The most entertaining thing about the COP saga is how WP and its supporters have all of a sudden changed tune on how to ensure integrity in domestic politics.
Workers' Party likes to present itself as a reliable check on the PAP government - and yes, this is what the role of the opposition should be (at least in part).In fact, it is so important that the pioneer of opposition representation was... Lee Kuan Yew. Modern Singapore's founding father understood that complete parliamentary dominance of a single party might not be in the country's best interest and that opposition should have its representatives present, even if they fail to win a seat during elections.Hence the introduction of NCMP scheme almost 40 years ago, which today guarantees allocation of at least 12 seats to opposition parties, no matter the outcome of the election.As a result, the public can see what the opposition stands for and the PAP-dominated parliament has a dozen watchmen able to scrutinize its activities - so the laws are not written behind closed doors.
But, if we agree that opposition should keep an eye on the ruling party, then who is to watch the opposition?It's a classic case of "who watches the watchmen"?If the government is to subject itself to scrutiny of WP or PSP, then the logical consequence is that, similarly, opposition parties should accept being scrutinized by the parliamentary majority.
Representing a minority does not - and should not - grant immunity from investigations into one's own wrongdoing. The rules should apply to everyone.
Alas, all of a sudden the entire Khan affair is spun as political persecution...? Seriously?Let's be clear - Workers' Party is entirely responsible for the scandal. It is undeniable that:
- It was their MP who lied in the parliament.
- Party leadership knew about the lie but chose not to act for months.
- Pritam Singh failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why he delayed action for so long and did not provide any tangible evidence to back his version of the story.
In fact, the COP was rather restrained in its judgment and by referring Pritam and Faisal to Public Prosecutor has given them an opportunity to defend themselves through normal legal proceedings. Since Pritam is a lawyer he should not fear the outcome if he believes evidence is on his side.
Trying to spin this as a case of persecution may be politically expedient for a party that thrives on conspiracy theories about PAP's alleged authoritarianism but given the details could COP have acted differently?
And it looks really dishonest and hypocritical of people who have for long called themselves a check on the government to refuse a public investigation of their behavior.
All politicians have to be held accountable for their actions - and this scandal would not have happened if it wasn't for their MP and their own inaction until the threat of a police investigation was confirmed in October.
There is a phrase describing such behavior, though: "double standards".
