I'm looking at a bunch of parties that have historically proven that they cannot work with each other. There is no way they can suddenly come back and work together again without some big unifying figure that all of them respect. And no, the son of JBJ doesn't qualify.
It used to be that parties couldn't avoid three corner fights, but in the last 3 general elections (let's not count by-elections), there were only 2 three corner fights. Let's not talk about alliances, unifying figures or such grandoise things. They aren't doing a terrible job at avoiding three corner fights. Some parties are doing joint walkabouts. They don't squabble in the open like they used to.
The way I'd think about it is like Silicon Valley. Nobody is really anybody's enemy, nobody is really anybody's friend. Even if they're not always on the same side, they are at least co-operating more than competing against each other. The big companies didn't come up with everything themselves, they grew big by acquiring each other, or acquiring each other's people. Things are still very fluid at this point. Even if all the small parties end up becoming feeders for the big parties, so what? They're still serving their purpose.
Sometimes people will scream at each other but after that they get along and make up. Unless they are Goh Meng Seng.
In a sense I don't like this talk about "opposition unity". It makes it sound like all or nothing. Either everybody gets together in one voice and agrees on everything like a bunch of robots or they're "fractious and divided". There is only "working well together" or "not working well together". It's one whole grey area from good to bad.