This article in TODAYonline irks me, for several reasons but I will focus on just one in this article.
It talks about "the political forces shaping our future" and says:
"If opinions on popular social media platforms are anything to go by, the PAP’s relentless campaign to overhaul its image has been a mixed success.
And then the writer says:
"The opposition Workers’ Party has also largely proved ineffectual despite its strengthened representation in Parliament."
And followed that with:
"This prompts the question: What about our political environment is proving so challenging for both the incumbent and opposition to find traction?"
Do you see the problem?
Allow me to point it out, nevertheless.
It seems to me that the writer makes a claim - an unsubstantiated claim - and then ignores expanding on or explaining what he meant. And from there, he jumps to a conclusion, which is a question actually.
Here, you have a few problems.
One, he doesn't say why the WP is "ineffectual".
Second, he doesn't say what exactly is WP supposed to be "effectual" or "effective" in.
Third, he doesn't make it clear if WP is supposed to be "effectual" or "effective" within Parliament or outside of Parliament, or both.
It leaves the reader guessing while he goes on to theorise and asks why "our political environment is proving so challenging for both the incumbent and opposition to find traction."
Traction on what? With whom? He doesn't say.
But let's get to the nitty gritty - the unsubstantiated or unexplained claim that WP is "ineffectual".
I think for a start, for an opposition party that has broken through one of the toughest electoral barriers by winning a group representation constituency, it is quite an achievement.
No opposition party has done it since the GRC's inception in 1988.
That's 23 years.
And then to further cement that victory, and prove that it was no fluke, the WP went on to win the only two by-elections which followed the general elections in 2011.
In Hougang, WP retained its vote share with a new candidate in Png Eng Huat.
In Punggol-East, WP won the new SMC with a new face in Lee Lilian.
So, politically, what "ineffectual" is the writer of that TODAY article talking about?
Now, going into Parliament itself, again we see WP playing it smart, and have had to be circumspect and cautious when dealing in the lion's den of 80 white-attired PAP MPs.
We all know how that can turn out for opposition members.
Still, let's keep in mind that WP is but only 7 elected MPs, out of a House of 87.
So, if we want to compare the WP with the PAP, we should in fact compare it at the same level.
That is, seven MPs from the PAP vs seven MPs from the WP - each without the benefit of the machinery of the civil service behind it.
But the writer does not do that.
He seems to just claim that WP is "ineffectual", without context, without explanation, without substantiation.
A convenient allegation.
A dubious assertion.
Perhaps he has forgotten that even the PAP is "ineffectual" without the benefit of information and the expertise of the civil servants behind them who research, formulate, detail, and implement policies.
And how do we know this?
Look at the two election manifestos of the two parties.
It was common knowledge back in 2011 when the parties released their manifestos that it was the WP one which impressed.
The PAP manifesto was slammed for being nothing more than a PR booklet of smiling faces and motherhood, politically-correct slogans.
Nothing more.
See here: "Singapore: Bloggers Criticize PAP Manifesto".http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/20/singapore-bloggers-criticize-pap-manifesto/
Even the video which the PAP produced for the manifesto was rubbished: "PAP manifesto video slammed by viewers".http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2011/04/pap-manifesto-video-slammed-by-viewers/
The writer of that TODAY article should have question why the PAP did not mention a word of its 6.9 million population plan, the biggest issue which has risen post-GE, and which still ignites fiery debates now.
So, the point here is this: we often run blindly into acceptance of what the PAP puts out through its media mouthpieces, without critically analysing if what is claimed are true.
If the writer is looking for effectiveness, he could consider how after the WP raised the matter of the PAP town councils and their business dealings with a PAP company (AIM) came to light, the government decided to take on a complete review of the very role of the town councils themselves.
Now, how about that for being "ineffectual"?
Andrew Loh
*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152740092535460/