COMMENTARY: What happened to the Workers’ Party’s fire?
Satish Cheney is a freelance news correspondent and TV producer for overseas and local news agencies.
The views expressed below are his own.
The Workers’ Party (WP) may have delivered a ‘Punggol punch’ to the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) earlier this year at the Punggol East by-election, but in Parliament on Tuesday, Singapore’s most successful opposition party received a Thor’s hammering from the PAP’s Vivian Balakrishnan.
The issue at hand, which has been bubbling for so long that people have become tired of the banality of it all, was of the cleaning or rather the lack of cleaning of certain hawker centres in Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) which is overseen by the Workers’ Party.
But the issue sparked one highly interesting episode of Parliament highlights on TV last night. For the full video of the debate, watch the video embedded in this article. Parliament hadn’t been this exciting since Balakrishnan’s exchange with fellow PAP lawmaker Lily Neo over welfare benefits many years ago.
Some government critics have been pointing out that the PAP itself has not been perfect and have been referring to this latest salvo by the PAP as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
But that is neither the point nor the topic of this commentary. Neither is the point to show who is lying or saying the truth.
The point is how ill-prepared the WP seemed to be on the topic of Tai Vie Shun, property manager of AHPETC, who allegedly asked hawkers for extra money for cleaning the high areas of the hawker centres.
Balakrishnan’s salvo against the WP could have backfired like an embarrassing own-goal, but the gamble paid off. The WP seemed totally taken by surprise by that ‘Matlock’ moment when the minister distributed a dossier containing evidence contradicting Lim, who had said the manager of AHPETC had not asked hawkers for extra money to be paid to the town council for cleaning of the high-areas.
Referring to his evidence, the minister pointed out a quotation from the AHPETC’s contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd.
“The first irregular event is ATL’s quotation delivered by hand on the 19th of February 2013… the hawkers have never asked for a quotation. Mr Low (WP’s chief, Low Thia Kiang) has met with the hawkers. They have told him the same thing. Secondly ATL is your own private contractor. When your own contractor issues a quotation for $7,200 to the hawkers asking for payment for work which you say is already covered by your contract – that amounts to a demand for double payment for the same quantity of work.,” Balakrishnan said, adding that he also had witnesses from meetings who could verify events.
Lim brought up the difference between annual cleaning of the high areas and quarterly spring cleaning and said that the quotation from ATL was addressed to the market association.
“This quotation was requested by the market association and does not coincide with their annual obligation to clean the high areas under the town council contract. Does the minister not agree that in this quotation, nowhere is the town council implicated?” she asked.
Balakrisnan replied: “This is really painful. Let’s not beat around the bush arguing about annual and quarterly spring cleaning.”
Making very serious claims, Balakrishnan pretty much referred to WP’s Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh as liars.
Surely that should have vexed Pritam Singh, a lawyer by profession, to get up and defend himself and the party, but he didn’t. Perhaps, there was no opportunity to do so. But still, you can imagine questions may arise on his silence.
Lim, on the other hand, maintained that the evidence did not show that the town council had asked the hawkers to pay extra to clean the high areas.
Low might have done himself disservice by saying he had not yet spoken to Tai Vie Shun, the property manager of AHPETC.
Referring to the whole saga as a misunderstanding, Low said the ATL quotation “is a puzzle…I’m trying to find out who actually asked them to quote." But he reiterated that the town council did not ask for the quotation.
Perhaps what was not said screamed louder in Parliament – body language. While this is highly subjective, Balakrishnan seemed much more confident in his tone and the way he carried himself. Low and Lim failed to showcase their usual punchy rhetoric in their replies. Cameras showed Low looking not so comfortable at certain points when Balakrishnan was speaking. Neither were his arguments very strong in defending his party.
Perhaps the party has a different strategy. Low is well-known for being an astute and savvy politician and is highly regarded in Singapore. But right now, this doesn’t bode well for his party. Having made major strides in the political arena in recent times, the WP possibly has the best potential of being an opposition check on the ruling party in Parliament. But the recent incident in parliament may affect moderate voters who might be sitting on the fence when 2016 comes.
Low has to ensure his party addresses this problem quickly and in a strong manner or the party risks being stamped with a dirty stain which no doubt political challengers will try to use against it.
Politics is never a clean game, but it is how one handles the dirt that is important in this age.
Related links:
