Hands up if you think that Yaw Shin Leong was fired from WP because of his affair.
Apparently many people still think so, and thus they’ve made comments like, “As long as his [affair] does not affect his ability to serve Hougang residents, he should be allowed to continue as MP” and “Why do we expect MP’s to be angels, they are humans with human failings too“, etc.
These people still don’t get it: Yaw was not sacked because of his affair.
Yaw was sacked because he was intransigent, recalcitrant and evasive in the face of direct questions.
Yaw was sacked because WP campaigned on a platform of First World Parliament, with transparency and accountability as its key pillars. Specifically, Yaw was sacked because he refused to be transparent in the face of direct questions.
I personally think Yaw could have kept his seat if he’d done a Jack Neo. If he had called a national press conference to admit his affair and apologize to his wife publicly, preferably with tears in his eyes, he could have got away with it. Especially if his wife would sit by him and support him, and especially if he would explain that he had been seeking counselling when the affair was leaked.
I think people would then say, ok the guy is human, his willingness to seek counselling shows his sincerity, we can accept that. Yaw’s position would even be bolstered if voters are quoted on TV praising his courage in coming forward and expressing their support.
If he’d done all that, he would have seized the initiative, and WP would be seen as the unreasonable one if they still sacked him. In fact, he coud even have come back as an independent in the by-election if that had happened!
Instead, Yaw chose a loser’s “no comment” strategy.
When your party stands for transparency and accountability, how can you say “no comment” to a direct question? Either you confirm or you deny, or if you believe that the question is irrelevant, you convince voters that the question is indeed irrelevant and therefore does not deserve answer.
Apparently Yaw even refused to answer questions from members of his own party, the people who surely have a right to know because they could be dragged down with him. Given this, it became clear that Yaw refused to stand for transparency and accountability, and thus giving the party no choice but to use its nuclear weapon.
They had to do so because otherwise the party’s commitment to transparency and accountability would be mocked at the next election.
I have never seen a politician as stupid as Yaw. Not Bill Clinton, not Tony Blair, not John Edwards, not even John Ensign.
To flee the country because of an alleged affair? To forever shut himself from any gainful employment or business dealings in Singapore? To give up almost $1M in MP allowances (over a 5-year term) because of a woman or women?
All because of a woman or women?
How stupid can Yaw be?