Dear Scroo,
YSL has been a serial and successful womanizer. In so much as it was consensual, there is currently no hint of harassment , rape, exchange of sex for Aljunied Town Council Translation Services contract etc etc etc. The question is one about the "damage" to the party, damage to the opposition and the ability of the party to manage its "crisis".
The damage will not be to HG , but rather to the erosion of support for the WP in AJ. HG is at 65% which is or will be hard to chip away at in one go, AJ is at 56% which is still politically dangerous and which could swing either way in the next round.
I am afraid that the handling of the crisis by the party is symptomatic of how LOW and in particular a certain way of thinking continues to dominate and dictate how issues are settled and done within the party.
The "LTK" philosophy remains , that " One should have no expectations from the party, One should die for the party , and that any bone or responsibility is a gift and not a right ". In so much as that attitude produces loyalty and discipline it also produces a load of lemmings willing to go over the edge if the wrong advice is given or read by those at the top.
The triumvirate of LTK SL and YSL has been disrupted for a reason, the leaks were from within for a reason. In the traditional chinese way of "borrowing a sword " , YSL was not the target of this escapade but rather SL and LTK.
The belief strongly held that door to door vista , dinners, funerals, temple dinners. etc etc can overcome any amount of bad press by a hostile media. That belief is built into its leaders, its candidates and its leaders even when many should know better based on their professional backgrounds.
And when the proverbial shit hits the fan, the party reaction as a whole reverts to its tried and tested MO. " Shut Up and Disclose Nothing ". If loyalty is valued above all else then more rocky roads lie ahead. YSL might have been loyal to the party but how far SHOULD the party remain loyal to him ? Should it in any way risk AJ to save him ?
Locke