with you that the multi-prongs approach is taking toll on PAP. After decades of absence of real challenge in parliament, PAP isn't that used to handle 9 opposition MPs at one shot.
However, for every strategy taken, there bound to have "trade off". With limited MPs, spreading out in multi-prong approach, you will find that actually WP has spread themselves too thin. In fact, they were not able to lend support power to each other during the parliamentary debate. Only LTK managed to do a last minute support for two of his party colleagues at the later part of parliamentary debate but not during the onslaught. This is the shortcoming that they will need to overcome: they will have to be on the look out on how to help other party colleagues to fight off PAP attacks, especially so when the attacks are full of holes.
There is one underlying tone which I find disturbing though. I think, in spite of our disgust of PM Lee's fumble on "fix the opposition", he got it right politically that opposition parties are not there to help PAP to be better. Technically, they are political opponents and thus,it is understandable that they would view each criticism by opposition as "threats". However, it seems to me that WP MPs were trying very hard to tell PAP that we are here to provide feedback to you and give you some ideas so that you can make better policies.
The CSM's "inappropriate" (yes, in my view that is totally inappropriate) analogy about Tang Emperor and Wei Zheng has such underlying tone. Pritam's attempt to "help" PAP in "engaging" Singaporeans is another case in view. I find that quite amusing but disturbing as well.
It is the job of PAP MPs to help their ministers to do their job better. The ruling party's role is to rule, make policies etc. The role of opposition party is to oppose or criticise policies which they think is against public interests. Their role is to contest against policy ideas but not to help the ruling party to refine policies, least, suggest better policy options for the ruling party. This is the modern "Political Ethics" based on democratic principles.
There are rooms for improvement but one note, LTK is definitely not Lim Chin Song. LCS failed politically but LTK has, though in my view a very conservative way, edged on politically.
Although you may have some misgiving about Indranee, but she did make the best speech among the PAP MPs. A respectable opponent I should say. My first engagement with Indranee in Talking point left me a strong impression of this Senior Counsel. She is worth her salt as SC.
Goh Meng Seng
Thought it was not an unexpected and quite an obvious and intelligent approach of having their members cover different issues across the country ranging from press freedom to SME being choked by GLCs, the PAP MPs are either resorting to attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message as in Shanmugam's case or completely talking rubbish like Lim Swee Say.
Suddenly the PAP does not look like a party that has merits or believes in merit. I could not find a single PAP MP who was able to acquit himself or herself decently when addressing issues raised by the WP MPs. Lets us be clear here. The comments by WP MPs are not earth shattering but clearly reflecting what is the common perception on the ground. WP under LTK is noted for caution and this time it is no different. Looks like the strategy is inch slowly, not to confront and to let the PAP dig a deeper hole.
If the PAP is smart, they will coordinate their attacks, carry a soft tone and begin working around the WP edges.
In essence, the PAP is eroding its hold not because of WP but because of their style, their approach and their disdain for treating the man on the street as an economic digit with productivity rating.
